Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/Archive 127

Does this count as a request for prediction,opinion, or debate?
See here:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Humanities#Jews_allowing_Muslims_to_impose_sharia_law — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.241.131.77 (talk) 06:33, 15 March 2017 (UTC)


 * [NB: I, something of a Ref desk regular, just undid my highly similar post.] Here this SPA-User's "query" is based on the (unsupported?) assertion that " Jewish leftists [allow] Muslim immigrants to impose sharia law on the West." What to do? - and does it take a confirmed-account user to take a particular action rather than risk feeding the troll? (I ask as I'm situated in GMT+2, so likely to be online earlier than the majority of Anglophone users.) --Deborahjay (talk) 07:06, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
 * This was just the usual nazi refdesk troll. Already reverted and blocked. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:19, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

User's many deletions and hats
She's deleting many Q's, responses, and hatting others, with no justification. See Special:Contributions/Medeis. She seems to try to misinterpret the Q in a way that can justify these actions. For example, a simple request for the name of a company, given it's abbreviation, and she deleted it as a request for "legal and personal advice":. Or this scientific Q with scientific answers gets hatted by her as being a forum Q:. StuRat (talk) 03:41, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
 * The responses kind of meandered away from the original question, but I don't see it as asking for legal advice, although there's certainly an "advice" aspect to it. It would be better just to return it to being boxed up, because there's really nothing more we can do for the OP, who will have to take some initiative in the matter. That second question kind of looked like trolling, but it's potentially answerable. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:43, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

If an individual has in the past received significant pushback regarding their behavior on the refdesks and on the refdesk talk page yet has never changed their behavior in any way because of this social pressure, would it be fair to say that anyone who posts a brand new complaint about that individual on the refdesk talk age is wasting our time? (See the section above this one for a proposed alternative). --Guy Macon (talk) 06:52, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I think Medeis is far less hat-or-delete-happy than in the past. Though if there's a reversion, it would be best to bring it here, as with any "content dispute", rather than edit-warring. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 07:02, 11 March 2017 (UTC)


 * There seems to be ongoing attacks on established editors here. Any coincidence. Or is some sort of agenda at play here. Because that's how it looks to neutral observer. 74.215.182.131 (talk) 11:58, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
 * It's all or mostly good-faith debate about how the ref desks should operate. No problem. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:52, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
 * 74, Wikipedia is a community and we are all accountable to each other. If somebody criticizes my behavior in good faith, I will directly counter their criticism (no sidestepping), modify my behavior, or leave the premises. I will not use loaded words like "attack" and "agenda", or allow anyone else to do so (I'm not claiming that Bugs or Medeis did either). I expect the same from others. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  00:48, 12 March 2017 (UTC)


 * I have a concern about a wider question, which is hatting in general. Isn't this a tool for expressing an opinion, and isn't it non-verbal? I think it is akin to edit-warring. (And now comes the propaganda and editorializing.) We should aim for reliance on the verbal in everything we do. And we should eschew that which veers into the realm of the physical. Bus stop (talk) 18:12, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
 * That's far too tangential to the topic. It is not about Medeis, nor specific to the ref desks. Suggest raising that at the Village Pump. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  00:56, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
 * This topic has come up many times here, and the closest thing to agreement seems to come on very obvious trolling, like the neo-Nazi idiot. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:01, 12 March 2017 (UTC)


 * I don't agree with the hatting of "Health insurance". While the OP has some idiosyncratic opinions, that does not mean that there are not plenty of good sources on the benefits (and problems) of insurances in general and health insurance in particular. Sure, the current US political debate happens at least partially in a post-factual bubble. But the fact that parts of the US political caste ignore the existing research does not mean that there are not valuable references we can provide. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:22, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Fake russian science troll
I've hatted a discussion begun by a long-term troll. Please do not answer questions in broken English with pseudo-technical language. This is a many-years running troll who shows up from time to time. If anyone sees similar discussions started again, please close them down. Thank you. -- Jayron 32 02:26, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Hat, rather than delete, yes? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:27, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I personally see no reason why we should prevent anyone who wants from chatting with good ol' Alex. I don't think he's a vandal or troll in the common sense, WP:AGF, etc. I actually wonder if he may be a bot... Anyway, no need to delete in my opinion, hatting gets it out the the way. SemanticMantis (talk) 16:08, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
 * What would be mock Russian for "hat"? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:25, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Slop. μηδείς (talk) 01:23, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I believe that it is "please read and obey WP:TPOC"... Oh, wait, I studied Japanese and Chinese, not Russian. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:28, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
 * The user has been banned from russian wikipedia and his "contributions" should be erased with WP:DENY as the edit summary. In this case I won't erase him, since his BS should be made familiar to the newbies. Next time? No. μηδείς (talk) 17:14, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Correcting Google links
I just want to raise a question what is wrong with correcting Google links, when people have no idea how to properly format links to Google Books. Do you,, think that this is more beautiful and appropriate? --Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 22:59, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
 * If someone makes a formatting error, post a correction below it. Or, first go to their talk page and ask them to correct it. Minus the attitude, though. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:47, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I have neither much time nor desire to explain every my smallest technical edit and discuss it on talkpages. Why should I teach everybody how to make proper links? If they don't know, I just correct and let them not to know further on.--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 22:51, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Well the simple explaination is that if you don't have time to ask first or at least note what you've done, you probably shouldn't be doing it anyway. Of course posting the link seperately will probably take less time anyway even if you have to add four tildes. Ultimately if you aren't willing to do things correctly, you simply shouldn't get involved. Let someone else deal with it. Also provided something works, it being pretty is less important than ensuring your not misleadingly modifying a signed post. In this case I believe you have a point that the .ca local domain means it's less likely to work (I admit I never knew that about Google Books until I was testing it before my first reply below and seemed to observe that although testing again now I can't repeat it). But even if that is true, at most that's justification for changing the .ca to .com not for removing the highlighting without making it clear you'd done so based on a guess that the OP didn't want it. Practically, I personally wouldn't have complained if you'd kept the highlighting but otherwise simplified it, but there's always a risk others may want the other stuff in there for some weird intentional reason. And if that ever did happen I won't be coming to your defence.  Ultimately there's a good reason why editing a signed post by someone else without their permission is strongly discouraged except in very limited circumstances of which changing a link isn't generally one of them (unless it's blacklisted or harmful in some way e.g. copyvio, spam, BLPvio, malware rather than simply not functionining as intended). Since the link wasn't enclosed in tags, enclosing it in tags would have been acceptable if it was really so long as to be making something difficult but that's about it.  A functioning version of a non functioning or less functioning link can always be offered as a follow up, I've done it myself with other cases several times on the RD. I'd note if you get into the habit of modifying such stuff without comment you run the risk of doing so when someone has already commented on the problem somewhere and therefore causing even more problems. (Did you actually check the whole thread before doing so this time or were you again just guessing that no one had commented on it? Of course even if you did check the thread, I'm guessing you didn't check this talk page or the OP's talk page.) In other words, it may not just be the OP affected.  P.S. If you think people don't intentionally include local domains you're mistaken. I generally give clean Google books and other links. But I have always intentionally linked to local domains (.co.nz or .nz) for Google Books, Google Search, Blogspot etc. Since it seems you could have a point that local subdomains can cause weird issues with access/copyright on Google Books I'll probably refrain from doing so with Google Books. But I'll continue to do so with other such things and will be quite annoyed if someone changes them. Especially with stuff like Google Search where I do so partially because of the slight possibility the results the person sees might be a bit more like what I saw. Likewise I have sometimes in the past intentionally included a link with safesearch disabled albeit generally noting I did so to avoid any concerns. And where possible, with a defined number of results. Etc. And yes this means when I do include highlighting on Google Books, which isn't very often, it's nearly always intentional.  Nil Einne (talk) 05:42, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I was not speaking about correcting or even twisting other people's words and I was not even going to discuss that, it's a whole different issue. So I've changed the title, for that matter. As for your intentional posting of localized links, be sure a lot of people won't see them, they must manually change .nz (or whatever) to their locale. Only google.com leads automatically to your locale. Practically outside the USA it is problematic to use google.com, Google by some reason enforce your locale. As for your other example, I might agree that in some exceptional situations you may want to be sure people see the search results as you see them, but it is unlikely to happen in here. In any way it would be obvious that that is the case. You presuppose that people routinely post garbage links just because they want that, while they simply do not know what those various obscure parameters mean. I'm not blaming them for their ignorance in any way, but I suppose it's legitimate to correct them.--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 23:00, 28 March 2017 (UTC)


 * You should always take care when "correcting" a signed post that you are not removing something which was intentional. In this particular case it looks to me like you simplified the link so much that you remove the highlighting. It may be the highlighting was an unintentional result of the Google search. It may be it was intentionally left there. The link could be simplified without removing the highlighting but you didn't do that. If in doubt you should always ask first. And if what you are doing will change the reply in any possible way you should at least make clear that you did it but it doesn't look like you either replied to the thread or informed the OP on their talk page. Nil Einne (talk) 01:29, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
 * In that particular case as in millions of such cases people simply have no idea that they post url garbage others don't need. If anything was intentional that was unawareness.--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 22:51, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
 * The problem is you have no way to know whether the OP intentionally wanted to highlight that part of the book for whatever reason. You may be able to make a resonable guess based on the context of the conversation, but unless you've actually asked the OP you do not know. And if you had asked the OP first, this would not be an issue. Plenty of times people have thought they knew what the OP wanted to achieve but it turned out they were wrong. I myself have had it before mostly with indenting or locating my posts, although that at least is not technically part of the signed post. And let's not forget the awful mess a few years back when someone thought automagically was a typo and changed to to automatically. I'd note that as far as I can tell, the OP still hasn't commmented anywhere on this because no one really asked them so you still don't know if the OP really didn't want it. Nil Einne (talk) 05:14, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Alright, I will agree with you on that one. Though for you information to get a highlighting one just adds . Nothing else is needed. But such a small accurate and conscious addition is no match for that url garbage people actually have been unconsciously posting million times (not only in Wikipedia).--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 22:36, 28 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Except when someone's edit breaks page formatting, it's not really a requirement that responses (or questions) be beautiful and elegant. In an article that's desirable, but in what is essentially a specialized talk page, it's not a priority. ApLundell (talk) 14:23, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
 * The problem also is that such dummy google links work particularly for the user who posted it. People who do not live in .ca (or wherever) won't see it, they must change it manually to their locality. Only .com is safe. Not to mention a lot of simple url garbage which is of no use under any circumstances.--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 22:51, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
 * In future, post a separate correction and sign it yourself. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:10, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
 * So what's the point then? Leaving the garbage, then posting the correction and signing, why bother at all? I've tweaked Google links hundreds of times, nobody ever objected, to be sure the OP in question hasn't objected either. In future, I think, I'll just ignore such cases or rather I'll stop visiting and editing RD altogether, lest I do something "wrong" again.--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 23:18, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Given your attitude, that might be for the best. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:18, 29 March 2017 (UTC)


 * In general, modifying other people's posts is a bad idea, and it should definitely unnerve posters. For example, what if I post a link and some random newcomer changes it to point at a virus-infested site?  We ought to pay more attention to avoiding that kind of thing.  That said, this particular case may fall under a narrow exception, because the Google search ?ei=.....? field contains a lot of mysterious information, only some of which AFAIK is publicly described (see  field 3 and 4).  Unless proven otherwise this might include some kind of tracking/outing related data that may become decipherable after some future leak of a relevant encryption password.  Even the acknowledged fields - the exact microsecond the link was accessed - provide a path for anyone with access to Google's log of queries to track down the IP address for this particular poster now, next month, or in 1500 years.  However: it's not as clear-cut a case as deleting the email addresses listed by some novice posters, and education is still the proper response because short of tracking down and revdeling each and every ei link the only way to prevent people from leaking potentially private data this way is to get them to dress their links themselves.  Suggestion: write up an essay explaining your point of view (with WP:ACRONYM) and cite it in a brief stock response. Wnt (talk) 20:17, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Censors have gotten the upper hand here, and I am thoroughly disgusted
I started to analyze a perfectly reasonable question about whether fake looking breasts could be real. First I get a bunch of attitude from somebody who doesn't answer science questions about how "offensive" it is to say that breasts jiggle. Then I have someone claiming to "close" the discussion without any real policy basis nor any discussion here. (these are visible in the following link) I get more grief on my talk page about how female editors can't possibly be exposed to the same sort of discussion as the male, in the name of sexual enlightenment. I make a reasoned response to all this nonsense, and that's when the chief censor of them all turns up to not merely delete my text, but delete a borderline-interesting suggestion someone else made on my own talk page. And from more sensible editors who simply like to chase the rabbit, follow scientific curiosity wherever it may lead? Nothing. It is that omission that hurts the most, and which makes me wonder if this project has a future. Wnt (talk) 13:56, 10 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Both of those removals you link to are inappropriate. They should have been reverted and the original text allowed to stand. ApLundell (talk) 14:32, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Deleting the refdesk section was, in my opinion, disruptive, but technically allowed according to our special rules that only apply to the refdesks and which the admins refuse to enforce (see my comments below), but deleting the comment on Wnt's talk page was a clear violation of WP:TPOC. I gave the deleting user a warning and will follow up at WP:ANI if I see a pattern of such behavior. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:49, 10 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Some people really like to control the behavior of other people. Here on Wikipedia, we should not allow ordinary users to do that. They should be required to ask an administrator -- someone who the community has decided that they trust to control the behavior of other people -- or to make a polite request that the person voluntarily stop the behavior. We do allow ordinary users to do certain things such as reverting obvious vandalism or copyright violations, but always with the understanding that anyone can ask an administrator to review those actions.


 * What we are doing is not working. What will work is:


 * 1) Get rid of all of the special rules that only apply to the refdesks and which the admins refuse to enforce. The administrators have shown on multiple occasions that they have no interest in blocking anyone for not following the reference desk guidelines. I say we get rid of those guidelines or reword them to make it clear that they are advice which anyone is free to ignore.
 * 2) Apply the standard rules that apply to all talk pages. In particular, apply WP:DISRUPT and especially WP:TPOC the same way those policies are applied everywhere else on Wikipedia.
 * 3) Stop complaining about other editors on the refdesk or the refdesk talk pages. Just stop. Use this page only for discussing how to improve the Reference Desks, and I don't mean "improve the Reference Desks by controlling the behavior of other people".
 * 4) If indeed a comment (question or answer) is disruptive and you are confident that the community of administrators at WP:ANI will agree that it is disruptive, then ask the person -- on his or her talk page -- not to make such comments. If they do it again, report them at ANI where they will be blocked until they stop.
 * 5) Accept the fact that you personally have the right to refuse to respond to a refdesk post, just as you have the right to not answer any other question, but you have zero ability to block a user or in any other way interfere with them posting whatever they choose to post, with the sole exception being if you can convince an administrator that they are being disruptive and have persisted after being warned.


 * Why can't we just try it my way for a limited-time experiment? Establish a consensus to do as I describe above through an RfC and ask the admins to block anyone who refuses to comply. At the end of the experiment, have a discussion about whether my way is working and whether we should continue or try something else.


 * Or we can keep having the same damn discussion every few days forever. Your choice, refdesk regulars. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:20, 10 April 2017 (UTC)


 * I'm happy to block in a similar case using WP:DISRUPT as rationale. --John (talk) 18:43, 10 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Are you saying you'd be happy to block someone such as Wnt the next time they make comments such as they did here? ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  19:29, 10 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Block the user making the comment, or block the refdesk regular who deleted it?because our "special rules" say he can? We already have admins blocking the clearly disruptive users. It is the refdesk regulars who delete material that many of us do not see as being disruptive that is the problem. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:49, 10 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Good to have your perspective. Anyone who continues a closed discussion started by a disruptive troll-only account after a warning had better look out. Better to discuss here or in user talk first. --John (talk) 20:44, 10 April 2017 (UTC)


 * The discussion was started by User:Diwipewia. He's asked a few questions here -- I don't see edits like  as "disruptive troll-only" contributions.  He's not blocked.  The "closure" of the discussion mentions nothing about him being a "troll-only account" with his 19 edits, and seemed in response to my comment (since the question sat for some time before then without any controversy).  Do you have any idea what you're doing? Wnt (talk) 01:34, 11 April 2017 (UTC)


 * First off, that's blatantly untrue. I made it clear in the first two lines that I was closing the discussion per WP:DENY/WP:NOTAFORUM, because the OP's inquiry was probably trolling and was (regardless) clearly asking for aesthetic opinions on the shape of women's breasts, and the discussion (predictably) had already led to clearly WP:DISRUPTIVE comments.  And I would have closed the discussion regardless of your involvement.  My additional comments regarding the content of your post I added because I felt you needed it pointed out to you that these were inappropriate for this project.  And your further comments / sense of persecution here make it clear that I was absolutely correct in that assumption and that you don't see how these kinds of assertions create a hostile environment for women.  S n o w  let's rap 04:57, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Wnt, my closing of that discussion has nothing to do with either an inclination towards censorship, nor puritanical views. It has been pointed out to you on this page (more times than I can begin to count at this point) that Wikipedia is WP:NOTAFORUM for you to engage in any random discussion, speculation or off-the-cuff comment that occurs to you as clever, and that Wikipedia does not guarantee you unqualified free speech. As a matter of explicit policy, we are here to construct an encyclopedia and all other socializing/forum-like discussion is inappropriate. Your boy's club speculation as to how to spot a fake breast using the "jiggle" physics resulting from the clack of a woman's highheels serves no legitimate interest to that purpose and was completely inappropriate to this space. We've all gotten in the habit of tolerating a heavy amount of these little oh-so-clever comments (more than we should have), but that comment was beyond the pall.

You need to try to get your mind around the fact that this is not a social / free discussion space, but a  work environment , regardless of the fact that it is staffed by volunteers. You need to start constraining your comments accordingly. As someone who has spent a great proportion of their life in research environments, I can assure that, even if you were a physicists specializing in materials science, if you vocally speculated before your peers as you did in this instance, you'd earn little protection for your public objectification of women's bodies under the rationale that "Well, I think its an interesting topic and its technically one which we can apply the scientific method to!" You would be told what you are being told now: that's hardly the point. You're not here for that kind of speculation (or at least you are not meant to be) and it is utterly inappropriate for a work space. Whether you are capable of seeing why or not, comments like that absolutely do constitute an offensive atmosphere and your personal sense of autonomy / freedom of inquiry are not sufficient to trump project policies regarding inclusion and inappropriate comments. There are a thousand and one forums on the internet for you to engage in those kinds of comments, if you simply must. This is not one of them.

But if you feel so strongly that I have this wrong, from the standpoint of both policy and our community priorities, don't worry: as I said in the close, next time I see a comment of that nature here, I will simply seek administrative oversight of the matter, and an admin (or the community broadly) can decide if this is appropriate behaviour that is consistent with our standards of conduct and the WMF's policies.  S n o w  let's rap 04:35, 11 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Back in the day when someone posted a colorful or weird question it would be answered factually with references. There was no controversy or drama, it was just answered in a neutral tone and then archived.


 * The present day obsession with trying to determine whether or not each question was asked by a troll is counterproductive. Even if the OP doesn't care at all about the answer and never even reads it, the answering editor(s) hone their reference finding skills by answering it. These are skills that can then be applied to the wider encyclopedia project.


 * It's no coincidence that the most active troll-removers are those editors who never bother to reference their answers and more often than not offer an unrelated sarcastic comment or a joke instead. 62.37.237.16 (talk) 08:32, 11 April 2017 (UTC)


 * So, once again I have presented a detailed plan for dealing with our problem, once again I have asked "Why can't we just try it my way for a limited-time experiment?", and once again nobody has been willing to provide a serious answer to that question. So we as a community have once again decided to keep having the same damn discussion every few days forever, neither accepting or rejecting -- or even seriously discussing -- my proposed solution. You can now count me among the "I am thoroughly disgusted" camp. --Guy Macon (talk) 09:36, 11 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is not a " work environment " in the bureaucratic, censorious sense that has become all too common in the U.S. In the sort of environment you're thinking of, a volunteer would have to complete a training course in Recognizing Sexual Harassment before getting a badge to work, and might be required to send away his finger-prints to the F.B.I. before being permitted to tutor a student under the age of 18!  This is not a work environment because we are not employees, we are not protected by the Civil Rights act of 1964 nor its Talmudic interpretations, and above all, because Wikipedia disclaims liability for what we say, which is a very different situation from an employer.  We have a serious objective here but understand that legally this is no different than any other blog online.
 * Now you can say that we could adopt "workplace" rules anyway, but why? Is there any one place in the U.S. not subject to these rules that would do so?  The fact is, a fear of exaggerated liability has forced the interpretation of non-discrimination too far, and we have a chance to push it back in a sane direction.  Whenever an editor is genuinely harassing women, when an editor actively dislikes women or targets them in a way specifically meant to discomfort them, nobody tolerates it anyway, but we don't have to go off the deep end and interpret that to mean that it is too dangerous to let people talk about breasts for any reason.  There is no reason to assume that they should object to that discussion any more than male editors mind seeing occasional weird questions about testicles.  We can be truer to the spirit of free inquiry and the respect for provocative discussion even than the university patent mills and finishing schools for obedient workers. Wnt (talk) 13:44, 11 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Your plan has a lot of sense to it, but it is hard to believe it will really go anywhere. The lobby against medical (and nominally legal) questions has a lot of pull, and you're proposing to tear down the shack where they keep their beloved guideline.  It is also not clear to me how much your plan would end up bringing in random, disruptive admins to implement their notion of a 'cleanup' according to general rules whose application here is not very easy to figure out.  I mean, nominally anything here can end up on ANI anyway, and sometimes has, and you say the current local rules don't work, so you'd get rid of them .. in theory your change shouldn't change anything.  And if it does, I don't know what.  Aside that is from saying not to discuss this stuff here, but I can't imagine it won't be discussed, and is there any better place it would be?  As detailed as your idea above is, I still don't really understand it. Wnt (talk) 13:51, 11 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Re: "Aside that is from saying not to discuss this stuff here, but I can't imagine it won't be discussed, and is there any better place it would be?" the answer is "on the user's talk page, then at ANI". Nowhere else on Wikipedia other than user talk pages and noticeboards dedicated to such discussions are comments about user behavior allowed. So why allow them here? --Guy Macon (talk) 14:42, 11 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Wnt, I think you've misinterpreted the meaning of my comments. Statutes, regulations, and liability are (at best) tangential to the point I was trying to get you to understand.  This is about the purpose of this project and our own internal community policies about what kind of behaviour is allowed here in the pursuit of building an encyclopedia and what is not--policies that you want to ignore--and to some extent the WMF's own policies on inclusion and related topics.  For the record, your legal analysis is highly dubious, but I'm not going to get into that discussion with you, because its really not the point.  En.Wikipedia's own rules run utterly counter to your belief that you can have any discussion you want here, so far as it is a part of some bizarre "scientific" inquiry, in your own mind.  It's just not so, I'm sorry. We are here to get work done, not to have free-ranging discussions about whatever you want, and your comments need to take into account whether they are appropriate.  This is not an open forum.  I have no personal experience with it, but from my understanding, Reddit is a good place for the kind of broad-ranging, open-ended debates you want to engage in here, many of which are not acceptable for one reason or another.  S n o w  let's rap 03:33, 12 April 2017 (UTC)


 * The issue of trolling questions is actually pretty simple. Observe:
 * Why does Wikipedia suck? This is a trolling question.
 * Why do some men like to be "pegged"? This may or may not be a trolling question, and assuming it isn't is actually a policy here. Therefore, this is not a trolling question as far as any editor here is concerned, unless and until the OP follows up the first answer with "Well, why do YOU like it so much? kekekekeke" or something that's just as obviously trolling as the first example.
 * Why this is a perennial issue here is beyond me. I managed to walk into a medical library just a few weeks ago and ask about women "steaming their junk" (using that exact phrase, mind) and got a single quip (a reference to a steam-powered vibrator that used to be used to treat female hysteria) in response, followed by an earnest attempt to help because the librarian understood that life is strange, and sometimes people have strange questions for legitimate reasons. In this case, I was trying to find scholarly articles on what appeared to be a real alt-med practice which has gained some popularity recently for the purpose of finding sources for the WP article I linked. These things happen. So when an editor comes along and asks if it's possible for the results of breast augmentation surgery to appear as natural as real breasts, it behooves us to take then seriously long enough to give a serious answer, even if we offer a few quips along the way. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  14:03, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
 * It is a perennial issue here because we allow non-administrators to delete other editor's comments in direct violation of WP:TPOC. Forbid that behavior, handle disruption the way it is handled everywhere else on Wikipedia, and the problem disappears. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:42, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Do you hear that? That pervasive, overwhelming sound? That's the sound of nobody disagreeing with you. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  14:49, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I wish you would stop imbueing administrators with special powers they don't have, and taking such powers away from other users. Admins are not special classes of users, excepting that admins have access to three or four additional editing tools that other users do not have.  Admins do not have powers beyond the use of those tools and as such, they do not get special "right to remove obvious trolling" privileges.  ALL users have the right to remove trolling, and all other users have the right to disagree and revert them per the WP:BRD principle.  Admins committing such actions do not make them more "sticky".  Because that's not who admins are or what they do.  They are not rule enforcers.  The community as a whole enforces rules.  Admins merely enact the will of the community through the use of their tools, if such tools are needed.  In any case where the will of the community does NOT need extra tools, an admin doesn't need to be involved at all.  Admins can be, but it is not their status as admins in such cases that makes any difference.  Any experienced editor in good standing can act to enforce the will of the community, and any other editor in good standing can also disagree with such conclusion, and then we discuss politely.  -- Jayron 32 14:49, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Except I'm not seeing polite discussion. I saw a user hat a question, another user obviously disagreed and replied anyways, then an admin came along and started randomly deleting comments here and at user talk with a flimsy rationale that doesn't hold up to any scrutiny at all. Clerks seem to be needed here, and clerking is a "special class" of editing in which you specifically take on the role of doing things like archiving old discussions and deciding whether a comment needs to be removed as trolling or not. That clerks should be admins is just a matter of practicality at that point, because sometimes edit summaries and diffs need to be removed and trolls need to be blocked. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  14:56, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Last time I asked for an explanation of why a question was removed, of my perfectly civil comment was hatted by an admin who told me, via edit summary, "You aren't going to be given an answer. Get used to disappointment."
 * If an ordinary user had done that I would have reverted instantly, but there's an intimidation factor when it's done by an admin. The unspoken message is that if you don't play ball there's going to be trouble.
 * Even if everyone has the theoretical power to delete everyone else's posts, It's disingenuous to pretend that Admins don't have special powers, even if they're purely social. ApLundell (talk) 16:03, 11 April 2017 (UTC)


 * If you assume good faith until there's a question about breasts, then you automatically assume bad faith, it's absolutely a question of "puritanical views". To think otherwise is a lack of self awareness that would be comical if it were less disruptive.
 * To try to justify this after the fact by inventing some standard of behavior based around how people behave in research laboratories is likewise irrational. There's no established consensus that you're basing that on, you pulled it out of nowhere to rationalize the way you were already behaving. ApLundell (talk) 15:31, 11 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Sorry AP, but you're terribly, terribly mistaken in that assessment; there is massive community consensus on this issue: WP:NOTAFORUM, WP:NOTFREESPEECH, WP:NOTHERE, WP:Offensive material, WP:TPNO and WP:DISRUPTIVE are just some of the relevant policies. I think you should also look at the thread that Guy opened on this matter at Wikipedia_talk:What_Wikipedia_is_not to see how non-RefDesks regulars are responding to this comment now that its been brought to their attention.  And the admin who was asked to review this matter has made clear that they found those comments wholly inappropriate for this project. Genuinely meaning no offense here, but I think the fact that the greater balance of your contributions are to the RefDesks has greatly skewed your understanding of community priorities here and the limitations which we place on conduct and discussion.  This is not an open forum where one can say whatever they want, provided that they are willing to go through enough mental gymnastics to try to contextualize it as a "scientific" inquiry.  And it never will be such a forum.  If you think I am wrong about this community's outlook on this kind of thing, just wait until this kind of behaviour (inevitably) ends up under broader community scrutiny.  And even if the RefDesk regulars were allowed to create our own idiosyncratic conduct/TPG standards for ourselves (and we aren't), the vast majority disagree with your anything goes perspective.


 * Also, as a matter of clarity, I don't assume bad faith on Wnt's part; I've never felt nor implied that he is trying to be disruptive or otherwise operate in bad faith. But his good-faith frame of mind does not make those comments any more appropriate to this project, sorry.  Lastly, your peculiar assumptions about my motivations are beyond off-base.  I don't find discussion of the concept of human physiology itself to be in any way offensive; you don't know my background, of course, but trust me when I say that, if you did, you'd understand why the notion that I would be squuemish on this particular topic is very amusing.  It was the particular comments that Wnt made that pulled this into territory that is completely inappropriate for this (or any Wikipedia) space, which cannot be justified under any plausible WP:HERE rationale.  S n o w  let's rap 20:40, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
 * For the record, I see absolutely nothing wrong with any of Snow Rise's actions regarding this issue. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:24, 12 April 2017 (UTC)


 * I was asked to delete the offending material, and I declined as it had already been closed and hatted (which I support). I warned Wnt and Dikipewia. I then warned Wnt a second time when they continued to post at the closed thread. It seems that in the process I inadvertently removed another comment on Wnt's page, for which I apologise. In my judgement, Dikipewia is a borderline user who might possibly develop in to a useful contributor, so I did not block them this time round. I was (and am) acting in an admin capacity here at the request of another editor in good standing, and I stand by what I did. I accept this is the sort of area where good-faith editors can have different opinions. The remedy is to discuss here, which I am glad to see is happening. If there are serious concerns over editor behaviour, WP:AN/I would become another option. Edits like this one are deeply inappropriate and should not be repeated by those who wish to retain editing privileges here. If there are longer-term and/or wider problems of editor behaviour at the ref desk, I would be interested to discuss what they are and how they can be ameliorated. --John (talk) 17:42, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Edits like this one are deeply inappropriate and should not be repeated by those who wish to retain editing privileges here. Threatening to block an experienced editor for a single instance of templating a regular (appropriately, I might add: the edits you made were clearly disruptive else we wouldn't be discussing anything in this thread, even if using the template was a bit over the top) is a move that reeks of a battleground mentality. Deescalation is a much more effective strategy than threatening an block which has a good chance of being quickly reversed. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  19:25, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Battleground mentality, eh? Well thanks for reminding me of that shortcut and also of the existence of WP:INVOLVED. Funnily enough I had already come across both of these in my 10-year tenure as an admin. I've said all I've got to say about the events of the past and am ready to move on to the future now. I suggest you do the same. --John (talk) 19:36, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
 * You know, I could have sworn I actually said something relevant in there, instead of just posting a series of links with no explanation. I guess I forgot to do that. Oh well, my mistake. Still the links aren't bad. Believe it or not, they actually say something relevant, too. Something which, sometimes, editors might benefit from being reminded of. You have some good advice though and I'll probably take it. Weirdly, I could have sworn I just heard someone hint at that very same thing... ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  20:09, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
 * (ec) The take-home that I get from the above is that if you post that someone should think twice about something on their user page, that's a warning, while if they post that you shouldn't do something on their user page, that's a blockable offense if repeated. In other words, you are much, much more important than everyone else and any disagreement with you constitutes a "warning".  You make a valid point about being asked -- I am very disappointed to learn for the first time that there was a fourth user here (counting you) calling for censorship of that thread; nonetheless, it is an admin's job to quote WP:NOTCENSORED and put the kibosh on such ideas, not to enforce them!  At the very least, not in the absence of a clear prior consensus on that page, which did not exist here - it's not the admin's job to yell "Second and the motion is carried!" when he knows it is, at least, controversial.
 * Participating in censorship inevitably opens a "slippery slope" with severe consequences for the future. If you decree that talk about breasts is verboten because it might offend women, will you similarly prohibit talk about poets murdered by Muhammad because it offends Muslims?  How does that square with a proper pursuit of Humanities?  But if you don't make that call, then you're saying that women rate protection but Muslims don't, i.e. you're presenting Wikipedia as biased, even anti-Islamic as an institution.  Censoring for users is like handing out money when you're standing in a mob - everyone will be coming up and demanding some. Wnt (talk) 00:39, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
 * WP:NOTCENSORED regards only our encyclopedic content, and even then only when it has been vetted by our processes to assure that it does not violate other important policies. The policy in no way extends to your own gratuitous (and frankly creepy) speculation about women's bodies, which I assure you makes for cringe-inducing reading even for those of us quite used to (abnd comfortable with) discussing human anatomy in the abstract.  You're trying to use a content policy to claim that you personally can opine at length about the finer points of how women's bodies "jiggle" when they "clack" around in their heels, but that's not what the policy says--not by a mile.  S n o w  let's rap 08:54, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
 * See question raised at Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:45, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

The hat now placed on responses to the question "Could a natural breast look like fake?" at the Science ref. desk is signed by me without stating a reason. An adequate reason is that it is a voyeuristic enquiry to which we cannot give an unambiguous, objective scientific answer. @Wnt It was unfortunate that you used the question to launch your speculation that study of wave propagation in the breast may lead to a medical diagnosis tool because you did so in highly misleading terms of detecting "whether those boobs are real". This choice of language and talk of watching for jiggling breasts in walking women is stupidly puerile and likely to cause offence. @Snow Your protest at Wnt's apparent rudeness, and your further explanation here, are both cogent and make an additional case for WP:DENY. However it was excessive to expand your whole post into a bold red flag in the title space of the hat. I only simplified the hat heading to be less inflammatory while keeping your post unmolested in ordinary text. You must appreciate that Wikipedia is not censored and that it accomodates articles about the female Breast including its anatomy and cosmetic procedures for augmentation and reduction, and that the ref. desks can be asked to guide questioners to these articles. I find no merit in Wnt's complaint that "Censors have gotten the upper hand here" when what has happened is that an admin who AFAIK is neutral and elected has acted responsibly. Wnt wrongly characterizes the question as "whether fake looking breasts could be real" when it was posted the other way round; this imaginary version of the question seems to have seduced Pants who echoes "an editor comes along and asks if it's possible for the results of breast augmentation surgery to appear as natural as real breasts" which didn't happen. Having talked with Wnt on own page, I find he persists in claiming the Ref. desk as "the place we've set aside specifically to talk about this kind of stuff", but while ignoring his whining that he is a victim of "prudish censorship" I am impressed by his sources for a possible serious article about shear-wave elastography. @John I reiterate here thanks for your involvement. Blooteuth (talk) 00:33, 12 April 2017 (UTC)


 * I didn't find those sources until right before I posted them; I wasn't sure if you could really spot a breast implant that way, let alone cancer. That's why I mentioned the idea - because this is a collaborative place for people to work together to better understand science.  As it turned out, I found something more interesting later myself.  When you posted a picture of jiggling breasts, however nice it is as a demonstration of different waveforms, to my talk page, that was not much more than idle banter.  If we discuss it at the Science Refdesk, it's a chance for the community to work together to understand more about physics.  I really don't understand why you are willing to accept the former but not the latter - this is the place to discuss science questions.  And that's why I don't want these arbitrary decisions to throw things out, threaten users, and trample a newbie, threaten to maybe ban him, for asking a perfectly fair question based on what I might say in response. Wnt (talk) 00:48, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't see how changing either my or Wnt's characterization changes the meaning of anything we said. You can easily substitute "...an editor comes along and asks if it's possible for real breasts to have the characteristics normally associated with breast augmentation surgery" and my comments stand.
 * When you posted porn on Wnt's talk page, you kinda lost the moral high ground in complaining about others finding Wnt's comment offensive. Don't get me wrong: I'm not offended, not even on behalf of women (or men) who don't appreciate porn because nothing was forced on anyone. But your comments here and at Wnt's talk page are very much of the pot and kettle variety.
 * While I'm sure Wnt is quite attractive and possibly even amazing in bed, I'm generally not easily seduced by anonymous Wikipedians. It's rather hard to get me worked up with text. Unless it's about Star Trek, that is. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  02:39, 12 April 2017 (UTC)


 * When the response to a factual correction is "I don't care that what I wrote is untrue, because I am right" then one wastes an opportunity to admit a mistake and keep respect for honesty.
 * To disparage any image of a female breast that one may find in Wikipedia related to medicine, anatomy or art as πορνογραφία (originally "graphics of a pornē prostitute") while having zero knowledge of, and even less respect for, the woman who volunteered as model is being as offensive to women as you could get.
 * Your speculation on who is "amazing in bed" is as superficially entertaining as a Star Trek episode in which Ferengi expressed disgust at the human race who "force their females to wear clothes". Blooteuth (talk) 15:33, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
 * When a response to someone tacitly admitting a mistake is to accuse them of refusing to admit the mistake, then one wastes an opportunity to not come across as refusing to listen.
 * What the ever loving fuck are you getting at? The image you posted on Wnt's talk page was a porn image, from a porn web site. It was not from wikipedia, but from a hentai imageboard. There's this thing called a URL that gives it away. I understand this might be getting a bit technical with the computer jargon, but come on; you're using a computer on the internet right now. You have to be aware that I can easily tell where the image came from. And your implications of me disparaging "any image of a female breast" is just blatantly obvious projection. I'm not the one arguing that talking about boobs is offensive, and I find it hilariously ridiculous that you would think that such a ludicrously illogical argument like this would be worth it's weight in fecal matter, let alone worth actually using in anything resembling a civil discussion.
 * "Fuck 'em if they can't take a joke." - J. R. "Bob" Dobbs ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  18:25, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't hear you admitting that you have made any mistake, least of all the one now exposed that shows that you are here opining loudly on the handling of a Ref. desk question that you never even bothered to read.
 * No comment, because I don't respond to the foul language that you (alone here) introduce.
 * See 2. above. Consult an English speaker if you need help in framing your thoughts without using "fuck" "boobs" "fecal matter" for which there are alternatives by which civil people make themselves understood. Alternatively you can go on as you have started and try the limits of WP:RPA. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blooteuth (talk • contribs) time, 20:18, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't hear you... Is there an echo in here? I just said that... Anyways, keep reading. There's a special treat for you in the next point.
 * Of course you don't have a comment. You posted a porn image from a porn site to another editor's talk page while lecturing them about how offensive their use of the word "boobies" is. There's only one legitimate response to having that pointed out to you, and we all know it can be very difficult to actually give that response. So in the spirit of magnanimity, and with the knowledge that you are apparently completely immune to implications and thus need things spelled out explicitly in order to grasp them, I'll go first: I was wrong about the details of the question when I characterized it in the post you quoted. I got it pretty much ass-backwards. My bad. See? It's really not that hard.
 * Hold on... did you really just question my ability to use the language I'm obviously already using with great facility, then in the very next sentence suggest that my broad vocabulary is somehow a personal attack against you? Ha! That made my day, right there. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  22:06, 12 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Yes, I had no substantial objection to your simplifying the closure message--at least, not to the extent that I ever considered reversing that edit. I thought it was important that Wnt understand why the closure took place and why that comment was inappropriate for Wikipedia, but insofar as he had probably already seen it at that point (or even ignoring that interest) I understood the factors you were balancing when you took that action, and considered it good-faith and reasonable--even if I disagreed as to whether it was necessary.  As to Wnt's assertions of censorship, it's worth noting that no one deleted his post, although there would have been substantial policy rationale for doing so.  But there was no question of letting that conversation continue on that puerile track, (and I think you've very much hit on the right wording there).


 * However, it was a one-off for me; next time I'm not going to get into yet another round the circular arguments here. I agree in principle with Guy here: the amount of self-granted leeway to create idiosyncratic rules for this space which do not comport with Wikipedia's standard guidelines has gotten way out of control over recent years.  The irony, as  references above, is that Wnt and a couple of other editors unwilling to accept WP:NOTAFORUM/WP:NOTFREESPEECH hold themselves to be champions of open dialogue here, but they are ultimately going to destroy the special allowances of the desks when the broader community finally decides that this space is too disruptive and too inclined to violate community principles.  The rules that will be implemented on this space from the outside at that point in time will be vastly more restrictive than those you or I would choose, and I suspect the "free speech advocates" will vacate the space at that point (or eventually be TBANned from it for being unable to comply with the new rules) leaving the rest of us operating under more onerous rules than should have been necessary, if certain editors could just show a modicum of restraint with regard to their forum-like conversations/unceasing jokes/wild speculation/personal opinions/blatantly inappropriate comments about topics that serve no project interests.  It is for that reason that I have never taken any of the (uncountable) policy violations that routinely occur here to an admin or administrative space, even though they often make me cringe (and I'm sure I'm not the only one); I've been afraid that the broader community will over-correct and this place will lose much of its utility to the project as a result.


 * But activities like Wnt has displayed in this instance cross a line and force the hand of any editor who does not want to see even basic behavioural policies completely trampled upon, creating an unacceptable standard of conduct. So I think it's inevitable that this ends up under the broader community's scrutiny. And this kind of behaviour is going to become the lowest common denominator that forces new rules that we all have to operate under, because of the self-control/perspective issues of a very small handful of contributors who think this is an open forum, like Reddit.  Wnt has convinced himself that this space is for "following scientific curiosity wherever it may lead"(!) but that has never been (and will never be) the purpose or privilege of this or any Wikipedia page and that has been pointed out to him and others numerous times.  And obstinacy in pushing the line on that notion is going to lead to crack-down/snap-back far in the other direction, mark my words.  I want this place to maintain some degree of freedom to pursue its unique role on the project, but perspectives like Wnt's (far from making him a champion of that goal) actually make for a substantial threat to that hope.  I personally have run out ways to try to explain that simply reality to that small fraction of regulars who routinely push that line farther and farther.  Maybe someone else will have more success than I, before its too late.  But for certain, next time I see that kind of chauvanistic discussion, I'll report it. It's above my pay grade, so to speak, to make the determination on my own, but I think I know how admins and the community will feel about this issue, given specifics similar to the exact wording employed in this case.  Anyway, enough is enough. S n o w  let's rap 03:20, 12 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Regarding John's claim "I was (and am) acting in an admin capacity here", he has, in the past, collapsed at least one edit by another user on one of the reference desks, and has been an occasional editor of the reference desks. Per WP:INVOLVED John should not be "acting in an admin capacity" in a case that involves collapsing edits on the refdesks, and his threatening me with sanctions for using a standard warning template ("Edits like this one are deeply inappropriate and should not be repeated by those who wish to retain editing privileges here.") was completely over the top. I have placed another warning on his talk page, explaining to him exactly what will happen if he repeats this disruptive behavior. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:44, 12 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Both of the factors you list are generally not considered to constitute an "involved" status, and I don't think you would prevail with that argument if your presented it to John's fellow admins. Per WP:INVOLVED,  the admin has to have been directly involved with a specific editor or dispute.  Expressing a general opinion on a topic, or taking a specific administrative action is generally not seen as the type of bias the policy is meant to prohibit.  What's more, an admin "whose prior involvements are minor or obvious edits which do not speak to bias, is not involved and is not prevented from acting in an administrative capacity in relation to that editor or topic area. This is because one of the roles of administrators is precisely to deal with such matters, at length if necessary.  Warnings, calm and reasonable discussion and explanation of those warnings, advice about community norms, and suggestions on possible wordings and approaches do not make an administrator 'involved'. " (emphasis mine).  Note also that John, in his capacity as an admin, was brought in on this matter at the request of a third party, insofar as I can tell.  He also declined the initial request, which was to revdel the comment, opting to instead provide his perspective on the issue as an administrative matter. I just don't see you prevailing at ANI on that issue. Just one editor's perspective, take it for what it's worth.


 * As to the appropriateness of the comment that you perceived to be a threat, I do not speculate, being unfamiliar with the particulars. Anyway, this is really not the place to be discussing behavioural issues at length, and especially not questions of administrative misconduct.  Both categories of topic are more or less the exclusive domain of AN/ANI, ARBCOM, and handful of other administrative/oversight processes.  I mean it genuinely though when I say that it's easy to forget that fact in the current context; I know of no other talk page on the entirety of en.Wikipedia where those rules are more routinely forgotten and/or disregarded than they are here. Still, better to take this to another admin or ANI if you think there has been actual misconduct, or to let the matter drop otherwise. But broadcasting your position to the other RefDesks regulars isn't going to lead to any resolution.  S n o w  let's rap 08:17, 12 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Fair enough. I have stricken the claim and will not pursue the involved aspect. I am still of the opinion that someone who engages in hatting on the refdesks -- a rather controversial hatting that many here would strongly disagree with[] -- should not be acting in an admin capacity in a case that involves hatting on the refdesks, but that is my opinion, not a policy. If it isn't a violation of WP:INVOLVED it at the very least gives the appearance of having a conflict of interest. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:00, 12 April 2017 (UTC)


 * The RD already has a bad enough rep so as a regular here I have to ask whether it would be possible that this isn't the case you all decide to make a big fuss about and involve the rest of the encyclopaedia (like ANI) Nil Einne (talk) 09:15, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
 * A good question, there. There are way too many sticks in this thread, and not nearly enough of them have hit the floor yet. Everybody's already aired their grievances about everybody else. It's time to either start discussing a solution or just archive this thread and be done with it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  12:56, 12 April 2017 (UTC)


 * With the remnants of the original question expired off the page, I may need to wait for further controversy to continue this -- I doubt it will take long -- but should respond generally to some of the comments by Snow Rise and others.
 * First, I should point out that if people really think that everything we do on the Refdesk is so utterly pointless that a single sentence about boobs jiggling might make it worth destroying all of it, then we have a bigger problem than boobs. There is value here, but seeing it takes some imagination - we should find a way to make that imagination manifest.
 * Second, I want to go over how utterly absurd the whole story is in social context. Start with the myth that only women have boobs that jiggle -- on my talk page, near Blooteuth's so-called "porn" link, I pointed out an example of a singer renowned for his physical attractiveness, and at the time I indicate you can see his breasts jiggle back and forth.  Really, his video is sexier than the one Blooteuth posted, though perhaps that wouldn't be true if you could see the woman's smile.  Then add the insanity that in this politically correct society of "sexual equality", a women doing the same thing might face prosecution!  And even if not, she would face some kind of social 'slut-shaming' for acting the same way, and very consequential discrimination in employment.  And so she omits her face by necessity ... at which point the so-called pornographer is blamed for "objectifying" her!  No, it's not the photographer doing that, it's the censor alone who reduces her to a pair of boobs, not just as a matter of artistic preference but as a matter of law.  But even there, we're not finished!  For the nipple on top of the ice cream cone, the last act of a widespread misogynism in our society in tying up its loose ends, all the censorship gets blamed on the women!  We're told that we can't so much as talk about a boob jiggling because that would make women uncomfortable, perhaps in the hope that we will get so ticked off about it that we'll harass female editors to drive them off this forum, or go mail death threats to a Gamergate target, or vote Donald Trump.  But that too is untrue -- even if some women have internalized the harsh and biased code laid out against them, like North Koreans learning to love Big Brother, that doesn't mean that they are intrinsically, biologically tied to that position.  And so if I have seemed to deny common sense here, it is only because common sense is so damned vicious and unjust. Wnt (talk) 22:05, 12 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Wnt, some thoughts: First, in response to the above, holy mother of WP:NOTSOAPBOX.   We are not here here to discuss the greater moral or pragmatic concerns of free speech across every form of human social interaction.  There's lots of forums on the internet where you will find your "I want to say whatever is on my mind" mentality welcome.  THIS PAGE IS NOT ONE OF THEM.  Nor is any other workspace on Wikipedia, by longstanding community consensus that really could not be more broad or explicit (WP:NOTAFORUM, WP:NOTFREESPEECH, WP:NOTHERE, WP:Talkpage guidelines, WP:Offensive material, just for starters).  Your participation in this encyclopedic endeavour does in fact come with strings attached, including restrictions on your free speech.  This community has established what it thinks is an appropriate balance on the topic of free-speech, given the purpose of this project and the need to keep dialogue constructive and focused on that task.  You don't have to agree with those rules, but you only have three options in regards to how to comport your behaviour in light of them: 1) follow them, 2) attempt to generate broad community consensus to change them through the WP:PROPOSAL process, or 3) find somewhere else to volunteer your time (or at least be prepared for the significant likelihood of sanctions if you ignore administrator warnings).


 * I absolutely see the value of the ReferenceDesks. I would hardly have been a contributor here for as long as I have been if I didn't.  But that utility does not align with your "anything goes" approach to this space, nor does it empower you (or any of us) to completely ignore community standards on what is and is not appropriate conduct on this project.   As I see it, your fixation on your own need / "right" to say whatever you want constitutes a hijacking of this appropriate use of this space. Which is clearly to supply references, not to provide a platform for you to endlessly speculate on whatever comes into your mind--and certainly not to allow you to demonstrate your salacious cleverness by describing your thoughts on the jiggling of women's bodies at length.  Just show a modicum of self-control and perspective; you being denied the right to say literally whatever you want is not the end of the world, the end of rationale discourse on Wikipedia, nor an unreasonable demand that this community places upon you.  You make it so hard for the rest of us to defend the amount of liberties we already get in this space.  I know you think you're being a champion of free expression here, but you're actually creating a threat to that interest by not being willing to adjust your approach closer to community expectations.  That doesn't make your principled, it makes you self-absorbed.


 * Anyway, I rather doubt at this point that I'm going to convince you of any of this, so I think you and MjolnirPants are probably right: probably time to let the thread die. Honestly, I'm not sure what you thought the thread could possibly accomplish to begin with, other than to air your grievances.  I just hope that, even if you disagree with me and others here in principle, you can see the wisdom of moderating your commentary a little more.  No regular wants this to become an issue again, but there are some violations of community standards that the majority of us are unwilling to accept.  If that means taking the matter to the administrative / broader community next time... well, I think some of us are at our wit's end enough to consider that next time, much as we loathe the notion.  S n o w  let's rap 01:57, 13 April 2017 (UTC)


 * @Snow well thought.
 * Yes @Wnt, those you call censors have taken the upper hand and you need to understand why. Peter Fryer's book Mrs Grundy: Studies in English Prudery (the eponymous Mrs Grundy was a real-life moral regulator of note in Victorian Britain) recollects the close attention paid by the Lord Chamberlain's office to censoring theatrical productions prior to abolition of official censorship in 1968. An objective moral test was applied to stage appearances of naked females, notably at the Windmill Theatre. The slightest body movement was disallowed, only frozen posing as odalisques in a Tableau vivant was tolerated. Inevitably there were protests of "disgust" then as now at the Legal fiction inevitable in any imposition of an ethical rule, in this case the artificiality of lauding the "Grace of an odalisque on a divan" (in the opera Patience) but banning the display as morally corrupting, i.e. formally offensive if the lady moved. Even after 1968 when London saw a brief rash of uncensored Strip clubs the same criterion was applied: the female performer with exaggerated sexualizing of movement removed to music each garment in turn until only her G-string remained. Removing her G-string was typically accompanied by a drum roll and her motionless full-nude pose marked the end of the performance. My point here is that regardless of today's unhindered Internet access to debasing material, there is a deep seated social awareness that a border exists between respecting or offending an individual's bodily integrity. I cited examples from the theater where we expect community standards to be tested, but also in a field such as medicine, society demands that an old ethic still be observed. Mammography of a woman's breast is done by a qualified professional with the patient's consent for her personal and confidential medical care. A deviation from this, such as unqualified surveying of what might be detected from non-consenting women in public, is the understandable cause of the offence that Snow voices. @Wnt you fail to hear Snow, myself or John and instead characterize us as censors, maliciously intent on suppressing your Great Research Speculation on seismological breast surveying. The "joke" (in your defiant and deleted post) of casting yourself as Galileo and, I suppose by implication us all as Pope Paul V is not very funny. But if that is how you see yourself then note that Galileo had the sense to shut up when his naive call "Hey, look what I can see!" was causing a level of disruption among the faithful comparable to the time Wikipedians are spending on your spurious complaint. (That decision seems to have been the start of Galileo's best work, may it be the same with you.)


 * Initially I missed a factor in Wnt's explanation that seemed incredible. He repeatedly asked me to look at a video of male singer Trey Songz supposed to demonstrate that "it's [not] only women who have lovely jiggling breasts". My screen shows an unremarkable, badly lit image of the singer with his shirt off, so perhaps someone's rampant imagination is adding attributes that I can't see. I won't elaborate on what someone might be up to here because I am already criticized for posting to Wnt a link to an image of female model who indicates the mobility of her breasts, not necessarily in a sexualized way. I apologize to anyone who for any reason finds that image offensive, not least to Snow who may be watching, and assure you that the image will not be uploaded to Wikimedia as there is no copyright clearance from the source that Pants has traced. I cannot un-post a link that was meant only for one-time view by Wnt, but I can indicate to Wnt that his persistence in abusing the Ref. desk communal standards with breast-mobility speculation can offend not only women but Wikipedia colleagues of all genders. Blooteuth (talk) 15:26, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
 * There isn't much I can do with these kinds of comments. You lay out a plan for censorship, even referencing past instances of heavy-handed censorship, you say say "those you call censors" as if I'm somehow mistaken to think that is the position and role you are taking.  When people complain how broad classes of things are awful and can't be allowed from an editor, that's not "soapboxing", but to say the same things are not awful most certainly is accused of violating the same rule.  Even the policy page for NOTCENSORED is now besieged by some people who claim that it is subject to some limitation by being under a certain heading that is clearly not imposed on the nine other sections under the same heading that affect things like user talk pages.  Logic simply is not relevant here, because freedom of speech is a position rooted in logic, and so its opposite cannot be, and we should not expect it to be. Wnt (talk) 20:18, 13 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Well then Wnt, I encourage you to stop thinking about this as situation that has to comport with what you, personally, think is logical.  Because the policies of this community do not hinge on your personal validation and I can fairly well guarantee you that, if an admin explicitly advises you to avoid a certain behaviour, and you persist in it, that the adminstrative community is not going to take it as a valid excuse if you say "Well, I just don't agree that the community policies make sense and I think I should be allowed to ignore administrative warnings in this area as a result."  Nor would I expect much protection from the "it the end of all rational debate if I don't get to say whatever I want, wherever I want" arguments you've forwarded here.  Again, this community has developed a very clear standard that free speech is not an unqualified entitlement when you participate in this project.  It's true that our content is not censored (though it must still comport with many, many policies that evaluate its appropriateness), but the discussion spaces of this site are not an open forum where you, personally, can say just anything you want.  That seems to be one area where your confusion on our policies is pronounced.


 * And again, if you ignore administrative warnings and persist in making these kinds of comments, don't expect to dodge the consequences by getting on your soapbox and saying "This is nonsense, I should be allowed to talk about whatever I want because if I'm not allowed to, it's a start down the slippery slope that leads to the end of a free and open society!" The likely response to that will be: "That's nice...  Blocked for disruption / WP:IDHT."  In fact, I feel I should warn you that I think  already let you off lightly here, as an administrative matter.  First, he could have been much more direct on this matter, rather than just giving you a warning. Second, it's usually considered disruptive to do what you've done here and start a discussion on a talk page about an administrator's warning.  If you have an assertion to make about administrator misconduct or overreach, you're meant to take that matter to another administrator, to AN/ANI, ARBCOM, or another appropriate space/process.  What you're not supposed to do is bring the issue to a talk page to air your grievances / shout into the wind about how unfair it is.  John could have come down hard on you for opening this discussion as you did.  Instead he has (reasonably) treated this entire situation with kid gloves.  But if I were you, I wouldn't count on your luck holding if you refuse to accept that policies still apply to you even if you don't find them very "logical" in the grand scheme of human endeavour.  The next admin might be pretty annoyed that you think your opinion supersedes community guidelines and clear administrative warnings.  Just my honest advice.  S n o w  let's rap 03:35, 14 April 2017 (UTC)


 * "You should have seen the cover the band wanted!" No, I suspect after the discussions here and at WT:NOT, any remaining plausible deniability for future troll enablement has now been eliminated. WP:NOTCENSORED is not a suicide pact and we have WP:NOTFORUM and WP:NOTFREESPEECH. I'll keep an eye on these pages for future shenanigans of this sort. Meantime I think this discussion can best be closed. If nobody objects I'll do so. --John (talk) 17:40, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
 * That wasn't "the band", but the Daily Telegraph, generally accepted as a reliable source. No one has changed their minds; you certainly do not have any consensus to claim.  Any future controversy will doubtless have its own wrinkles and is hard to predict.  We can try to be wary knowing that dementors are on campus.  Ultimately, the best revenge is to make use of our power to create; it is something that censors cannot anticipate and above all what they cannot stand. Wnt (talk) 18:59, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Using us as an advertising space
The question How_to_Download_Bollywood_Songs_Legally on the Entertainment desk was answered three minutes later by the same IP that asked it. I'd bet good money that the intention was to use us to advertise their site. Should the entry be allowed to stand? Hatted? Deleted? or what? Rojomoke (talk) 22:43, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately this does happen sometimes. I've removed it. -- zzuuzz (talk) 22:45, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Speculation
Will the human population reduce in numbers because of global climate change?

This question was closed as speculative, but I think it would be okay with a slight rewording along the lines of "What are some expert opinions on the question of if...".

It could then be answered by providing links to experts who have speculated as to the answer of the question.

It should be clarified that expert speculation is fine, but user speculation isn't.

It should be assumed that when people ask speculative questions, they are asking what experts think, which is totally acceptable.

With the above question, there are plenty of reliable and notable sources on the matter, so it's a question worth asking.

Benjamin (talk) 03:47, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Do you have an example or two? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:51, 10 April 2017 (UTC)


 * https://www.epa.gov/climate-impacts/climate-impacts-human-health Bernie Sanders has said that "climate change is directly related to the growth of terrorism". https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/mar/03/more-than-half-a-million-could-die-as-climate-change-impacts-diet-report http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/4/11/1513797/-Maintaining-the-Status-Quo-on-Climate-Change-Will-Kill-Us http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2015/12/151215-global-warming-heat-wave-stress-death-climate/ http://www.cnn.com/2015/05/28/world/india-heat-wave-explainer/index.html That's just a quick google search. Benjamin (talk) 05:42, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I closed my own topic. I think you are right about the alternative question. But the original question is not answerable factually, so it should be closed. I believe that the question should be clear enough so that a person asking for a factual answer can look it up in the Archives. Often, I just use the Archives to find info. 50.4.236.254 (talk) 14:44, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Requests for Legal Advice
There seems to be a lot of uncertainty as to what constitutes a request for legal advice. Right now I see that the question WP:RD/H has been twice hatted, although it clearly is not a request for legal advice (this is clear from the text of the question, not the heading; the requestor wants to discuss insurable interest). Meanwhile, WP:RD/H remains unhatted, although it's a clear request for legal advice. And this issue comes up frequently.

"Fundamentally, legal advice involves the interpretation and application of legal principles to guide future conduct or to assess past conduct." In re County of Erie, 473 F.3d 413, 419 (2d Cir. 2007). In other words, a request for legal advice is a question about past or future legal consequences that apply to the requestor, or to someone close to the requestor. Questions about laws, regulations, contracts, or government forms typically would be requests for legal advice, if the question has application to the requesting poster, or to a friend, family member, or controlled company of the requesting poster. On the other hand, general questions about legal principles are not requests for legal advice.

Currently we include the following in the Reference Desk Guidelines: "The reference desk is not a place to seek professional advice on medical or legal matters, nor analyses, diagnoses or solutions to questioners' health or legal problems, and responses that could be construed as such must not be given. However, general medical and legal questions ("What treatments are used for diabetes?", "Which countries recognize common law marriages?") are fine. Questions that ask for medical, legal or other professional advice may be removed and replaced with a message (such as ) pointing to these guidelines. For further information, see Reference desk/Guidelines/Medical advice." I would suggest revising this as follows:
 * "The reference desk is not a place to seek professional advice on medical or legal matters, and responses that could be construed as such must not be given. Any question that solicits a diagnosis, a prognosis, or a suggested treatment, is a request for medical advice.  Any question that solicits guidance on the application of legal principles, laws, regulations, or contracts to the requestor, or to a person or entity with whom the requestor has a personal relationship, is a request for legal advice.  However, general medical and legal questions ("What is sleep apnea?", "What is the role of the U.S. President in making laws?") are fine. Questions that ask for medical, legal or other professional advice may be removed and replaced with a message (such as ) pointing to these guidelines. For further information, see Reference desk/Guidelines/Medical advice."  John M Baker (talk) 17:22, 15 March 2017 (UTC)


 * The best way to handle requests for legal advice is:
 * Get rid of all of the special rules that only apply to the refdesks and which the admins refuse to enforce.
 * Apply the standard rules that apply to all talk pages. In particular, apply WP:DISRUPT and especially WP:TPOC.
 * Stop complaining about other editors on the refdesk or the refdesk talk pages. Instead, complain on the user's talk page, and if that doesn't work, file a report at WP:ANI.
 * Let the administrators do their job.
 * Note that those reference desk guidelines are exactly what I am talking about when I say "Get rid of all of the special rules that only apply to the refdesks and which the admins refuse to enforce". What we are doing is not working. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:18, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
 * While there is much I agree with in Guy's comment, the implication is that we should not have guidelines for the Reference Desk and, I assume, should not refuse nondisruptive requests for medical and legal advice. My proposal instead is based on the assumption that we will continue to have guidelines and will continue to refuse requests for medical and legal advice.  John M Baker (talk) 22:15, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
 * My comment is a bit more subtle than that. If indeed a comment (question or answer) is disruptive and you are confident that the community of administrators at WP:ANI will agree that it is disruptive, then ask the person -- on his or her talk page -- not to make such comments. If they do it again, report them at ANI where they will be blocked until they stop. What I am saying is that the "we" in your above comment was a basic error. You personally have the right to refuse requests for medical and legal advice, just as you have the right to not answer any other question, but you have zero ability to block a user or in any other way interfere with them posting whatever they choose to post, with the sole exception being if you can convince an administrator that they are being disruptive and have persisted after being warned. And the administrators have shown on multiple occasions that they have no interest in blocking anyone for not following the reference desk guidelines. I say we get rid of them or reword tham to make it clear that they are advice which anyone is free to ignore. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:55, 15 March 2017 (UTC)


 * To me, the only reason to say that the current approach isn't working is if Wikipedia is getting sued over Ref Desk answers that provide legal advice. StuRat (talk) 01:19, 16 March 2017 (UTC)


 * There is obvious editor uncertainty over what is or is not legal advice, and it results in some questions being hatted or otherwise shut down even though they are not requests for legal advice. I would say that is a reason for change.  Guy Macon, of course, supports more extensive changes.  John M Baker (talk) 01:28, 16 March 2017 (UTC)


 * I don't really understand why you dispute the hatting of Futurist110's question if you agree that "request for legal advice is a question about past or future legal consequences that apply to the requestor, or to someone close to the requestor" and "Questions about laws, regulations, contracts, or government forms typically would be requests for legal advice, if the question has application to the requesting poster, or to a friend, family member, or controlled company of the requesting poster". Futurist110 has asked time and time again about how they can get out of paying for any kids they may have if they somehow impregnate a woman probably after having a vasectomy and cutting their balls off. Looking at various legal avenues including the possibility of seeking insurance against being required to pay for their kids, and whether a court may reject such a policy as being contrary to public interest. It's clear that this is what they're referring to, I'm not even sure this is the first time they've asked whether they can sue if their insurance is rejected. It's possible that Futurist110 isn't actually going to have a vasectomy, cut their balls off, get an insurance policy or even have sex with a woman but I think most of us have given up on these borderline questions from Futurist110. Personally I mostly did so once they started talking about cutting their balls off. It seems clear Futurist110 isn't taking much on board since they're still worried about wacky possibilities even after several of us have pointed out there are plenty of things more likely to happen, including stuff which may be a significant financial expense than some of their extreme scenarios. Nil Einne (talk) 09:12, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
 * The OP may be unaware of the history. If so, he should look at the archive of a recent discussion about it. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 09:18, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
 * P.S. An example of some of Futurist110's borderline legal advice questions which seem to relate back to their issues with having a child, or at least paying for it
 * Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2016 January 29
 * Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2016 September 25
 * Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2016 September 28
 * Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2016 September 29
 * Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2016 November 4
 * Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2016 December 17
 * Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2017 February 3
 * Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2017 February 5
 * This list is probably incomplete since 1) Futurist110 doesn't use the new section option so their questions don't have subject headings when first asked but compiled this by looking through their contrib history for relevant subject headings; 2) I stopped after 1000 results. To be fair some of these seem to be more complaints about how unfair everything is rather than a serious request for legal advice but whatever. Note I didn't include the plenty of examples of borderline requests for medical advice.
 * Nil Einne (talk) 09:45, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Admittedly I was unfamiliar with Futurist110's posts. Four points:
 * With regard to the particular question I referenced, my point was simply that the question, taken by itself, is not a request for legal advice, because it is a broad question about general principles and does not apply them to a particular individual's facts. This conclusion does not change simply because the requestor has initiated other topics that were requests for legal advice.
 * It may be that Futurist110 has been abusing the Reference Desk. If so, that may be a separate basis for deleting or hatting questions.  My post was not intended to address such situations.
 * My point that further guidance is needed is not dependent on whatever confusion may come from this particular editor's posts. I think that there is widespread confusion and lack of understanding with respect to the ban on legal advice.
 * Some of the posts above raise the question whether we should have a comprehensive ban on legal advice. Certainly the Reference Desk's ban is more comprehensive than most other message boards.  I'm prepared to discuss that, but my original post was only directed to clarifying the meaning of "legal advice."  John M Baker (talk) 15:43, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
 * "We" cannot have a comprehensive ban on anything. The "Reference Desk's ban" does not exist. Only administrators can do that. Some of us fantasize that non-admins can somehow control the behavior of other users, but it is only a fantasy. The only way to control the behavior of another user on Wikipedia is to [A] politely ask them to stop or [B] get an admin to block them. I really wish that I didn't have to keep repeating this, but as long as I see posts that falsely claim that "we" can have a comprehensive ban on legal advice. I will have to reply that no, "we" can't.
 * As to the question you want an answer to (the meaning of "legal advice"), that is an unsolvable problem. There will always be some who identify things that are not requests for legal advice as being requests for legal advice. There will always be some who identify things that are requests for legal advice as not being requests for legal advice. That's a big part of why what we are doing isn't working. Why not try it my way as a limited-time experiment?
 * Here is some legal advice: Don't do crystal meth. It is likely to get you arrested. Don't bother asking a lawyer if crystal meth is illegal. It is. Here is some medical advice: Don't do crystal meth. It will screw up your health. Don't bother asking a doctor if crystal meth is good for you. It isn't. There. I just broke our unenforceable house rules again, and I did it without being disruptive. Is anyone here brave enough to attempt to enforce a "comprehensive ban on legal advice" against me? I didn't think so. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:13, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
 *  " == Guy Macon giving highly dubious legal/medical advice at Refdesk == Dear admins, user Guy Macon is slandering the good name of crystal meth with..." ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  18:20, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
 * To be fair, John Baker, you are a properly qualified lawyer, so I do rack my brains as to how far we should restrict you from providing answers which would otherwise be "legal advice". But as I myself raised, most of us have specifically given up on answering these sorts of questions from this particular user. The discussion on how to deal with him was very heated, but left us not very enlightened. So much so that I regretted raising the issue. Had it been a general information type question, I would probably not have cried "legal advice!". If you must see the full sordid details, it's in the refdesk talk archive 126 (the most recent one as I write this), but I'm guessing you've read it already. Eliyohub (talk) 17:32, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Using one's real name along with dispensing professional advice could be an invitation to trouble. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:49, 19 March 2017 (UTC)


 * I went through and dug out a late version of this question and from what I see it never went beyond "Kainaw's criterion" - it is a general question about law, which would presumably be responded to properly with generally sourced answers about such things.  It should be obvious that as a hypothetical question you could tag on any number of circumstances about what the "public policy" is and how they "failed to pay up" to make the case go either way - it's just not a specific legal opinion in any meaningful sense!  I mean, putting aside any feelings people may have toward Futurist, if someone asked "can you be liable for failing to clear snow off your steps?" I think people would answer it.  I mean, there are lots of news stories about that kind of thing, and the reporters have not been taken before a star chamber for trying to compete with lawyers. Wnt (talk) 00:40, 15 April 2017 (UTC)


 * No-one is ever going to come here for serious legal advice. Count Iblis (talk) 03:48, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Help to edit an answer-template
I came up with a template a few months ago, to acknowledge querents whose reasonable questions had attracted no response. It ended up being titled "refdesk-sorry" (with –, obviously). I've just had cause to deploy it, for the first time in a while, and I notice that it doesn't look right. It consists of several short paragraphs, but, if I put a single : before the template, only the first sentence will indent. Can anyone play around with the template and improve its layout? I think the wording is fine as is. Thanks. Carbon Caryatid (talk) 12:30, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * It's unchanged since Semantic Mantis created it in November. Maybe what's really needed is some kind of box around it, so it doesn't look like it's newly written. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:42, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * That would be great. Could someone do that, please? Carbon Caryatid (talk) 16:20, 19 April 2017 (UTC)


 * I'm still thinking kill it with fire. I mean, with or without indent, this is not what people want to hear.  If we're going to start a new practice, I'd suggest a new page Reference desk/Stumpers where good questions from every refdesk that went unanswered can be relisted, and then you can give them a template about that. Wnt (talk) 23:04, 21 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Carbon Caryatid, I do appreciate what you are trying to do with this, but I agree with Wnt that it should be killed. I know that I'd rather receive no answer at all than three paragraphs of boiler plate, as the latter will seem even more impersonal if it appears with any regularity.  It also has the disadvantage of making the question appear to be answered to those quickly scanning the desk or its archive.  I strongly support individualized "sorry" responses from those who can provide question-specific advice to an OP for further resources, but the template is as reassuring as the recorded voice that periodically brakes into the hold music telling me how important my call is.
 * If we do feel the need to proceed with a template like this, perhaps cotting it would keep the question from appearing answered. -- ToE 14:24, 26 April 2017 (UTC)


 * The idea was that this invites them to ask again and also points to other resources. It should only be deployed for questions that have gone several days without any good answers. We almost never post new good answers to 6-day-old questions. I generally see eye-to-eye with Wnt and TOE, but I fail to see how this template is worse than no response. SemanticMantis (talk) 16:10, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Listing questions asked by a user
Is it possible to list new questions asked on the RDs by a particular user? Under a user's contributions page it is possible to filter for the Wikipedia namespace, which would bring up all their contributions to the ref desks, but I can't see a way of filtering out further so that only new questions are shown. The edit summary would normally say "new section", so I'm wondering if that can be used in some way to only show new questions asked. Thanks, --Viennese Waltz 11:50, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, the flag "New Section" would indicate a new question being asked on the ref desks. -- Jayron 32 11:53, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Where is the flag "new section"? I can only see an option to show new pages, not new sections. --Viennese Waltz 12:11, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Never mind, I figured it out. tools.wmflabs.org has an edit summary search feature which does the job fine. --Viennese Waltz 12:16, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Sealioning?
There seems to be a problem with a relatively new (month or so) user who insists on sealioning: asking questions as a means to provoke debate, then asking increasingly inane questions to bog down people who try to correct his apparent misconceptions. It is growing wearisome. -- Jayron 32 16:07, 28 April 2017 (UTC)


 * If it's the IP I'm thinking of, they appeared around mid-March. What's unclear is whether they are really trolling or just trying to understand, though my money would be on the former. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:24, 28 April 2017 (UTC)


 * I just got a little short with them on the Humanities desk. Probably I shouldn't have, and I was thinking of raising the matter here anyway, so feel free to revert/hat/whatever that response if you think it was inappropriate. If it is trolling, it's accomplished, because the initial queries are usually reasonable and the responses interesting, and the slides into sealioning have only now started to become more obvious. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.217.249.244 (talk) 21:29, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Telling it like it is. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:42, 28 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Some examples, please ? StuRat (talk) 21:31, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Reference desk/Humanities clpo13(talk) 22:58, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Some more of the user's largely inane questions, including the dieting by eating expensive food, and ordering several things at a restaurant come across as the product of a marijuana high.


 * 10:56, 28 April 2017 (diff | hist) . . (+1,108)‎ . . Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities ‎ (→‎Is owning a human automatically slavery?: new section)
 * 10:12, 28 April 2017 (diff | hist) . . (+564)‎ . . Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities ‎ (→‎Are people supposed to order several things at a restaurant at different times or at one time?: new section)
 * 07:59, 28 April 2017 (diff | hist) . . (+290)‎ . . Wikipedia:Reference desk/Science ‎ (→‎Is "queen ant" or "queen bee" accurate or anthropomorphizing bees and ants?: new section)
 * 09:31, 27 April 2017 (diff | hist) . . (+549)‎ . . Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities ‎ (→‎Jane Eyre and missionaries to India: new section)
 * 09:07, 27 April 2017 (diff | hist) . . (+1,004)‎ . . Wikipedia:Reference desk/Language ‎ (→‎Accent vs dialect: new section)
 * 08:51, 27 April 2017 (diff | hist) . . (+1,152)‎ . . Wikipedia:Reference desk/Science ‎ (→‎Portion control, food rationing, and economics: new section)
 * 09:07, 26 April 2017 (diff | hist) . . (+851)‎ . . Wikipedia:Reference desk/Entertainment ‎ (→‎British accents in films: new section)
 * 20:30, 24 April 2017 (diff | hist) . . (+859)‎ . . Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities ‎ (→‎Minimum requirements of Anglicanism?: new section)
 * 11:12, 24 April 2017 (diff | hist) . . (+602)‎ . . Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities ‎ (→‎Why did some families give daughters an unusually high education?: new section)
 * 18:21, 23 April 2017 (diff | hist) . . (+1,070)‎ . . Wikipedia:Reference desk/Science ‎ (→‎The science of making vegetables taste like meat: new section)
 * 14:36, 23 April 2017 (diff | hist) . . (+984)‎ . . Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities ‎ (→‎Do people still have to "do their taxes" (whatever that means) if they already receive money in a pay card?: new section)
 * 23:56, 22 April 2017 (diff | hist) . . (+983)‎ . . Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities ‎ (→‎At what point does a person become a gentleman/-woman?: new section)
 * 16:21, 22 April 2017 (diff | hist) . . (+758)‎ . . Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities ‎ (→‎Why did people make single-sex schools?: new section)
 * 12:43, 22 April 2017 (diff | hist) . . (+725)‎ . . Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities ‎ (→‎Is the March for Science American or global?: new section)
 * 10:50, 22 April 2017 (diff | hist) . . (+698)‎ . . Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities ‎ (→‎"preventable illness": new section)
 * 20:42, 21 April 2017 (diff | hist) . . (+373)‎ . . Wikipedia:Reference desk/Science ‎ (→‎Making big chicken breasts: new section)
 * 19:16, 21 April 2017 (diff | hist) . . (+742)‎ . . Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities ‎ (→‎Social class of immigrants: new section)
 * 10:42, 21 April 2017 (diff | hist) . . (+1,935)‎ . . Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities ‎ (→‎Social class in the Far East vs Europe: new section)
 * 17:17, 20 April 2017 (diff | hist) . . (+696)‎ . . Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities ‎ (→‎How did apprenticeships work?: new section)
 * 14:17, 20 April 2017 (diff | hist) . . (+320)‎ . . Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities ‎ (→‎9-day-old pease pudding: new section)
 * 00:12, 20 April 2017 (diff | hist) . . (+339)‎ . . Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities ‎ (→‎Average age of first funeral)
 * 00:00, 20 April 2017 (diff | hist) . . (+385)‎ . . Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities ‎ (→‎Chicken giblets: new section)

Besides the plethora of subjective and "why" questions, we have the insistence by certain editors that all questions be answered, when ones like "‎At what point does a person become a gentleman" cannot be answered, and absolutely no evidence the user has looked at a search engine or obvious articles that like apprenticeship which he can find on his own. I figured at some point an admin will admonish him. Limiting the OP to one question a day might be a good start. Notice the user otherwise shows no interest in contributing to the project. μηδείς (talk) 02:27, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
 * The main problem, assign from his bizarre premises themselves, is that he gets an adequate answer and then continues to argue about it. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:35, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

And yet not a single person on the refdesk has bothered to go to User talk:50.4.236.254 and politely ask him to stop. Even though several of us have the time to contribute to yet another pointless thread about trolling on the refdesks. Even though the rules at ANI require that you warn the user on his talk page before reporting him for continued disruptive behavior. Even though it is an established fact that feeding the trolls with attention -- especially negative attention -- attracts more trolls. I say we should just put the following banner at the top of each refdesk and be done with it. '''       __    __    __    __    __    __    __    __     /\ \__/\ \__/\ \__/\ \__/\ \__/\ \__/\ \__/\ \__     \ \___\ \___\ \___\ \___\ \___\ \___\ \___\ \___\   __/ / __/ / __/ / __/ / __/ / __/ / __/ / __/ / __/  /\ \/_/\ \/_/\ \/_/\ \/_/\ \/_/\ \/_/\ \/_/\ \/_/\ \__  \ \___\ \___\ \___\ \___\ \___\ \___\ \___\ \___\ \___\   / / __/ / __/ / __/ / __/ / __/ / __/ / __/ / __/ / __/   \/_/\ \/_/  \/_/  \/_/  \/_/  \/_/  \/_/  \/_/\ \/_/\ \__     \ \___\ \___\                             \ \___\ \___\     / / __/ / __/   TROLLS WELCOME!! COME TO / / __/ / __/ \/_/\ \/_/\ \__ THE REFDESKS AND WE WILL \/_/\ \/_/\ \__ \ \___\ \___\ PAY ATTENTION TO YOU!!!! \ \___\ \___\       / / __/ / __/   __    __    __    __    __/ / __/ / __/        \/_/\ \/_/\ \__/\ \__/\ \__/\ \__/\ \__/\ \/_/\ \/_/\ \__            \ \___\ \___\ \___\ \___\ \___\ \___\ \___\ \___\ \___\           / / __/ / __/ / __/ / __/ / __/ / __/ / __/ / __/ / __/           \/_/\ \/_/\ \/_/\ \/_/\ \/_/\ \/_/\ \/_/\ \/_/\ \/_/              \ \___\ \___\ \___\ \___\ \___\ \___\ \___\ \___\              / / __/ / __/ / __/ / __/ / __/ / __/ / __/ / __/              \/_/  \/_/  \/_/  \/_/  \/_/  \/_/  \/_/  \/_/     ''' --Guy Macon (talk) 11:50, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Except that people have already told the editor to cut it out before you posted. E.g. [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Humanities&diff=prev&oldid=777738485] (after this thread but before you posted). You can debate whether or not the RD proper was the right place to issue such warnings (probably by yourself). But one thing is for sure, anyone who complains on ANI about a user not being warned, when they were clearly warned and responded to the warning (i.e. were definitely aware of it), is going to be told to bugger off with their WP:Wikilawyering. I'd also note it isn't even correct that obvious trolls must always be warned before they are blocked or reverted anyway. Yes you're far more likely to get short shrift if you head to ANI without ever having warned the editor. But plenty of people have been blocked or found their contribs reverted in plenty of places outside the RD, without ever having been formally warned. Often without even touching ANI. Whether this editor's contribs rises to that level I make no comment.  I'd also note that as always when we discuss trolls, we have to be very careful about assuming we know their motives. Yes the classic troll just wants a reaction but there are plenty of people who aren't like that who are called trolls for a lack of better word (I used to try and avoid this and encourage only using trolling to refer to classical trolling, but I've mostly given up on that).  As with others, I initially WP:AGFed on this editors, but as their questions got more and more inane, I too am having trouble believing anyone who can write as coherently and logically as they can at times, can be simultaneously so clueless, naïve confused. Let's not forget the editor's first contribs here on wikipedia via that IP was to debate the definition of vegetables, something they came back over a month later to complain about. IIRC, whoever is behind that IP has claimed in the past that they are from Asia or somewhere in Asia but now apparently living in the US but I'm still having trouble thinking that can account for it.  I mean we did have that editor with lots of weird questions often about religion which could perhaps arise due to someone who is a recent immigrant from a fairly different culture, but here it's getting simply too hard to believe. Of course there are a lot of otherwise intelligent people who seem to think a lot of weird shit (e.g. some flat earthers and conspiracy theorists), and there are a variety of mental disorders/differences which can make the way people think and express themselves seem very odd to those without them; so it's impossible to rule it out. But I'm leaning strongly towards the not sincere direction.  As to what they're actually trying to achieve, I have no idea. IMO ultimately we should consider more how to deal with the situation (blocking, reverting, ignoring, whatever) rather than worrying too much about what they're getting out of it. Yes perhaps we'll give them what they want, perhaps not, what should matter to use is what's best for us not what weird thrill they may get out of it.  Nil Einne (talk) 13:54, 29 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Telling the editor to cut it out on the reference desks is pure troll feeding. As is this discussion. And it doesn't even matter if this one isn't a troll. The other trolls will see the troll food we are laying out and come here to feast. There is a reason the refdesks all have a troll problem but the help desk and village pump do not. Those parts of Wikipedia (in different ways) don't feed the trolls. We do.


 * And how, exactly, is yet another pointless thread on this talk page "what's best for us"? The last 999 times we did this it had zero effect, so why are we doing it again? And why will we do it yet another time in a couple of days?


 * In my opinion, based upon long experience going back to Fidonet and USENET, what is "best for us" is:
 * Get rid of the special rules ("reference desk guidelines") that only apply to the refdesks and which the admins refuse to enforce.
 * Apply the standard rules that apply to all talk pages. In particular, apply WP:DISRUPT and especially WP:TPOC.
 * Stop complaining about other editors on the refdesk or the refdesk talk pages. Instead, complain on the user's talk page, and if that doesn't work, file a report at WP:ANI or try some other form of dispute resolution, starting with WP:DRR.
 * Let Wikipedia's existing mechanisms for dealing with disruptive behavior do their job. What we are doing is not working.
 * Can we at least try it my way for 30 days as an experiment? --Guy Macon (talk) 17:01, 29 April 2017 (UTC)


 * No. I am loathe even to address a user who thinks blowing up other users is a legitimate form of discourse.  But it is simply false to say that the Ref Desk rules are special.  They follow simply from the disclaimer, WP:NOTHOWTO, WP:CRYSTAL and so forth.  That they are somewhat selectively summarized at the top of the page does not make them special. μηδείς (talk) 19:49, 29 April 2017 (UTC)


 * , I don't think raising that in one informal, case-specific thread after another is going to have much effect. Present a separate, formal proposal (possibly at WP:VPR, possibly even an RfC), and let the community !vote it up or down. Then, if it fails, it will be because of real opposition, not because of a lack of attention. And if it fails that way, we could justifiably give it a rest for awhile. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  23:08, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

There does still seem to be a problem at the Ref Desks with long-term users claiming they know best and hatting or archiving topics which are then subsequently unhatted or unarchived. Again, and again, and again. It seems that it would be better to just let most of these innocuous questions go and promote an more positive ambience at the RDs rather than the current vibe which is certainly an "in-house knows best" approach. I've been contacted several times by individuals who are dissuaded from the RDs by just one or two of the "page monitors" (not my words) and if nothing else, that dissuasion is acting completely contrary to what a Ref Desk should be doing. It's a shame that one or two individual users here are making the Ref Desks such a "challenging" place to visit, it would be helpful if the community here could work to solve that at the root. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:36, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

"Business advice"
Medeis has recently hatted a question on the grounds that it is a request for "business advice".

I have little interest in whether that particular question is hidden. My personal preference would be not to see it, and I sort of doubt it's in good faith, but an argument could be made that we shouldn't censor the refdesk on those grounds. In any case that's an argument I don't want to get into at this time.

My concern is this stated motive about "business advice". It seems to me that the refdesk guideline against giving "medical or legal" advice (which I personally would construe narrowly) is being generalized to any advice at all, which I think is not the intent.

There is a later sentence that talks about "[q]uestions that ask for medical, legal or other professional advice...". This does not seem to follow logically from the rest of the guideline, which simply talks about "medical or legal" advice, and I wonder if it is an interpolation. But in any case, "business" is not a profession in the relevant sense. (This distinction between professions and trades is medieval and obnoxious, but seems to be the one at issue. A software engineer is a "professional", but if software engineering ever becomes a "profession" I will seriously have to think about leaving.  In any case I trust that no one will object to giving advice on coding practices.) --Trovatore (talk) 22:07, 26 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Read WP:DISCLAIMER. We don't give financial, medical, or legal advice, among other things.  Any quibbling over business vs financial would be a distinction without a difference.  Answering this question as if it weren't trolling would involve giving all three.  If it were trolling (as I agree with Floquenbeam that it was) it shouldn't be answered either.  But had I closed it as trolling, the same person would have opened it up again anyway.  In any case, it is gone. μηδείς (talk) 20:13, 29 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Agreed. Plus the Q in question (Reference_desk/Miscellaneous) isn't actually asking for business advice.  It asked how much sperm a man can produce in a day.  That certainly is "icky", and possibly trolling, but definitely should not be closed as a request for business advice.  Also, Medeis failed to list her reasons or name in the top of the hat box.  I reverted her, but she keeps putting it back.
 * As for actual "business advice", I would think some of those Q's would be fine, like "How do I register my business with the Better Business Bureau ?". StuRat (talk) 22:17, 26 April 2017 (UTC)


 * I've modified the hatting rationale; I agree that (a) it's not really business advice, and (b) business advice is not one of the forbidden topics. What it is, is trolling (or, stretching AGF to beyond the breaking point, indistinguishable from trolling), so the hat should stay. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:27, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Works for me. --Trovatore (talk) 22:30, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Agreed. He’s not even asking for business advice, but for advice supposedly related to a business. Setting aside the question of whether he’s serious, the business aspect of the question is completely unnecessary context. It’s a question about human biology, nothing more, though one that I’d say he’d be better off attempting to answer himself on a free day. I just hope he never follows up on the question. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 22:33, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Of course it wasn't asking business advice. It was a breaching experiment designed to test the limits of what amount of trolling is allowable, carefully worded to give the asker plausible deniability when someone called them on it.  -- Jayron 32 18:28, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
 * It reads like the OP mis-read the date as April 1. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:43, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Ha, that seems more likely than any other possible explanation. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 22:45, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Worth noting the question was asked by a French IP belonging to Orange. Later another IP, belong to the Venezuelan Cantv asked a followup. Whether these IPs are related, or the 2nd one is just somehow who decided to join in the "fun" I can't say, but we have been bothered by Venezuelan Cantv IP's before. Nil Einne (talk) 11:36, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Here is some business advice: Don't get into the business of selling crystal meth. Most meth dealers live with their parents because they can't make a living at it. Don't bother asking a financial adviser if selling crystal meth makes sense financially. It doesn't.

Here is some legal advice: Don't do crystal meth. It is likely to get you arrested. Don't bother asking a lawyer if crystal meth is illegal. It is.

Here is some medical advice: Don't do crystal meth. It will screw up your health. Don't bother asking a doctor if crystal meth is good for you. It isn't.

Also, in general, you should usually ignore advice from random Wikipedia editors. It is quite often really bad advice (even though my advice above happens to be really good advice).

There. I just broke our unenforceable refdesk house rules again, and I did it without being disruptive. Is anyone here brave enough to report me at ANI for breaking the unenforceable house rules again?

The not being disruptive part is important. being disruptive isn't allowed, and much of the business/legal/medical advice given here is disruptive. Not mine, though. Mine is just a subtle way of encouraging us to finally decide to get rid if the unenforceable house rules. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:44, 28 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Is the "Blue Sky" meth just as problematic?
 * I don't think I have ever seen it written down (it might be, or it might not, I don't recall), but I expect the rationale is that if someone here gives bad legal/medical advice, the next thing you know Saul Goodman is on the case and Walter White blows you up. I.e. it could cause significantly inconvenient things to happen.
 * Murph 9000 (talk) 16:58, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Here is a quick answer, but if there are any more questions please ask them on the science refdesk, not refdesk talk. The blue meth from breaking bad is a Hollywood invention (very pure meth is clear) but some producers mix blue die in because they can get a higher price from Breaking Bad fans, and because it makes life a bit harder on the police (some test kits turn blue when meth is detected, and adding blue die makes it harder to tell if the test is positive). --Guy Macon (talk) 17:42, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

A discussion including the words and I did it without being disruptive was closed for disrupting Wikipedia. The irony. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 03:34, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
 * My 16:44, 28 April 2017 comment was not disruptive. It could be argued that my 17:42, 28 April 2017 comment was, and that I should have replied with "please ask at the reference desk". I have no objection to the close. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:25, 2 May 2017 (UTC)


 * No need to worry about this, no one will ever come here for any advice on legal issues, business matters or anything else that is of any importance. Count Iblis (talk) 20:46, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Then stop wasting your time (and ours) and run away to a happy place where the grass is greener, the sky bluer, tomatoes are tasty, and people are too busy having endless great sex to be bothered asking dumb questions of anonymous jerks on the internet who come up with useless answers. --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  21:50, 9 May 2017 (UTC)


 * This is a very long and ultimately pointless digression, since floquenbeam hatted the question and it aged off the boards a few months ago. μηδείς (talk) 00:11, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Guy who keeps posting inane questions about Android phones
Anyone else tired of the guy who keeps using the Desks as Google for questions about his Android phone? I believe it's all the same person; their IP address changes periodically but they all seem to be Bangladeshi addresses. Just today they posted five questions on the Computing desk that should be answerable by brief Web searches. As usual I'm asking here first because I don't want to tell them off if no one else sees a problem with their behavior. --47.138.161.183 (talk) 05:11, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 * It is a bit annoying, and it dovetails nicely with the discussion above. Why the heck is he asking for "APKs"?
 * Does he just want app recommendations and thinks "APK" is slang for "Android app"? Or does he actually want to download the .APK files individually and install them manually? If so, why is he doing it like that?
 * I suppose he's either got some weirdo phone that can't run an app store, (But he says "sony brand phone") or he's got some strong anti-google paranoia to the point of not wanting to use Google services on an Android device. Which is absurd. It's like buying a Mac and refusing to use Apple products. It can be done, but if you have to ask how, you're headed for a nightmare. ApLundell (talk) 14:15, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

This thread is inappropriate. If he's a troll, deal with his posts and don't feed with threads like this. If he's a good-faith editor, the number of disparaging adjectives above (inane, annoying, weirdo, paranoia, absurd) is just wrong. Engage with him, close his threads, whatever, but this is wrong. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 14:29, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I used "weirdo" to describe a (hypothetical) strange, off-brand phone. I don't think that's particularly insulting at all. ApLundell (talk) 14:45, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 * There are a number of phones which do not come with the Play Store, and instead use a proprietary store for apps. It's perfectly conceivable that Sony makes such a phone for use in SEA. That being said, even if this editor is legit, the constant, repetitive questions are becoming disruptive. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  15:35, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 * It's also very possible it's a non-native English speaker who thinks APK is the right word to use for an app installed off the app store. (I guess the app store does technically install an APK, but it happens behind the scenes in such a way that you never see the .apk file.)
 * ApLundell (talk) 16:04, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I have to agree it's possible English limitations are a barrier here. For example, the IP has asked for open source software before. But I'm not certain if they really care about it being open source, or just want something that is free and without too many ads. Or maybe even just free for the features they desire. (Of course open source software doesn't have to be freely priced, and can have ads even if someone else is free to release a freely priced version without ads but I think a lot of people mostly think of free in price and not freemium.) BTW I've ound as with the OP of this discussion that the IP geolocates to Bangladesh so I'm not sure why SEA came up. However from what I've read, Bangladesh is a target market for a lot of those cheap Chinese phones and it isn't uncommon they don't have the Play Store, so its absence is an easy possibility.  As for engaging with the IP, with a frequently changing IP it's difficult. AFAIK they've never replied to any of the comments, even when these comments expected a reply. For example, I replied to one of their questions about a battery monitoring app, pointing out it wasn't clear what they wanted, but never received a reply. To be fair, this was a typically long reply, or maybe they just didn't like my reply, but I'm fairly sure I've seen others who've asked shorter questions receive no reply. They have asked about battery monitoring apps again, this time with more details so it may be they are reading replies.  However without a 2 way conversation, it's difficult to actually engage. For example, do they really want apps outside the Play Store, perhaps because they don't have access to it? Are they able to use the Amazon Appstore? Etc. Without these basic questions it's very difficult to help them, and in any case their questions are a getting a bit excessive. Since the RDC tends to be dead and their questions aren't the sort of ones likely to unnecessarily waste time I've tended to ignore them but I can understand why people may be frustrated.  Nil Einne (talk) 08:15, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

the XY problem at the computing ref desk
Mention of the XY problem is fairly common on the computing ref desk. I'm wondering if an explanation of it which appears when the user edits the page should be implemented. Thoughts? ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants  Tell me all about it.  14:15, 4 May 2017 (UTC)


 * It's rather complicated to explain and the info is already too much to read. StuRat (talk) 14:45, 4 May 2017 (UTC)


 * The XY problem explanation is rather convoluted and obfuscatory. Instead of directing people with the problem to that page, just state "Can you explain why you are seeking this answer?  Because there's many possible ways to answer it, and unless I know why you're asking, I can't help you find the correct answer."  That should do nicely.  -- Jayron 32 14:51, 4 May 2017 (UTC)


 * OH, I wasn't suggesting we use that link. I was suggesting something more along the lines of what said, phrased as a notice that appears when editing the page.  ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  15:13, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Notices aren't much use. It's well known that no one reads the manuals.  They will have no effect on reducing problems, all it would possibly due is allow us to rudely remind people they didn't read the manual, but it won't make our workload in answering such questions any less.  Instead, just tell someone in your own words what I just did.  Works much better.  -- Jayron 32 15:37, 4 May 2017 (UTC)


 * That XY Problem thing is an interesting phenomenon, but I have a feeling it's way more interesting to question answerers than it actually is to question askers.
 * It's true that people get stuck on Y's when their problem is really X. But for anyone who's stuck in that situation, fixated on Y, just sayng they have "an XY problem" (or pointing them at a general-purpose philosophical essay on it) is not necessarily going to help. What they probably need is a patient, personal explanation of what their particular X is, and why their specific Y may be distracting.
 * But the bigger problem is that answerers can be rather patronizing when they presume to diagnose the XY problem among questioners. Oftentimes the questioner really does just want an answer to Y, and a insistent lecture on why X is more important can be pretty insulting, and not helpful.
 * (One example, discussed here several times, is the case where X is "using Microsoft Windows", Y is "how do I avoid blue screens of death", and the "helpful" answer is "You shouldn't be trying to figure out how to avoid crashes, you should be abandoning Windows and using Linux instead." That's an extreme example, but I see less extreme versions of it all the time.) —Steve Summit (talk) 10:32, 6 May 2017 (UTC)


 * You could make a template that you (or others) could slap on questions that you think are falling in to this trap/pattern. I agree that nobody reads notices, but they do (sometimes) read replies. I agree it is a common problem, as would most anyone with any experience at a brick-and-mortar reference desk. Usually I say something along these lines "Why are you asking X? Are you hoping to do Y by chance? If you can explain better what you are trying to do or why you want to know X, you might get better help." I do try to be polite about it, because I agree with Steve that sometimes the XY problem itself is a misdiagnosis, and sometimes OP knows much more about the problem than would-be helpers. SemanticMantis (talk) 19:36, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I once asked a question at the Microstation forums. I asked if there was a way to make labels with a text prefix and an incrementing number, specifically "PULL BOX n" where n was the number. I was given a very long winded lecture about how that's a pointless task, so I must be falling victim to the XY problem (the user assumed that I didn't actually need the numbers to increment, because the labels I needed were pretty unusual). So I noped on out of there and wrote a VBA script that did exactly that. And it solved all my problems. I came back a year later to see that three or four other users answered my question and put the first guy on blast for his response. Still, the reason I posted this is because of the number of times I see that an XY problem is confirmed by the OP. "Well, I'm trying to do X and I figured Y would get me to that point..." I like Mantis' idea. I think a very politely worded template might be the best thing to do. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  20:21, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't know that question-volume is high enough to warrant a labor-saving device like a template. Especially as I worry that it would be perceived as really condescending. ApLundell (talk) 20:30, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
 * The idea I'm having is a template you can subst into the post which is plain text basically asking what, exactly the OP is trying to accomplish and explaining that knowing that will make it easier to answer the question. It would save plenty of typing time, but not look any different than politely handling it oneself. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  21:44, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I'd be happy to help you work on the wording if you like. It is a fine line to not seem rude. I would phrase it all in the form of possibility. "It may be that we are better able to help with your problem if you explain to us what the root of it is, in addition to this thing you asked". Or something. IMO, even if the template is rarely used, or only used by a few of us, that's fine, templates don't rot from lack of frequent use :) SemanticMantis (talk) 13:36, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
 * That reads really well, except for the "root of it" part. I think maybe It may be that we are better able to help with your problem if you can tell us what you are trying to accomplish by doing this, in addition to your original question. Thoughts?
 * templates don't rot from lack of frequent use Don't mention that at WP:MFD. You'll get chased off with pitchforks and torches. ;) ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  17:01, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Sure, sounds good to me. If you make it, I would probably occasionally use it. SemanticMantis (talk) 19:42, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
 * This is a well-known and common problem at IRL libraries, and it's why we do what's called a reference interview. Kids are particularly bad at this, but everyone does it at one point or another. Mingmingla (talk) 22:46, 13 May 2017 (UTC)


 * I made the template. Check out xyp which produces the following:

ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants  Tell me all about it.  16:09, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

As an example of where this can go wrong, There's a question on the computing desk right now about flash drive durability in hot and cold weather. A couple of users nitpicked the question for not exactly specifying the weather in question. (As though they might have a source, but were worried that it was 10 degrees off?) Another user played the XY card by telling the question-asker that he shouldn't worry about flash drive durability because he guessed that the question was really about proper backups. (Also, there's me arguing with the XY response, so I'm certainly not helping either.)

The question-asker was understandably not thrilled with these condescending responses.

ApLundell (talk) 14:56, 16 May 2017 (UTC)


 * And here's an example from the Language desk. A user asks for help finding the antonym of a word, so instead of just answering, some RD regulars start hounding the OP for more context concerning why he needs to know.  (The thread goes south so quickly that other editors find it necessary to hat it, and then get into an edit war over hatting it.  It's now the subject of a big, long thread below.) —Steve Summit (talk) 17:01, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Brow height for triage between desks
I'd initially, reflexively posted a query about the term "originating roles" in biography pages for the "finer" performing arts (ballet, opera, theatre) on the Humanities Ref Desk, then upon quick second thought ("Eww, snobbish much?") removed it with Undo and reposted to the Entertainment desk. There it continues to languish. (Meanwhile I replied to the query after mine.) Shall I give it a few more days there - or was my first impulse correct, and what might be included in the term "Arts and Letters" is better handled under the heading "Humanities"? -- Deborahjay (talk) 12:27, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah I saw you moved that and I agree that Humanities would have been a better fit. You could also have tried Language, given that the question is about the meaning of a phrase. --Viennese Waltz 12:56, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I'll backtrack on this. I'd considered and rejected the option of the Language desk, because this term seems so embedded in context (otherwise I'd understand it as-is). -- Deborahjay (talk) 13:29, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

as a librarian...
I always interpreted what reference librarians could do quite broadly. The job is to help people by answering not from personal knowledge, but know what sources to find, and providing them, and if appropriate, providing some help in explaining then. They ask because they think librarians know where to find information in books, and to a considerable extent, with some experience, we learn how to do that. They don't think we're authorities -- they dot't think the information we lead them to is definitive -- and we try to make that clearjust in case. There are some rules, as I taught my students when I taught reference librarianship: try to give more than one possible source, preferably at different levels of detail, and let the patron choose; be certain to give sources that cover different sides if the question is controversial; first answer the question as asked, and then ask, does what I've given you answer all of your question (if you ask, does it answer you question, they always say, yes, if you ask oes it completely answer your question, they always say, well, I'd still like to know... ; never embarass the patron no matter how silly or misinformed the question--absolutely never make jokes at the patrons expense; if the question can have multiple meaning, find answers to the most likely, and then ask if there's something else needed; for medical or legal question, don't try to answer directly, but guide them to a reliable general source; never say you can't answer something and stop there, but provide a link of referral to someone who might help.

All this applies here, and some of it I worded to respond to the problems being raised above. There is one difference: beginning librarians in real life have had training, and get supervision.  DGG ( talk ) 05:07, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
 * The most important difference is that in a real library it's face-to-face. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 09:39, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
 * that helps. But see Digital reference. Before that, we've been providing telephone reference service for about 90 or 100 years now, and mail reference at least that long.  DGG ( talk ) 22:19, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree. My public library used to have a Homework Help service that was powered by tutor.com, but that got canceled about a decade ago. For a while, it had KnowItNow24x7 service, but that got canceled about 2 years ago. Now, it just has a little chat service for finding references, but if a patron has some kind of detailed question of higher expertise, then he may need to consult the people who work in the Information & Questions by telephone. 50.4.236.254 (talk) 03:32, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

1RR proposal for the Ref Desk
See here. Count Iblis (talk) 20:19, 20 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Context: [ Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Everyone needs to stick to 0RR 1RR w.r.t. non-vandalism edits on the Ref Desk ]. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:14, 24 May 2017 (UTC)


 * It looks like this was archived without action:  There were the usual threats by people I only ever bump into on discussion threads about how terrible the Refdesk supposedly us about taking the whole thing to ArbCom, but I doubt it. Wnt (talk) 11:36, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

FYI:
FYI: Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

I do not recommend discussing this on the refdesk talk page. We have had quite enough of that sort of thing as of late. Please post any comments at ANI. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:59, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

What box?
As I write, the section for this query reads like this.

What box? How is that template supposed to be used? --69.159.63.238 (talk) 20:23, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Why has the RD become so quick to hat people's questions?
This is inspired by this question, but it's part of a larger trend that's been going on here for quite some time, pushed largely (it seems to me) by a small number of users, most prominently User:Medeis. I've already briefly presented my reasoning there (as did User:JackofOz, who also opposed hatting). Frankly, I find the arguments presented in favor of hatting here to be borderline incomprehensible - as far as I can tell, Medeis's reasoning boils down to "if we can find a valid justification to close a question, we should." I don't see any logic in closing a question that has any chance of being answered simply because the questioner didn't present it quite right. This was certainly not the practice when I was more active around here 5+ years ago, and I see no justification, either from Wikipedia's rules and guidelines or from the philosophical position that the purpose of the Reference Desk is to answer people's questions as well as possible, for this change in general practice. User:Baseball_Bugs's argument for closing makes even less sense to me - the questioner "seemed to have moved on to other things" (I guess because it had been a whopping 18 hours since he'd replied to the question?) so we should close it? Even if he had truly "moved on" why on earth would that ever be a valid reason to hat a question?

It seems to me that this shift has been motivated almost entirely by a few "big personalities" simply doing as they see fit (hatting this question when there was clearly not consensus to do so being one example), so I'd like to get some input from the rest of the contributors here on how everyone feels about this. Perhaps we need to draft up a specific guideline on when it is and isn't appropriate to close someone's question? -Elmer Clark (talk) 02:20, 16 May 2017 (UTC) — Berean Hunter   (talk)  02:54, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
 * For future reference, "this question" is now archived here. --69.159.63.238 (talk) 20:27, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I should also point out that it was neither Medeis nor Baseball_Bugs who actually hatted the question, but User:Ian.thomson, with no rationale either in his edit summary or in the discussion besides "hatting the whole damn thing already." -Elmer Clark (talk) 02:25, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
 * My main problem was the edit war brewing. That seemed the simplest and shortest way to get it to stop, especially since the thread wasn't really going anywhere beyond whether or not the phrasing was legitimate or if the thread should be hatted. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:31, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Gotcha. I missed the edit warring.  Seems there's still some minor shenanigans afoot, with this edit coming right after I unhatted it.  Still seems kind of not ideal to close someone's question over something like that though, especially when it's still receiving potentially useful responses as well. -Elmer Clark (talk) 02:34, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Looking at this IP range, I see an account that has been trolling here by hatting or not hatting. If you have doubt, this snark removes it. 2600:8806:4807:E700::/64 hardblocked 3 months.


 * Sheesh. Can't we just get back to a culture of innocence?  If an editor's overriding interest is anything other than how best he can answer a question, then what the hell is he doing here on a Reference Desk?
 * So you think a questioner's motives are suspect? Solution: Neutralise the issue by giving a straight answer if you can, or staying completely out of the thread if you can't. That is, under no circumstances acknowledge or buy into his suspected agenda.
 * So a questioner has moved on, and has not responded to requests for clarification? Solution: Ignore him, and move on yourself.
 * So you think a questioner just wants to incite a debate. Solution: Neutralise the issue by telling him we don't permit debates here.
 * What I know for sure is that these endless back room (and sometimes front of house) discussions on editor and respondent behaviour rarely change anything, improve anything, or contribute to the wellbeing of the Ref Desks. All they achieve is the engendering of a culture I have grown almost to hate.  And I hate that.  The trolls we seem to fear so much are having a damn good laugh, because they realise we do not seem to have the collective wisdom to deal with them in an effective manner, which means a liberal application of subtlety and innocence.  Not naivete. Innocence.  --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  09:07, 16 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Agreed. Even when trolling is a problem, ignoring the troll is the way to handle it, not hatting everything which might possibly be trolling.  And I agree that Medeis is top of the list in assuming the worst of people, and hatting everything she can possibly find a way to justify, making me think hatting is her real goal, for some reason, not answering Q's. StuRat (talk) 19:08, 16 May 2017 (UTC)


 * If you people think there are disruptive users here that need to be topic-banned, this isn't the place to achieve that. You'd need to start a thread at WP:AN or similar to ensure it receives wide enough attention.  This "thread-closing/Ref desk ownership" issue seems to have been going on for a few years now, along with the "users providing nothing but personal opinions" piece.  Both should be addressed at an RFC, I doubt many regular editors are aware of the shenanigans that take place at the so-called "Ref Desks".  It's time to make a decision, put up with the disruption and stop complaining about it every month or so, or do something about it. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:13, 16 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Completely wrong. Taking things to administrators only makes matters worse.  Many of the worst problem-makers here are Admins, and the Admins there completely ignore anybody who is not an Admin, contrary to what they are supposed to do.  Just posting a thread there can end up getting you blocked, unless you are an Admin, that is.  They are virtually immune to punishment there.  And any mention of the RD there will cause at least one crazy Admin to say "Let's just shut the whole thing down !". StuRat (talk) 19:25, 16 May 2017 (UTC)


 * I think you're missing the point. The behaviour of a number of Ref Desk regulars is now leaking out to the wider Wikipedia.  It's time we started working out who is actually contributing encyclopedically and who is just here for the social chat.  The Rambling Man (talk) 19:44, 16 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Re: "The behaviour of a number of Ref Desk regulars is now leaking out to the wider Wikipedia." What's your evidence ? StuRat (talk) 20:38, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't need any "evidence" of this, there are a number of users at the Ref Desk who either pretend to own the situation by hatting discussions they don't like, or spend their entire time responding to OP questions with unsourced, unverified personal opinions. This is now obvious to those who aren't Ref Desk regulars, and soon it will be discussed in detail at an RFC, initially started from a post at AN which is a much wider forum than the safe island of Ref Desk.  I imagine that there will be a real possibility of topic bans and even more stringent sentences handed out once the full depth of the abuse of Wikipedia by certain users is revealed to a wider audience.  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:44, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
 * If anyone is ready to post an RfC or a report at AN/ANI/Arbcom, please look at this post and consider seeing if the wide community agrees with my suggested solution. And please drop me a note on my talk page if something comes of this. Thanks! --Guy Macon (talk) 04:05, 17 May 2017 (UTC)


 * The OP's question was, "what is an antonym for fortnuate (and unfortunate is not a valid answer)?" The OP was politely asked to provide a wider context so that we could understand his intention, but declined to do so.  I suggested the thread be hatted, Bugs seconded it, and Ian.thomson did so (after a pointy hatting and refactoring by a single purpose IP user).  The only "warring" was over refactoring of my comment, and putting mine and Bug's names in the hat notice, implying that we were responsible for the edit closing the discussion.  An admin came along and agreed with the overall hatting, saying that sockpuppetry was involved, for which he gives a dif above.  The OP has never been back (unless as a sock) and seems to have no interest in this.  For future reference look at this diff. μηδείς (talk) 18:52, 16 May 2017 (UTC)


 * But what was to be achieved by hatting it, Medeis? What? Couldn't it just have been left as it was? Then, if the OP came back, there'd be something to come back to, and if they didn't, it would just be quickly archived and forgotten about. Over the years I have raised various questions as an OP that have never had a satisfactory resolution, but they've never been hatted.  They just remain unresolved to this day, down in the bowels of the archives.  That's as it should be. Hatting this thread has achieved NOTHING except this argy-bargy that is wasting all our time and getting us NOWHERE.  I'm sure you're a busy lady in RL (we already know you can wipe your own ass), and you must have more things to exercise your mind than these USELESS hattings (not to mention your occasional threats to have the refdesks shut down if others don't abide by your self-imposed rules) .  Unjustified hattings (and that's most of them) just draw attention to the matter, the complete opposite of what they're supposed to be about - and if you think they don't have that effect, I suggest your knowledge of human nature is lacking.  They also draw attention to the (mad) HATTER, but I'll say no more about that except that if one's interest here is in drawing attention to oneself, then one is advised to go and meditate on a mountain top until one has achieved oneness with the universe, and then come refreshed, ready to be of service.  --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  21:14, 16 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Ask someone who cares, Jack, and please get your story straight, since I hatted nothing. I suggested hatting, Bugs agreed, then IP 2600, identified as a sock, started pointy refactoring and edit warring, and finally Ian.thomson hatted the entire thread, not me.  The OP has shown no interest in the thread, and an admin has closed it and reverted 2600.  Take this up with them.  Your defamatory hysteria based on untruths bores me. μηδείς (talk) 22:25, 16 May 2017 (UTC)


 * You initiated the hatting. You suggested it.  You called for support.  It was your idea.  What was your purpose? Why was this a good idea?  --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  22:38, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Please do respond to this as well, Medeis. I feel like the disconnect between you and the RD community at large on this is the key issue here.  Wikipedia is not about the indiscriminate application of rules - we even have a rule about it.  How did hatting this discussion help the encyclopedia or the reference desk? Keep in mind that neither of the people who "agreed" that it should be hatted did so for reasons that at all resembled yours. -Elmer Clark (talk) 21:40, 17 May 2017 (UTC)


 * You also hatted it a second time after I unhatted it, despite the fact that there is clearly even less consensus to do so now and there was an ongoing discussion happening here. True, a sockpuppet later reverted your hatting and an admin restored it (I have unhatted it again now), but this was clearly an inappropriate action.  Would you mind explaining this action?  This seems like flagrant disregard for policy and procedure.  -Elmer Clark (talk) 21:19, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

See here. Count Iblis (talk) 23:22, 16 May 2017 (UTC)


 * I'm trying to understand: Wasn't there a blurb either at the top of all the reference desks, on WP:RD, or somewhere on Help:Contents that said querents should wait a few days for an answer to develop? So why can't respondents wait for the querent to reply/answer?68.151.25.115 (talk) 08:44, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I would appreciate for the section to be 'unhatted'.68.151.25.115 (talk) 20:28, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Try here. Count Iblis (talk) 21:47, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

When has Medeis/μηδείς ever changed her behavior based on consensus? Long experience has shown that the only thing that will result in a change of behavior is a series of escalating blocks. She (and certain others here -- you know who you are) has shown herself to be completely immune to any sort of social pressure, and yet we keep having this discussion. Why? Are we all stupid that we cannot see the pattern? How many more of these pointless threads must we endure when they never improve the situation?

Here is the answer to this problem.

What we are doing is not working. And before anyone asks, no I will not post an RfC with the above solution. I refuse to post RfCs where I am 100% convinced that the proposal will not pass. Feel free to post it yourself and get shot down if you think I am wrong on this. I suggest Village pump (policy) as an appropriate place to post the RfC. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:02, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Get rid of the special rules ("reference desk guidelines") that only apply to the refdesks and which the admins refuse to enforce. Turn it into an essay that makes it clear that it is advice, not a policy or guideline.
 * Apply the standard rules that apply to all talk pages here. In particular, apply WP:DISRUPT and especially WP:TPOC.
 * Stop complaining about other editors on the refdesk or the refdesk talk pages. Instead, complain on the user's talk page, and if that doesn't work, file a report at WP:ANI or try some other form of dispute resolution, starting with WP:DRR.
 * Let Wikipedia's existing mechanisms for dealing with disruptive behavior do their job. This includes full use of WP:DRR and WP:ANI and includes administrators blocking anyone who violates WP:TPOC or persists in complaining about other editors on the refdesk or the refdesk talk pages after being warned not to do that again.
 * I reiterate my support for Guy's suggestion. --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  07:40, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Unbelievably, Medeis has hatted the question again. I'm taking this to the administrator's noticeboard now.  Simply ridiculous behavior, and you should be ashamed. -Elmer Clark (talk) 19:53, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

I have opened a discussion about this at the administrator's noticeboard here moved to here. Tagging User:Medeis, User:JackofOz, User:Guy Macon, User:Count Iblis, User:The Rambling Man, User:StuRat, User:Baseball_Bugs, User:Ian.thomson and User:Berean Hunter in case you wish to contribute. -Elmer Clark (talk) 20:29, 18 May 2017 (UTC)


 * See Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive956. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:23, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Awesome job, guys
So an anonymous IP editor posts a question which could be paraphrased as, "Are there any antonyms to 'favorable' other than 'unfavorable'"? Now, when faced with this question on the RD's, you might think there are at most three responses to choose from:
 * 1. Decide that the question is uninteresting and ignore it.
 * 2. Toss out candidate antonyms like "adverse", "inopportune", "bleak", and "dismal".
 * 3. Point the OP at a something akin to a thesaurus, such as our own Wiktionary's entry on "favorable".

But no, a crack RD squad of busybodies managed to come up with a fourth option:
 * 4. Grill the OP for having asked the question incorrectly, then get into an edit war over hatting the thread, then start a big discussion here, then start an AN/I thread.

Nice work. Way to demonstrate what a positive resource the RD's are for Wikipedia.

It's been suggested (of course) that the OP might have been a troll. If he was, he's now basking in the warm glow as the judges hold up little cards reading "8.9" and "9.2". And if he was not, we have invented a new phenomenon, a sort of escalation of assuming bad faith: wrongly accuse an OP of trolling, and then wrongly feed the (non) troll with a huge, raging drama-fest. The trolls don't even have to troll us any more; we're more than capable of doing it to ourselves.

(And yes, I know, I realize that by contributing to the drama-fest I'm criticizing, I'm proving myself no better.) —Steve Summit (talk) 16:49, 19 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Yes, reminds me of The Twilight Zone episode The Monsters Are Due on Maple Street, where aliens attack the Earth by encouraging our own suspicions against each other to escalate out of control. The Outer Limits episode O.B.I.T. had a similar theme. StuRat (talk) 17:01, 19 May 2017 (UTC)


 * This is exactly the problem. But it appears there's no appetite anywhere to fix it.  From now on I will ensure I discourage every person I know, every editor, every random user, from using the Ref Desks.  The experience is bound to be unsatisfactory yet the community are content to live with that.  Disgusting.  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:46, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
 * If a non-banned user poses a reasonable and appropriate question, they should have no problem here. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:43, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
 * That's the ideal, yes.  Not so much the reality.
 * ApLundell (talk) 19:57, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not so sure of that. I think most of the answerable questions get answered. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:22, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
 * ...and quite a few questions get 'answered' with opinions, and speculation, not with the sort of links or references that would help build an article. 50.201.41.253 (talk) 01:30, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Some questions invite opinions. Questions such as "Why is it 'A' when I think it should be 'B'?" ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:11, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Exactly. I agree with you 100%.  A complete lack of the ability to just move on.  Some can't resist the temptation to produce unreferenced/linkless opinions. 50.201.41.253 (talk) 02:21, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
 * And if everyone ignores the question, the OP might come back with "Hey! Where's my answer?" ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:08, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
 * That would be great! When a question is posted...10, 20 however many editors would look at it, but if they were not able to answer it will linked facts, they just move on.  Way better that a question remains unanswered, than it gets replies that are less than accurate.  You have me convinced, thanks.50.201.41.253 (talk) 03:34, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
 * So when that other editor from your subnet asks those weird questions, we should just ignore him and he'll go away? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 07:17, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
 * What does that have to do with answering a question with linked/referenced info? If by 'weird questions' you mean disruptive behavior or vandalism...the standard actions apply here:  RBI, page protection, etc.  The point here, as you brought out, is that questions that an editor is not familiar with, unsure of, etc., can be left alone for others to answer that do have the knowledge or skills to source. 50.201.41.253 (talk) 11:20, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I mean questions that are invitations to debate rather than requests for sources. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:20, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Depends. If a user is not here to improve the encyclopedia, he could enter into the debate, or Delete/Hat, or otherwise add to the circus act.  If a user is truly here to improve the encyclopedia, and the question does not offer an opportunity to do so, why not ignore the question and move on to a question that is worthy of a little research?  After all this is supposed to be a reference desk, not a forum/playground/troll farm. 50.201.41.253 (talk) 18:41, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Or why not just delete the question as being inappropriate for the ref desk? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:51, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
 * You know the answer to that. And that is precisely what some are here for: Drama.   50.201.41.253 (talk) 21:30, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
 * The top-of-page message cautions the editor that inappropriate questions and/or answers and subject to removal. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:13, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
 * That top-of-page message was never approved by the Wikipedia community and you know it. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:34, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
 * No, I know nothing of the sort. But is it even still there? I thought it showed up when you hit "Edit" but it doesn't. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:10, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I must have been thinking of the main ref desk page, where it says Legal or medical advice is prohibited. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:14, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
 * "No, I know nothing of the sort"?? Then post a link to where it the community made the decision. That "Legal or medical advice is prohibited" wording was also never approved by the Wikipedia community. Legal disclaimer or Medical disclaimer do not tell you that legal or medical advice is prohibited, and they certainly don't tell you that ordinary editors can perform deletions and hatting that would otherwise not be allowed under WP:TPOC or WP:DDE. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:41, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
 * "That top-of-page message was never approved by the Wikipedia community and you know it." Maybe you're right about it never having been approved. But good luck proving "that I know it". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:48, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Riiiight. Somehow you missed the dozens of times that I asked you for a shred of evidence that any such policy was ever approved by the community. Yup. Totally believable. I'm done here. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:01, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
 * You've kinda got things turned around. The statement is on the main ref desk page. I assume it's been there for a long time. So if it wasn't approved, why is it still there? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:12, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
 * That item was added on Feb 20, 2013, and the user (who's still active) says he was acting on recommendations at the talk page. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:41, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

ok, this isnt working
I see that the section got hatted again; I didn't have time to check the section but I've answered User:Baseball_Bugs's question.Sildilmek (talk) 20:35, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
 * On the assumption that you are 68.151.25.115, I have unhatted the relevant portion of the question, now that you've clarified it. μηδείς (talk) 20:47, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

It's clear what's going on here
Honestly - I haven't edited here for close to a year. I come back to take a look - and NOTHING has changed. It's the same petty squabbles over hatting - spilling over onto the public side and disrupting the one actual purpose you all have here - and the exact same people screwing things up time after time.

No sign that what they are doing is helping - every possible sign that they are screwing over a previously vibrant, happy community.

The cause is crystal clear - yet still everyone is doomed to following the same path over and over again.

The answer is simple: Ban Medeis and Baseball bugs from editing WP:RD for life...do that and you might stand a chance of recovering things - heck, I'd come back and work here too.

That's the only thing that's gonna work. You have two people who are more interested in doing almost anything other than answering questions nicely. Dump them and the Ref Desks may recover.

Failing that -Quora is turning out really nicely for me. They seem to have gotten everything right. Decent community moderation of questions, answers and comments - no single individual can screw things over - questions that are useless get ignored or downvoted. Add in a finer-grained categorization system...enough questioners and answerers to keep things going nicely. The ability to ask specific experts if they'd please take a look at your question. Statistics so you can see how well you're doing. Ways to subtly recognize good contributors ("You're one of the best writers in subject X!"). The only thing it needs is a more wikipediaesque focus on references...but honestly, nobody seems to miss that too much...people ask for references when they need them - and if the author doesn't supply one, one of the MANY readers will.

Keep this up and WP:RD is doomed...which is sad.

Honestly - I don't see why it's taken so long to see who the miscreants are here and to get the relevant authorities to deal with them.

OK - well, back to Quora. Byeeee! SteveBaker (talk) 18:18, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Maybe you could give us a scholarly comparison between this Quora you're talking about and the site called Stack Exchange which others have touted - when you drop by again a year from now and tell us again how the Wikipedia ref desk is doomed. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:47, 27 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Better to go away for a year than to stay around day after day posting responses that do not refer the questioner to a Wikipedia page and which do not refer the questioner to a citation to a reliable source. I'm just saying. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:26, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Do you have a specific recent example? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:52, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
 * StackExchange has a rating system which also includes the OP accepting the best answer as judged by only the OP, that to some extent bypasses the problem with not giving refs. If not giving (enough) refs is a problem then it will be judged to be so, if not then it's not a problem. Count Iblis (talk) 19:21, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
 * How does that site deal with questions like "How are the Jews destroying civilization?" or "My head hurts. What's the cause?" ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:49, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
 * See here and here. Count Iblis (talk) 21:47, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I think Bugs was being a bit obscure. He was asking how that site deals with repeated attempts to disrupt the site with bad-faith questions and deliberate trolling.  -- Jayron 32</b> 01:06, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Well-stated. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:01, 30 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Trolls are quite rare there, the reason is trolls tend to stay away from sites that go about their business in a professional way. That's the first line of defense; make sure that whatever job we are doing is being done in a way that anyone can see looks to be good. Troll typically come to sites where they can see there is already some trouble and they just join the party to make things even worse. Also, what you get is if things work really well is that you get far more consensus about staying the course that leads to success, so the rules are going to be enforced with far less friction. Postings by trolls can then be removed without that generating much friction. Instead of attracting trolls, you'll then start to attack more and more serious people who make the site more and more prominent. Count Iblis (talk) 21:52, 30 May 2017 (UTC)


 * I've seen you give great answers here. I think you should simply remain and do what you can.  I mean, there's a simple answer to this talk page:  don't read it.  Apparently while that whole stupid ANI thing was going on I went on blissfully ignorant of it.  The way I see it, if they want to ban you for giving good answers, make them do the work ... don't gift wrap a victory they don't deserve.  You really think ANY good site ANYWHERE won't get hit by deletionists, cop wannabes, even saboteurs from rival firms?  The difference is, when you post to Quora it's their content, your gracious gift to the corporation.  I remember not even being able to read Quora threads being told I was supposed to sign up so they can market and sell what topics I like to read about.  Though I think they might have mellowed a little, who cares?  Better a villain with a water pistol than a polite man with a gun, I'm not posting a bunch of stuff just to have it locked up when some fucker in a suit who runs whatever company will end up buying them decides that this content doesn't fit the "corporate image" his string of assets is going to go into bankruptcy with.  The fight between good and evil never goes away, so just hunker down and do your part.  But remember, the most effective part is simply doing what you do.  I mean, our essence, simply enjoying sharing information about science, that's our strength, and it pisses off the opposition the most because it's the place they can't go. Wnt (talk) 11:24, 5 June 2017 (UTC)


 * If it were just the talk page - I'd agree with you, but it's not. It's the warring on the public-facing side of the ref desk and the people who seem to think they've been awarded honorary admin rights or something like that.  I fought against it for a LONG time - but without ANI support and setting some firm boundaries - I don't think this is fixable.
 * You could not be more wrong about Quora: Content you post to Quora belongs to YOU - not them. They are quite clear on that...the Quora terms of service clearly state ""Content" means any information, text, graphics, or other materials uploaded, downloaded or appearing on the Service. You retain ownership of all Content you submit, post, display, or otherwise make available on the Service."...you do share with Quora the right for them to display it elsewhere...pretty much the same deal as Wikipedia.  I commonly double-post my longer answers there to my own blog.  So forget the "corporate evil" angle - it's just not there.  Since there are very few adverts on Quora (and they are unintrusive and easy to ignore) - what they might sell is information about who you are and what you post - but then there are plenty of businesses that scrape data from Wikipedia and sell it...and even "anon" users here share their IP addresses - so that's hardly any kind of difference.  If you opt to delete data from Quora - they'll happily remove it without trace.  You are allowed to copy anything you want from Quora.


 * I've thought long and hard about answering questions at Quora and I've looked into all of those deeper issues there.
 * It's not as cut-and-dried as you seem to think. SteveBaker (talk) 15:00, 5 June 2017 (UTC)


 * You may have a point about retaining nominal copyright, BUT, in practical terms that is almost entirely useless to any would-be mirror site. No one else has permission to copy and use that content, and gaining it would be prohibitively difficult.  The fact that Quora could prevent me from reading answers without submitting to some identification scheme is powerful evidence of how strong their effective control of the content really is, and how willing they are to use it.  And where adverts are concerned, well, you know how the business version of the Carnot cycle works: a site builds up a favorable impression while it's small, then cashes it in when it is big.  Once Quora gets enough answers to enough questions, they'll start tolling people heavily - more ads, maybe video people have to watch first, maybe they'll demand you get IDed with the handy-dandy fingerprint scanners the manufacturers are building into all kinds of modern electronics at the behest of the spy-industrial complex.  I don't know that, but the point is they can do whatever they want, and no one else can, except of course for the heroic software pirates we already rely on so heavily to save the day, who do so much for us and get so little in return. Wnt (talk) 15:17, 5 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Again - read the TOS: "Subject to these Terms, Quora gives you a worldwide, royalty-free, revokable, non-assignable and non-exclusive license to re-post any of the Content on Quora anywhere on the rest of the web provided that the Content was added to the Service after April 22, 2010, and provided that the user who created the content has not explicitly marked the content as not for reproduction..."...it goes on for a bit about attribution (same as Wikipedia) - but yes, you can copy Quora's content. There are restrictions - but not onerous ones.
 * I agree that it's a pain that you can't read the content without an account - but it's a Q & A service and few people come to read old answers...you DO need an account to post - but that's something that a lot of people feel Wikipedia should demand also. SteveBaker (talk) 21:34, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I probably formed my opinion before that date, but reading the TOS now, they are NOT giving anybody a CC-BY license there! The restrictions include that if they want to delete something they claim the right to make you delete it.  Or to modify it however they want it modified -- to the "latest version on Quora.com".  As far as I can tell this would mean, for example, if they want to put web bugs, tracking cookies and scripts, malware etc. into their entries, you're legally bound to do the same.  And of course, that explains the "rest of the web" thing -- no, you don't have permission to put it on a CD or in a book or anywhere like that which might be used to evade the ever-present authority of Quora.  So NO -- even with the license you mention, this is STILL not acceptable.  You're putting your content up for ransom, any time, any place. Wnt (talk) 01:55, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Another advantage over the Ref Desk and StackExchange is that on Quora you can embed YouTube videos :)   . Count Iblis (talk) 22:19, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Vibrancy
I think a big part of the problem we keep trying to solve, then identify, then solve, is that the Reference Desks are, as Steve Summit put it "less vibrant". There's less good stuff here, so the problems and disputes we've always had seem bigger and more all-encompassing than ever.

Inspired by the "Where do we go" thread, and the "Donmust90" thread at ANI, let's (for a moment at least) look at it the other way.

Instead of trying to figure out rules to get rid of the behavior we don't want (once we can all agree on what that is), let's figure out how can we encourage behavior we do want (Which we can all already agree on.).

We do want
 * Questions that are seriously asked, and represent a real desire for knowledge, or a real need for research leads.
 * Clear answers to those questions that link to references (Either on and off wiki) and briefly explain them as necessary.

Whatever else happens on the Ref Desk, whatever else we want or don't want, we definitely want those two things. So how can we encourage it to happen more than it does now? I don't know. I have only a couple of rough ideas to start the conversation.

Questions :

 * Are the groups of users that don't know about the reference desk but that would find it useful? Could a little internal marketing help that?
 * Is there a way we could encourage users to direct other users here when they have such questions? (Would a talk-page "Take this to the RefDesk" template get much use?)
 * Other question sites(Stack Exchange, Quora, etc) show up frequently in Google results, The reference desk almost never does. Can we fix that?

Answers :

 * The Stack Exchange software takes great pains to visually separate answers from discussion. This allows discussion to continue, but emphasizes the importance of answers. I know we can't change the software we use, but is there a clever way something similar could be constructed here? Templates maybe?

I recognize that these are weak ideas and I'm not prepared to strongly argue for any of them, they're just brainstorming examples. But I'm hoping that someone will have a good idea in this spirit that we can pursue. ... otherwise, I really think that whatever is decided about rules and guidelines and clerks and whatever will be a short-term fix at best. ApLundell (talk) 23:37, 6 June 2017 (UTC)


 * One thing that has bothered me is reflected in the first point of your "We do want" section (unless I'm misinterpreting it). Namely "a real desire for knowledge" (my emphasis). As the name of this corner of WP suggests, this is where people can come to ask for references. We are not a "knowledge desk" like the other sites you mention. We aren't here to give our opinions, experience or original research. We (well, most of us) are ostensibly here to provide references for people to investigate and find their own answers. At least that's the way I've always considered it. If the consensus is that our scope is larger than that, perhaps we need to change the name to WP:Knowledge Desk or WP:Answer Desk and rework the "guidelines" to represent what they have de facto become. I hope that is not the case, however. I rather like the idea of strictly providing references and getting rid of the typical forum-type responses of back-and-forth chatting and clique-ish attempts at joking.--William Thweatt TalkContribs 01:12, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I said "knowledge", because in a real library, often your ultimate goal is knowledge. A reference will be involved, because you don't expect the librarian to know the answer off the top of their head (And if they did, you mightn't trust it.), but you aren't necessarily after the cite itself except as a means to an ends. Basically, I didn't want to restrict it to people who need a scholarly citation for a paper they're writing, but I did mean that the thing we can all agree that we want more of are reference questions.  ApLundell (talk) 01:31, 7 June 2017 (UTC)