Wikipedia talk:Reference desk: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
Line 163: | Line 163: | ||
:::*In a world of 7.5 billion people, I suspect there is quite a bit of overlap in behavior characteristics. It seems likely - almost a mathematical certainty - that we will sometimes see two people behave in the same way at the desks. <s>We</s> <u>Some of us</u> give '''far''' too much weight to that in judging sockivity. This is why we have SPI and checkuser. ―[[User:Mandruss|<span style="color:#775C57;">'''''Mandruss'''''</span>]] [[User talk:Mandruss|<span style="color:#999;">☎</span>]] 23:05, 1 August 2017 (UTC) |
:::*In a world of 7.5 billion people, I suspect there is quite a bit of overlap in behavior characteristics. It seems likely - almost a mathematical certainty - that we will sometimes see two people behave in the same way at the desks. <s>We</s> <u>Some of us</u> give '''far''' too much weight to that in judging sockivity. This is why we have SPI and checkuser. ―[[User:Mandruss|<span style="color:#775C57;">'''''Mandruss'''''</span>]] [[User talk:Mandruss|<span style="color:#999;">☎</span>]] 23:05, 1 August 2017 (UTC) |
||
Uncle dan is home IS not Bowei Huang 2, |
Uncle dan is home IS not Bowei Huang 2, Bowei Huang 2's latest sock is: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/14.202.204.226 [[Special:Contributions/92.30.178.11|92.30.178.11]] ([[User talk:92.30.178.11|talk]]) 12:49, 3 August 2017 (UTC) |
||
== Nazi troll? == |
== Nazi troll? == |
||
Revision as of 12:51, 3 August 2017
[edit]
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.
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130 131, 132, 133 |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 10 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
This is not a BLP violation
If we're going to remove a thread like that, let's do so because (say) it's opinion- or debate-based, not because of alleged BLP concerns. —Steve Summit (talk) 13:01, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
- Medeis' justification "entirely unsourced" is incorrect, as several sources were listed. Also, it's not a valid justification for deletion, in any case. At best, it's a justification for boxing up the unsourced replies. I restored it. StuRat (talk) 13:09, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
- Care to point out those several sources? All I see is Count Iblis's link to his own opinion on an off-wiki forum, and a couple of wikilinks that can hardly be called sources.
In my opinion that thread is about as blatant abuse of the desks as one can get. Right out of the gate it was a request for opinion, and a politically-biased one at that. And multiple regulars took the bait, completely unable to restrain themselves. Comical. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:33, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
- Care to point out those several sources? All I see is Count Iblis's link to his own opinion on an off-wiki forum, and a couple of wikilinks that can hardly be called sources.
- There's the Donald Trump on social media link, which discusses the real world case and has 85 sources, and now my Wag the Dog link, which describes a fictional case. StuRat (talk) 13:48, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
- That's an improvement, thank you. Now if responders can refrain from offering their personal viewpoints, we might have an actual legitimate use of the desk. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:13, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
- Maybe the parts that are just unsourced opinions could be boxed up. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:00, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
- That's an improvement, thank you. Now if responders can refrain from offering their personal viewpoints, we might have an actual legitimate use of the desk. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:13, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
- At the very least, the parts which comment on his mental condition are, in fact, BLP violations - except maybe if they included sources which have made such comments. For example, the Washington Post item labeled "Trump is not well".[1] Albeit written by the targets of his wrath. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:02, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
- Citing a Washington Post article is not a BLP violation. And if it were, that would be a damning indictment of BLP, not the editor. Some people here say they don't Refdesk responses to omit references. But if people's personal opinions of what is "wrong" to say about a politician override the references, then we are well and truly sunk. Wnt (talk) 17:42, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
- The article is actually an opinion piece by the targets of Trump's wrath. But at least it's a source. Wikipedia editors calling Trump an idiot or mentally ill, with no backing reference, are off base in doing so. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:48, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
- Citing a Washington Post article is not a BLP violation. And if it were, that would be a damning indictment of BLP, not the editor. Some people here say they don't Refdesk responses to omit references. But if people's personal opinions of what is "wrong" to say about a politician override the references, then we are well and truly sunk. Wnt (talk) 17:42, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
Exhibit A: Donald Trump is president of the US. That in itself answers the OP's question. We have to note that the sources are all being manipulated directly or indirectly by Trump, therefore they are all unreliable for this specific question. What we can do is analyze how the sources react to Trump's statements. When candidate Trump was down (locker room talk and then all these women came forward saying that they had been sexually harassed by Trump), Trump could hardly get his message through, he was on the defensive. He had practiced his last debate a lot, and he knew what he had to do. He went on the offensive "Donald Trump on Wednesday refused to say he would accept the result of the presidential election if he loses to Hillary Clinton, raising the possibility of an extraordinary departure from principles that have underpinned American democracy for more than two centuries."
The media didn't see through this, they gave Trumps ambiguous statements a lot of attention thereby drowning out the issue Trump had with women. Trump knew that this question would come up, he deliberately gave a politically incorrect answer to keep he media busy with that. That's better than the media discussing his locker room talk over and over again. Count Iblis (talk) 22:31, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
- Even calling it "locker room talk" is accepting Trump's version, as "bragging about committing sexual assault" sounds far worse. StuRat (talk) 00:04, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
- Indeed :). Count Iblis (talk) 08:05, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
Speaking as someone who is apolitical and who doesn't give a rat's ass about the ongoing fight between two groups of US politicians, saying "we have to note that the sources are all being manipulated directly or indirectly by Trump" without also noting that the sources are all being manipulated directly or indirectly by Trump's opponents is a failure to follow WP:NPOV. This is ironic, because the original thread was also a failure to follow WP:NPOV. Could we all please just stop the soapboxing and editorializing about US politics? That sort of crap does not belong here. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:47, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
RD is not for internal WP:POLICY matters
Please be more careful distinguishing between RD answers about what our articles and their sources say about the external world, and what internal WP policies and guidelines say, especially when it comes to language matters.
This exchange, for example, resulted in the querying editor going around to literally hundreds of articles imposing anti-MoS changes, on the strength of a handful of style guides (conveniently only those that agree with the editor, and ignoring British ones that do not, like that of The Economist), and claiming that Reference Desk/Language agreed with him (or at least hadn't contradicted him).
This is by no means the first time that WP:RDL has incidentally encouraged someone to go on a style-changing spree across Wikipedia or to come "challenge" the Manual of Style on some tedious bit of trivia that has been discussed a zillion times already. It would be helpful if RDL included a statement that it does not address questions about the Wikipedia Manual of Style, and redirected people to WT:MOS for that.
— SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 04:14, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
- The RD/L thread from April (now archived here) did not, to my eyes, "encourage" the would-be style-changing editor.
- It did point him to the MOS talk page, where (as can be imagined) a spirited debate ensued, now archived here.
- If that thread didn't dissuade the editor from his quest, I doubt we could have!
- I'll grant that discussions like these (and the editing sprees that sometimes follow) are intensely annoying, but given that there will evidently always be people obsessed with such matters, it does seem like centralizing the madness at the MOS and its talk page is the appropriate thing to do. —Steve Summit (talk) 10:28, 11 July 2017 (UTC), edited 11:10, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
- The ref desk was originally a splitoff from the help desk. This would be an example of a question that harkens back to the help desk. And you're right that an editor obsessed with fine points of punctuation and the like is going to find a way, whether we help or not. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:30, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
- As a point of historical interest, Bugs is simplifying.
- The original Help Desk was moved to "Wikipedia:Reference Desk" (And then years later became the miscellaneous RefDesk.)
- It wasn't until over a year later that the current help desk, then called the "Newcomers' village pump", was created. So far as I can determine, there was no help desk in the interim period of about 13 months.
- So it was less a spinoff, and more a case of "Let's rename the help desk the reference desk", and then later "I wish we still had a help desk."
- What value this bit historical trivia has to anybody, I don't know, but I thought I'd mention it anyway. ApLundell (talk) 17:36, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks for the history lesson! ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:25, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
- The ref desk was originally a splitoff from the help desk. This would be an example of a question that harkens back to the help desk. And you're right that an editor obsessed with fine points of punctuation and the like is going to find a way, whether we help or not. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:30, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
The 'is a former restaurant' and 'awarded a star in 1998-2002' topic at the Language desk
The topic started out as a good faith request for language advice but it has since decayed into a somewhat uncivil content dispute. Should the topic be shut down? Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 11:56, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
- The topic looks legitimate, and should run its course. It looks like some people might have tried to hat some irrelevant content in the middle and were reverted - in this case it definitely is irrelevant. The Refdesk isn't the place to argue about who is following who around. People can and should weigh in on specific proposed edits in terms of technical accuracy, but this is not the place to decide consensus about the article or debate Wiki behavior. I feel like the question is a little simple and might have been asked as part of an argument, but if people were going to answer it they could have done a better job -- I mean, the best wording depends on a lot of little specific issues. For example, "awarded a star in 1998-2002" might actually make sense if the Michelin Awards are only given every four years, and "is a former restaurant" would work beautifully if followed by ", now a ----". Now the Refdesk trying to be useful to Wikipedia tends to mean bringing Wikipedia knock-down-drag-outs here; that can't be stopped. But we should try to slow it down a bit, keep our ivory tower chic at least partially intact. Wnt (talk) 00:34, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
I object to your behavior on the science desk.
complainant now blocked←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:36, 25 July 2017 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
You removed a question of mine which was exceedingly well-phrased for "trolling" and suggested I run my own experiment. My question was very well-phrased and completely practical. I object to your behavior on this forum. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a02:ab88:2481:fc80:48bb:ee48:34f:334a (talk) 01:51, Today (UTC−5)
|
Is User:Uncle dan is home a sock of user User:Bowei Huang 2?
User Bowei Huang2 is a permanently blocked sockmaster whose modus operandi is to post hit-and-run questions with random concatenations of belief systems, political institutions, economics and political groups. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Bowei_Huang_2/Archive. His edits are subject to summary deletion.
See Special:Contributions/Uncle_dan_is_home for typical political/ideological/ethnic questions and page blanking such as:
22:23, 31 July 2017 (diff | hist) . . (+240) . . Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities (→why don't I hear much about the Byzantines: new section)
19:18, 24 July 2017 (diff | hist) . . (+81) . . Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities (→What happened to the native Roman population of Italy after the Lombards invaded?) 23:04, 21 July 2017 (diff | hist) . . (+129) . . Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities (→How do people in East Asia approach Christianity?: new section)
22:05, 7 July 2017 (diff | hist) . . (+164) . . Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities (→Companies other than Apple that are considered by some to be cult-like: new section)
15:02, 21 June 2017 (diff | hist) . . (+281) . . Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities (→Democrats changing their stance on illegal immigrants: new section)
16:46, 17 June 2017 (diff | hist) . . (+216) . . Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities (→How do Islamic banks earn money: new section)
01:17, 16 June 2017 (diff | hist) . . (+216) . . Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities (→Absolute monarchies that are fully industrialized: new section)
11:17, 3 June 2017 (diff | hist) . . (+233) . . Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities (→Russian government and Brexit: new section)
10:13, 9 April 2017 (diff | hist) . . (+99) . . Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities (→Jewish Plan for global domination)
09:57, 9 April 2017 (diff | hist) . . (+221) . . Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities (→Trump administration and Syra: new section)
03:21, 7 April 2017 (diff | hist) . . (+308) . . Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities (→Africa as the next manufacturing centre)
20:30, 5 April 2017 (diff | hist) . . (+254) . . Wikipedia:Reference desk/Science (→Extraterrestrial government and economy: new section)
20:45, 28 March 2017 (diff | hist) . . (-62) . . User:Uncle dan is home/sandbox (←Blanked the page)
20:42, 28 March 2017 (diff | hist) . . (+46) . . N User:Uncle dan is home/sandbox (←Created page with 'This sandbox is in the Wikipedia talk namespace. Either move this page into your userspace, or remove the {{User sandbox}} template. ')
03:50, 28 March 2017 (diff | hist) . . (+140) . . Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities (→Majority of professors being conservative)
18:26, 16 March 2017 (diff | hist) . . (+201) . . Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities (→What motivated people to vote for trump?: new section)
19:01, 13 March 2017 (diff | hist) . . (+199) . . Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities (→What industry is Chicago: new section)
18:53, 13 March 2017 (diff | hist) . . (+92) . . Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities (→Buddhism in China: new section)
17:10, 9 March 2017 (diff | hist) . . (+113) . . Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities (→President declaring martial law: new section)
18:35, 8 March 2017 (diff | hist) . . (+186) . . Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities (→Counties requiring condoms in porn movies)
- I am removing any questions by this user hopefully admins familiar with the case will block the user. It's midnight my time so I'll follow up tomorrow if necessary. μηδείς (talk) 03:55, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
- I've undone all your removals, as your history has shown you are not capable of determining when Ref Desk Q's should be removed, and in this case your allegations lack any actual proof. For example, he is certainly allowed to blank out his own sandbox. His account goes back to October of last year, so it seems unlikely a troll would go unidentified for this long. StuRat (talk) 04:20, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
- Some of the questions are not unlike those Boweii Huang used to ask, but more evidence is needed. A checkuser might be able to tell, except that Huang's various socks are probably too old to check. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 06:40, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
- I'm not entirely convinced this is the same person... Boweii had some idiosyncratic language tics that I haven't noticed with this guy. I could be wrong, but we should use normal channels to determine if any connection exists before any one person summarily deletes all of these threads. --Jayron32 13:25, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
- In a world of 7.5 billion people, I suspect there is quite a bit of overlap in behavior characteristics. It seems likely - almost a mathematical certainty - that we will sometimes see two people behave in the same way at the desks.
WeSome of us give far too much weight to that in judging sockivity. This is why we have SPI and checkuser. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:05, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
Uncle dan is home IS not Bowei Huang 2, Bowei Huang 2's latest sock is: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/14.202.204.226 92.30.178.11 (talk) 12:49, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
Nazi troll?
Unlike Sluzzelin, I'm having a hard time believing that this is not the Nazi troll. With apologies to Sluzzelin, does anyone object if I delete the thread? --Viennese Waltz 10:43, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
- I do, absent an SPI result. The thread is completely innocuous so far (permalink), although that could change. ―Mandruss ☎ 12:13, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
- It's a dead ringer for Soft skin/the nazi troll. Per your objections, I have filed an SPI: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Soft skin, but really that's excessive bureaucracy for its own sake. This is classic, definitive, and direct WP:DUCK level behavior, which has been going on by him for at least 2 years, per this SPI from September, 2015 and dozens afterwards, to quote that SPI "A new editor or IP in the same mobile range appears and asks either a completely innocuous question, or a completely antisemitic question. If the question was innocuous, the editor waits for the question to be answered and then becomes progressively more antisemitic." (bold mine). This is our guy. Everyone who's been here knows this. But, we can jump through your hoops if you want. He'll be blocked shortly. --Jayron32 12:45, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
- It's definitely the Nazi troll. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:55, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
- I don't object. ---Sluzzelin talk 13:20, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
- The thread has been removed. ---Sluzzelin talk 14:59, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
- Ok, so if a thread (1) is about Jews in some way and (2) is innocuous, we should assume it's Nazi troll before "it becomes progressively more antisemitic". Who else would ask two innocuous questions about Jews? I don't care if this SPI comes back positive, that's just a poor excuse for critical thinking, effectively closing the door to questions related to Jews (unless the questioner leaves after the initial question, with no follow-up). Without an SPI for each, nobody can know how many innnocent questions have already been turned away, and the questioners permanently alienated from Wikipedia.
This is why I made it a point to sayinnocuous so far
andalthough that could change
. There was very little to lose by waiting for stronger evidence in the thread.
If the SPI comes back negative, I will make a bigger issue of this. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:31, 2 August 2017 (UTC)- You missed the part where he asked about some book that a respondent said was fabricated (which the OP likely already knew) and then jumped right into the possibility that the Anne Frank story was also fabricated. The questions weren't innocuous, they were calculated. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:52, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
- Sorry but that requires a mind-reading ability that I lack. You lack it too, but you don't know it. There is absolutely no objective evidence that the questions were "calculated". You would be laughed out of any court in the world, and then disbarred for incompetence. And that remains true even if this SPI comes back positive. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:05, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
- This is not a courthouse, it's merely a website. And experience tells several of us that we're right. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:38, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
- It's not often I can say this, but I agree with Baseball Bugs! --Viennese Waltz 07:09, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
experience tells several of us that we're right.
That is exactly the kind of self-validating faulty logic I'm talking about. You have no clue how many times you have been right because you have removed and blocked before you could be proven wrong. (That's a plural "you", I'm well aware you don't personally have the blocking right.) ―Mandruss ☎ 07:30, 3 August 2017 (UTC)- We don't need "objective evidence" to know that a post is from a troll. Blocks are often made on the basis of what feels right. That's certainly the case here. The way he brings up Anne Frank in the follow-up question was clearly a set-up. --Viennese Waltz 08:44, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
- This is not a courthouse, it's merely a website. And experience tells several of us that we're right. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:38, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
- Sorry but that requires a mind-reading ability that I lack. You lack it too, but you don't know it. There is absolutely no objective evidence that the questions were "calculated". You would be laughed out of any court in the world, and then disbarred for incompetence. And that remains true even if this SPI comes back positive. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:05, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
- You missed the part where he asked about some book that a respondent said was fabricated (which the OP likely already knew) and then jumped right into the possibility that the Anne Frank story was also fabricated. The questions weren't innocuous, they were calculated. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:52, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
- Ok, so if a thread (1) is about Jews in some way and (2) is innocuous, we should assume it's Nazi troll before "it becomes progressively more antisemitic". Who else would ask two innocuous questions about Jews? I don't care if this SPI comes back positive, that's just a poor excuse for critical thinking, effectively closing the door to questions related to Jews (unless the questioner leaves after the initial question, with no follow-up). Without an SPI for each, nobody can know how many innnocent questions have already been turned away, and the questioners permanently alienated from Wikipedia.
The SPI has been closed without a checkuser. So much for hard data. I'm done. ―Mandruss ☎ 11:10, 3 August 2017 (UTC)