Wikipedia talk:Reference desk

Skip to the bottom

[edit]

To ask a question, use the relevant section of the Reference desk

This page is for discussion of the Reference desk in general.
Please don't post comments here that don't relate to the Reference desk. Other material may be moved.
The guidelines for the Reference desk are at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines.
For help using Wikipedia, please see Wikipedia:Help desk.

Debate under question about Sweden

On the Humanities reference desk, under the question "Sweden", I removed a long and uncivil debate about American politics that had absolutely nothing to do with the question. This debate continued even after it was hatted, and I felt that it was distracting attention away from the OP's question. If any uninvolved party believes this is not the correct way to handle the situation, feel free to revert. On the other hand, if any participants in the debate try to revert, please explain how your "contributions" are remotely, in any way, helpful to the OP or how they do not blatantly violate WP:SOAP. Go ahead, I dare you. -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bowlhover (talk • contribs)

Seriously, you "dare" us? There's a good consensus we don't delete remarks except for personal attacks, BLP violations, req's for medical advice (in which case a template is used), and egregious trolling, not a long-multiple user thread. There's no requirement anyone prove anything to you about the utility of the conversation. Nor are you allowed to impose conditions on participants versus non-participants. At worst hatting is appropriate, and it has been hatted. μηδείς (talk) 23:32, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Your hypocrisy is astounding. On this very page, in the immediately preceding section, you said "I am not sure what you want to call the 'questions' on cancer closed by andy the grump. Given the OP won't stop opening them I have deleted them." Either you violated the same "good consensus" you claim exists, or you thought the conventional methods were insufficient and resorting to deletion was justifiable in this exceptional case. If the latter, you have no right to prevent editors to take matters into their own hands in a similar way. --Bowlhover (talk) 00:53, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

That's a personal attack. Also, you've got an IP doing this edit-warring now: 94.68.228.99 (talk · contribs) That's what happens when you try to be a ref desk nanny. STOP IT. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:07, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

This has got to stop. Buggs, isn't about time for you to take a break? 94.68.228.99 (talk) 01:10, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

I have reported the IP for attempted impersonation of the user Bowlhover.[1] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:14, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

In amongst the (alleged) inappropriate behaviour, he has a point about the substance of his issue. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 01:20, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

It was hatted earlier today, which should have been sufficient, until Bowlhover stuck his nanny nose into it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:21, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

He did the right thing. Learn it, Know it, Live it. Now go take a break, when you come back, at least make an attempt to be productive. 94.68.228.99 (talk) 01:28, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't take the advice of cowardly drive-bys. Come back under your real ID, once you've been unblocked. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:29, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

As the only third party (besides the IP troll) who's commented on this issue, I'm curious to know what behaviour you feel is inappropriate. I've deleted the debate twice (so I reverted once), and the second time, I included an edit summary and created this talk page section. I have not made any edits to the section since the last revert. I personally don't think one revert constitutes an edit war, and if it does, both Baseball Bugs and Medeis are just as guilty of edit warring. --Bowlhover (talk) 01:46, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

And now we've got another IP into the act, 202.124.242.10 (talk · contribs). You caused this problem, Bowlhover. I hope you're proud of yourself. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:47, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

How am I responsible for the behaviour of troll IPs that I have no control over? What you're doing is victim blaming, and it's ridiculous. --Bowlhover (talk) 02:23, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Actually, the SOAP issue is what started it. It appears that reflection is in order for several of the parties here. 202.124.242.10 (talk) 01:51, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Another cowardly drive-by. Log in under your real ID if you expect anybody to take you seriously. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:57, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Bugs, SHUT THE FUCK UP. I just stopped by, I'm not reading any more of this thread right now, there's plenty of bad behavior to go around, but you have got to stop trying to redirect attention onto your much-feared "drive-bys" and other bugaboos, and start answering for your own behavior. Jeeeeeezus. —Steve Summit (talk) 12:32, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

He said STFU. I wish I'd said that. Everyone's repeating it around the club. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:02, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

This is about your behavior, not mine. "Cowardly" and "Drive-By"...How does this correct the root problem? Personal attacks are but a distraction from the issue here. It is a shame that you must behave this way. 202.124.242.10 (talk) 02:02, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

You don't get to decide whose behavior is scrutinized and whose isn't. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:39, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

I suggest you not feed or legitimize the IP editors by engaging in back-and-forth with them, Bugs. μηδείς (talk) 02:46, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

It turns out that the IP 202 is a sock of a sockmaster with hundreds of socks. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:48, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

And it further turns out that the sockmaster is a banned user - which means any edits made by its socks are subject to reversion without penalty. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:52, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Interesting. What's the blocked user's name? μηδείς (talk) 03:12, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Here you go.[2] I don't want to dignify the sockmaster by mentioning it here. But he's got literally hundreds of socks. None of them wickwack, though. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:34, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

A pass-the-buck style admin doesn't want to block them. But they seem to have disappeared anyway. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:58, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Just curious Bugs, but if a non-sock-puppet-non-IP told you you should take a break, would that make any difference to you? Forget this Sweden thread, I'm actually thinking of the Magna Carta question. It looks like French! Seriously now. You don't have to answer every single question, especially when you blatantly don't have a clue. You may want to stop and consider why the Reference Desk needs "nannies". Hint: it's because of you. Adam Bishop (talk) 05:13, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

You lost me at the boulangerie. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:16, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Wickwack?

• Editor 202 has not been involved in the thread or discussion unti after Bowlhover and 94 maxed out their edits. Given 202 geolocates to Australia, is it possible he's wickwack? Can anyone point out if there was ever an account blocked by wickwack (who last editted from an IP 203, bragging his IP's show up all over), and what his actual username was? μηδείς (talk) 02:11, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Hold on, I maxed out my edits? Let me remind you that I reverted once, not 3 times (which would still not be over the limit), and not even 2 times. --Bowlhover (talk) 02:23, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

3 is not a magic number. You deleted that section twice, which was at least one too many. Your IP "friends" then got into the act. If you had not deleted that section the IP's would not have joined in. You are the cause of the problem. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:39, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

The 'cause of the problem' was people dragging the thread off-topic in the first place. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:49, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Which is why it was hatted. There was no actual problem until Bowl-over appointed himself the nanny of the ref desks, which started to attract banned users to the discussion. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:54, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

People dragging threads off-topic is an 'actual problem'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:07, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

The entire thread was an invitation to debate from the get-go--and the hatting was selective in the very least in allowing a false and unsupported claim the conservatives in America want a zero-tax rate while hatting a response that challenged that. Nevertheless, you didn't see anyone edit warring over the hatting. And Bugs and I, for example, are on opposite sides of the issue. (Note also from Bowlhover's talk page it is I who taught him how to hat in good faith in the first place.) The bottom line is we do not delete comments without discussing it here. And we don't delete comments unless they are personal attacks, requests for medical advice (which is templated) BLP violations (which are revdeleted), and egregious trolling. This was a multiple-editor thread that was none of those. μηδείς (talk) 03:11, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

This is completely ridiculous:

1. Here on Wikipedia, we assume good faith.

2. If the question is indeed an invitation to debate from the get-go, you don't take the bait. You don't feed the troll. Instead, you not only took the bait and jumped in with irrelevant political polemics about America on a question about Sweden, you reverted my attempt to hat the debate.

3. I considered hatting StuRat's response, but did not do so because it was marginally related to the OP's question. Every single response below that was not.

4. Again, you reverted my hatting of the debate. I never reverted any edit more than once. Since you obviously consider my 1 revert to be edit-warring, you must have also been edit-warring.

5. I don't give a crap about anyone's political opinions.

6. Don't flatter yourself. I've been an editor for numerous years and knew about hatting well before you "taught" me. Even if I did not, I'm fully able to look at source code and figure out how to hat.

7. In the previous section of this page, you admitted to deleting a user's questions even though they were not personal attacks, requests for medical advice, BLP viiolations, or egregious trolling. You also deleted the questions before, not after, discussing them here. Your double standards don't fly with me. --Bowlhover (talk) 05:00, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

You deleted it twice:[3][4] You should not have deleted it the second time. BRD. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:13, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Oh, my. It's a good thing I didn't revert you on that thread when you hatted the discussion, Bowlhover. It looks like that might have made you angry. Thank god this matter ended two hours ago, for all our sakes. (Now pressing the moot button.) μηδείς (talk) 05:17, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

202 doesn't appear to be Wickwack, but it looks like it could be another banned edit as per the block log (it's a proxy so I'm not sure if all the edits are from said editor but there aren't many so it may be). AFAIK Wickwack has never edited from an account that we know of, that's part of the problem considering what got them blocked. When it was suggested that they register, they suggested they tried to register once but was 'misidentified' as someone else. Presuming this story isn't totally fictional, whether the identification was actually incorrect, I can't say. In any case, Wickwack seems to once again be a semi regular at the RD as no one can be bothered reverting them. Nil Einne (talk) 05:13, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm _assuming_ the recent deletion from the "Pink Noise" thread for one of WickWack's contributions, and I note that the deleted text has been recreated by "127.0.0.1" (a rather disturbing IP address - I sincerely hope the message wasn't posted from the server console). diff for the interested. Should this also be deleted? Tevildo (talk) 17:52, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

For a while, apparently, the WP software was routing some IP edits in such a way that they were appearing to come from 127.0.0.1 (see WP:VP/T#Edits from 127.0.0.1). Deor (talk) 18:05, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the reference - the duff IP addresses are from Oceania, I note. What's the standard of proof for deciding that the posting is from WickWack? I'm personally sure, but my judgement is poor on such issues. Tevildo (talk) 19:26, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

The 127.0.0.1 could be WickWack, but it also could be enough other people and give it's a short fluke that I think it's best to discount it. Nil Einne (talk) 06:16, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Actually discount that, the follow up discussion combined with [5] demonstrates it was Wickwack. Nil Einne (talk) 07:02, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Phooey. I just went on a goose chase [6] expecting an amusing bug, but it's just an ordinary IP, not loopback. Would be ROTFL if someone checkusered 127.0.0.1 and decided it was Wickwack. :) Wnt (talk) 17:46, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

(But see User:127.0.0.1 and nearly 100 contributions [7]) Wnt (talk) 17:48, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Closed lengthy Mac OS X advocacy on RDC

I have closed this [8] which primarily consists of lengthy OS X advocacy by User:Nimur.

The RD has a bit of a historic problem with someone running some software asking a question, only to be told to run some other software even when the suggestion was clearly unwelcome and unlikely to make a difference. This is something I've long objected to as I've said before.

Historically it's someone running Microsoft software being told to run open source software (and some would also suggest Apple products tend to get unfair opposition) so perhaps it's a bit funny that this time it's someone wanting to run an open source operating system with some proprietary components (as per our article) being told to keep running a closed source Apple operating system with some open source components (again as per our article), but not really.

If there was something of an answer to the OP's question in the answer, I would have left it be, but while the OP may not have specifically said they only want help running Ubuntu or some variant of Linux, I think it's clear even from only this question that what they want, not to be told why they should not do so. Heck even if this was a shorter post, I probably would have left it be. But I know a bit about long posts and I think this is the sort of long OT post that is too distracting. Referring to Apple and Microsoft as "crApple Mac O'SuX and Microshaft Windoze" in another question doesn't seem to in any way justify such a response.

As to the continous closing only draws attention/deletion is better/whatever arguments, the only thing I can say is if someone does provide a useful answer, closing prevents it being lost. Deletion will as well, but Nimur is a respected contributor even if their contribution is unhelpful here and I feel deletion is unwarranted although won't object if someone else does so.

Nil Einne (talk) 04:35, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

I apologize that my answer was unhelpful and that its tone did not meet the high standards of professionalism that I usually expect from myself and other contributors. My intent, which I did not accomplish well, was to redirect the original poster's efforts toward more productive exploration of the benefits of an open Unix-like system, rather than spending time proverbially "re-inventing the wheel."

I stand by my original position, though, which is that the requested task - to replace the system software - is in this case prohibitively difficult, given the minimal reward it can provide. From my perspective, the best references we can provide - links to documentation - will dissuade the user from undertaking a fruitless task. I did not do a very good job directly linking to such resources that would assist in persuading the OP. And, I will accede that this is simply my perspective, and may not be shared by others. Nimur (talk) 11:53, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

The correct spelling is App£e and Micro$oft. Count Iblis (talk) 20:50, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

I read Nimur's discussion before and found it intriguing, relevant, and technically sophisticated, as is generally the case for his contributions. I still don't really understand it though, and hold some mental reservations (if Mac OS X is free/open source why don't people run it on PCs?) but it certainly overturns some assumptions that might hinder further understanding. Wnt (talk) 05:21, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

To answer your parenthetical, only parts of OSX are open-source, not OSX as a whole. (Mostly the parts that descend from BSD through NeXTSTEP, but some other pieces as well.) APL (talk) 16:19, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Two reasons:

1. not all of OS X is free software. Some parts are proprietary. This is similar to Ubuntu: while the linux kernel is free software, Ubuntu contains more than just linux. Ubuntu contains some non-free software; some of it does not work and cannot be modified. In the case of OS X, certain non-free software is also made available at no charge for owners of Apple hardware, like the OP.
2. Free and open source software is great, but it doesn't automatically mean the software works for all purposes. To make something as complex as an operating system that can run on a specific piece of hardware, somebody must take that free software and modify it. Who is doing so? Ubuntu source-code - even that portion that is freely licensed - is not owned by Apple, so Apple will probably not use or modify it. Somebody else must take that work on: Apple has already provided a functional alternative.

Nimur (talk) 16:35, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Nimur, you do realize that Apple hardware is a pretty common choice for Ubuntu users, right? They like stylish, nicely designed hardware as much as anybody else.

Of course somebody has to "make it work", but that's true for all hardware. Gateway and Dell aren't supporting Ubuntu any more than Apple is. APL (talk) 17:21, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

APL, Dell is an official partner of Ubuntu. They are very publicly, out in the open, announcing that Dell is spending money and engineering resources to make Ubuntu work on Dell hardware. I cannot speak to whatever other corporations are working with Ubuntu under non-disclosure agreements. Nimur (talk) 18:41, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Being rather ignorant here, I still tend to see the situation in black and white: I mean, either OS X and Ubuntu have useful open source components, or they don't. If they do, then I expect that by and by I should be seeing OS X available for the PC with some extra code written to paper over the remaining problems. (Ubuntu, of course, I know I can encounter parts of as simply Linux). Is this a reasonable perspective, and if so... should I expect OS X on PCs? Wnt (talk) 17:37, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

... PureDarwin ? Few people use it, because it's essentially like running OS X... without the performance, stability, and Apple hardware. Here are some photographs of the system running on a MacBook Pro and on a Lenovo X series laptop. As far as I know, the phrase "OS X" is trade-marked; in most places, you cannot call "whatever you are running on your PC" by a trademarked name unless certain legal-ese constraints are satisfied; but Darwin is composed from portions of the system released by Apple that are open-source and free software, plus some patchwork to make it work on a PC. Nimur (talk) 18:38, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

• OSX is built upon an opensource unix variant, but many of parts that make it unique from other types of Unix are proprietary to Apple. You couldn't use only the opensource components to build something that could usefully be called "OSX".
• Ubuntu is built almost entirely of open-source components, but unlike like more "ideologically extreme" Linux flavors, Ubuntu will include things like closed-source drivers where needed. (iirc, Our original question-asker seemed to have installed from a disk that only had the open-source Ubuntu components, and needed to download the closed-source wifi driver from Ubuntu's servers. Which obviously presented a minor catch-22 since he needed the driver to make his wifi work!) APL (talk) 19:16, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

We're making progress here (which, I should add, legitimizes this as a discussion belonging on the main Computing Desk). We've identified that the open part of OS X, plus some extra stuff, equals PureDarwin. The open part of OS X is also described as "an opensource unix variant" and as not being distinctively OS X on its own. Now the question becomes, does PureDarwin have advantages over other Linuxes, or will it once its development achieves its major goals? Example question: are there programs that run on both OS X and PureDarwin but not Cygwin, Ubuntu, or Windows (or not as easily)? Wnt (talk) 20:41, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

I think Wnt has a good question ("are there programs that run on both OS X and PureDarwin but not Cygwin, Ubuntu, or Windows (or not as easily)?", and I recommend posting that as a new question on WP:RDC so that other enthusiasts can contribute responses. I do not actually know the answer, but I am interested to find out. Nimur (talk) 02:36, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

There's no legitimacy to answering a specific technical question with a general discussion comparing the question-asker's operating system and the operating system the question-answerer happens to believe is better. This is doubly true if the answer is sarcastic. APL (talk) 16:15, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

APL, will you please pause for a moment, re-read exactly what the OP wrote, and express which specific technical question he asked? In actual fact, the original post I responded to - the one you believe I answered poorly - was not a specific technical question. The OP did not actually ask a question; he merely stated that a problem exists - which I verified on my own hardware. And I noticed that these problems are in fact quite profound and will not be solved easily with a few "configuration changes" or instructions on an Ubuntu forum. So I recommended an alternative, and I even directed the OP to a retail store where he can get free, polite, professional help with his computer. Perhaps I couched my response in a little bit of cynicism, but at the core, I tried to help the OP, who has not actually complained about my responses at all. Only a small number of fellow reference-desk-regulars seem upset by my post, and I have already apologized for the tone. How much more effort and good faith do you honestly expect from an anonymous contributor on the reference desk? Nimur (talk) 16:51, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

OK, I just now re-read his first question. He asked about downloading the non-free binary driver package, on a different OS. (Presumably to copy over to the target machine, since he can't download the driver with out first having the driver.)

Your answer was that he should instead write his own wifi driver. (Suggesting, with what I can only assume must be sarcasm, that it would be easy to do.) Or, alternatively, give up on Ubuntu.

His second question was trickier, but as Ubuntu on MacBook Pro is not unheard of by any stretch of the imagination, it's not unreasonable for him to have assumed there is a solution to his problem, and that somebody here might know it.

I appreciate that you apologized for the tone. I just think that this is still fundamentally a "Install [OS], Problem Solved." answer, which falls into the larger category of rude answers of the form Q:"How do I [X]?" A:"Don't [X].", which, while very easy answers, are I believe fundamentally rude, unless they include the actual answer to the question asked in the explanation of why [X] isn't usually a good idea. APL (talk) 18:21, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

deleting threads on this page

enough--a talk page is about improving it's main page--not about expressing mutual hostility
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Do people find this a valid deletion? (I was about to restore it, but maybe it's fine.) —Steve Summit (talk) 19:48, 6 November 2013 (UTC) Deleted threads on the main page end up being discussed here, but where do deleted threads here get discussed? Right back again. People can play at hatting threads, deleting them then having a wikilink to the history pop up, whatever, but it's easiest just to post a dismissive comment and be done with it. Wnt (talk) 20:43, 6 November 2013 (UTC) That's my fault, I thought I posted that I had deleted that here last night. But why in the world would you want to restore that closed bit of anonymous IP trolling, Steve? Go ahead and restore a personal attack on another editor by a troll--an attack someone besides myself saw fit to close--if you see some encyclopedic value in it. μηδείς (talk) 21:03, 6 November 2013 (UTC) You so indicated in your edit summary.[9] ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:58, 7 November 2013 (UTC) I see nothing at all that constitutes trolling, and I have no idea why people are so touchy about such a comment. It is clear that the editor has been reading the Ref Desk for a while, to have formed an opinion about the general nature of someone's editing. It also seems clear that the person really was wondering whether he was alone. However, the person can now dig up the archives and find the answer to his question - he really isn't alone, and the debate need not be protracted. Anything further is simply likely to put us at each other's throats, and cause yet another escalation. I don't think that's what the OP wanted, but once the basic question has been answered, well, no need to go on about it. I see your point, Steve, but I'd suggest leaving this one. IBE (talk) 21:56, 6 November 2013 (UTC) It is, in fact trolling; a personal attack by an IP, its only edit since the summer of 2012. If that isn't trolling, nothing is. And Summit bringing it up here further feeds that troll. Good job. This section too should be deleted. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:52, 7 November 2013 (UTC) I second that. There's no reason now for the diff above to be highlighted, or my edit to show the summary; perhaps Steve or some editor who hasn't commented yet will delete this thread? μηδείς (talk) 02:34, 7 November 2013 (UTC) Gee, Bugs, I find plenty of your comments useless and/or annoying, too. Does that make me a troll and a personal attacker, as well? —Steve Summit (talk) 04:10, 7 November 2013 (UTC) Maybe, and the feeling is mutual, but I often curb my tongue. A major difference, though, is that you and I stand behind our registered accounts, and don't hop around different IP's firing random shots and then disappearing back under the rock from whence they came. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:00, 7 November 2013 (UTC) This is not a forum for expressing our personal opinions of other users. See talk page guidelines. μηδείς (talk) 05:29, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Deletion of information increases the entropy of the universe and will thus cause the heat death of the unverse to happen sooner. Count Iblis (talk) 16:10, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

The operation is reversible, so there is no net gain in entropy. In fact, the deletion causes an edit history entry and creates more information. :-) Katie R (talk) 20:37, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Pending Reviews for the Ref Desk?

Why is there an edit "pending review" for the (sci) ref desk? Has this recently been added, is it a matter of the IP editor? The edit is certainly not controversial. This is going to frustrate legitimate IP inquirers to no end. μηδείς (talk) 18:36, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

It was set here. If there was ever any doubt that this discussion page is useless, note it was not discussed here. Supposedly it expires on the 10th, so I'd recommend we all just take a break until then. Wnt (talk) 18:52, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

It's very rare that I find myself agreeing witn Medeis and Wnt, but I have to second this. Who do we need to contact to get this removed? Tevildo (talk) 20:55, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

The protection request was added by Bugs (diff). We need to go through WP:RFUP to get it cleared - I'll make a start on putting the request together now, although someone with more experience in this area might beat me to it. Is this going to be the straw that breaks the camel's back and gets Bugs banned? Tevildo (talk) 21:17, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

The RFUP request is in. Tevildo (talk) 21:32, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

I didn't ask for any "pending reviews" nonsense, I asked for semi-protection, to keep that IP-hopping Toronto-based racist troll from posting there. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:17, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Either way, semi-protection has basically never reached consensus here, including situations where we were being swamped by the Avril-troll for example. I freely admit to being one of the opponents of semi-protection, especially for such a length of time. In my opinion it defeats the reference desks' purpose. Not only are you keeping out a large percentage of those who come here seeking our help, you also exclude a significant amount of knowledgeable and helpful regular volunteers who choose to edit without registering here. Remove the post when truly egregious, better yet, discuss here, but please don't help shut the doors to those we serve and those who serve just because of a racist troll. ---Sluzzelin talk 23:24, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

The IP was edit-warring, and hopping IP's. How do you fix that without semi-protection? And how do you deal with the folks who keep arguing with the Canadian troll rather than simply deleting his garbage? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:33, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

One possibility is to ignore it. That's always what works best when trolled. (Admittedly, the effect is more powerful when everyone ignores :-) Like I said, if it's outrageously offensive or whatever, snip away or hat away — though I'm a fan of neither I still prefer it to semi-protection. Or discuss here and reach consensus on what to do. Either of these options is preferable to semi-protection, in my opinion, and option one, ignoring, seems the like the best one to me. ---Sluzzelin talk 23:46, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

I had intended to zap it again once the second IP got blocked, but the admins took their time and somebody responded to it. What does the "pending review" do? Can that be rejected repeatedly without incurring the wrath of the 3RR gods? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:05, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Having now read this classic (and, if you think of Uhura in The Savage Curtain, quite flattering) comment by the IP on my talk page, I agree some sort of reaction is appropriate here. The problem is semi-protection blocks all IP edits, and pending review is awkward and unfriendly. I think we can safely agree that deleting related material geolocating to the same area should not be viewed as a violation of 3RR. μηδείς (talk) 01:04, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Yikes, I hadn't seen that. Well, I only wanted it semi'd for a few days, to let the troll go live under some other bridge (the Niagara, with any luck). If there's agreement on exempting this kind of junk from the 3RR, that should make things easier. P.S. Uhura was beautiful. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:33, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I just told one of my girlfriends about this and we laughed for fifteen minutes. I am almost tempted to request the troll not be blocked, under the policy of "Tell me more about my eyes." μηδείς (talk) 02:50, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

We could also let a bot accept all the pending changes unless the IP happens to be on a list of banned editors. Count Iblis (talk) 02:28, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

That's excellent! I was wondering if something like that was possible, but assumed it wasn't. μηδείς (talk) 02:43, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

No, not excellent. Nobody wanted this, and it doesn't get to become the New Status Quo as long as someone can propose some mechanism by which somebody someday could perhaps make it workable in theory, to avoid "consensus" to get rid of it. And this particular idea is not workable, because the bot to accept edits from everyone but one editor is called a "block", and it's defeated by switching IPs. Wnt (talk) 02:59, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

But would not the effect simply be to temporarily require pending approval of IP's geolocating to Toronto? Surely the troll to newbie ratio, just there, right now, would justify such a thing? μηδείς (talk) 03:03, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Because - as already happened in the first four hours - other editors' work can get caught in the net. [10] Despite many misrepresentations during the voting over introducing Pending Changes, even edits by established editors can be hung up behind one of the troll's edits, then lost. We should also remember that conversations on the Refdesks can move very quickly, and when some people aren't seeing all of the pending edits, they'll end up not responding to one another properly. Above all, it's simply an offensive way of setting up an editor hierarchy. It was originally claimed as a solution to things like BLP articles -- not for dealing with free forums where libel is rare and would be reverted very quickly anyway. And last, but not least, because silencing racists in this way denies me and others the opportunity to take the high ground and disprove their claims. We see this in real world politics -- Europe, where countries have stupidly taken action to suppress racism and Holocaust revisionism, is falling once more into an abyss as they play the victims of persecution. Wnt (talk) 03:14, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, I have to disagree entirely that "taking the high ground against racism" is at all useful here, since it usually means some sort of scientifically ignorant blanket skepticism and naive moral relativism, which is just as bad, if not worse. But, that being said, if pending changes means there is a queue of edits, some of which are not by IP's, then I am against it. I also don't like a privileged class of reviewers--I think our entrenched admins are already a disaster--look at the last vindictive block against BB and the pathetic, "he's one of us" response to it. At this point I think we are back to agreeing 3RR should not apply to obvious baiting from the IP? μηδείς (talk) 03:43, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Either racism is wrong, or you don't need to fight it. I think (a) is true; otherwise I'd be out beside the troll. By wrong I mean untrue, and by untrue I mean, we can find ample data to support our position against it. Additionally, as in this case, I don't think we should be above a few words of exorcism ("Non Angli, sed Angeli") to further the cause. Wnt (talk) 04:29, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Can you respond to something relevant here, like whether your claim the pending changes setting queues up registered user edits behind IP edits is true? I am not, frankly, interested in whether you put ideology above findings of fact. μηδείς (talk) 04:36, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

It was admitted during one of the great PC debates, and I saw an example of it during the short period when PC was active. However, there is no way to link to it now - I didn't think I needed to take a screenshot, as I think this is widely recognized. Wnt (talk) 05:37, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

 Done Protection removed. DES ^(talk) 03:25, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, DESiegel and Tevildo. ---Sluzzelin talk 09:08, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Quick comment on pending changes

I have no comment on the issue of protecting RDS nor or what "misrepresentations" may have been made in previous discussions about pending changes. But rather then treating as if it's some major open secret, widely known and occasionally alluded to but only written down in obscure places, which therefore needs either to be taken on faith or requires a screen shot, simply checking out Wikipedia:Pending changes will show this template Template:Pending changes table which confirms if an unreviewed edit remains, edits from non reviewers will not be shown until reviewed, which I would assume is enough for μηδείς. (A reviewer could likely also test this themselves using a sandbox.)

Incidentally, the template has said this since it was started in 2010 before the first trial [11] spun off from a table in the older article [12] [13]. The table itself had existed in the proposal page since 2009 [14], as a change from the original proposal autoconfirmed editors be made reviewers which started to change here [15]. So whatever mispresentations may have been made, it's never been a secret, and should have been simple to clarify then as it is now.

Nil Einne (talk) 09:06, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Almost incomprehensible questions

I assume we have to AGF with User:108.240.77.215? They're posting almost meaningless questions every few days, and I fed the troll on Beatles foreign languages recently. Rojomoke (talk) 17:47, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

There are times when Wikipedia:Competence is required should be applied. HiLo48 (talk) 21:37, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

I linked the user so we can read his contributions. μηδείς (talk) 22:20, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Reading these, he's a single-purpose account who has posted 24 nonsense questions. I am all for a warning, then a block. μηδείς (talk) 22:31, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Not sure where you get that number Medeis. There have only been three questions posted from that IP address. HiLo48 (talk) 23:42, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

That is because you edited the IP Medeis posted to refer to another one entirely. I assume this was an error. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:43, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Yep. Sorry. And thanks for fixing it. HiLo48 (talk) 23:44, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Deletion of questions

My question about Tom Clancy's Red Storm Rising was deleted immediately upon posting and with NO explanation given! Since when is this acceptable here?! 24.23.196.85 (talk) 02:36, 17 November 2013 (UTC)