Wikipedia talk:Reference desk

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

[edit]

To ask a question, use the relevant Reference Desk
The guidelines for the Reference desk are at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines.
For help using Wikipedia, please see Wikipedia:Help desk.
This page is for discussion of the Reference Desks only. Please don't post comments here that don't relate to the Reference Desks. Other material may be moved.


Can someone block 82.43.223.98?[edit]

going nowhere in a hurry --Jayron32 18:59, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Vote X for Change. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 22:10, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

It's better to have the same system used by Twitter where you can invisibly block people, i.e. their comments are only visible to the posters, so they don't see that they are blocked. Count Iblis (talk) 20:14, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
Pointless now. As of my writing this, it is 21:09, 29 January. She isn't using that IP address anymore. Thanks for the heads up. In the future, if you see them active, and I am also active at the same time (within a few minutes before hand) try leaving a note on my talk page, and I'll try to solve the problem. She bails on IP addresses within a few minutes to a few hours anyways, so if you want her blocked, we've got to handle it right away. --Jayron32 21:11, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
I simply don't understand where the ostracized have their contributions immortalized and heighlighted by striking when their comments could just be deleted. Summary deletion is much worse than having a line through your text bring it even more attention. μηδείς (talk) 05:50, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
VXFC's posts nearly always are deleted. --Viennese Waltz 08:03, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
I don't know if they are the same people but the West London troll is often the last poster to comment on a thread. He gets blocked, but his comment remains as the last word, when it could easily be removed without disruption. I'll just assume the take away here is it's alright to remove such posts when doing so does not actually disrupt a thread, and others, including the blocking admins should do so as well. My user preferences have the names of blocked users marked as pale, stricken, and italic; so I often notice that the last poster in a thread is a blocked disruptor, but his material is still sitting there for posterity. DAMNATIO MEMORIÆ μηδείς (talk) 18:15, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
If you find a comment by VxFC which someone has missed removing, then feel free to remove it without comment. If you are unsure, ask an admin familiar with her behavior to remove it, and we can do so. --Jayron32 18:32, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
If you click on the stricken name of a blocked user it gives the block reason (long term abuse, VXFC, etc., and a block period) so it's usually pretty obvious as long as the admin doesn't just block without explanation for a short period, in which case I wouldn't act. Sometimes such contributions are actually helpful, and you have to wonder whether it would even make sense to remove a truly helpful answer. It's a shame we don't have lampas cryptids that could do this for us. μηδείς (talk) 18:49, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
Look, either remove her comments or don't. Either ask an admin for help or don't. It doesn't make any difference, and this discussion is not productive or useful. If you do want them removed, remove them or ask for them to be removed. If you don't want them removed, keep silent. If you sometimes want them removed, and sometimes not, then remove them when you want (or ask for help removing them) in cases where you do want them removed, and leave them alone otherwise. I'm not sure why that process is confusing to you or requires further discussion or elaboration! Honestly, we've got this under control. If we miss something, just drop a note on our talk pages (we being those admins who deal with this regularly). I'm shutting this down because continuing it has zero chance of leading to anything useful. --Jayron32 18:59, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Actually, I think https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Computing#Brussels_Sprouts_Seeds posted by a user who turned out to be a proxy that got blocked was what some users would call an "interesting" question. The IP was unable to post on the semiprotected science page, but in AGF I answered them there. The question and answer are good. The IP and loc are problematic. What to do? Move? Leave sit? Delete entirely? Given it's a proxy, that's abuse; my feeling is delete. Given it's not trolling, my gut feeling is leave it be. Anyone have a suggestion over the cognitive dissonace other than mindfullness and an extra Valium? μηδείς (talk) 03:50, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
    • Assuming it's a banned editor, and hence not allowed to edit: (1) make sure the info from your response is in the article already; and then (2) delete the ref desk section begun by the banned user. If it's not a banned user, you could leave it as is. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 07:29, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
    • My answer is to do what I do: Whatever you want to do, do that, and if someone wants to do something different, don't try to stop them. That is, if you don't want to remove the question, leave it alone. If someone else does remove it, don't revert them. --Jayron32 12:56, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
      • But the "do whatever you want to do" notion is precisely what I am stumbling over in this case. It's why I mentioned cognitive dissonance. Normally either there's a clear policy issue, WP:BLP, WP:DISCLAIMER, or some clear-cut issue like a question posted from a Vancouver IP asking for a bus route to a gay-themed anime convention traceable to a known banned user. In those cases, there's not much of a conflict. But here there is a perfectly reasonable question, and a user who has been blocked for being an alleged proxy user, but w/no identification of the user being otherwise sanctioned.
I both want to leave the question in place as reasonable, and don't want to encourage evasion by users who have already been blocked for other reasons. But the 30-day ban given for use of a proxy is both harsh enough to seem serious, but vague enough that I don't see why the user should be blocked. For example, we don't have bans on IP posters. and this user obviously wasn't trying to impersonate anyone or act as a sockpuppet.
So what would happen if, for some odd reason, I wanted to post a perfectly valid question with no nefarious intentions but hide my tracks. Would I be subject to blocking for use of a proxy? μηδείς (talk) 16:49, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
Your over my head there on your last question; I don't work in that field of Wikipedia administration, proxy policy is outside of my bailiwick. For the rest of it, WP:AGF is usually a pretty good policy to follow. If someone (to you) appears to be acting in good faith, feel free to treat them with respect. You can't get in trouble for that. The only caveat I may have is that if you do see someone removing what you think is a good-faith post, they may be doing so because of legitimate reasons; which is to say that admins (and especially checkusers) often have access to knowledge they are not going to share (per WP:BEANS or WP:DNFT and the like) but which absolutely justifies their actions. All I can say is to trust that admins are working in good faith as well, and when we remove posts we have just cause, even if we can't openly litigate our rationales with everyone that has a question. --Jayron32 17:27, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
Take the Jiminy Cricket approach: Let your conscience be your guide. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:24, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
JC's a phony, through and through. Only got to where he did riding next to the most obvious liar ever assembled. Real boys need real advice, and there ain't no realer boy than your boy J.C. Ice. He says "I wouldn't change nothing." Does he mean he would change something or doesn't he? You never know. That's the thing. Nobody knows. Just choose to do things and when they're over, live a good life. If you wind up nowhere, so be it, at least you won't be disappointed. And if you are, it is what it is: you didn't change nothing.
Even if you're in a Disney movie (and you're not), you should always disobey whatever ungodly creature is assigned as your conscience, at least the first time. Not listening gets you into the sort of trouble that teaches the sort of lessons that empower you to destroy a hapless villain and live happily ever after. No kid stays plopped in front of a TV for 90 minutes of rich people getting older, unless they're made of wood. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:41, February 7, 2018 (UTC)
  • I brought this thread to the block admin's attention, and asked for comment. μηδείς (talk) 02:23, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
  • I suspect you're tired of getting yelled at for doing the "wrong" thing. In this particular case, there is definitely some ambiguity. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:42, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
Speaking as the blocking admin in question, I blocked the IP as a fairly obvious proxy. Checking the range, I can see some other disruption, FWIW. That being said, I would not object to an unblock if another admin feels so inclined. GABgab 20:26, 1 February 2018 (UTC)


What I was looking for is "Ref Desk standards". Proxy seems okay if innocent, but disruption by proxy seems like a cut case for deletion. The problem is that the question at the RD was not obviously disruption. μηδείς (talk) 23:35, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
Well, sort of. Proxies need to be checked and individually blocked. No one checks unless someone is disrupting using the IP address. I'm sure there are thousands of people editing Wikipedia using banned open proxies right now. No one actually checks and blocks them until something suspicious happens. --Jayron32 13:12, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

LoveVanPersie's transcriptions[edit]

Split from About Spanish pronunciations posted on 9 February on the Language reference desk - Mr KEBAB

Well, this should probably go to talk, but we had a self-identified Chinese national who claimed to live in Montreal who was always asking incessant pronunciation questions, especially regarding the 'e' vowel. This guy seems a bit more sophisticated, but the time frame and the overlap of interest in how one pronounces French words strikes me as striking. I won't hat his questions, he can ask what he likes. But if you find you have to correct someone so eager to make edits where he has no expertise are you not yourself also so stricken? That brings up the second question, does anyone remember the username of the previous and now banned "How do they say in Quebec" user? That user was eventually blocked for disruption, and I had nothing to do with it, not being an admin myself. μηδείς (talk) 00:18, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

That was User:Fête, who has been blocked from all of Wikimedia. Adam Bishop (talk) 01:10, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
@Medeis: It does strike me as WP:INCOMPETENT (and I've already told him that), but he's also doing a good job with Serbo-Croatian transcriptions. At the same time though, having to correct him so often is frustrating and I don't want to have to do it anymore. Here's a list of all the corrections I had to make: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14] (this one was discussed on my talk page), [15], [16] (EDIT: Here's another one: [17]).
It's clear to me that he cares about quantity much more than quality. After I asked him to not transcribe Slovak words nor edit existing transcriptions, he just waited a few days and started doing that again, completely ignoring what I said: [18], [19]. I'm pretty sure that they're correct, but still...
He could be Fete, yes. The way he spammed my talk page with pronunciation requests (which I didn't mind answering until he started ignoring what I said and being dishonest about having read WP articles he'd barely glance at) surely does remind me of Fete.
Can someone check his French, Portuguese and Spanish transcriptions from the last 2-3 months? I'm sure some of them are wrong. I realize that's an outrageous request to make, but I can't really do more than what I've already done. Mr KEBAB (talk) 12:43, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
@Mr KEBAB I am so sorry to make so much trouble to you. As for articles about Slovak, I did read them conscientiously. I misunderstood the "followed by", which I thought means "next to", "next syllable" or something like that. LoveVanPersie (talk) 12:58, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
@LoveVanPersie Not understanding such basic expressions is also an issue of competence, a pretty big one I'd say. Mr KEBAB (talk) 13:13, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
@LoveVanPersie I'm sorry, but are you finally going to stop guessing the transcriptions? This is wrong. Mr KEBAB (talk) 15:39, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
@Mr KEBAB I know it's a Catalan name. But on YouTube, some people pronounce it [x], some people pronounce [ʝ]. I wasn't "guessing" the IPA. [20], [21] LoveVanPersie (talk) 17:13, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
@LoveVanPersie Fair enough, but can you give me some examples? Remember that we're talking about Georgina García Pérez from Spain. What matters is how she pronounces the name. Mr KEBAB (talk) 17:31, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
@Mr KEBAB [22], [23] I can't find the pronunciation by herself. LoveVanPersie (talk) 17:41, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
@LoveVanPersie I'm talking about the pronunciation of Georgina in the context of Georgina García Pérez, not other people. I'm not saying that it has to be her that pronounces that name. In my video, it isn't. Mr KEBAB (talk) 17:44, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
@Mr KEBAB I can't find it on YouTube so I just searched the name's pronunciation... In your video, the person is Anabel Medina Garrigues. LoveVanPersie (talk) 17:50, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

So what do you think of all this? I'd like to hear from others before I report him, which I'm very close to doing. Today, he added two incorrect English pronunciations: [24], [25]. Mr KEBAB (talk) 10:31, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

  • The user identifies as Chinese and a Yue speaker, shows apparently poor command of English, has 10 (TEN!) live questions at the ref desk as of this post; although I've hatted the last and warned the user on his talk page. And his obsession with nonstandard French pronunciations and /ɛ/ strike me as overwhelming proof that if this is not User:Fête he wants us to think he is. All that's merited if this continues is a quick complaint to a checkuser and/or arbcom. BTW, I have uncollapsed the section above, as it is now entirely relevant here on talk. μηδείς (talk) 16:51, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

This case is in the hand of higher authorities now, a long statement by the user was oversighted and an explanation regarding that redaction placed on the user's talk page. We can safely leave this to the experts barring further necessity. μηδείς (talk) 20:13, 12 February 2018 (UTC)