Wikipedia talk:Reference desk

[edit]

Archives

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

RD Guidelines 1, 2, 3, 4, 5,

This page has archives. Sections older than 10 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

Hi there! I come in peace from Wikipedia's newest sister project Wikivoyage, a travel guide. We've recently launched our Tourist Office, an equivalent of your reference desk but for travel queries and we were wondering whether, in order to 'jump-start' it, we would be allowed to put a link to it on here. Thanks! --Nicholasjf21 (talk) 22:21, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That might be a good idea. We do get occasional Q's about "what to see when I'm in X city" or "what's the best way to get from X to Y". I'm not quite sure where we would post such a link, though, and honestly, 99% of the posters don't seem to have read the header info, anyway. StuRat (talk) 22:29, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much! A link anywhere would be great; do you think one on the Reference Desk Main Page called 'Travel' would be alright? We have issues with not reading the headers too, but it would be great to get some questions even from the few who do! --Nicholasjf21 (talk) 22:39, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Wikimedia sister projects has instructions on linking to sister projects.

—Wavelength (talk) 00:46, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would support adding a ninth interwiki link on the main Ref Desk page, if it could be done in a way that it's not too cluttered. It's a good way to support a sister project. If we did this, would you link to ours by chance? People might go the other direction, and ask questions that could be more appropriate for us to handle ("Why do they speak three languages in Belgium?" or "How many Christians were persecuted in the Coliseum?"). Falconus^{p t c} 23:44, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure the community would be very happy to link back to the Reference Desk - I imagine we will get some questions of that nature! --Nicholasjf21 (talk) 00:08, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Wikivoyage is not Wikipedia. Does it matter that we are providing a link to outside WP? Do we need to "warn" people that they are no longer within WP? Are the "rules" for responding the same on Wikivoyage as they are here? (Will they be dispensing medical or legal advice? I can well imagine queries about who needs what official papers to go where that WP's Ref Desk would likely consider legal advice. Or what about questions on what medications to take or inoculations to get?) Will WV be making recommendations to hotels or transportation companies, to travel guides, restaurants or shopping destinations? Would this concern us at the Ref Desk where we don't do such thing?

I don't have a point of view on this proposal, but I do think it needs a little more thought. Bielle (talk) 03:12, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think that Wikivoyage is now part of the Wikimedia Foundation, so should have the same basic standards as Wikipedia, Wikisource, Wiktionary, etc in terms of legal and medical advice? Or do I misunderstand? And I do not think that there is a policy restriction (as far as I know) on giving recommendations to hotels, transportation companies etc, although in principal I do have some concerns about doing so - I personally would put a caveat with them at the very minimum. Falconus^{p t c} 04:36, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikivoyage is indeed now under the auspices of the WMF, so we do strive for similar standards, including in terms of legal and medical advice. There isn't a policy restriction on giving recommendations, however, any advice of such a nature would fall under our existing policies of 'be fair' and 'don't tout'. I am more than happy to consult the community about what we could do to resolve your concerns. --Nicholasjf21 (talk) 11:20, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think recommending a specific hotel/business would be highly discouraged. Rather, we would link to the specific destination guide on Wikivoyage and advise the asker some of the options based on their price range, location preference, how many stars, etc. JamesA ^>talk 11:46, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. StuRat (talk) 04:58, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Tentative Support Having perused Wikivoyage a bit and after investigating the as-yet nebulously defined function and limits of the Tourist's Office, I have some concerns about the overall role of neutrality in the project and whether our aims here (in presenting essentially fact-based arguments) will be truly consistent with the tone and function of the TO, which seems likely to be host to a good deal of subjective assessment. But ultimately the veracity of statements and standards for sourcing are issues which the editors of that project will have to resolve for themselves and I feel that, as a valid and authorized part of the overall Wikimedia community, they ought to be given a chance to find their footing and a tone that is both complimentary of their sister projects yet still unique to its role. And I think those of us working in other projects ought to do what we can to give it a little leg up here and there. To that end, I support the addition of a link, but the wording should be adjusted, as things on Wikivoyage progress, to reflect the tone we see the Tourists Office developing and the level of empirical value we see in the responses there. Snow (talk) 07:26, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Opposes 1 - Support all - not internal help desk(s) - great to hear they finally have a ref desk but why/how is it different from the others ones from other sister projects that are older and not linked from here - are we to link them all? If one of the sister external links is here all should have the same consideration.Moxy (talk) 05:06, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I could only find similar ref desk pages on Wikiquote and Wiktionary. --Avenue (talk) 10:05, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Some just call it a help desk even though its for general knowledge questions like at Wikiversity Help Desk - most projects have a ref desk type page just may not be called the RefDesk.PS my so called proposal above was more of a ststment then a request to have other ref desk here. No a good idea in my opinion.Moxy (talk) 22:14, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: If we are to add them all, we probably should ask if they are willing and able to become main reference desks. The WikiQuote desk, for example, seems to have been little used over the past couple years, though Wiktionary has been more active. Falconus^{p t c} 15:17, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support linking to all Ref Desk pages that want to participate, unless there are substantially more than three. Falconus^{p t c} 15:17, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I have left notes on the discussion pages of Wikiquote and Wiktionary alerting them to this discussion. Falconus^{p t c} 15:38, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Seems like there would be a lot of overlap between the Wiktionary ref desk and our own language ref desk. Does it even make sense to keep them separate if we're cross-linking them? Actually, what would make the most sense of all would be to have the reference desks from all of these places be swept together into a separate top-level "sister project" WikiReferenceDesk. Answering questions in the way that we do isn't really Wikipedia-specific anyway...or at least, it shouldn't be. SteveBaker (talk) 20:14, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I tend to agree with you that something like that could be an option, and maybe we should start to move towards that. However, forking to a new sister project would probably take quite a bit of time and coordination much beyond the English Language reference desk. Even if we were to move ahead towards that, I would still be for posting interwiki links in the meanwhile. Do you want to make "new sister project" Proposal C? Falconus^{p t c} 23:01, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hoping this doesn't come across as uncivil, but the notion of forming an independent Wikimedia project is so far beyond the scope of the current discussion as to be a bit silly. The creation of of an entire new domain and all the practical, organizational and technical complications thereof (to say nothing of the process of justifying the new project's existence to the larger Wikimedia community and gaining Foundation endorsement) is not affected in a short span of time or without significant consensus-building and planning. Sure, of course such discussions have to start somewhere, but this is biting off more than we can chew for the current context and is certainly not a path likely to resolve the central issue of the above proposals any time soon. There is also to my mind a significant question as to whether such a consolidation is remotely desirable; the disparate subprojects named thus far all come from different working frameworks; they have different processes, different standards of proof, and just generally different aims. Personally I have doubts as to whether such a merger will ever be seen as practical, but in any event, I'm fairly certain it won't be attempted any time soon. Snow (talk) 07:04, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the questions above won't be resolved in short order by SteveBaker's suggestion, but RefDesk contributors should be aware of the fragile ground we stand on here. Many question the value of the RefDesk for the WP project. The level of strife surrounding the RefDesks often eclipses their value, and they ultimately contribute only indirectly to the overall content of WP. We should realize that in other venues, elimination of the RefDesks has been entertained many times (with compelling arguments). Reformulating as SteveBaker suggested could, at some point, become more attractive than dissolution. That said, we should focus here on the questions asked above. -- Scray (talk) 23:08, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I would object to the characterization that "the level of strife surrounding the RefDesks often eclipses their value" and even indirect contribution to content makes our work here worthwhile to the project -- personally I often find myself inspired to expand articles whose subjects pass across the Ref Desk. Regardless, I think the spirit of the work we do here -- providing elucidation on a variety of topics for anyone who needs it (with the exclusion of some topics) -- is completely consistent with the general purpose of Wikipedia. All of that being said, your argument that a new project should not be discounted as it may provide future security isn't an insignificant one. If I could trouble you, would you mind linking to some of the other community discussions you referenced where closing the Ref Desks has been discussed? I'd certainly like to look into the matter further. Snow (talk) 02:11, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see one oppose, one tentative support, and two supports for proposal A. Nobody else went one way or the other, and I got no feedback from any other Reference Desks for Proposal B. I will be bold go ahead and add the InterWiki Link to the main page. If this seems too premature, feel free to change it back, but leave a note on the talk page. Falconus^{p t c} 17:22, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have added the link. If somebody thinks it would be better at a different spot on the page, or that the desks should be organized differently, please go ahead. I'm not the best at making things look good. Falconus^{p t c} 17:47, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much! The new link looks great! --Nicholasjf21 (talk) 01:37, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that editors should still have the option of posting travel questions on Wikipedia, if they wish to avoid the additional complication of watching another Wikimedia project.

—Wavelength (talk) 02:08, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would tend to agree. Any suggestions on how to make that clear without cluttering it? Falconus^{p t c} 02:21, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On second thought, do we have to make that clear? I would be fine with just answering travel questions if they are asked here, rather than trying to move them to the other desk. But since they have a travel desk, it makes sense not to actively encourage those questions here? Any thoughts? I could go either way on this. Falconus^{p t c} 02:24, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest re-ordering the last three links ("Travel", "Miscellaneous", "Archives") so that "Travel" is on the third line ("Miscellaneous", "Archives", "Travel"). The present version seems to imply that questions about travel are not for the "Miscellaneous" desk. (The "v" in "Wikivoyage" should be in lower case.)

Also, I suggest that "Travel" be in a separate box (along with links to the corresponding desks on Wikiquote and Wiktionary; in alphabetical order, Wikivoyage would be in the middle), with the heading "For information from other Wikimedia projects" or "Other options elsewhere on Wikimedia projects:" or "Elsewhere on Wikimedia projects:". I prefer that readers know that they have a choice about where to ask about (1) quotations, (2) travel, and (3) words.

—Wavelength (talk) 03:49, 5 March 2013 (UTC) and 03:50, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I left notes on Wikiquote and Wiktionary about this discussion, but got no feedback. We should only add those desks if they are 1. Actively supported and 2. Willing and able to handle going more mainstream. If so, I would be glad to make a separate box for all three, but until people from those projects weigh in, I personally am disinclined to add Wikiquote and Wiktionary. As I said, I'm not very good about aesthetics, so I understood when I did it that the order in which the different desks appear is probably going to be changed. I was thinking... What if we made a "You are about to leave the English Wikipedia page..." sort of deal, but better written? There one could leave a note saying that if the individual is unwilling to do that, they could go to the Miscellaneous desk, but advise them that they might get better answers at Wikitravel? I don't know how people would feel about that, but I'm throwing it out there. I'm not 100% convinced that it is necessary, but I certainly am not against it. Falconus^{p t c} 04:05, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If we do anything actually, my preferred choice would be to simply change the verbage underneath the pictures of wikivoyage or miscellaneous. In my thinking anyway, the action of putting a link to WikiTravel here means that we are encouraging people to take travel questions there. That doesn't mean that I oppose accomodating them here, but I'm not too worried about inviting people to ask them on the miscellaneous desk. This are however other aspects to this. I'll be good with whatever people decide about that. Falconus^{p t c} 04:24, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have studied again the instructions at WP:SISTER (especially under "Where to place links", and now I suggest that the second row of the box have "Mathematics", "Science", Miscellaneous", and "Archives", in that order. Below that row (and either inside or outside the same box), there can be a line of text that says: "You can also visit Wikivoyage:Tourist_Office to ask about travel, vacations, and tourism."

—Wavelength (talk) 17:41, 5 March 2013 (UTC) and 17:44, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dont leave some out look at all the projects - most projects have a ref desk type page just may not be called the RefDesk because its all they do - like Wikiversity Help Desk. Also agree with above if we are going to have them listed (still not sure its a good idea) they should clearly be separated from the internal links in there own box and clearly indicate that they are external links - meaning our readers should understand they are leaving en.wikipedia Moxy (talk) 05:07, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikivoyage has versions in 11 languages: English, German, Italian, Swedish, Russian, Dutch, French, Spanish, Portuguese, Polish, and Romanian. Wikipedia:Reference Desk has versions in many languages, including all of those except Dutch and Portuguese. The navigation box has a link to one in Polish (pl:Wikipedia:Pytania merytoryczne), but I can not find it in the wikicode of the page. Maybe there can be reciprocal links for German, Italian, Swedish, Russian, French, Spanish, Polish, and Romanian.

—Wavelength (talk) 17:27, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I feel like my troll-goggles might be misted. Is this diff just really obvious trolling, or is my radar broken? 86.129.248.199 (talk) 21:03, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  [TROLL DETECTED] [HISTORY CHECK] [TARGET WARNED] [   FIRE!!!   ]
  .--------------. .-------------. .-------------. .-------------.
  |       o      | |      |      | |    \ o /    | |  \`. | .'/  |
  |     /( )\    | |   -- + --   | |   --(+)--   | |-- *BLOCK* --|
  |______/_\_____| |      |      | |_____/|\_____| |__/_'_|_'_\__|
  '--------------' '-------------' '-------------' '-------------'
  

--Guy Macon (talk) 22:22, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

lol. Snow (talk) 00:44, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I had removed this 'question' without too much thinking. Your troll-goggles are broken. OsmanRF34 (talk) 00:41, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Osman's edit summary said rambling removed, nothing about trolling. I think that was entirely apt. This was not a suitable ref-desk question. Whether it was "trolling" is beside the point. Looie496 (talk) 02:18, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In the case of a user like Kotjap (talk · contribs), the illustration could be changed to show a whole series of characters toppling, like dominoes. Maybe hard to draw in ascii plain text, though. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:51, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Given I closed the question on the judge as worded in violation of BLP, and given Osman chose to edit it and reopen it (which I don not oppose) I have taken the further step of this edit: [1] which I think is justified, rather than taking this to revdel or BLP noticeboard or whatever. μηδείς (talk) 02:28, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not convinced, Medeis. That's basically pretending the OP did not write what they wrote. We don't mess with people's actual words, and they either pass our BLP filter or not. In this case, presumably the BLP issue is the claim he beat his daughters. Whether he did so "atrociously" or "kindly" or any other way seems hardly to be the point, to me. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 02:51, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Saying, as if it were known fact, that he atrociously beat his daughters is a defamatory statement if not proven or made in court. Saying that "I think what he did is atrocious" is opinion and OR. It's not my place to school the OP on his wording, and I am curious why you are not saying that Osman was wrong to remove "vicious". The second, OR statement wouldn't be worth reverting unless were to turn into an attack page, per WP:ATTACK. But the first is indeed defamatory, and if you want it restored, that's fine, but then I think it should go to the BLP noticeboard. That's why I have placed it here for comment first. μηδείς (talk) 03:11, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Adverbs are rarely encyclopaedic. HiLo48 (talk) 03:20, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If Osman fiddled with the OP's wording, then what I said applies to him, too. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 04:48, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Jack. Leave other people's comments alone. StuRat (talk) 04:43, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How to handle the BLP violation? If the characterization of the beating is defamatory (which I question, but that's another matter), then it has to be dealt with in some way. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:48, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Our policy on BLP, specifically the restoration of disputed material, is quite clear: delete first and then discuss, restore only by consensus; if consensus is not reached, then close as 'delete'. -- Scray (talk) 22:57, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Does that mean it's OK to edit another user's comments, as opposed to simply deleting the entire comment? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:05, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's never OK to edit another user's words. The words the editor writes should appear in their entirety, warts and all. It's all about what they say, not what someone else says they said. There's minor stuff like removing leading spaces to make it actually readable, or adjusting the number of colons or even relocating it within the conversation to make it make sense in the context, or perhaps adding a "citation required" tag (but some users consider even this beyond the pale). Now, there are some extreme cases where we remove another editor's post in its entirety, e.g. because it's blatant trolling, or intentionally incomprehensible. But we never remove only part of a post, and as I say, we never edit the words at all. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 19:43, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In particular, Medeis claims that the rules for when it is OK to delete a user's comments (unambiguous BLP or copyright violations, for example) mean that it is OK to edit that user's comments in those situations. This is not allowed. When any of us read a comment signed by, say, Jimbo Wales, we need to have confidence that those words are exactly what Jimbo wrote, not what someone else thinks he should have written. Even if Jimbo goes completely off the rails and posts "(Name of real person) lives at (real address). Smite him, my minions! Bwahahaha!!!" We are allowed to (and required to) delete that post and can ask for a WP:REVDEL, but we are not allowed to edit it to say "..lives at [address deleted]" or even "..lives at [address deleted by Guy Macon]". The specific situations when you can remove another editor's comments and the even more restrictive situations when you can edit another editor's comments are clearly defined at WP:TPOC. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:52, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) It's certainly permissible to redact information that ought not to be exposed, such as an email address or information that outs an editor. But a marker should be left in that case to indicate that something has been redacted. I also feel that it ought to be permissible to fix spelling errors in a section title, because the search function of the Ref desks will fail if terms are not spelled correctly. Looie496 (talk) 21:55, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What you find to be "certainly permissible", a lot of editors believe to be completely forbidden. Section heaeders, on the other hand, are fair game. Nobody owns a section header, and it is not signed. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:41, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with much of what's been said since my prior comment. In particular, Guy Macon appropriately cites WP:TPOC, which cites as one example of appropriately editing another person's Talk page comments (3rd on that list): "Removing prohibited material such as libel, personal details, or violations of copyright, living persons or banning policies." I agree with Looie496 that this should be done in a way that indicates something has been redacted, though wholesale removal is probably preferred to avoid calling attention to the violation. -- Scray (talk) 22:35, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What would be really nice would be a set policy expressed here and published in the ref desk guidelines, regardless of the arguments above that people don't read them. μηδείς (talk) 23:33, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This has been explained to you several times [2][3][4][5][6] including warnings by blocking administrators, you have been blocked for violating it,[7] and you promised to stop as a condition of unblocking [8][9]. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:57, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that virtually everyone is on the same page here, but this issue is of critical enough importance that I'd like to add my voice. It is never acceptable to edit another editor's comments in a community discussion space, not even for issues of minor emphasis. Not only is this prohibited by overwhelming and long-standing community consensus, it's a simple matter wiki/internet/general decency. The only time I've ever adjusted another user's posts here is to re-align it with another statement which it was clearly meant to follow but which it got disconnected from by a missing colon. Even then, I make sure to note the change explicitly in my edit summary and apologize in advance if the party feels I acted out-of-turn. Again, this is clearly what policy demands and the only way work can progress on a project like this. Snow (talk) 12:19, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with these sort set in stone claims about it never being acceptable is they ignore actual community consensus and practice. We remove email address and phone numbers from comments both in the RD and elsewhere in wikipedia all the time without deleting the comments. (This extends to links to copyvios although the frequency of that is far lower.) We also have a template Template:RPA who's use by other parties to remove personal attacks without deleting comments is discussed by in the template doc and Wikipedia:No personal attacks#Removal of text. BLP violations and outing are similarly sometimes removed and we even have a templated sometimes used by oversighters for this purpose Template:Redacted. The TPOC linked by Scray also discusses the acceptable editing of comments. This sort of stuff even happens at places like ANI, as well as in article talk pages and yes even in Jimbo Wales' talk page.

Great care should be taken as the number of cases when it's acceptable is small, particularly when it's removing part of a comment rather then stuff like an email address, phone number or unacceptable link. (Definitely it should never be done for grammatical, spelling or adding stars.) And as others have mentioned it nearly always needs to be clearly indicated. I say nearly always since sometimes it may be necessary to ask an oversighter for suppression and in such cases it's usually better to remove the info without drawing attention to it, at least until the oversighter has done their thing. And perhaps some people may have such a poor record of editing comments that they probably should never do so. But anyone who has been around wikipedia enough knows, removing the whole comment often leads to just as many arguments both from the person who posted the comment and by others who argue the whole comment should not have been removed just for one issue. (And sometimes people just want to have a rant. While removing the rant is often justifiable, getting in to an edit war over it even if it may lead to a block of the person ranting is not always the smart course of action if it's not unduly disruptive even if it's necessary to edit the rant to remove certain stuff which is highly problematic.) This doesn't mean that deleting the whole comment is not often the better idea (and sometimes the only acceptable option), often it is. And sometimes it's far better to ask the person to voluntarily redact whatever is contentious. But they key point is that these are not always the better idea. And sometimes there is overlap where while it may not have been what person X would have done, it doesn't mean it's wrong for person Y to do so. Getting back to my first point, removing a genuine query from a newbie just because they posted their personal email or personal phone number is going to be seen as biting (and note sometimes this includes cases like a living person requesting correction). And just leaving it there when the person may not appreciate the implications and may never be back to check any messages warning them of what they did would be seen as similarly problematic.

As for this specific case, despite being a BLP hawk, I do agree I don't see much point for this deletion. Yes the extraneous description of the beating was not necessary and therefore not ideal and may have made the BLP violation slightly worse but it doesn't seem as bad μηδείς suggests and considering that involved editing someone else's comment, probably should not have been done. The real problem is discussing what happened at all, particularly with the link to the name, more so since the person and case are apparently not notable Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William Adams (judge), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Beating of Hillary Adams. Unfortunately I don't see much we can do. With the video, I don't think there's any question that the beating happened. Removing the name or description would make the question more confusing and I suspect one of the followups would have brought up whatever was excluded. The only real option would be completely excluding queries about living people involving negative or private information which isn't already in a wikipedia article. While I wouldn't personally be opposed to that I doubt it will achieve consensus here and I'm not sure if there would be agreement by the wider wikipedia community it's required by BLP.

Nil Einne (talk) 15:27, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The word "atrociously" does not in itself violate "BLP" for this purpose because it only gives the commenter's opinion, without making the act sound any better or worse or different in impartial terms than it would be otherwise. It is, of course, not NPOV language, but this isn't an article. Wnt (talk) 20:50, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed a request for medical advice. The appropriate template has been placed on the user's talk page. Tevildo (talk) 19:15, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good call. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:01, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks... This one is a bit of a b***h, though. Is there a specific guideline on requests for illegal information? I've not deleted it, although I feel that we ought to. Tevildo (talk) 22:19, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)"Illegal" is a localized issue - as I recall, WP is governed by the laws in the state where its servers are located (Florida?); thus, using that term is problematic. The issue of illegal drugs in particular is a controversial subject, and the RefDesk is explicitly not a place for discussion of such topics. My sense is that removal would be appropriate, with an edit summary stating that this is not the right place for that question. If you decide to remove, I would place a note here in a new section to that effect. -- Scray (talk) 22:47, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My personal opinion is, removal because illegal? No. Removal (or collapsing) because off-topic? yes. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:36, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone with checkuser knowledge look at these edits by user:sneazy and 86.101.32.82 (talk · contribs)? Thanks. μηδείς (talk) 22:44, 3 March 2013 (UTC) I changed your link. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:12, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've unhatted the question by 86, which was absolutely fine. --Viennese Waltz 22:46, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, no, defaming a business is not fine, which you would know if you had any knowledge of British law or their happiness to bring defamation suits against foreigners for claims published in foreign venues. μηδείς (talk) 23:24, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sneazy is vearing into LC territory with its questions, which may or may not be coincidental. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:12, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

LC? μηδείς (talk) 23:25, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:Light current, who's been banned for ages but keeps on making appearances under other guises. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 23:32, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I wish I had whatever psychic power it is that let's you folk identify these trolls. For instance, I knew from his first post that Kotjap was a sock. But you guys even seem to have some way tp track who's a sock of whom. μηδείς (talk) 00:23, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's Baseball Bugs' special preserve. I was just explaining who LC is, after BB claimed to have fingered him. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 00:28, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have not in the many years I have been here ever identified a sockpuppet's puppeteer, although I have identified many puppets. (My ability to identify trolls of all sorts, commercial and editorial, when I worked at Christopher Street Magazine was legendary.) In any case the link above to Light Current seems invalid. Can we get Light Current's actual link? Thanks. μηδείς (talk) 00:35, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is the ANI ruling. Tevildo (talk) 00:47, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, I just read that at length, and have to say I am surprised I largely agree with StuRat. But not having read many of the diffs, I have to leave everything at AGF. μηδείς (talk) 01:54, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, once again, guys. I still have to express myself entirely confused as to why these apparent trolls cant just ask real and interesting and even answerable questions, and stay away from the nonsense. I cannot fathom how the bee ess is more interesting than the real stuff. μηδείς (talk) 01:36, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If their minds worked on any basis of what is practical, they would not be trolls. Snow (talk) 12:41, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. That's one of the reasons why it's helpful to differentiate trolls from other sorts of problematic editors. A troll generally won't have much interest is asking 'real and interesting and even answerable question', except perhaps to bed in an identity, since the reaction and time spent by others generally won't give them the rise they desire or at least not for long. Someone who isn't trolling may ask slightly better questions because they're generally genuinely interested in the answer (although they don't always seem to have much ability to learn). Of course not all people with trollish behaviour are trolling all the time and some people may not be trolling but still have no real interest in an answer, e.g. those soapboxing. Nil Einne (talk) 14:53, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As reported both on the desk and at the village pump, posting to the Math desk has been extremely slow lately. I noticed it because the archiving bot has had problems for the past two days. In my experience, the problem is specific to the Math desk -- is there some pathologically complicated template expansion happening there just now, or something? —Steve Summit (talk) 15:28, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd have removed this rather than hatting it, but I don't know the template. μηδείς (talk) 18:58, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I may have an unconscious bias because of μηδείς/Medeis' long history of dodgy removals and collapses, but does anyone else think that the question was a "blatant request for medical opinion"? The only actual question I saw was "tell me about this very interesting mechanism." He didn't ask whether to take the drug. He didn't ask how to treat the condition. He specified that this was an over-the-counter pill he took in 2011. ("Over the counter" meaning "the government says that you don't have to ask your doctor before taking this pill".) I don't see this as being a request for a medical opinion at all, much less a "blatant" one. Am I wrong? --Guy Macon (talk) 19:53, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the hatting. I don't know if I would call it blatant or not, but we're talking about a specific person's interaction with a specific drug. The OP's family physician is obviously not only the best source of information regarding side-effects, reactions, recall, and so on, but also is aware of the patient's medical history. While we're grasping at straws and making guesses, they could flip through a few charts and find similar incidents from the patient's past or family history or etc. etc. that point to a more reasonable answer. Matt Deres (talk) 21:14, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good hat. Too close to asking about his medical condition. He should see a doctor. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:48, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly hatting is an appropriate response, and my personal view is that deletion would be justified - the OP is asking for a diagnosis of the condition which he developed after he took the drug. I would _also_ be concerned about the next question on the board (about changes in the OP's voice), but that's not so far over the line. Tevildo (talk) 23:12, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, incidentally, the template is {{RD-deleted}} on the board, and {{subst:RD medremoval}} on the talk page. See WP:RD/G/M. Tevildo (talk) 23:15, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On reflection, I agree with all of the above. Thanks! --Guy Macon (talk) 02:44, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

With substantial assistance from User:Dragons flight, I've managed to cobble together a Lua indexer for the Refdesk at Template:RDIndex. It is designed to produce monthly indexes that include title, desk, length of discussion, and editors who contributed. With manual editing of the daily archives it would be possible to establish a category system i.e. by tagging individual questions with {{rdcat|physics}} somewhere in the text. I am starting to think about going ahead and replacing the present monthly indexes with these files - or if preferred, setting them up in a parallel series of pages. The category tagging shouldn't really go forward until people think about and agree on the categories, since many people should do it - the idea is to get a set of links all in one place for all the biology questions, etc. (Actually, the template and script acknowledges subcategories, if people can agree on them, i.e. {{rdcat|physics|electromagnetic theory}} ...) Wnt (talk) 09:40, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer that the present monthly indexes be kept, even if a new indexer is available.

—Wavelength (talk) 18:08, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I searched on Template:RDIndex for my user name, and found User:Wavelength/About Earth's environment/Climate change in the column "Editors". Do you want to include user subpages?

—Wavelength (talk) 19:01, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm... I wasn't sure whether it would be a good thing or a bad thing to leave those in. I suppose I could truncate matches at "/" if desired.

Starting new pages is the easier option for me, because there's no need to compare right away to make sure that no headings were somehow lost in the mechanized processing. Wnt (talk) 20:39, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please see this old post about Pacific islands and Israel by the blocked User:Timothyhere (also known as User:Kotjap) and this new question (diff) by the new User:FMicronesian whose only activity since his account was created March 4 has been posting at the ref desks.

Can someone advise on how to run a sockpuppet investigation? Thanks. μηδείς (talk) 15:55, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The fact is that I have nothing to do with those users. It seems to be a witch hunt. FMicronesian (talk) 17:25, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The fact is that you will soon be indef'd like your other socks. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:27, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The fact is that I will keep creating accounts until you leave me alone. FMicronesian (talk) 17:31, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The fact is you will keep getting blocked until you leave US alone. There are many of us and only one of you. Why don't you go pester Conservapedia for awhile? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:33, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You can see in the archive of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Timothyhere that the user has many guises and claims to be from many different places. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:35, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand what harm do I cause. But well, block me. I have ten accounts to play. FMicronesian (talk) 17:46, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And they will all get blocked, as the above now is. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:47, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do I understand correctly that if a checkuser is done, other socks from the same IP will be identified and blocked? Is it necessary to comment in support of that being done, or is it just a matter of time? μηδείς (talk) 19:05, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ten accounts? This starts to remind me of an communal counting exercise at a college Terminator-watching session in which someone said, "You're perfectly safe. We've got thirty cops in this building..." Wnt (talk) 20:45, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Psychologically it could have been worse - you could have been watching a Police Academy marathon. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:06, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

They have blocked 11 "sleeper" socks. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:29, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As I guess people have realised by now, I noticed FMicronesian a day or so before this thread and opened an SPI. At this stage there behaviour was highly suspicious but had not yet reached the level where they were asking about serial killers. Once I saw the question about a serial killer I deleted it (it didn't have any replies) since I considered it quacking loudly enough, although I left the original question about uploading photos (of said serial killer) as it already had an answer.

The way to open an investigation is discussed at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations, but basically just fill in the name 'Timothyhere' in to the box and then click on the button to open a case. You should get a page explaining what to do, but basically add the name of any socks in the appropriate places and then provide some evidence preferably in the form of diffs. Partially because I expected this to be a reoccurring problem, I made one of the previous cases fairly detailed so there may already be evidence of the previous behaviours, you should just need it from the new identity. When filing a case also remember to request a checkuser with the reason given the history of sleepers (it's disabled by default). Alternatively checkusers who dealt with previous cases are often willing to run a CU if you give them a decent reason and ask on their talk pages without opening a case. I should mention I don't actually have that much experience with SPIs particularly frequently reoccuring sockpuppets.

If a sock is quacking loudly enough I think people should feel free to remove any posts which haven't been replied to (as I've done twice now). Because of the history of controversy surrounding deleting replies, I won't recommend it when there have been replies and I also suggest strong caution because of the recent controversies surrounding deleting comments. Other then that, I don't know if there is much we can do but report/block where necessary. It seems rather likely the editor is trolling since they are not only pretending to be from different places but continually asking questions relating to those places, a new one every identity strongly suggesting they don't care about the answers.

I presume an IP block isn't feasible for the range involved. In fact, I have a suspicion our friend has given away some details about that range. Earlier, I noticed [10] by an Argentinian IP which looked suspiciously familiar. While searching for that post I came across [11] by an IP assigned to the same Argentinian ISP where the IP removed the signature [12] (I added it back). Of course a CU will never link the IP to the accounts but presuming they aren't using a proxy, it suggests that the current location of the person behind the accounts is not the US or Canada as I admit I suspected (nor any of the other places they claimed to be from which I didn't really suspect).

P.S. As funny as this may seem given my long post, per WP:DENY I don't think we should discuss this more then necessary.

Nil Einne (talk) 15:23, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I notice that at WP:RD there is a link to the Travel reference desk on a sister project. But, there is no link to that desk in the sidebar that shows up on the RD pages (ie: on the left of WP:RDM). Is that intentional, or can we get the Travel desk added there, also? I like to browse through all the RDs perdiodically, but I usuallly start on one, and then just follow the sidebar links to get to each on in turn. This makes it easy to overlook the Travel desk. RudolfRed (talk) 22:33, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. And if the argument against is that it isn't "our" desk, then it shouldn't be on the main list, either. I'd be happy to see it on the sidebar. Mingmingla (talk) 00:05, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You can also scroll up and down on Wikipedia:Reference desk/all.

—Wavelength (talk) 05:11, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If there are going to be nine sections on the Reference Desk, they should be arranged in three rows of three. Having two rows of four and one row of one just looks silly. 03:59, 11 March 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.111.130.159 (talk)

Alternatively, "Archives" could be centered, making it clear that it's distinct from the others. I think the current appearance is better than silly, in any case. -- Scray (talk) 05:50, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]