Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/Archive 90

Does this user's contributions look like vandalism to me only? --SupernovaExplosion (talk) 05:55, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I think WP:AGF would apply here. A new user isn't going to automatically know that it's not considered OK to remove a thread that the user started.  They may view it as just withdrawing the question, sort of like saying "thanks, but never mind" to a real reference librarian who has done some of the work needed to answer a question.  Red Act (talk) 10:52, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Metadiscussion regarding appropriateness of advising people on their legal situation regarding parking tickets.
I have moved the metadiscussion to this page, where it is more appropriate, since it is about reference desk policy, and not about answering the OP's question. -- Jayron  32  19:56, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * If you don't want to answer the question due to legal advice that's fine, but you shouldn't remove the previous answers, especially when those answers also said "we can't give legal advice." RudolfRed (talk) 03:13, 16 February 2012 (UTC)


 * From Reference_desk/Guidelines, and I quote "Questions that ask for medical, legal or other professional advice may be removed and replaced with a message..." (bold mine) and from the box at the top of this page "The reference desk will not answer (and will usually remove) questions that require medical diagnosis or request medical opinions, or seek guidance on legal matters." (bold mine). If you wish to change this practice, please start a discussion at WT:RD to seek consensus to change the practice.  Unless and until the rule is changed, the proper thing to do is to remove the question, NOT to answer it with qualifiers.  In summation, don't complain about people enforcing the rules as written, you must first instead change the rules.  -- Jayron  32  03:34, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The problem was that someone tried to actually give legal advice. Had they left it at "see a lawyer" or "contact your local government office", it might have been OK. Unless a given respondent is actually from Lansing and can give definitive, solid evidence (such as pointing to an official website with the answer clearly stated), they ought not be trying to "help" the OP. There is also another bit of safe advice I might have given: "Don't be a scofflaw - pay the fine." ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:42, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Why would anyone want to park there anyway? It doesn't seem to have much going for it, unless you are particularly keen on observing drug-intoxicated students - at least, that is the impression our article gives. The only example amongst the 'notable people' mentioned that I recognise (as an ignorant Brit, admittedly) is Malcolm X - who seems to have lived "a short distance west of East Lansing", which may very well have been a sensible choice ;-). Wikipedia at its least inspiring... AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:17, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * It's hardly Wikipedia's fault if this particular notable subject has so far failed to inspire the rest of the world. Let us assume that it's not actually the case that it's the Centre of the Universe and Wikipedia has somehow omitted to record that fact.  --   Jack of Oz   [your turn]  08:54, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * It's not only not the center of the known universe, it's not even the center of its own county. It's also a little known fact that the city was named for an Irish settler named Lansing A. Boyle. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:03, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Or was he Lancing A Boil?  Astronaut (talk) 10:29, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * It is a city of 45,000 residents but with a college student population of 48,000. It is a town of 35 km² in area with a university taking up 21 km². Rmhermen (talk) 16:56, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Given that, it's possible that the rules are different on-campus and off-campus. The OP needs to do his own, direct research on this... OR, pay his overdue parking ticket(s). ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:40, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Banned topics
If we cannot give any professional advice on the reference desks, then (from pour article on Professions) the following subjects are al taboo:
 * Accountants
 * Actuaries
 * Advocates
 * Architects
 * Archivists
 * Pilots
 * Chefs (does not fulfill criteria 5-7, thus does not qualify as a profession as described above)
 * Dentists
 * Diplomats (career diplomats only)
 * Engineers
 * Financial analysts
 * Journalists
 * Lawyers
 * Optometrists
 * Nurses
 * Pharmacists
 * Philosophers (does not fulfill criteria 5-7, thus does not qualify as a profession as described above)
 * Physicians
 * Professors (does not fulfill criteria 5-7, thus does not qualify as a profession as described above)
 * Psychologists
 * Scientists (does not fulfill criteria 5-7, thus does not qualify as a profession as described above)
 * Social Workers
 * Surgeons
 * Veterinarians

Doesnt leave a lot does it? We might as well close the reference desks now92.25.101.91 (talk) 14:25, 17 February 2012 (UTC)


 * The guidelines don't say "professional advice." They say, "professional advice on medical and legal matters." --Mr.98 (talk) 15:12, 17 February 2012 (UTC)


 * There's a big difference between giving "professional advice" and just finding references about those subjects, which is what the reference desk is actually supposed to be doing. 82.45.62.107 (talk) 15:16, 17 February 2012 (UTC)


 * So whats the difference between those professions and the ones I listed. Why are those not off limits also?--92.25.101.91 (talk) 15:17, 17 February 2012 (UTC)


 * It isn't that questions are about certain professions. Its that we don't answer questions that one should go to a doctor or a lawyer to get advice about.  "What are the speed limits on Mexican Autopistas?" is a valid question.  "I got a speeding ticket today.  What should I do about it?" is NOT a valid question.  "What does the spleen do?" is a valid question.  "I have a pain in my side.  Is it my spleen causing it?" is not a valid question.  The reasons we don't answer such questions are a bit complex, but it boils down to the fact that the consequences of getting such answers wrong is much worse than for other types of questions.  -- Jayron  32  15:27, 17 February 2012 (UTC)


 * So advice on how to make your own bombs is ok? (science) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.28.71.92 (talk) 16:40, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Can you point to a response to a post on a Reference desk in which "advice on how to make your own bombs" is presented? Bus stop (talk) 17:05, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * It would be allowed under current guidelines as would 'how to rewire your local substation' — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.28.71.92 (talk) 17:08, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Wound inductor = Light current?
I'm fairly certain that the the OP for the Wound inductor question is Light current. The location and ISP are correct, and LC has an interest in electronics. LC has in the past trolled with electronics questions, followed up by making fun of the respondents if he perceives them to have given an incorrect answer. So far I'm only 99% sure this is LC, so I'm not deleting the question immediately, but be advised that any response risks being made fun of. Red Act (talk) 23:09, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Come on, it's a perfectly legitimate question. The fact that it's about electronics and is from someone that uses the same ISP as a known troll is not remotely enough evidence to make that kind of accusation. Can we please stop this ridiculous McCarthy-style LC-hunt? --Tango (talk) 00:00, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I've removed your comment (and the facetious response to it) from the desk. It is completely unfair to OP to makes that kind of accusation like that. I'll report anyone reverting me to WP:ANI. --Tango (talk) 00:03, 13 February 2012 (UTC)


 * No problem Tango - I'll rely on your call. BTW, "facetious" was an excellent characterization, I meant no harm and thought I was expressing the obvious. It was imprudent to do so. hydnjo (talk) 01:21, 13 February 2012 (UTC)


 * If it had only been the ISP and an interest in electronics that matched, I wouldn't have batted an eye. But what you have neglected to address in my post above is that the location (Liverpool) also matched.  Furthermore, if you do a whois on the OP's IP address, you'll see that the post's origin is listed as AS13285, which almost certainly means that it is indeed LC.


 * Yes, it was a perfectly legitimate electronics question. But this was also just a perfectly legitimate electronics question, until he returned to take a crap on the thread.  We've probably fed the troll enough from his post by now that he won't bother taking a crap on the current thread.  And there's a chance that he actually asked the question because he genuinely wanted to know the answer.  But there isn't a snowball's chance in hell that the OP is anyone other than LC.  Red Act (talk) 02:49, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * As has been explained many times before, that location is just the location of the ISP and bares no relation to the location of the user. You can't use geolocation to narrow someone down to more than that they are in the UK. There is absolutely no way you can be that certain that it's LC based on just the ISP and the fact that it's about electronics. That is just plain ridiculous and borders on libel. Stop it. --Tango (talk) 13:08, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't see how "libel" figures into it. He's not being accused of committing a crime. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 10:58, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The definition of libel doesn't include anything about the false statements being accusations of crimes. Any false, damaging statement can be libellous. --Tango (talk) 00:47, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * How could an anonymous, unknown user be "damaged" financially by being falsely accused of sockpuppetry on a website? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:35, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Where are you getting these strange ideas about what libel means? There is no need for the damage to be financial... --Tango (talk) 20:01, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, Perry Mason, who is being "damaged", and how, in your hypothetical case? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:42, 18 February 2012 (UTC)


 * The usual tipoff is that ISP plus the nature of the question. If it's from that IP and acts like LC, it probably is LC. If it's a reasonable question, it could come from any ISP. And there's always the narrow possibility that LC decided to ask a reasonable question. If he had behaved in a normal civilized way from the get-go, he wouldn't be banned. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:05, 14 February 2012 (UTC)


 * You seem to be suggesting that if you do a geolocation on any set of LC's ISP's IP addresses in the UK, they will all geolocate to the same location, namely the ISP's national headquarters or something. But that isn't the case.  The IP of the OP in question was 92.28.91.245, which is part of the block of IPs owned by LC's ISP consisting of the range 92.24.0.0 - 92.29.255.255 .  I just now did a geolocate on 10 random IPs in that range.  Four of the 10 IPs geolocated to London, which isn't too surprising, but the remaining 6 IPs geolocated to 6 different cities spread all over England.  If the IP had just geolocated to London, that wouldn't be particularly strong evidence, but the Liverpool area has a population about 16 times smaller than the London area.  Red Act (talk) 04:31, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * AS13285. That is the service aggregator, whatever "geolocation" address shows up for the owner of the particulat range is irrelevant. Inspection of RD interactions from all addresses managed from AS13285 (from when Opal bought those ranges) will show that they are overwhelmingly from the same editor. There is a user preference to enable IP range searching on the usercontribs special page, anyone is free to give it a shot and find contrary evidence. Franamax (talk) 04:56, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The OP's follow-up comment to this question seemed perfectly reasonable to me... --Tango (talk) 00:47, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't call it "reasonable", as it was snippy and filled with "attitude" - but not LC-like attitude, just garden variety IP attitude. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:55, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

edit filter
I'm trying to post a comment to the computer desk but I am getting "triggered filter 58, performing the action "edit" on Wikipedia:Reference desk/Computing. Actions taken: Disallow; Filter description: Long-term pattern abuse". I don't know much about the edit filters and I am not comfortable going to those pages to report false positives. Can someone else have a look and see what is wrong? I can edit other questions fine, just that one is the problem. Thank you. 82.45.62.107 (talk) 23:07, 17 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Can you tell us which question you edited and what you tried to post ? Offhand I would guess you are using an I/P address that falls into a range used by a troll.  If so, registering and posting under that name might solve the problem. StuRat (talk) 23:22, 17 February 2012 (UTC)


 * It's all there in the filter log entry that 82.45 provided. I'm not all that good with the nitty-gritty of the edit filter, so I'm investigating.  If I can't figure out what caused this edit to trip the filter, I will ask input from the person who coded filter 58, the one that was tripped.  -- Jayron  32  23:27, 17 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I just investigated, and the relevent filter was edited recently (about 6 hours ago); so I have contacted the editor that made the recent changes to see if the OP is the intended target, and if not, to see if this can be fixed. Please be patient while we work this out.  -- Jayron  32  23:32, 17 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Just following up, this looks to be resolved, per . I hope it is; if anyone else has problems in this regard, please let us know!  -- Jayron  32  14:37, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks 82.45.62.107 (talk) 11:44, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Sections not visible
Don't know if this is happening to others, but in my browser I can't see the sections below this one. -- Supernova Explosion   Talk  12:26, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * This edit damaged the SineBot template, which hid everything after it. I've fixed it 82.45.62.107 (talk) 12:38, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * For those having problems seeing it, try zooming in since it's only one character. What happened was the deletion of one - from the closing tag for sinebot's hidden comment, hence the tag was never closed and the rest of the page became a hidden comment. Nil Einne (talk) 01:19, 22 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Whoa, I'm really sorry if I damaged that Sinebot. I'll take more care in future. I wondered why my post didn't initially appear, God you learn so much here. (holds up hands in apology) Richard Avery (talk) 19:36, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

How many questions are too many?
I'm a little bit troubled by the amount of traffic that we're seeing from of late. I count fourteen new threads created in the last week, and five just in the last day.


 * 1) Bacteria ID50
 * 2) Nukeproof armor
 * 3) Ships flying out of water
 * 4) Sleep deprivation
 * 5) Horses in roller skates
 * 6) Folding spacetime
 * 7) T-shaped versus trigonal planar
 * 8) Exploding ions
 * 9) BHeF3
 * 10) Nerveagentase
 * 11) Dyeing one's brain
 * 12) Fusor weapon
 * 13) Chunks of ions
 * 14) Helium hydride ions

To be absolutely clear, it's not my intent to discourage people from making regular use of the Ref Desk's services, nor am I unaware that the editors offering their services here are volunteers, able to choose for themselves which questions deserve their attention. Generally speaking, any one of those questions would be reasonable to ask here. Nevertheless, we have in the past sometimes had to reign in the occasional editor who overwhelms a Desk with stump-the-Ref-Desk-type questions and activity. (As of a few minutes ago, half of the questions under today's date on the Science desk were from Whoop whoop, including four of the last five.) Looking at the last few weeks' contributions, I am concerned that Whoop whoop is using the Ref Desk as a source of social interaction and entertainment when he gets bored on the weekends.

I would be inclined to be more flexible if the editor had a demonstrated history of giving back to this part of the project through his own work at the Desk. Unfortunately, his only other contributions to the Desk this weekend were the addition of unhelpful jokes and gag images  to one thread (encouraged by Baseball Bugs), and a – somewhat ironic – lecture about courtesy  to another editor who had made a formatting error.

I suppose I'm putting a few questions forward, then. First, is this recent pattern reflective of Whoop whoop's history with the desk, or are we seeing a temporary departure for an otherwise-helpful and -constructive volunteer? Second, is Whoop whoop's current approach to the Desks appropriate and sustainable, or should he be asked (or if necessary, compelled) to employ a little more restraint? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:10, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, seems to be getting out of hand now, and maybe turning slightly trollish.--92.28.79.174 (talk) 21:26, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Ironically, the above IP is from LC's neighborhood. In any case, of the 14 items submitted by Whoop, only the one about dying a brain seemed absurd. Several of the others look like they could easily be self-answered with a little googling, but unlike LC's usual idiocies, the Whoopie questions appear mundane, if a bit obscure. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:38, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Who or what is "LC"? Whoop whoop pull up Bitching Betty 21:49, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * A long-standing, banned troll named "Light current", who operates from that same Liverpool ISP. If this one actually is LC, so far its comments all seem harmless. As regards this complaint about your questions, be aware that every so often the denizens of this page (me included, sometimes) feel the need to find someone to complain about, and this time it's you that's the target. Next week it will be someone else. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:15, 29 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I think five in one day is a bit too much. An average of two per day, on the other hand, seems reasonable. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:44, 29 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I believe after previous complaints, Whoop whoop pull up seemed to reduce the amount of questions. (Either that or real life got in the way.) Hopefully they will do this again. I wouldn't say they're trolling, but as BB said, they seem to ask a large number of questions, some of which could probably be answered by Googling. Even many of the questions which couldn't be answered by Googling that may be because they're rather weird or even inane and difficult to actually answer with references. IMO APL put it well last time Wwpu came up when they said 'Perhaps it could be politely explained to him that the reference desk isn't really for asking a large number of questions that just happened to pop into your head, and that he shouldn't overuse the resource' Nil Einne (talk) 14:37, 30 January 2012 (UTC)


 * "Nerveagentase" was a very good question. "Dyeing one's brain", not so much.  He'll probably run out of ideas before we run out of patience.  Remember, one purpose of the Refdesks should be to accumulate a huge archive of questions and answers which, someday, natural language processing software will be able to call upon to give curious people all over the world answers based (in part) on what we were able to come up with. Wnt (talk) 04:13, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I believe that if questions are asked out of mere curiosity, a self-imposed limit of one question per day is reasonable. If questions are asked because the editor needs the information for some purpose, I don't think there should be any specific limit. Looie496 (talk) 05:16, 9 February 2012 (UTC)


 * OMG! Someone using Wikipedia as "a source of social interaction and entertainment when he gets bored" ! Something that has hardly ever happened before. Edison (talk) 04:47, 13 February 2012 (UTC)


 * The editor clearly needs to be given specific directives about what or what isn't allowed on the reference desk.  Uhlan  talk  03:22, 20 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I have hatted his latest RD/S post, as there appears to be no scientific content and unanimous response that it is both off-topic itself and overtly disruptive based on his edit-pattern. DMacks (talk) 21:25, 25 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm not going to argue that one - the questions really should be sort of answerable; when it comes to vague words like "destroy" and "Sumatra" the questioner has some responsibility to narrow down what he means. Besides, if humans knew how to destroy Sumatra we probably would have done it already. Wnt (talk) 23:42, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 * What? Why would we have destroyed Sumatra if we could? That's a very strange thing to say... --Tango (talk) 02:14, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I've removed the section entirely. Don't collapse trolling, just remove it. There is nothing to be gained from keeping it there is collapsed form. --Tango (talk) 02:14, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Good removal. There were plenty of ways to have worded that question that might have been acceptable. His way wasn't one of them. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:38, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Miscellaneous problem
Anyone else having difficulty with the rendering of the WP:RD/M page on an iPad? It displays at about 2/3 size (left justified), all of the other desks and this page are all OK. hydnjo (talk) 23:20, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Additional information: The problem began with the edit at 05:15, 21 February 2012 by 58.165.233.148. All revisions before that one render properly. I looked at the diff but can't see the problem. Help! hydnjo (talk) 14:21, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Purge your cache (can you do that with an iPad or do you have to buy another one?) and try now. My suspicion is that the insanely long link with no place for a line break might be broking the page format, so I put square brackets around the link. Franamax (talk) 16:48, 26 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I had already washed my Pad under hot water to clean the cache but to no avail. However, your "dressing" of the link did fix it! Thanks Franamax - saved me a bunch of $ ;-) hydnjo (talk) 18:35, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Who will play Miranda Hobbes, Charlotte York and Samantha Jones in the upcoming TV adaptation of "The Carrie Diaries"?
Do you know who will play Miranda Hobbes, Charlotte York and Samantha Jones in the upcoming TV adaptation of The Carrie Diaries? AdamDeanHall (talk) 18:55, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Please place your question on the Entertainment Ref Desk - WP:RD/E ; this page is for discussing the operation of all the desks. -- LarryMac  | Talk  19:05, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Template for article creations triggered by questions
I vaguely remember there was a template made to tag articles made in response to a question, but I cannot find it any more. Does anyone know what it is? And can we mention it at WP:RD/G or somewhere? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:34, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Template:WPRDAC AvrillirvA (talk) 11:30, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks I had never heard of this project before! Graeme Bartlett (talk) 05:13, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Pre-testing this question
I want to ask the following question on the Misc. desk. I don't think it's banned because it's obviously not a request for medical advice as the people involved are dead. Nonetheless, I want to solicit any objections here first to avoid an argument on the desk itself.

''In 2004, there was a liberal guy who shot himself at Ground Zero in New York because he was despondent at George W. Bush's re-election. It turned out he also had some personal relationship stuff going on that contributed to the suicide, but there have been others who have killed themselves, or tried to, either because of despondency at a political situation or as a political protest. See Szmul Zygielbojm, Jan Palach, Lee Kyung Hae, etc.

''When someone is suicidal, or survives a suicide attempt, he or she is taken to a psyche ward. But assuming that such a person does not have something like schizophrenia or bipolar disorder, for which there are standard treatment programs of medication and therapy, what would they do with a guy like one of the above-mentioned people if he survived? I can't imagine that a daily Zoloft and a weekly hour with a therapist would solve a problem the guy sees as completely external.''

Mwalcoff (talk) 03:54, 7 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, there's suicidal, and there's suicidal. Sometimes, rational, healthy people do kill themselves for political statements, and not just because they are despondant, but because they are desperate.  Those are distinct situations: killing oneself out of hopelessness is different than killing onesself to effect change in the world.  Indeed, there's a form of "hope" (in the sense that there is a belief that ones actions have the chance to change the world) in some forms of killing onesself, such as political self-immolation (c.f. Thich Quang Duc and Mohamed Bouazizi, we even have a List of political self-immolations), more generally martyrdom, even suicide attacks such as Kamikaze.  Now, one may disagree with the motivation, the necessity, or even the general worldview of a person who would kill oneself in these ways, but these are not depressive people, who kill themselves out of hopelessness.  No idea how this applies to any specific cases you cite above, but people don't allways kill themselves because they are despondant.  For anyone who survives a suicide attempt, whether it is because of depression or because they were making a political statement (and failed), the potential "treatment" would be quite varied, because the reason they attempted to take their own life would be different.  -- Jayron  32  04:45, 7 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Also, just post on the Ref Desk directly, and, if it's removed, then repost here. (Hopefully whoever removes it would do that, too, but many seem too lazy to do a removal properly.) StuRat (talk) 05:18, 7 March 2012 (UTC)


 * But if you do post it, do try to avoid the word liberal as a descriptor in this global encyclopaedia. It's a word with diverse meanings across the globe, with the American one differing a lot from those used elsewhere. HiLo48 (talk) 06:59, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

New sub-pontine user
Looks like we have another one. (It's first query was bizarre but not so obviously capriphageous). {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.197.66.188 (talk) 12:43, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I think the prefix you wanted was "copro". "Capri" would mean goat.  But of course, not goatse.  -- LarryMac  | Talk  18:36, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * No, goat was exactly what I meant. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.197.66.16 (talk) 20:14, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Dubious question
Someone might want to review this question in the light of the contributor's history, and delete it if it is deemed not in good faith:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Language#Translation — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.177.108.83 (talk) 02:57, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Although it is a fantastically calm and intelligent response by Alansplodge, I definately do think it should be deleted. Plus he is a vandal.  Uhlan  talk  05:16, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

"Edgy" questions
Recently, I asked this question on the science desk: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Science&diff=prev&oldid=479505483

Soon thereafter, the question was deleted and I was blocked without warning by an administrator. Both ref deskers and administrators seemed to assume, without any evidence, that I must be a troll. I explained my reasons for asking the question on my talk page--namely, that I was curious about a historical practice described in our history of masturbation article. I admit that this isn't topic isn't everybody's cup of tea, but neither is the Holocaust, yet we don't suspect Holocaust historians of being secret sadists. Administrators who reviewed my block, however, seemed bent on assuming bad faith and refusing to engage in any dialog.

I had asked similarly edgy questions before, regarding controversial subjects such as racism and honor killings. Every time, a substantial number of reference deskers promptly labelled me a troll and dismissed my question out of hand. At the same time, OP's such as Whoop whoop are allowed to dominate the desk with trivial questions that they neither need or want an answer to. As an established Wikipedia user and ref desk regular, I cannot disagree more with this attitude. I believe that questions which challenge the fundamental moral basis of society, questions that are intimately relevant to the world's social problems, are the ones most worthy of discussion. To be sure, Reference Desk contributors can't solve the world's problems, and even if they could, the reference desk is no place for opinions or original research. But banning edgy questions robs the Reference Desk of one of its most potentially valuable roles: as one of the few places on the Internet with smart, talented volunteers willing to answer genetic questions, it could answer controversial questions more objectively than almost any other site on the Internet.

Because I care about Wikipedia and the Reference Desk, I make this request of every regular: please assume good faith, and rather than accusing questioners of trolling or censoring their posts, answer their questions as well as you can. You are some of the very few people on the Internet who can answer the most controversial questions with some measure of scientific objectivity. --140.180.6.168 (talk) 02:39, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Sounds to me like you're asking questions because they are edgy, and you think society's moral views need to be challenged and this is the place to do it. You are wrong. This is a place for people to ask questions to which they don't know the answer - not a place to ask interesting stuff and watch the results. You geolocate to a university, why not walk out of the dorm room and have these deeply interesting (to you) discussions at your local debating society or pub? I can't exactly figure out why we need you here, or should be willing to accommodate your "edgy" questions. Franamax (talk) 03:06, 3 March 2012 (UTC)


 * No, I am not asking questions because they are edgy; I'm asking them because they're relevant, and because I want to be informed. For example, I recently asked a question about whether people who practice honor killings justify their actions based on the Quran, and if so, which verses they use.  Given the rampant Islamophobia in today's society, don't you think that's a worthwhile question to address?  I honestly didn't know the answer and wanted to be informed, if only because I wanted to have an educated opinion of Islam.  I didn't ask it to "see what happens"; in fact, I honestly didn't expect half the responders to object to my questions.  Finally, as for why you "need" me here, you don't, but I would humbly suggest that you don't need someone like Whoop whoop either.  --140.180.6.168 (talk) 04:51, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Starting a thread about yourself then turning it around into a thread about someone else is a pretty good sign of trolling. If you have a problem with Whoop whoop, start a separate section. Comparisons to others don't justify your own actions and it's curious how people always pick someone "worse" to compare themselves to, rather than someone "better". Franamax (talk) 05:17, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I mostly agree, and I would like to clarify one point: I believe Whoop whoop should be allowed to ask his questions, and they should not be censored. This section is not intended as a personal attack.  In the meanwhile, I would honestly appreciate it if you addressed my arguments, instead of accusing me of trolling.  --140.180.6.168 (talk) 06:10, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Whoop whoop has been discussed in the top thread of this page. Consensus shows that his questions shouldn't be answered. Also it is hard to not accuse you of trolling when using an IP that has been blocked previously due to vandalism.  Uhlan  talk  07:00, 3 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I am not familiar with this editor's history and offer no opinion his alleged trollhood. But I don't think there should be any necessary reluctance to honor "edgy" questions at these desks, since Wikipedia is, of course, not censored.
 * The story is told that a recurring question in the early days of the Reference Desk involved, um, dog poop -- and you can in fact see it being asked and answered in the second RD archive ever, at Reference Desk archive 2. —Steve Summit (talk) 01:46, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * There's no problem with edgy questions, the problem is with questions made up specifically to be edgy, or in this case because someone feels that society will or should be interested in the answer. This is a place for genuine curiosity, not some sort of erudite Socratic dialog where the competition os to ask the "best" questions to educate the masses. Franamax (talk) 02:02, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

So... what was wrong with IP's original question? SamuelRiv (talk) 06:59, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * What was it? The IP said himself that he was asking questions about masturbation and other repulsive subjects, so I haven't looked at his specific questions.  Uhlan  talk  07:11, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Questions promoting child abuse are obviously inappropriate for any number of reasons. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 09:30, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Interesting article
I thought this blog post by Jeff Atwood was relevant to the Ref Desk. Both because I've had the same experience, but it's one of the reasons I think that trying to coax a good question out of an OP can be valuable. Just sending it around as food for thought, not with any obvious changes implied by it. I worry that our "how to ask" header is too long and mostly skipped. I don't see much of a way around that, though I wonder if an Editnotice might be worth thinking about for adding new sections on Ref Desk pages. Maybe not. --Mr.98 (talk) 12:20, 15 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I think we could do well by simplifying and shortening our "how to ask" section. Brevity has merit.  Nimur (talk) 19:05, 15 March 2012 (UTC)


 * One way to make the rules more succinct without losing detail is to move the details to pages accessed by links. For example, we could have a rule Don't ask us to do your homework, with the link fully explaining how we will help them with their homework, once they show us what they've done and where they've encountered the problem. StuRat (talk) 03:16, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Medical removal
I have removed a question and series of answers from the Science desk regarding treatment of gallstones. Per past discussions, I doubt the involved editors will concur. Per past discussions, I expect this to be an otherwise consensus removal. &mdash; Lomn 13:11, 11 March 2012 (UTC) Can we treat gallbladder stones in a non-surgical way? I know a non-surgical treatment method is mentioned in the article but is there another non-surgical method? Eugene CKG (talk) 03:06, 11 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I added a title (and resisted the urge to call it "Galling question from stoned user"). :-) StuRat (talk) 03:12, 11 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Out article lists several ways, under the "Medical" and "Alternative medicine" sections of Gallstone. However, these don't appear to work if the stones are lodged in the common bile duct. StuRat (talk) 05:38, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

(ec)I trust you've followed ursodeoxycholic acid and bile bears, extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy, and Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography from the article.

In addition to these I'll list from a quick search of top Google hits some online remedies without claiming they work or don't. It's clear that there is quite a lot of interest, and sales, from people seeking cheap easy herbal alternatives to surgery, and it would be well worth trying to figure out if any of this is effective. The research may not have been done, though. As you'll see, there are quite a few hypotheses here and it would/will take quite some time to evaluate them all; however I will say that it is my impression that consumption of large amounts of oils to "flush out gallstones" ( etc.) is a fraud, where the oil simply forms lumps that people take for the flushed gallstones, and is slightly hazardous in the manner of any high-fat diet. I won't even mention the acupuncture, yoga poses, etc. - not that I rule out the conceivable possibility of effect from the latter by some physical push or loosening, but I'd like to focus on things that don't require good technique from the user. It should be interesting to look up how much if any of this has any identifiable support from research:


 * milk thistle (silymarin) and dandelion (taraxacin) to increase bile production and thus, it is said, to flush out solutes; also oregon grape for this purpose; also rosemary and wild yam to increase bile and "eliminate spasms"; also mint oil to "break down small gallstones".


 * "Lysmachia, Jin Qian Cao, "Gold Coin Herb" is used for gallstones and for kidney stones. To optimize its use for gallstones, combine this herb with Artemesia Capillaris (Yin Chen), Bupleurum (Chai Hu), and Gardenia seed (Zhi Zi). Ingesting mixtures of oily and acidic foods, such as olive oil and lemon juice are said to act as solvents to dissolve the fatty gallstones." Also the Chinese patent medicine Li Dan Pian is mentioned.


 * agrees on peppermint oil, milk thistle, dandelion root, and adds globe artichoke and turmeric to the stew.


 * agrees on artichoke, attributing activity to Caffeoylquinic acid and Cyanarin, which it claims "out-performs conventional gallstone treatments in some European nations." Also mentions milk thistle, turmeric, and even has a few references.


 * mentions "An Ayurvedic practitioner may recommend taking an Ayurvedic formula containing six herbs, including musta and shilajit" in addition to that "flush" nastiness with three tablespoons of olive oil. Not to leave anything out, it also suggests "Combine equal amounts of tinctures of wild yam, fringetree bark, milk thistle, and balmony, and take a teaspoonful of the blend several times a day. Drink chamomile or lemon balm tea or a combination tea of balmany and fringetree. ... Other beneficial herbs for treating gallstones include catnip, cramp bark, dandelion, fennel, ginger root, and horsetail."  It also makes a nod to common sense by reminding people to drink lots of fluids, which I'm prone to think is a Good Thing where any precipitation disorder is concerned (though I should look that up too...).  And "Corydalis Formula, Liver Strengthening Tablets, Minor Bupleurum Formula, Rhubarb and Scutellaria Formula, and Lidan Tablets. For gallbladder pain, Corydalis Analgesic Tablets"


 * "To alleviate the abdominal pain at the start of an attack drinking a full glass of water may be helpful since it will regulate the bile in the gallbladder. If this doesn’t help, it is recommended to take magnesium followed by any bitter liquid (coffee or Swedish bitters) an hour after, it is proved that bitter flavors stimulate bile flow." Also recommends barberry bark, ginger root, any mint leaf, turmeric, gold coin grass, milk thistle.


 * Still on the first page of popular Google hits, we get to high weirdness. "Like with all other degenerative diseases, calculus has a metaphysical etiology. Metaphysically speaking, stones (calculus) are the result of noxious and "bitter" thoughts which are chiefly rooted in jealousy and envy and which are carried around, unwisely unresolved and unexpressed over a long period of time. Since rigidity pertains to "stiffness" and "hardness" ... Rigid people are more likely to be astro-zodiacally "fixed" sign individuals such as Taurus, Leo, Scorpio, and Aquarius."  Then, somewhat more plausible, but not to the degree they say - "Just as a person cannot develop high cholesterol without eating animal and animal products (meat and dairy), likewise a person cannot develop stones (kidney, bladder or gall) without eating meat and dairy products. A vegan diet is greatly advocated for healing purposes as well as overall qualitative lifestyle purposes."  This site gives a broader list of herbs "Chanca Piedra, Gravel Root (a/k/a Queen of the Meadow), Buchu, Uva Ursi, Hydrangea, Stone Root, Cornsilk, Parsley Root, Horsetail (Shavegrass), Juniper Berry, Dandelion Root, Burdock Root, Devil's Claw, Agrimony, Celery Seed, Sassafras, and Safflower (Saffron)."  I should note that sassafras has its detractors, some of the others are simply herbs for pain relief, and to cap it off, this site advises a full glass of olive oil nightly!  I think this site illustrates well what happens when some people wander over to the wrong side of the bar. ;)


 * The site after this is the commercial site for the aforementioned Yidan, but the one after that: "Traditional choleretics and cholagogues, herbs intended to increase the production and flow of bile, include barberry (Berberis vulgaris), burdock (Arctium lappa), dandelion root (Taraxacum officinale), fumitory (Fumaria officinalis), globe artichoke (Cynara scolymus), goldenseal (Hydrastis canadensis), greater celandine (Chelidonium majus), milk thistle (Silybum marianum), Oregon grape (Berberis aquifolium) and peppermint (Mentha x piperita)."; it then makes sane-sounding arguments for silymarin and peppermint, claiming "Menthol belongs to a class of compounds called terpenes that, for decades, has been studied for the treatment of gallstones. Studies suggest that terpenes keep cholesterol crystals from forming in bile and may even dissolve existing stones. A terpene mixture derived from purified plant essential oils, known as Rowachol, has been used in Europe since the mid-1950s for treating gallstones. Although Rowachol is unavailable in the United States, health care practitioners can request a generic form from a compounding pharmacist. Michael Murray, N.D., in the Encyclopedia of Natural Medicine (Prima Publishing, 1998), suggests that enteric-coated peppermint oil might also act as a suitable substitute."

As you see from this list, we're starting to have a lot of repetition, but new suggestions keep trickling in. Covering the ideas out there exhaustively will be difficult, and of course, figuring out which are somewhat supported by evidence, more so. I'll set this down now and hopefully get around later to actually evaluating the claims. Wnt (talk) 06:06, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

The question is a completely general one about how gallstones are treated. There is no medical advice here; we have not been presented with a case at all. This is an example of how this policy is abused to suppress any coverage of the science. I will revert this. Wnt (talk) 15:03, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The question was probably OK, it is Wnt's answer, which deliberately sets out to mislead and endanger health, which should be removed. This is a science desk, not the local fortune-teller's. Franamax (talk) 15:09, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I haven't even begun answering the question, but I find the dogmatic rejection of herbal medicine to be unscientific. Many modern medicines originated in ancient times as herbal remedies, and the process of research is far from complete.  Of course, any evidence you can contribute to the thread to argue for the ineffectiveness of any of these notions is much welcome. Wnt (talk) 16:49, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Evidence to argue for the ineffectiveness? You do realize it's a Science desk, right? Things are not accepted as fact unless there is specific evidence to refute them. Nothing at all refutes the Christian Bible's account of creation (since an almighty god can do whatever they want with radiocative dating) - are you going to start quoting Holy Verse next? Franamax (talk) 17:13, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
 * We've seen more than a little Biblical quotation around there already. I presented these as hypotheses, and I was hoping to work through them all to figure out which have evidence for them, though between the deletions, the attitude, the confusing state of the literature, and the near-total lack of relevant Wikipedia articles about the plants, herbal terms, and medical practices involved this appears to be a much larger and more frustrating task than I'd thought.  I started with Lysimachia christinae, which seems promising, though it turns out that Jin Qian Cao (just made that) can refer to a lot of things, which is why we see sources using Lysimachia interchangeably with "Herba Desmodii".  Let's be clear - people are using these herbs, selling these herbs, with the notion that they are good for gallstones, and in China, they apparently actually do expel gallstones with these methods (with some hair-raising accompaniments like 50 mls of 50% magnesium salt).  It is well within the purview of answering a question to try to figure out what people are doing, then see what the evidence is for or against it. Wnt (talk) 18:15, 11 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Good removal. Not only is it medical advice, but it's abusing wikipedia to try to push a fringe theory. It's equivalent to advising the OP to pray for recovery. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:55, 11 March 2012 (UTC)


 * OP asked for a "fringe theory", or at least, information about alternatives to surgery. I was not "pushing" these ideas at all - indeed, I haven't even sorted through them yet.  Would you people be saying we shouldn't discuss fuzzballs because GR black holes are the One True Canon? Wnt (talk) 23:38, 11 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Just because someone asks for fringe-theory advice doesn't mean we should provide any. The last thing we need is lawsuits against wikipedia over someone dying because they thought some herb would cure their gallstones. And don't give me some lecture about wikipedia being somehow "immune" from lawsuits. Let's not put ourselves in the position of testing that theory. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:41, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The Web is full of people selling these pills and making expansive claims about them. I dare say I can summarize these claims, look for scientific evidence, and say what I could find without getting sued.  The Refdesk normally entertains very wide-ranging conversations, and we should not exclude consideration of ideas simply out of fear that they might threaten the medical cartel's sacred right to control - or deny - treatment as it deems fit.  We are talking here about a condition for which the "normal" treatment is a permanent mutilation of the human body, which guarantees long term adverse effects; the risk of which can rather likely be reduced, to some extent, by simple nutritional preventative measures such as the amount of magnesium consumed, and for which medical practice in non-U.S. countries can be very different.  I will not feel guilty for surveying what is being mentioned on the Web, or what is known scientifically about these ideas. Wnt (talk) 06:32, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The internet is populated by all manner of saints and sinners, upstanding citizens and con artists. It is not wikipedia's place to promote quackery. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 09:28, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Nothing wrong with discussing it though - we have threads about water-powered cars and perpetual motion machines rather often. By contrast, a lot of these "fringe" ideas from Ayurvedic and traditional Chinese medicine and the Western herbal tradition were regarded as good medical practice for thousands of years by some of the greatest physicians of antiquity.  They're not all right all the time, but the ideas with a historical basis are always worthy of respect and serious research. Wnt (talk) 14:19, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Which water-powered cars and perpetual motion machines are being considered as treatments for serious medical problems? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:17, 13 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Why punish the OP for a respondents failure to follow the medical advice rule? The question itself was not asking for medical advice, it was asking for verifiable information on a medical topic. 82.45.62.107 (talk) 19:17, 11 March 2012 (UTC)


 * 1) The question itself did not solicit medical advice, therefore it's removal was improper.


 * 2) They certainly are entitled to ask about any treatments used for a certain problem, whether Western medicine or not. As for the question of it being on the Science Desk, a case could be made for moving it to the Misc Desk.  However, there will be many questions where part of the answer is science and some is not, and it's a judgement call as to which get moved.  I suppose we could dual post all such questions, with the scientific answers on one desk and the rest on another, but that seems rather silly. StuRat (talk) 03:02, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

(outdent) I will take the concerns and disagreements about the removal of the question to heart when acting in the future. Beyond that, I'm disappointed that Wnt -- who is repeatedly at odds with RD consensus on what is and is not acceptable medical content -- is the one who unilaterally re-added (and appended) all of his content. I find the provided rationale of "but I haven't even evaluated any of the medical opinion I'm offering" to be even worse than offering that same content with no comment at all. That said, I don't see that there's any further need for my action on this one. &mdash; Lomn 15:45, 12 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't see a problem with this question or the response to it. If Wnt had followed through with his plan to start evaluating the claims, then he would have been getting into dangerous territory, but just providing a whole load of references is precisely what the ref desk is here for. --Tango (talk) 02:20, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * So if the OP follows one of those quack remedies and dies, we can quote from Animal House: "Hey! He f'ed up! He trusted us!" ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:30, 15 March 2012 (UTC)


 * The OP asked "Can we treat gallbladder stones in a non-surgical way?". Wnt did not provide one single example of treating gallstones in a non-surgical way, NOT ONE. They provided a list of scams and unproven folk medicine with not a word in the later summary to affirm that none of them are actual remedies. And they went further, in their zeal to use the Science desk to promote their own notion of the usefulness of unproven "medicine" simply because someone, somewhere, used it once or has it for sale today - they mention in their summary for silymarin it is "well known for hepatoprotective qualities", referring to a source that has the phrases "no definitive evidence that it is effective", "failed to prove effective", "little to no evidence as yet that it really helps these conditions", "did not find any significant differences". I call that actively misleading the reader. Franamax (talk) 05:37, 15 March 2012 (UTC)


 * The phrasing of the question could go either way in my mind, but if we interpret the question as a request for general knowledge (Then "we" must imply mankind in general?), then I don't see a problem the question or with Wnt's post. Those are certainly treatments used for that problem. I would have preferred if it was more clear that they were crazy fringe treatments that almost certainly won't work, but anyone could have noted that simply by replying to Wnt.
 * The argument that Wnt's posts should be removed because they're unscientific doesn't seem to hold water. We don't routinely remove "unscientific" refdesk answers do we?
 * If the question is allowed to stand, then Wnt's answer should have also been allowed to stand. APL (talk) 09:54, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Since the OP didn't make any further edits after that one, we can't know for sure what he was thinking, but his contribs at least suggest that he's talking about himself. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 10:57, 15 March 2012 (UTC)


 * To be clear, the question did stand, and I sorted through a few things - meant to get back in it in more detail, but somehow I ended up on both sides of the grandest witch hunt ever to run through Commons... Wnt (talk) 00:08, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Should questions in other languages be permitted/encouraged in some circumstances?
Recently, a question was asked at the the Reference Desk on language. It was unclear exactly what was being asked, but it was a non-native speaker asking for help with English, which definitely would have made an answer from the English-language Ref Desk relevant and desirable. I wonder whether perhaps in certain circumstances questions in other languages should be allowed, and this possibility specified in the posting guidelines.

True, the OP didn't return to clarify their question. However, this may well have been out of embarrassment that they hadn't been understood the first time, because of their poor English. One response even made light of it.

It is likely that many people who understand English but are uncomfortable writing it would benefit from being able to use the Reference Desk. This may be because the question is especially relevant to English-speakers (e.g., a question about the English language or English-speaking countries), or because the Reference Desk of their own language Wikipedia is inactive or nonexistent. In most cases, one of us will be able to provide a translation, after which anybody can answer. Since this would be an exception to the general understanding that English should be used on the English Wikipedia, potential posters would need to be informed that this was consistent with etiquette here.

What are your views on this? 96.46.202.232 (talk) 01:38, 16 March 2012 (UTC)


 * We have had questions posted in other languages, and I agree that this is better than an incomprehensible question written in what the OP thinks is English. One common problem, though, seems to be that they think they know English better than they actually do, so they may not see the need to post in their own language. StuRat (talk) 03:11, 16 March 2012 (UTC)


 * That's one thing that bothers me - when somebody makes fun of someone else's English like that. Learning a language is not easy.  The last thing I would want when I post something on the internet to strangers is for somebody to belittle the effort that I've put into learning another language. Falconus p  t   c 09:30, 16 March 2012 (UTC)


 * However, we do need to let them know that their question is incomprehensible, and that posting in their native language would work better, but it's difficult to find a way to say that which doesn't sound insulting. StuRat (talk) 09:46, 16 March 2012 (UTC)


 * One thing that has a greater propensity to cause offence is putting the focus on them and their writing ("Your question is hard to understand"). If, however, we talk about our own experience ("I'm having difficulty understanding your question"), the message is conveyed with less risk of them feeling accused of saying the wrong thing.  They'll still understand they've said the wrong thing, but it's not something they'll get defensive about.   --   Jack of Oz   [your turn]  10:03, 16 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, I can see the point of allowing questions in other languages, but there must be no answers in other languages, unless accompanied by translations into English. Without a translation all non-speaker of that other language would be being excluded from the conversation. HiLo48 (talk) 10:37, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree with all the comments above. I was thinking of including wording like this in the posting guidelines:


 * Although we prefer questions be asked in English [Alternatively: If you're not comfortable writing in English], you may ask your question in another language. If we're able to, we'll translate it into English, and you'll generally receive answers in English.

If we ever see a question in a language we don't understand, we can ask the language desk for help. I think we should answer in English. Pointing out that we'll be translating questions ought to keep them short.

If it seems warranted in a particular case and one of us has time, we can offer to translate/summarize some or all of the answers, but this is really an extra. In most cases, if people are here, they probably understand English reasonably well (well enough that it's less of an effort for them to look words up than for us to translate). My point is mainly to help people who understand English but write it only with difficulty.

One thing I don't know is whether there's a real danger of inappropriate material being posted in an uncommon language and potentially causing trouble. If so, how can this be dealt with? 96.46.206.92 (talk) 13:44, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Whenever I have to make comments on another language's Wikipedia, I'll leave two messages: Google Translate's version of my English message, and then the English original; at the end of my foreign-language comments, I'll say "I'm sorry, but I can't speak your language, so I've used Google Translate, but if you understand English, you can read my original comments below". That way, the average viewer of the message will be able to understand something, while those who speak English can understand me well and can make a proper translation if they're so inclined.  See here for an example of what I mean.  Perhaps we could encourage people to do that?  Nyttend (talk) 01:34, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Perhaps that's a good idea. I have something of a dislike for Google Translate, but it might be better than letting something sit there unanswered for a long time in a language none of us understand. Or maybe one of us can do this if after a while none of us has translated or summarized the question. 96.46.193.139 (talk) 06:02, 18 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, here's our chance to try it out. We now have a post from somebody who barely speaks English and whose native language is apparently Hindi: Reference_desk/Miscellaneous. StuRat (talk) 06:55, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah. Saw that. Any Hindi speakers around? HiLo48 (talk) 07:04, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Medical Anthropology
Hi there. Some days ago there was a (somewhat disruptive) discussion of medical anthropology. I don't especially want to resurrect or discuss that argument, but I've just watched a couple of episodes of the American edition of One Born Every Minute. It occurs to me that other people who were interested in or confused by the idea of culturally-specific components in modern Western medical practice might also find it interesting to watch a few episodes of both the UK and US editions of this programme, if available where you are, and notice the differences and similarities, given that both programmes follow births in modern mainstream Western hospitals.

So, that's all really. Not looking for a discussion (as I don't really want anything like the one people had before), just a possible programme of interest to some people here. 86.164.69.49 (talk) 18:42, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Since your only previous edits were about female disciples of Jesus, and swimming pools, it's a little hard to know what you're getting at here. Instead of talking in riddles, please provide a link to whatever discussion you're vaguely referring to. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:27, 18 March 2012 (UTC)


 * If you didn't read or follow the discussion on medical anthropology, you're unlikely to be interested. Hence, it is not directed at you. No riddles: just not something you found interesting. 86.164.69.49 (talk) 20:34, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Don't make any assumptions about what I'm interested or not interested in. Meanwhile, maybe the item in Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2012 March 4 is what you're referring to? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:57, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, Bugs, the OP is perfectly within his rights to make that assumption. Since you didn't take part in the original discussion, there's nothing here of relevance to you and hence no need for you to make any intervention.  --Viennese Waltz 15:48, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I asked him about it and he effectively gave me an "F.U." response. The fact that I asked about it ought to send him a clue that I AM interested in it. Unless he's just deliberately trying to be a jerk. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:59, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * If he's trying (which I doubt), he's not succeeding. You, Bugs, on the other hand . . . . I'd suggest a nice cup of tea, if that's not too British for you :-) . {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.197.66.131 (talk) 04:31, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh, he's trying, for sure. Whether he succeeds fully will depend on whether he actually answers my question instead of continuing to cop the "F.U." attitude (which Volkswagen did also, as usual, but at least he's an actual user). ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 09:18, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Doesn't this whole "the person doesn't use an account therefore they must be attacking me" routine ever get old? Your first reply to the OP was an accusation of "talking in riddles", which IMO falls short of assuming good faith. Perhaps a different approach such as asking "Hey OP, I didn't follow that discussion, could you link to it?" may have yielded a better response. Just a thought. 82.45.62.107 (talk) 12:22, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The tendency of some users to kiss up to drive-bys and say "F.U." to registered users gets old too. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:42, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Hey, come on, Bugs. You were the one who launched into a forensic analysis of the OP's previous history here and concluded they're a lesser class of mortal than one who's spent lots of time here.  Nobody suggests we should "kiss up to" anyone including unregistered users, but attacking them as your first response is hardly appropriate either.  -   Jack of Oz   [your turn]  04:28, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The OP was talking in riddles, and that's fair game for commentary. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:43, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * If a sentence doesn't appear to make sense, that is because of the sentence itself, and maybe with some of the immediately adjacent context. It has absolutely zero to do with the speaker's previous history on Wikipedia, or anywhere else on planet Earth.  It's not like we maintain dossiers on every user so that we can keep abreast of their interests and their prejudices and their characteristic ways of expressing themselves, so that we can better work out how to understand them when they ask questions.  (Or maybe you do keep such dossiers.  I'd be keen to know what mine says.)  To check out their WP history, and then conclude their limited experience here makes them fit only to be characterised as "drive-bys", a term that many of your colleagues have told you is deeply offensive to them, is a disgraceful way of operating.  It is utterly contrary to the WP Pillar of "Assume Good Faith".  That applies, if anything, MORE to new or unregistered users than it does to users we've had lots of dealings with, because, by definition, we know less about them. If you consider that adherence to that fundamental principle of how this whole project works is equivalent to "kissing up to" new or unregistered users, then what the hell are you doing here?  --   Jack of Oz   [your turn]  07:51, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Just want to state my support for the viewpoint that Bugs jumped down the OP's throat with no cause. I don't see any "F.U.", as Bugs characterized this. The OP rather specifically said he wasn't looking to get into a discussion with people who weren't privy to the past discussion, and he's under no obligation to. That doesn't make him a jerk. People can speak to a narrow audience without explaining for the larger crowd, if they like; at least they can here. It's not like article content is at stake. They're even free to "drive by" Wikipedia and/or this page for as brief a comment as they want, without explaining themselves to your satisfaction. Equazcion  ( talk ) 08:09, 21 Mar 2012 (UTC)
 * The OP raised a question without providing any links. He was talking in really vague terms... i.e. in riddles. And whatever he was referring to, he had never edited it, so it wasn't possible to find out what he was talking about. And as soon as he gave me the F.U. attitude, any good faith was out the window. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 08:10, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * People are allowed to speak vaguely about things they never edited before, and are even allowed to refuse to explain themselves. He was speaking to a narrow audience that didn't include you. There was no "F.U.". Accept the fact that the comment wasn't intended for you and move on. Equazcion  ( talk ) 08:18, 21 Mar 2012 (UTC)
 * He said "Not looking for a discussion." Had he bothered to answer my question, instead of giving me the F.U. attitude, there wouldn't be this megillah. As far as who it was "intended for", this is a public website, and it's not his to control. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 08:20, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * FYI, the F.U. was the essence of "If you didn't read or follow the discussion on medical anthropology, you're unlikely to be interested. Hence, it is not directed at you." He presumes to know what I'm interested in. It's not his place to decide what I'm interested in. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 08:22, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * His saying "You're unlikely to be interested" was a polite way of telling you he didn't want to get into the whole subject again with a new crowd. And he has that right. He was just looking to make a comment, not control anything. You're the one trying to impose an obligation on him, so as I see it you're the one who's trying to control things. Equazcion  ( talk ) 08:25, 21 Mar 2012 (UTC)
 * He was not anything resembling polite. I asked for a link. I even said PLEASE. He ignored that request, choosing instead to give me that patronizing, nannyistic lecture. That's an "F.U." if there ever was one. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 08:27, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, maybe, just maybe, he was put off (to put it mildly) by your "Since your only previous edits were about female disciples of Jesus, and swimming pools .." comment. That was a disparagement, a lack of respect, a put-down, call it what you like.  If you treat people with a "You can't join our secret society till you've proven yourself, and until then I'm gonna make it as hard as possible for you" attitude, then is it any wonder they react?  It's to his credit that he remained as temperate as he did.  I can't say the same for you.  --   Jack of Oz   [your turn]  08:29, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, it's the IP's who are the "secret society". They come out of nowhere, fire their shots, and vanish. And the registered users are just supposed to take it lying down. The old double-standard again. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 09:19, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * He was not talking in riddles and he was not asking for your input on anything. His post would have been understandable to a few people, and you should have left it at that.  Why do you feel the need to butt into every thread on this reference desk?  Can't you just leave a discussion alone, if it has nothing to do with you? --Viennese Waltz 08:32, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm getting plenty of F.U. from you two right now also. Which is par for the course. The difference is, we are not drive-bys and can be communicated with. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 08:36, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, he could've ignored you if he wanted to, which would've also been fine; but he actually did take the time to respond by declining your request for clarification, and further explained why: He simply didn't intend to address you. Which again, is his prerogative. I'm not sure if you just don't like being left out of the loop or what, but I find your reaction rather mystifying. Would it have been more acceptable to you if he had been less "patronizing" and just come out with "I don't want to explain this to you"? Somehow I doubt it. Something else going on here, I'm not sure what, but you frankly need to relax, especially where new editors are involved. Equazcion  ( talk ) 08:37, 21 Mar 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, there's something eating at me. It's a boa constrictor. But I'm OK so far. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 09:14, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, he could have said, "I'd rather not get into it", which would have been fine. Instead, he copped the F.U. attitude, and proceeded to lecture me on what I should or should not be interested in. I do not suffer nannies gladly. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 08:39, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * He wrote "If you didn't read or follow the discussion on medical anthropology, you're unlikely to be interested. Hence, it is not directed at you. No riddles: just not something you found interesting." That is not an "FU attitude", it's actually rather polite, a lot more polite than you usually are around here. --Viennese Waltz 08:42, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * IF he's referring to this discussion, then I did, in fact, have a small part in it. So he's not only got an F.U. attitude (like you, typically), he's also WRONG. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 08:45, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm sure he didn't intend any attitude. As should be evidenced by the fact that your colleagues disagree so vehemently that it should've been taken that way, you might consider that you've misinterpreted this one. This is one of the reasons for AGF: It can be difficult to read people's intentions through text, so it's best to err on the side of good faith. Equazcion  ( talk ) 08:43, 21 Mar 2012 (UTC)
 * He blew away good faith when he stonewalled my question. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 08:46, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * His refusal to answer your question is no reason at all to abandon AGF. People don't have to explain themselves to you if they don't want to. That's no evidence of bad faith. Equazcion  ( talk ) 08:49, 21 Mar 2012 (UTC)
 * He didn't just "refuse to answer", he lectured me on what I should or should not be interested in. That's neither polite nor good faith. It's F-U. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 08:50, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

break 1
Well, that comes back to assuming good faith. You said AGF was out the window when he refused to answer, but when challenged on that you say his wording in the refusal was the problem. AGF takes care of that -- don't presume to know people's intentions based on their wording. But when that's brought up, you go back to the refual itself as reason to abandon AGF. You've got a circular argument going, and it doesn't hold up logically. Equazcion ( talk ) 08:53, 21 Mar 2012 (UTC)
 * I said he had stonewalled, which is worse. Also, ironically, he himself was not a participant in the original discussion, while I was (to a small extent). So where does he get off lecturing anyone else about their alleged lack of participation? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 08:55, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * "Stonewalled" and "lecturing" are all solved by assuming good faith. You can slice it any way you like, but these characterizations of his attitude are in essence a refusal to abide by AGF. Equazcion  ( talk ) 08:58, 21 Mar 2012 (UTC)
 * He was not a participant in the original discussion, and I was (to a small extent). So he was wrong on both counts, and then proceeded to lecture me. So tell me why I should consider his comments to be in good faith. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 09:01, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * You're not supposed to "consider" it. Its supposed to be an assumption. That's why the policy is called "assume good faith", and not "look for evidence of good faith". Equazcion  ( talk ) 09:04, 21 Mar 2012 (UTC)
 * I assumed good faith until I realized he himself had not participated in the previous discussion. At that point I questioned it. And his response washed away any further reason to assume good faith. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 09:08, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * That's not how it works. A person's wording that might be characterized as lecturing or stonewalling is precisely where AGF is most important -- you could be wrong about his intentions (and everyone here thinks you are, but that's besides the point). Assume good faith until there is explicit reason not to -- your perception of the other person's attitude is no reason. You don't get to stop assuming good faith when you've simply had enough. Equazcion  ( talk ) 09:15, 21 Mar 2012 (UTC)
 * If you can figure out where he edited that discussion, I'll withdraw the complaint. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 09:18, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * You're making up rules. AGF still applies regardless of whether you can determine the origin of his comment through his edit history. He's even allowed to comment on a discussion he didn't participate in. That's neither here nor there. Equazcion  ( talk ) 09:21, 21 Mar 2012 (UTC)
 * His response to my question was "F-U, I won't tell you." That you call good faith??? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 09:28, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * That was not his response to you. That was your interpretation of his response to you, and had you been assuming good faith, it would not have been so. This is the essence of the problem. You were not assuming good faith. Equazcion  ( talk ) 09:31, 21 Mar 2012 (UTC)
 * You're wrong. His response was, "I won't talk to you." That's the ultimate "F-U" response. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 09:34, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * No, that wasn;t his response either. It's again your interpretation, which is, yet again, an example of you refusing to assume good faith. Equazcion  ( talk ) 09:36, 21 Mar 2012 (UTC)
 * I asked him a question, and he stonewalled the question and instead lectured me about what I should be interested in. No good faith there. Ironically, if he had actually overtly said F-U, at least it would have been honest. Instead, he took the "nanny" approach. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 09:39, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Hey, I'm with you -- I like people to tell it like it is and not beat around the bush. But I can't expect it from people who don't know me, let alone berate those who don't display it. That's not reasonable. Again the lecturing and stonewalling are your characterizations of another user's attitude, and AGF means setting those aside in favor of the assumption that they meant well. You're basically saying that AGF doesn't apply to you, and you can throw it out whenever you like. No, you can't. You have to assume people mean what they say with the best of intentions. And no, it doesn't matter if you really, really feel they didn't mean well. You assume they did. That's how it works here. Equazcion  ( talk ) 09:46, 21 Mar 2012 (UTC)
 * When I get asked a question, any question, I try to answer it or to advise where to find the answer. That's one reason I like the ref desks. I have somewhat of a need to answer questions. And I expect the same courtesy from others when I ask a question. Is that so wrong? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 09:49, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is very wrong, especially if you're going to respond in a hostile way should they not comply. It's great that you want to answer questions, but others are 100% allowed to not answer yours if they choose. Equazcion  ( talk ) 09:52, 21 Mar 2012 (UTC)
 * His response said, "You are not worthy of my answering your question." I WILL NOT stand for that kind of attitude, here or anywhere else. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 09:56, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * His response did not say that. Your head says that. We have a policy of assuming there was no attitude. If you refuse to "stand for that kind of attitude", then you disagree with the policy, and that may become a problem for you in the future if you can't learn to deal with it. Equazcion  ( talk ) 10:01, 21 Mar 2012 (UTC)
 * His response was patronizing and nannyistic. Not a good faith response. And where in the policy does it make IP's immune from the rules? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 10:12, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * It was a perfectly good faith response. Your interpretation of it was hostile, when you're supposed to be assuming otherwise as a matter of policy. We've been through this. What else ya got? Equazcion  ( talk ) 10:16, 21 Mar 2012 (UTC)
 * Just one thing: Where is that discussion the OP was referring to? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 10:19, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't know, because I didn't bother to look for it, because the OP stated he was only addressing those who already knew what he was talking about. It's again irrelevant. He's allowed to comment on some discussion we aren't privy to, and/or one he didn't participate in, and/or one YOU participated it, yes even if he's not willing to elaborate, without being characterized as having hostile intent, no matter how his demeanor might be perceived by others. I think that covers all your complaints about this person. Equazcion  ( talk ) 10:24, 21 Mar 2012 (UTC)
 * "Didn't bother" is also very telling. The double-standard is in full force. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 10:40, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Yep, I didn't bother, despite your implication that this was a bad thing -- it wasn't. Your need to find out what the OP was talking about despite the fact that he didn't want to explain it is what led to this. Perhaps if you had let it go, as most of us rightfully did, things might have turned out better. Equazcion  ( talk ) 11:02, 21 Mar 2012 (UTC)

break 1.5
All except why he gets a free pass to say whatever he wants, and I'm suppose to lie there and take it. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 10:27, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * That's a strawman argument. No one said anything of the sort. You are, however, required to curtail your perceptions of hostile intent in favor of assuming good intentions. Equazcion  ( talk ) 10:29, 21 Mar 2012 (UTC)
 * You don't have to "say it", it's evident in the double-standard some of y'all practice. IP's are to be kissed up to, and registered editors are to be smacked down. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 10:31, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd be saying all the same things if we were dealing with a registered user. There's no reason to assume my reaction has anything to do with his being an IP. You're (again) making an unfounded assumption. Equazcion  ( talk ) 10:34, 21 Mar 2012 (UTC)
 * A registered user can be communicated with. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 10:36, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * So can an IP. You sure don't like them there IPs do you. Were you hurt by an IP in the past? Equazcion  ( talk ) 10:38, 21 Mar 2012 (UTC)
 * How can you communicate with an IP? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 10:41, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * You managed to do it quite well just before, in the exchange that is the subject of this discussion. Plus they have talk pages. If you mean dynamic or shared IPs, that makes it more difficult in a general sense, but that difficulty is no reason to inherently distrust them. If you feel that way, then as below, you disagree with Wikipedia's policies (since no one is required to register here), and there's not much more to say. You have a problem. Equazcion  ( talk ) 10:44, 21 Mar 2012 (UTC)
 * IP talk pages are useless. And there is no policy requiring anyone to continue to assume good faith once that good faith has been demonstrated to be misplaced. The problem I have here is that I won't put up with the double-standard that many of you insist on defending. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 10:49, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * IP talk pages are useless, and therefore what? What exactly are you trying to say regarding IPs when you point to the difficulties in communicating with them? IPs are not to be trusted? There's no double-standard, there's actually just you implying that IPs are to be treated differently from registered users because they're hard to communicate with. That's the opposite of a double-standard. We're trying to treat them the same, but you expect people to treat them as differently as you do. Equazcion  ( talk ) 10:53, 21 Mar 2012 (UTC)

break 2
Now you're wildly flailing about, mischaracterising as "F.U" all good faith and serious-minded attempts to explain things to you. You do us a disservice when you say that. But your dogged and obdurate refusal to drop your practice of calling people drive-bys (who in ordinary parlance are murderers ), and to view every comment ever made about you through the prism of Victim Consciousness, is certainly your F.U. to the rest of us. Yet you've now accused 3 users of being FU-ists, yet you are the user who never, ever, ever accepts there's anything in his behaviour that needs a good hard look. Well, look again, Bugs, because nobody is that good. --  Jack of Oz   [your turn]  08:56, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * His lecturing me was NOT "good faith". And he himself had not participated in the original discussion. So he was in the wrong. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 08:57, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * And one more time you completely ignore the point being made. To quote a well-known person, "That's an "F.U." if there ever was one".  --   Jack of Oz   [your turn]  09:02, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not ignoring the points you're making. I'm simply saying that you've got it wrong. But at least you're actually talking instead of stonewalling. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 09:06, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh, so I've got it wrong. Forgive me.  Apparently, people who edit on the ref desk after only a short time on Wikipedia are actually murderers.  How silly of me not to have noticed that.  We'd better call the police.  Except, which jurisdiction would apply?  Hmmm ...  --   Jack of Oz   [your turn]  09:11, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * If you can determine where he edited that discussion, I'll withdraw the complaint. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 09:15, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * It started earlier than that, with your "Since your only previous edits were about ..." response to the original post. You must take some responsibility for that, and not keep on claiming the brouhaha started with the OP's response to you.  --   Jack of Oz   [your turn]  09:21, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I want you to know that, despite our disagreement on this particular occasion, I still generally regard you as a reliable source. :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 10:08, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * That was a factually true statement. And his answer was the wrong answer. The right answer, the one I would have given regardless of my opinion on whether the other editor was "interested" or not, would be to provide a link to the discussion. Instead, he said, "F-U, I won't tell you." ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 09:27, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Factually true or not, it had a nasty implication. You were assuming bad faith -- as if his lack of edit history in the area he commented on was somehow indicative that he was maliciously trying to hide something, or "drive by" as you later put it. There was no call for it. Equazcion  ( talk ) 09:29, 21 Mar 2012 (UTC)
 * Why do IP's get a pass to say anything they feel like about us, and still somehow be granted a "good faith" assumption? Why are we registered users supposed to just lie there and take it? Why do you kiss up to the drive-bys and try to smack down the registered users? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 09:32, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * My reaction has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that he's editing from an IP. I'd ask you, rather, why your compulsions change to hostile when dealing with a "drive by" and why you choose to characterize them that way. It's like you've got some kind of vendetta against them. Equazcion  ( talk ) 09:35, 21 Mar 2012 (UTC)
 * I am not inherently hostile to IP's in general. Only to the ones who cop the F-U attitude. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 09:37, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * So where does the "drive by" terminology come in? New user with little edit history who makes a cryptic comment? There's nothing wrong with that, except in your head -- and the F.U. attitude is similarly all in your head, and nowhere else. If you were to assume good faith, as you're supposed to, it wouldn't exist. Equazcion  ( talk ) 09:40, 21 Mar 2012 (UTC)
 * I have actually often assumed good faith and been shot down for it. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 09:43, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * That is unfortunate, if true -- but irrelevant to this discussion. Equazcion  ( talk ) 09:46, 21 Mar 2012 (UTC)
 * I assume good faith until I see a reason not to. In the case of the OP here, that reason came pretty quickly. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 09:59, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Well you just said "I have actually often assumed good faith and been shot down for it". That was a telling remark. It indicates that it's something you decided to abandon since it's caused problems for you in the past. I'd advise you to re-acquaint yourself with it, because not only is it policy, but it'll be good for your blood pressure. You strike me as someone who really needs an injection of positivity, and that starts by assuming it in others. Equazcion  ( talk ) 10:04, 21 Mar 2012 (UTC)
 * My name is not Pollyanna. But unlike the OP, I'm perfectly willing to talk to another user. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 10:20, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * It's good you're willing to explain anything to others when they ask. It would also be good if you accepted others' rights to refrain from doing so. Equazcion  ( talk ) 10:27, 21 Mar 2012 (UTC)
 * Double standard. He gets to stonewall another user, and the other user doesn't have the right to defend himself. Typical. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 10:30, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * No, a double standard would be if he's allowed to refrain from answering you, but you aren't allowed to refrain from answering him. You are indeed allowed to refuse explanation if you like, at least where no article edits are concerned. Equazcion  ( talk ) 10:32, 21 Mar 2012 (UTC)

Bugs, you've just proven my earlier point. You were not being attacked by the OP, yet you still feel the need to "defend" yourself. Against what? You start off with a completely unnecessary "us vs them" attitude to new OPs, and then, when it all goes sour on you, as it regularly does, you retreat into your "You're all kissing up to the OPs and you're all against me" shtick. When will you understand that it is YOU who brings these things about, not anybody else? --  Jack of Oz   [your turn]  10:53, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

break 2.5
The double standard is that he's allowed to say F-U to me and you all will defend his right to do so - but if I refuse to lie down and take it, I get yelled at. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 10:37, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * You're going back to his saying "FU" when we've established that you're supposed to assume he wasn't saying that at all. Though since you've already said quite plainly that you refuse to abide by AGF due to it having served you poorly in the past, so I guess that's that. You disagree with Wikipedia's rules, so no one can really help you. Equazcion  ( talk ) 10:41, 21 Mar 2012 (UTC)
 * You've established nothing of the kind. I assumed good faith until he violated that good faith. Once someone violates good faith, the AGF rule no longer applies. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 10:44, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Wording that has been interpreted by one editor as having hostile intent is not a violation of good faith. It is a failure to comply with the Assume Good Faith policy. Again — "I have actually often assumed good faith and been shot down for it" — implies that you no longer assume good faith due to past bad experiences. You can try to backpedal on that if you want, but that has indeed established your modus. Equazcion  ( talk ) 10:49, 21 Mar 2012 (UTC)
 * Double standard. I have to assume good faith, and the IP can do anything he wants. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 10:51, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Regardless of what you think the IP did and got away with, yes, you do have to assume good faith. And you haven't done it, because apparently you don't believe in it. Taking it upon yourself to not let him get away with what he did is no excuse. Equazcion  ( talk ) 10:56, 21 Mar 2012 (UTC)

Maybe I should edit logged off, so I can benefit from the double standard. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 10:57, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Continuing to repeat that there's a double-standard doesn't make you any more correct. Equazcion  ( talk ) 10:59, 21 Mar 2012 (UTC)

Metadiscussion on deletion of certain questions moved from main reference desk
Since discussion of reference desk procedures belongs here, I moved the discussion here from the main desk. -- Jayron  32  03:09, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Question that would bring the project into disrepute has been removed. See this, the spirit of which applies to Wikipedia space too. Reaper Eternal (talk) 15:48, 20 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Your deletion of some question is listed as having happened at 15:48 on 20 March, but I see no such edit in the history of this page or in your history of edits. Was it obliterated by Higher Authority? Edison (talk) 02:10, 21 March 2012 (UTC)


 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AReference_desk%2FHumanities&diff=482918022&oldid=482917900 Equazcion  ( talk ) 02:13, 21 Mar 2012 (UTC)
 * If Reaper Eternal is aware of some policy that says "Prostitution may not be discussed on Wikipedia" then it would be appropriate to cite that policy when he/she deletes the question (and its responses), on the talk page of the Reference Desk. "Disrepute?" Edison (talk) 02:26, 21 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Edison, I suspect you went to the history and picked on the arrow to take you to the relevant section. But, since the title was changed at the same time, no such section was found.  I also agree that, while there may have been reasons not to answer the question, there was no reason to remove it.  StuRat (talk) 02:23, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I looked at the page history and did not find the deletion or the post by Eternal Reaper, as having happened at the instant in question. I did not search for the title of the question. Maybe there are "Topics which may not be discussed," per some policy or guideline. All I request is that the policy or guideline should be cited on the talk page of Ref Desk when a question and well-intentioned responses are deleted. No individual "owns" the Ref Desk, and is entitled to delete content when it suits him/her, with no explanation or possibility for discussion. Edison (talk) 02:32, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * He linked to an arbcom decision, which in my experience is has become as accepted as linking to a policy; although whether or not it should be has been disputed. I'm also not sure if a ruling against an editor's user page should apply here; most of that decision had to do with use of the user page as a soapbox. I would say as long as advice isn't being given on doing illegal things, the section probably should've stayed; and if there was a problem with any specific comment, it could've been removed without taking the whole section with it. We're not censored, so "disreputable" things can be discussed on an intellectual level, and the discussion actually looks to me like a rather intellectual exchange of the various legal methods that exist around the world. Equazcion  ( talk ) 02:42, 21 Mar 2012 (UTC)
 * The exact time of the edit versus the time I see in edit history might be an issue of GMT versus local time associated with the edit. The ArbCom case cited apparently said that one user may not post quotes by Hitler and Mussolini. on a user page. How in the hell is that even remotely relevant to this issue of questions about prostitution at Ref Desk? Edison (talk) 02:43, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * He linked to a particular "principle" decided on, regarding user pages that would bring the project into disrepute. I'm not saying I agree with him, just saying, he doesn't necessarily need to link to something that mention prostitution explicitly. I agree that the question shouldn't have been removed though. I'd move this section onto the talk page and restore the original discussion, but not being an admin myself, I'd be a little timid about doing that without some more people behind me. Equazcion  ( talk ) 03:02, 21 Mar 2012 (UTC)
 * Looks like half the job is done anyway :) Equazcion  ( talk ) 03:18, 21 Mar 2012 (UTC)
 * This thread could be collapsed on the mainpage, to continue discussion here. Edison (talk) 03:43, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I believe Jayron already removed the discussion from the main page. Equazcion  ( talk ) 03:48, 21 Mar 2012 (UTC)

I restored the question, as I don't see any support for the removal here. StuRat (talk) 04:14, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * See the question in question (teehee) here: Reference desk/Humanities. Equazcion  ( talk ) 04:28, 21 Mar 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you! I'm getting rather tired of questions of any sort of sexual nature being removed, often without any edit summary. Dismas |(talk) 04:29, 21 March 2012 (UTC)


 * It's in the history now, as well as in the deleter's contribs. The way I see it, it's not that it's of sexual nature - it's that the OP is requesting advice on breaking the law, which is not appropriate - hence the risk of "disrepute" on wikipedia. Note that the user expressly stated, "How does one dabble in prostitution? ... Assuming that it's both illegal and stigmatised in the society/country?" ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:50, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * As StuRat notes on the main page, the question wasn't "how do i..." but "how does one..." I'd like to be able to ask questions about how people do things, even if they're against the law, such as how people rob banks or produce meth. Doesn't mean I'm gonna go do it, but it's nice to be able to be curious about these things without it being deemed too "disreputable" for mention in a supposedly open and uncensored information source. Of slightly less importance is the fact that although the discussion began with that question, the vast bulk of it became a discussion of legal methods around the world.


 * PS. I noticed you basically duplicated your comment here and on the main page. Might be best to keep discussion of the question's viability here, as that discussion was moved here for a reason. Equazcion  ( talk ) 06:36, 21 Mar 2012 (UTC)


 * On if we should reveal or keep secret methods criminals use, I'd argue that whether they are public knowledge is the relevant point. If somebody asks what percentage of bank robbers have real guns, that should be answered.  If somebody asks how to weaponize anthrax, then we probably should keep our mouths shut (if we know the answer). StuRat (talk) 06:43, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * So, apparently you all have decided to repeal the prohibition against giving legal advice??? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 08:06, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * It was not a request for legal advice. He said "how does one", not "how do I".  That makes all the difference between legal advice and legal information. --Viennese Waltz 08:29, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Do you really think it's appropriate for wikipedia to be eagerly providing advice on how to break the law? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 08:32, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Did you read my previous post? He was not asking for advice on how to break the law, he was asking for information on how the law may be broken.  See the difference? --Viennese Waltz 08:36, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes. Did you read mine? How about actually trying to answer my question? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 08:37, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Your question is irrelevant, since we are not talking about the offering of legal advice. --Viennese Waltz 08:48, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * You're wrong. As the original deleting editor said, answering a question like this runs the risk of making wikipedia look bad. Or maybe you don't care about that? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 08:52, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * You also run the risk of making Wikipedia look bad with your posts, but no-one's talking about blocking you. Although that might not be such a bad idea... --Viennese Waltz 08:56, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Sure, and then you could defend the drive-bys and the against-policy questions to your li'l ol' heart's content. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 08:59, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I would propose that calling question-askers on a reference desk "Drive-bys" makes "wikipedia look bad", so if we're deleting such posts, very many of Baseball Bug's posts will have to go. APL (talk) 10:34, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Double standard. IP's and redlinks can get away with anything and you'll kiss up to them. "Regulars" must be smacked down at all costs. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 10:35, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

I removed the question as it was not something like "What does a prostitute do?" Rather, it explicitly asked how to break the law, and I do not believe that Wikipedia should be giving advice on activities illegal in the State of Florida. As to the discussion about the poster not asking about himself, how is that different from somebody asking "How would one avoid getting caught committing murder?" Reaper Eternal (talk) 12:27, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, Bugs, yes. I don't think it's unreasonable double-standard, though. If I went into a library I would expect the staff to be held to a higher standard than the folk off the street who came in to ask a question.
 * A dude off the street being somewhat disrespectful to the librarian is too bad, but it's part of life. A librarian being disrespectful to a patron is a problem that needs to be addressed.
 * The people who regularly edit Wikipedia are the closest thing the project has to a staff. The "Drive-bys", as you call them, are representatives of the silent majority. The readers. The people whom the project is for. If Wikipedia was just for the several thousand people who edit regularly, it wouldn't be worth the effort. The encyclopedia's purpose is to serve the hundreds of millions who read the encyclopedia. These readers have absolutely no reason to register an account. To have a derogatory nick-name for those few readers that dare ask a question is inappropriate.  APL (talk) 14:14, 21 March 2012 (UTC)


 * If Baseball Bugs wants censor questions, I propose that he himself be censored for advocating violations of WP:CENSOR. "It makes Wikipedia look bad" is about the worst reason I've ever heard.  Is Wikipedia a contestant in some beauty contest?  Is it a scheming politician who would do anything and everything to pander to the population?  The truth will always upset some people; apparently, the truth about prostitution upsets Baseball Bugs.  Well, that's too bad; the purpose of Wikipedia should be to provide information, not to tell people only what they want to hear.  --140.180.5.239 (talk) 15:55, 21 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Reply to Reaper Eternal - "How would one avoid getting caught committing murder?" could be, in certain contexts, an entirely proper and reasonable question - and indeed we have an article about the perfect murder. The phrasing of the question is important. There is a difference between "How can I ..." questions which are asking for advice and "How would one ..." questions which are asking only for information. Gandalf61 (talk) 16:18, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Absurd to assume we can guess what is homework with better than even odds
The only thing worse than answering people's homework is accusing someone of asking a homework question when they are not. I don't think people are even vaguely accurate about such questions given the frequency with which they disagree.

I propose that we stop mentioning homework at all, and change the homework guideline and template to say that we should merely suggest articles and external links instead of answering a question we suspect is homework. 70.59.28.93 (talk) 20:12, 21 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Disagree,sure it make senses,but what would other think,this is encyclopedia,a reference desk for a specific problems.74.178.186.35 (talk) 20:29, 21 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Also disagree. Frequently a question is asked in a way that makes the odds of it being homework quite substantially above 50%.  Anyway, I already have difficulties with some things on the ref desks, and if we start doing people's homework, I'm outta here. Looie496 (talk) 20:36, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose. There are absolutely questions which are clearly homework (there was even a multiple-choice question here recently), and taking the effort to provide an external link is basically doing the homework anyway, assuming value is still placed on research skills. Regards, Orange Suede Sofa  (talk) 20:43, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I also disagree and Oppose; I think that it is often pretty clear. Homework questions are often worded in a way to elicit a rather specific sort of answer.  If I want to learn about Huckleberry Finn, or am confused about it, I would probably ask "What's going on in Huckleberry Finn?  I don't get the part where ____ happened."  If I don't want to read the book, and just answer my homework question, I could ask "Huckleberry Finn undergoes a moral dilemma throughout the book.  Please briefly summarize this conflict and support with at least three examples from the text."  If I figured out on my own that there was a moral conflict, I probably wouldn't be asking that question.  Of course it's possible that I could read the book and say "Hmmm... I think he has a moral conflict, I need to ask the Reference Desk to be sure", but then I certainly wouldn't word the question in that way. Falconus p  t   c 20:55, 21 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment: People too lazy to do their own homework are also too lazy to rewrite HW Q's to make them less obvious. StuRat (talk) 21:06, 21 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment:Leave people ask there homework here,just once in a while direct them to the subject their talking about.74.178.186.35 (talk) 21:33, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * That is all I am suggesting. In no way did I mean to imply that doing work which you think is a homework question is acceptable. I only meant to propose that if you think something is a homework question, then "See Related article(s) and/or external link(s)" is a far better response than "Do your own homework" or the homework template. False positives are extremely offensive to questioners, and false negatives are pretty bad, too, but I suggest most of the error rate is probably false negatives. 70.59.28.93 (talk) 00:54, 22 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Could you cite a few instances of where we handled possible HW questions poorly? My feeling is that we usually offer a brief admonishment followed by some article links and broad clues. That's the way it seems to work on the Science desk anyway. Not answering homework is just a guideline; being wp:civil is policy. Matt Deres (talk) 02:08, 22 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Over at the Math Desk, we've had several times where the complete answer to an obvious HW problem was given, even after another poster stated that it was an obvious HW problem. StuRat (talk) 03:07, 22 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I think it's clear the OP must have came here from Reference desk/Science. It may have been better to use the standard template which raises the possibility the question may not be homework but I can't say I have any real sympathy for the asker of that question who often comes across as demanding answers quickly in this case they went to the extent of asking in 2 different desks. (To put it a different way, while 2 wrongs don't make a right and civility is still required on wikipedia even if the person you're dealing with isn't civil, if you're rude to people you shouldn't be that surprised if people aren't extremely polite in return.)
 * I can't say I agree with 70's proposal either, when a question has absolutely no sign of the OP having attempted it and it can be answered with a simple internet search there's no reason we have to provide help. Often we do, but it's never guaranteed so letting the OP know that they may not receive an answer I would argue is better then just leaving them hanging even if we've already tried to warn them in the header. Even more so when the OP indicates they need to receive an answer quickly.
 * Remember our core purpose is to provide references, not to actual answer questions. While sometimes we do, often it may be necessary for people to read the references to really get the answer. In that vein, the primary reasons we don't answer homework questions are probably that most of them are fairly mundane and boring questions where the OP wants a direct answer. Sometimes they can often be answered with a real simple search, other times they just require a fair amount of work. So many of us don't find it productive of our time. Nor is it likely to be helpful to the querant to help them with something they probably could have done themselves possibly in less time then it took to ask the question. And when it couldn't, working out how to find the answer is often far more important then the actual answer. And as others have hinted at, many of us we definitely don't want the RD to be overtaken by these sorts of questions so don't want to encourage them. Definitely asking for something quickly usually just annoys people on the RD.
 * These don't really change whether or not the question is actually homework as opposed to something your brother challenged you to answer, every random thought that pops in to your head, from a pop-quiz or pub quiz, or from a science magazine (in case it isn't obvious, these are all examples that I seem to recall from the RD although only old timers are likely to remember the last one) . To put it a different way, what we are actually saying when we say we don't answer homework questions is we don't answer certain sort of questions because it's of little interest to us and isn't beneficial to the person asking the question. (Remember that as the header says, we may help with homework questions if the OP indicates they are stuck at one part or gives something more then just asking for an answer so we have a better idea of what help the OP actually needs.) Saying we don't answer homework questions is the easiest way to say that since most of the questions are probably homework questions.
 * Nil Einne (talk) 07:35, 22 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Strong Oppose. As others have said the specific language and format of a homework question is usually very obvious. The text of the standard template does not accuse the question poster, in fact it is very polite and even apologetic:




 * I actually have a problem with people who do answer obvious homework questions - they are in fact violating a WP Policy (yes it is a mandatory policy not merely an optional guideline) and should be subject to some form of censure. Roger (talk) 07:57, 22 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Roger - I was wondering which Wikipedia policy mentions homework ? I know we have the guidelines at the top of the RD pages, the RD guidelines, and Do your own homework (neither policy nor guideline). But none of these is a policy. Gandalf61 (talk) 11:19, 22 March 2012 (UTC)


 * The text refers to it as a policy. If it isn't really a policy the template wording should be changed. (BTW Please use a proper signature, I'd like to know who you are.) Roger (talk) 12:36, 22 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Sorry, fixed sig above now. So I think the text in dyoh was incorrect, because the essay it links to, Do your own homework, isn't actually a policy at all. I have modified the template, replacing "policy" with the less loaded term "aim". Gandalf61 (talk) 14:02, 22 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose, I'm usually strongly in favor of giving question-askers the benefit of the doubt, but I think this is being blown out of proportion. I agree that it's inevitable that mistakes will be made, but I don't understand why that's so horrible. So long as we're polite about it, I don't see why anyone would be offended by a misunderstanding like that.   In fact, in the past when such misunderstandings occurred, I don't remember anyone getting angry about it. APL (talk) 09:58, 22 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose The homework guideline reads "If your question is homework, show that you have attempted an answer first, and we will try to help you past the stuck point. If you don't show an effort, you probably won't get help. The reference desk will not do your homework for you." This is entirely reasonable and proportionate, and already permits answers that help the questioner but don't give them the whole answer. And the dyoh template is actually well worded and polite. Gandalf61 (talk) 10:25, 22 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Support. We are not automatons. All "answers" are not equal. What matters is how one answers/responds. If one feels it is a homework question one should consider it a teaching moment. If it is a teaching moment there is ideally more provided than just the so-called "answer". Anyone not willing to do what they perceive as someone else's "homework" should feel free to express that within guidelines of not attacking newcomers and not being uncivil. Policy should have nothing to do with issues of this nature and templates concerning "homework questions" are out of place. Bus stop (talk) 15:02, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with the principle of this comment, but how would you go about answering a question that sounds like, say, "What are three major arguments concerning Global Warming", or, "What were the major causes of the Civil War and describe how they arose"? The template seems appropriate to those situations, and if I were to craft a response myself it would probably go somewhat along those lines. Although I'd probably refrain from actually mentioning the word "homework" since it seems demeaning and unnecessary to guess at motives; maybe saying instead, that "the reference desk is for requesting information that can't be easily found in Wikipedia's articles, but check [so and so] article(s), which will contain the information you need." Equazcion  ( talk ) 17:22, 22 Mar 2012 (UTC)
 * It is also not proper to shunt off "homework questions" into some special area that other types of questions also fit into which are not homework questions. Sometimes a person just needs a bit of guidance and sometimes someone reading a question might be just the person to give that guidance. If a question were about carpentry, nobody would assume it was a homework question. It actually may be an easily answerable question but for whatever reason the person posing it may be in a quandary as to how to proceed. What is special about "homework questions"? Just because we are an encyclopedia do we endorse standard school systems? There are school systems which allow children a lot of leeway in what they want to do with their educational time. I think we can act responsibly and give limited information if need be and still be helpful. Any editor who doesn't want to answer "homework questions" can simply refrain from participating in a response. The degree of flexibility of responses makes "policy" on such an issue an absurdity as the person posting this question correctly points out. Bus stop (talk) 18:39, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * But what policy? There's never been any policy forbidding people answering homework questions (or any policy about homework questions) nor any proposal for such a policy (at least not for a long time). In fact, as multiple people have attested to, policy which as always on wikipedia is ultimately determined by practice clearly does not forbid the answering of homework questions, since people do it all the time. (In the past, some people have tried to remove answers they felt shouldn't have been left but I think clear consensus was it wasn't acceptable to remove answers just because you felt they answered homework or otherwise gave too much away and so I haven't heard of this happening in a while.) The template may have been poorly worded causing some confusion to Roger and possibly others but I think it's clear to anyone who has been on the RD for a long time or is aware of the history of the template that it was using the term in 'policy' in general terms, not in the specific meaning it has on wikipedia. The only thing which could be consider policy here is the OPs proposal which you apparently support to ban any mention of homework. Nil Einne (talk) 19:30, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * True—we should not actively discourage people from mentioning "homework" either. Good point. Bus stop (talk) 19:40, 22 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Support, with the caveat that I disagree with the preconceived notion this proposal is based on, that homework questions aren't allowed at RD. Based primarily on the good points brought above by Bus stop and Nil Einne, many of which I hadn't considered before. I can understand the aversion to answering a question that could be perceived as "do my homework for me" (because I was in that camp previously), but the fact is there's no policy against those questions, so they shouldn't even be discouraged, let alone tagged uniformly. No one is under any obligation to answer if they don't want to, so I don't think anyone suffers as a result of these questions being present. There are lots of ways to help even if the asker doesn't get the neat homework answer that (we think) they sought; and even if they do, there is no rule against that, either. Equazcion  ( talk ) 21:40, 22 Mar   2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Policy here is the result of consensus and the consensus on the RD has always been "do your own homework".  It really is not relevant that this is not written in some global policy - it would be surprising if it were, it is not really a concern anywhere else except the RD.  Spinning  Spark  22:59, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support. Whether or not a question is a homework question isn't relevant. Of course, if a question is formulated in a way that makes me believe that the poster isn't interested in learning anything from what I have to say on the subject, I wouldn't be inclined to waste my time on it. Questions, homework or not, from people who look like they are interested in the subject matter, should always be answered in detail here. That students should do their own homework is a matter for the educational institution the students attend, this isn't our problem. And this actually only becomes a problem when teachers act in an unprofessional way (like there not being an exam, the graded homework constituting 100% of the final grade and similar stupidity). Count Iblis (talk) 23:30, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose If we permit homework questions, how could we keep a handful of the posters from posting dozens or more questions from their extensive assignments? The posters will rightly claim they are legit questions. Then when word gets around that such questions can be answered here and even more posters show up with a heap of homework, then what happens? What happens when the work requests outstrips the capacity of the volunteers and there are requests to provide more "info" and thus repeated posts because they did not get the answers they wanted the first time? Many students will want to spend more of their time doing other things besides working on their homework because their homework is not graded heavily. It would thus be foolish to permit any of them to line up their questions and clamor for these to be done here. --Modocc (talk) 16:47, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
 * More traffic to Wikipedia isn't a bad thing. We could make this a paid service. One question per week is free of charge, you pay to the WikiMedia Foundation for more. That would do away with the yearly fundraising drive for Wikipedia. Students pay tens of thousands of dollar for tuition at university, so they could easily pay a small fee for getting online tutoring here at the Ref Desk. Count Iblis (talk) 17:36, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Assuming Count Iblis' suggestion is too out-there for you (no offense :) I'd say if/when the decision to allow homework questions becomes the kind of problem you envision, it can be dealt with then in a number of ways. I don't think it's necessary to put such a block in place in prediction of that, nor is "it would essentially be too popular" really a legitimate reason to prohibit anything before the fact. The question we should be considering at this point is whether or not there's actually an objective reason to say homework questions should be thought of as inappropriate here, and I don't think anyone's come up with that (yet). If there are issues of practicality that result from doing what should objectively be right here, we'll deal with them as they arise, as Wikipedia always does. Equazcion  ( talk ) 20:31, 23 Mar 2012 (UTC)
 * @Iblis Even people who pay big bucks for tutoring generally don't have the answers handed to them on a platter. For instance, from tutor.com "Will my tutors give me the answers? No. Our tutors will make sure you can not only solve the problem you're working on, but also answer similar questions in the future—on your own. They'll help you, guide you, and show you how to tackle the problem, but our tutors will never just give you the answer." Equazcion, there are many hours worth of assignments handed out just to a typical student and, of course users will post all their worksheet problems anticipating answers should this be permitted under the proposal and it would do no good for responders to be coy and seemingly unhelpful to the OP without giving the reason or reasons for their reluctance to give answers. If you mean by "dealt with then in a number of ways", we would be quickly reverting back to what we have the template for. In other words, when we are helping out with homework, as responsible tutors we should be completely upfront about what we will and will not do (or should do according to custom). --Modocc (talk) 21:51, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Language desk?
I've just tried to access the Language Desk and it's disappeared - only the usual Wikipedia page stuff is there. Last edit at 11.29 apparently. Is it me? --TammyMoet (talk) 12:26, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Its gone for me as well, although one can follow the most recent edits as difs, but the page itself is blank. --Saddhiyama (talk) 12:31, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I thought it was just me. Something seemed to have happened in the last edit by Canoe1967, so I reverted that then re-added their comments. It seems to be working now. I think I went about it in a bit of hamfisted sledgehammer-to-crack-a-nut sort of way, so if anyone wishes to educate me on what to do next time, please jump right in! - Cucumber Mike (talk) 12:50, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks Mike, it's back now. Resolved! --TammyMoet (talk) 12:54, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

I seem to remember a long wait after I hit 'save' on one of my recent edits. It may be just a glitch or one of the 53 viruses I have on my sys that may be affecting wikipedia?--Canoe1967 (talk) 13:11, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Glad we're all up and rolling again. I find it somewhat unlikely that a virus on your machine could cause something like that, but if you've really got 53 viruses you probably want to get it sorted. The Computing refdesk is normally quite helpful if you want some assistance. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 13:46, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I was just kidding. I don't know much about network editing, but I did just have that section open in my edit window, so I doubt my sys could effect the whole page. I also don't know if a simple glitch can clear a page, or if there is a problem that should be looked into by the tech types.--Canoe1967 (talk) 14:08, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Thought so! :-) I noticed you used the OD template - I think that sometimes, if someone makes an ill-advised change to the template, it can have knock-on effects when it's used. That's why I removed it when I copy/pasted your text back in. So it was probably an effect of something you did, although not your fault. Unless it happens again we probably don't need to get the geeks involved :-) - Cucumber Mike (talk) 14:25, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't think it was the od template. I just had a post 'evaporate' after saving. A post close to my timing was a sign bot. Is it possible a sign bot faulted and blanked the page?--Canoe1967 (talk) 17:06, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid I really don't know. I just remembered a few previous occasions when things had all gone Pete Tong and the cause was traced to a misbehaving template. All I know is that I reverted your edit, copied your words back in and everything was groovy again. I don't think I can offer any more insight, I'm afraid. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 22:06, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Proposed interaction ban, User:Baseball Bugs and anonymous editors
Since this edit, a reasonable request for context with a heaping dose of snark tacked on, Baseball Bugs has proceeded to post about 70 times to this talk page over the past 3 days (roughly half the traffic in that timeframe, and undoubtedly driving the remainder). It can be variously characterized as consisting of assumptions of bad faith, ranting, leaps of poor logic, or pushing dogmatic positions, but functionally none of it is in any way beneficial towards resolving the particular question or improving any part of the Ref Desk's operation. Halfway through this process, Bugs suggested that, without his input, we might like to find out how well we "could defend [against] the drive-bys and the against-policy questions". I think this is a reasonable offer, and that it's time we discuss formalizing an injunction against Bugs engaging with or commenting on any anonymous editor's motivations or conduct here at the Ref Desk (answering their questions on the RD is, of course, perfectly fine). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lomn (talk • contribs) 15:52, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support per nom. --Viennese Waltz 14:23, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support - unfortunately, this seems to have become necessary -- Ferkelparade &pi; 14:30, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment I wholeheartedly agree that Bug's behavior towards IP users and newly registered accounts is often completely inappropriate, especially in the context of the RefDesks, where "newbies" are actively encouraged to ask questions. However, I'm unconvinced that an interaction-ban is a workable solution. My primary objection is that it would be difficult to participate in the reference desks at all under such a ban. My secondary objection is that I worry that the ban would just be toothless harassment. I would prefer to a solution drafted by uninvolved editors. Ideally one that allows Bugs to continue to contribute. APL (talk) 14:49, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Wait, what are VW and F !voting on? That Bugs should have an interaction ban, or that "It's time we discuss" such a ban? Because I support having that discussion. APL (talk) 14:54, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm voting that he should have a ban. Maybe I jumped the gun there, but I didn't see much point in voting for a discussion in favour of a ban and then voting again for the ban itself. --Viennese Waltz 15:20, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Like Viennese Waltz, I !voted in support of some kind of topic/interaction ban, not in support of having a discussion. I probably voted a bit prematurely as we certainly have to lay out the specifics of a ban proposal before deciding one way or the other...but I am of the opinion that Bugs's interaction problems with anonymous users have been going on for long enough and that he's apparently completely impervious to any form of criticism, so it looks like some more drastic measures are called for (preferably something that allows him to continue editing and especially participating on the refdesk, I agree with Lomn on that) -- Ferkelparade &pi; 18:58, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Re: "...would be difficult to participate at all under such a ban." Certainly that's what my "motivations or conduct" language is intended to address; most RD regulars seem to contribute frequently and helpfully without ever needing to mention whether participants post as IPs.  I don't think there's any danger of conflating "can use the phrase 'drive-by'" and "can contribute to the Ref Desk".  But yes, what we generally phrase as an "interaction ban" would be crippling to RD participation -- but I don't think that's what we need; Bugs is perfectly capable of providing straightforward answers to IP editors and does so regularly. And now that I proof my above paragraph, I see where "engage with" stayed in though I meant to remove it.  Oops, and apologies for the confusion. &mdash; Lomn 16:45, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Completely ridiculous and frivolous suggestion. Just because he got off on the wrong foot with a couple of editors (some of whom may or may not be deliberately baiting him) there is no need for such a drastic measure. --Saddhiyama (talk) 15:27, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment. My experience with Bugs has been somewhat limited. At first I figured the incident I witnessed last night was isolated, but after my lengthy resulting interaction with him and notes from others, I've been led to believe that this has been an ongoing issue. Bugs has a problem with, and has in essence voiced outright opposition to, Wikipedia's policies regarding AGF and equal treatment for new/anonymous users. I'd support a ban of some sort, but I think we should discuss and lay out the terms first before jumping to a support/oppose. We may also want to have this discussion in a broader forum that invites those previously uninvolved to have a look at Bugs' behavior and provide some input. Equazcion  ( talk ) 18:19, 21 Mar 2012 (UTC)

Agree,This can;t happen again,per nom.74.178.186.35 (talk) 20:34, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment. I think a ban is overkill, but some sort of action is called for.  I'm reminded of Margaret Thatcher's You may have to fight a battle more than once to win it, because this issue between Baseball Bugs and anonymous OPs comes up time and again, yet never seems to be resolved.  It's only Bugs who has the problem, not anyone else.  That in itself should tell Bugs that he should be examining his own motivations.  He sticks to his line that they say FU to him, and he won't tolerate being treated that way, yet he never acknowledges his part in the interchange.  In the above case, as I pointed out (and to which he never bothered to respond), the first rude remark came from Baseball Bugs.  The OP's response to that was civil and reasonable.  Yet Bugs has described the exchange as the OP being rude to him, when the truth is exactly vice-versa.  It is very clear and has been for ages that Baseball Bugs has a deep-seated distrust of all anonymous OPs, and particularly those who edit on the ref desks without much (or any) other WP experience.  I've never understood his issue here, and he's never seen fit to explain it.  We advertise the ref desks on the Main Page, for godssake; it's not as if we're some obscure dusty backroom inhabited by decrepit old geezers that time has forgotten.  In the above case, he gratuitously injected mention of the OP's paucity of earlier WP edits, as if that had anything to do with understanding the issue at hand.  It had nothing to do with it. It simply served to display Bugs' inherent IP-bias for all to see.  We go to the trouble time and again of explaining things to him, and typically he comes back with quick snarky quips that avoid actually confronting the issue at hand.  On this issue, he has never agreed that there's anything about his approach that merits any kind of adjustment.  When he has nothing solid to argue with, he comes out with the very tired and grossly inaccurate line of a double standard whereby OPs are supposedly kissed up to while regular people are slapped down.  He plays the victim to perfection; but then, he's had lots of practice.  I once described Baseball Bugs as an attention seeker; that may be overstating it as a general remark about him, but when it comes to this particular issue, it is very true.  He tends to start these IP-related issues, he dominates the discussions, he won't listen to anything anyone else says, he refuses to drop his prejudice, and the only real point of any of it, that I can see, is Bugs saying to the rest of us: "Look at me".  --   Jack of Oz   [your turn]  20:38, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * If not a topic ban, what sort of action would you suggest? Equazcion  ( talk ) 21:56, 21 Mar 2012 (UTC)
 * I guess I just don't understand how a topic ban would work. What objective criteria would Bugs be held to? APL (talk) 22:55, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * He could be banned from editing any reference desk pages, possibly along with other specific pages known commonly to cater to new and anonymous users. A couple of people here are against that idea though, and I'd be interested to hear why -- Maybe they consider Bugs to be an asset here so long as he's not interacting with new users, but I think his presence is enough of a detriment to new users as to outweigh that. An interaction ban (ban from interacting with new/anonymous users) would be difficult to enforce, as we'd need to define "new users" and which questions qualify (only started by new users? any question where new users have commented? etc.) Equazcion  ( talk ) 23:04, 21 Mar 2012 (UTC)
 * One possible solution would be to allow Bugs to factually answer questions, without allowing him to comment in any way, shape or form on the person asking the question, their editcount (or lack thereof), and their assumed intentions in asking the question. I have some concerns about how enforceable that would be, but at least it would be kind of a way forward. -- Ferkelparade &pi; 23:11, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * As you say, that doesn't really seem workable. There are lots of subtle ways to show disdain in a comment without making an explicit comment regarding a user. Any ban would have to be a clearcut ruling against interaction with certain users or pages, not something where we need to interpret the content of his comments. Equazcion  ( talk ) 23:14, 21 Mar 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment,Bugs must be ban or two months at least.74.178.186.35 (talk) 21:29, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Agree, A Ban is in order. Bugs clearly knows his behavior is disruptive.  Repeating the same thing over and over is not constructive.  Repeated derogatory comments about IP editors is not constructive.  This is playing out as a repeat of his recent ban from AN/ANI.  He just doesn't know when to stop, and continues to carry on until he is forced to stop.  The problem is that when is isn't on the talk pages carrying on, he tries to edit the articles.  I'm afaid that if he can't make his smart ass comments here or on the drama boards, we will have a bigger problem cleaning up after him on the article pages.  Desk Ref (talk) 22:53, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Since this is not the reference desk itself, I don't feel the least bit hypocritical in pointing out that "Desk Ref" seems to be a newly created account with only this single edit. APL (talk) 22:59, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree (with both APL and Deskref, oddly) - DeskRef's comments (on Bugs's behaviour on the Refdesk and ANI, not necessarily those on potential problems in article space) are pretty much spot on, but whoever DeskRef is should have the courage to make his/her comments with his/her real username instead of using an obvious throwaway account -- Ferkelparade &pi; 23:26, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * He must be one of the Ip Bugs hit.74.178.186.35 (talk) 23:11, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * There's no point in speculating. It doesn't matter. APL (talk) 23:29, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

There's a deeper question, of course. Is this worth the effort? If things proceed as User:Ferkelparade suggests, would Baseball Bugs still be interested in participating with the reference desks? I hope he'll comment here to indicate as much. If not, then I'd like to reluctantly suggest getting input from uninvolved editors to consider proceeding as Equazcion suggests. APL (talk) 23:33, 21 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment. I don't know why Bugs cannot play nicely with IP, but it's an long time ongoing issue that never seems to resolve. I would suggest Bugs be ban whenever he called an ip "drive-by" or other similar derogatory names. Royor (talk) 01:01, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment.He did it once he would do it again.---74.178.186.35 (talk) 01:05, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support. Ironically I am supporting an interaction ban that includes me as well(see section header).  Looking back in the diffs, I see nothing positive that is accomplished when BB and my fellow IPs interact...so there really is no downside to keeping him and my kind in separate corners.  70.174.142.77 (talk) 01:56, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Comment:Does he(Bugs) know what we are doing,cause I say don't tell him.74.178.186.35 (talk) 02:00, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Good point, though we certainly should tell him if any sort of formal process is being started regarding him. He certainly has this page in his watchlist, which is enough for now; after the long argument here I don't want to make it appear that we're goading him by leaving a message. When a process is started at the appropriate forum (ANI etc) we'll definitely leave him a note. Equazcion  ( talk ) 03:51, 22 Mar 2012 (UTC)
 * I left him a note on his talk page.
 * I would have done so sooner, but I sort of assumed that someone else already had done so. APL (talk) 10:21, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh. Actually, someone else had done so. He replied and then archived the discussion..
 * I guess he won't be participating in this discussion then. APL (talk) 10:23, 22 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I oppose any ban of Bugs. He's blunt, sure.  But not out of line.  Dismas |(talk) 07:02, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * What's your definition of "out of line", and why doesn't it apply to calling editors "drive bys"? --   Jack of Oz   [your turn]  07:48, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * It's not just that he's blunt, it's that he openly believes that inexperienced editors are a lower class of citizen then him, and anyone who doesn't agree with him is part of some conspiracy to coddle trouble-makers and/or oppress him personally. He seems to further believe that anyone who doesn't agree with him and his disruptive crusades is a double-agent who secretly wants to see the RefDesks destroyed by trolls. APL (talk) 10:30, 22 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Support. They tried to ban him from trolling ANI, too; so why isn't he simply banned? Alarbus (talk) 15:06, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support. I have watched Bugs edits for some time and he is frequently sharp not just to new and IP editors. This is corrosive to the working environment and is especially problematic when it has the potential to drive away new editors.  Spinning  Spark  18:25, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

on specific language
Subsectioning for clarity.

Above, Equazcion and Ferkelparade have a good conversation about exactly what form a restriction might take and whether a good restriction is enforceable. Since I posted the original bit, I think it's appropriate that I flesh out my thoughts: So, for a specific proposed restriction:
 * Bugs' factual replies, to users of any stripe, are not problematic; a proposed restriction should not prohibit those.
 * Bugs' humorous replies, to users of any stripe, are no more problematic that other silly asides on the Ref Desk. These, too, should not be targeted by a proposed restriction.
 * Bugs' comments on the provenance or identity of users is often, though not always, problematic. Rather than trying to create overly complex restrictions that say some of this is OK and some not, I think we've reached a point where we can safely say that Bugs' contributions in this area are a net negative and not needed.
 * This is strictly an RD issue. While we don't have the scope or authority (or need) to discuss things at a WP level, ANI and other WP-level venues have generally been in line with "the Ref Desk can handle its own problems" for issues of this scope, if memory serves.
 * Pairing the last two points, we don't have any business (or authority) telling Bugs that he can't take behavioral issues to WP-level venues. If he wants to complain about the RD behavior of 192.168.1.16, user:Trollin123, or myself at ANI, that's fine with me.
 * I am inclined to scope this as a one-way restriction, but suggestions on how to appropriately restrict other editors, particularly anonymous editors, are welcome if you feel them necessary. My feeling, though, is that that side of things will be better served by on-the-spot moderation instead of referring new or anonymous editors to a decision buried in the RD Talk archives that they can't possibly be expected to have seen in advance.
 * User:Baseball Bugs is enjoined against commenting within the scope of Reference Desk page space on the motivations or conduct of any editor.

For enforcement, I figure some sort of escalating block thing works. Start at 24h and cap at a week? If we reach a point where that seems insufficient, then yes, it's probably time to move to an ANI-type venue.

Thoughts, objections, hypotheticals that push the bounds of the above, and rewordings are, of course, welcome. &mdash; Lomn 14:29, 22 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Two thoughts.
 * 1) I'm not sure that Bugs would be interested in participating under such restrictions.
 * 2) I really think uninvolved editors should be invited to comment.
 * APL (talk) 14:46, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed on both. I'll also repeat that a restriction that can only be enforced by interpreting a person's comments doesn't really seem feasible. I think any restriction should be based on venue and/or participants. Uninvolved participation in this discussion should be sought next, though I'm not sure where to advertise it. Equazcion  ( talk ) 16:57, 22 Mar 2012 (UTC)
 * On the first point (APL): There's a good chance you're correct, and I've struggled with getting my thoughts on the matter into words. However, I am not willing to equate "we have told Bugs not to attack anonymous editors" with "Bugs is functionally banned from the Ref Desk if he is not allowed to attack anonymous editors" in terms of the consequences of this discussion.  If Bugs makes a decision of that nature, he will not be the first RD regular to have done so. &mdash; Lomn 18:21, 22 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't think there is such a great problem with interpretation. I would be in favour of including the stock construct "broadly construed" in the ban, which would make it absolutely clear that any comment that could in any way be seen as a comment about the user would not be allowed.  Spinning  Spark  18:25, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed, "broadly construed" should suffice. I don't think APL's point #1 is that much of a problem - we can only lay out the rules in a way that allows a user to participate, if said user then decides he doesn't want to participate under that set of rules, that's primarily their problem (one could of course discuss the rules to find a compromise that works for all involved parties, but Bugs has apparently already indicated that he has no interest in discussing this). So...that leaves the question of getting input from uninvolved editors. How do we proceed on that? AN or AN/I would probably just send us back here and say that the Refdesk should be able to solve its own problems, plus this doesn't really require any admin input at this point. Village Pump? RFC? Or do we just wait here until more refdesk regulars had their say?-- Ferkelparade &pi; 10:37, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Both RFC and VP would work - although VP would probably just turn it into a link to this discussion. Although I don't really understand why it is necessary to actively seek out non-refdesk input.  Spinning  Spark  12:24, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Not necessarily non-refdesk input, but I guess some broader discussion is needed for a potential topic ban decision to stick. Right now, we seem to have a rough consensus in favour of a topic ban with Dismas being the only opposing voice, but with only about half a dozen people joining the discussion so far (discounting the various anon votes and comments), I wouldn't call that a broad consensus yet. -- Ferkelparade &pi; 13:21, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I think Saddhiyama !voted against a ban as well. I also oppose any sort of ban. I agree that it would be a good thing if Bugs could reconsider his attitude towards anonymous/first time editors, and agree that different standards do indeed apply to those who regularly answer refdesk queries, and the "drive-bys". In my opinion, the former should show the "drive-bys" - by example - what editing behaviour is acceptable, and what is not. I assume that most of us agree that engaging in need-to-have-the-last-word quarrels with unexperienced editors clearly is not the way to go. Nevertheless, in my opinion Bugs is a productive editor who adds value to the reference desks. Bugs spends quite a lot of his time giving intelligent answers to people who "drive by" the reference desks. Some of those "drive-bys" will later become regular editors. I think that we should focus on the good work that Bugs does, instead of starting a witch-hunt. We have some examples of outstanding refdesk contributors who have quit because of negative feedback from other refdesk contributors, and I would hate to see that happening to Bugs. --NorwegianBluetalk 19:23, 23 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Actually there's rarely cause for anyone here at the desks to question a contributor's former edits or comment on the dynamicism of their IP address or on their drive-by-ness. Try to answer the question or ignore it. Same with other posts such as replies or snarky comments. Focus on the factual part, ignore the rest. I'd be happy if nobody made these comments, but of course we all occasionally drift away from our mission.
 * That being said, Bugs seems to be particularly inept at ignoring who posted something and, as you said, particularly keen on having the last word. Deciding that he's no longer welcome to comment on what he sees as drive-by-posts or "on the provenance or identity of users" as phrased by Lomn above is hardly the same thing as banning him. It cuts out a part that is disruptive and negative, thus enhancing the added value of Bugs you referred to. I think "witch-hunt" is a bit hyperbolic in the context of what is being discussed here.
 * Nevertheless, I vote against these sanctions being decided here, because I am against setting a precedence for individually tailored rules created on this talk page, rules that apply to one editor only, but not to all. ---Sluzzelin talk  19:47, 23 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I also still oppose a ban. But it's unacceptable to me that Bugs, or anyone (but he's the only editor who ever seems to do it), should be able to get away with treating unregistered editors with such naked contempt.  It's encapsulated in the term "drive-by", which is as offensive to me and others as "nigger" or "kike" are.  We all know what this means out in the real world: it's not about people taking the grandparents out for a treat on a Sunday afternoon and waving as they drive by their friends' houses; it's about people who shoot and kill other people while they're driving by.  Bugs is basically saying that any editor who chooses not to get a user name is here for nefarious purposes, not to be trusted, and fit only to be put down.  Absolutely guilty until proven innocent.  Yet, there is no rule that editors must be registered, so they're not doing anything wrong by merely exercising their right to remain anonymous.  On the other hand, there are rules about how other editors are to be treated, and those rules are regularly flaunted by Baseball Bugs in his dealings with unregistered users.  Yes, he is a valuable contributor generally speaking, and I would also not like to lose him totally.  But we can't let him take us for suckers just on that account.  A person who heals the sick and does good works for the community by day, but burgles houses by night, is still a burglar.
 * Btw, Norwegian Blue, I would very much NOT want to see the offensive term used by Bugs be given any wider currency, not even in quotes (other than to identify what causes offence and why). --   Jack of Oz   [your turn]  20:14, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
 * You say "we can't let him take us for suckers just on that account" but you propose no action to enforce that. If Bugs were open to persuasion or mentoring enforcement would not be an issue, but he isn't and it is.  Spinning  Spark  20:28, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
 * ^What SpinningSpark said. Jack said, "we can't let him take us for suckers just on that account. A person who heals the sick and does good works for the community by day, but burgles houses by night, is still a burglar." He seems to be suggesting we shouldn't let Bugs continue getting away with the inappropriate behavior -- but he's opposed to a ban and doesn't offer an alternative. We're here because talking to Bugs hasn't worked, so we're left with enforcement. This is generally what happens on Wikipedia in such instances, and for good reason. Equazcion  ( talk ) 20:47, 23 Mar 2012 (UTC)
 * As long as we're talking about language: Recognizing that this is just a narrow aspect of the larger discussion, I am not comfortable with beating up on Bugs for using the term "drive-by". Evidence shows that the term is entering general usage, at least in American English. How about a drive-by baby shower? Having said that, Arbcom recently covered exactly this issue, but you can't expect all editors to know what is offensive everywhere. In light of that Arbcom ruling, I would expect that once informed of the offensive nature of a term, an editor would stop using the term. Regards, Orange Suede Sofa  (talk) 21:05, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't personally care about use of the term alone (I wasn't even aware that it was considered offensive anywhere). I don't generally think most people commenting on that term are against it for sensitivity's sake. The reference to that term is merely to Bugs' particular use of the word when he's justifying his change in conduct when dealing with anons. He does use it rather disdainfully. Equazcion  ( talk ) 21:10, 23 Mar 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not about to track down all the links, but Bugs has been previously made aware - on multiple occasions - that the term, in the way that he typically uses it in reference to anon users, is deeply offensive. He has blithely ignored that.  The camel's back won't last forever.  --   Jack of Oz   [your turn]  21:18, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
 * He's absolutely been made aware. "I have vivid memories of being yelled at every time I use the term 'drive-by'".
 * APL (talk) 00:16, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

I also oppose the personal restriction, with particular reference to Sluzzelin's last paragraph above: "Nevertheless, I vote against these sanctions being decided here, because I am against setting a precedence for individually tailored rules created on this talk page, rules that apply to one editor only, but not to all." If you are going to make such a rule, then it should apply to all of us. Perhaps that is the way to go, but such a change would need a much wider exposure and many more contributions. Bielle (talk) 21:28, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, similar individually-tailored rules are actually an accepted practice on Wikipedia, and are a common result of disputes where an editor has shown an inability to change their toxic practices. An editor may be banned from talking to, and even about a particular editor, group of editors, or a particular topic. See WP:BAN. Equazcion  ( talk ) 21:44, 23 Mar 2012 (UTC)
 * It's pretty common to have limited restrictions that attempt to eliminate problem behavior.
 * Sometimes they seem to work, but I'll admit to being dubious about them long term. If a user is made aware that his behavior is offensive, but he continues to openly engage in it, then it betrays a clear attitude problem that seems very likely to manifest in other ways.  (Recall Cuddlyable3's restriction on grammar nitpicking.  That restriction made C3 better for a while, but that user eventually found OTHER ways to intentionally piss people off.)
 * On the other hand, I can't stand the idea of someone be as knowingly disruptive and anti-consensus as he likes because everyone's afraid they might drive him away.
 * As bugs himself is so fond of pointing out, if you don't enforce the rules, you might as well not have them. APL (talk) 23:06, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Then identify the rule and enforce it, as it would be applicable to anyone. If you can't get consensus for its enforcement in this specific case, then trying to get enforcement by another process is not in the best interests of the Ref Desk. (All this means is that I don't agree with those attempting to re-write the rules for this editor. "In my opinion" should be appended to every recommendation, support and oppose.) It is clear to me, at least, that there is no consensus that AGF has been broken in such a way as to require sanctions in this instance. Personally, I think both the IP and Bugs were unnecessarily snarky, but "toxic practices", Equazcion, I think not.  Bielle (talk) 23:24, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
 * As I see it, the rules Bugs seems to have a problem with are WP:CIVIL, WP:DICK, WP:POINT and especially WP:BITE. Yes, these rules apply to everyone. Yes, Bugs is occasionally goaded by anon editors. Yes, we all occasionally fail to abide by these rules. But when there's a clear repeating pattern and the offending party absolutely refuses to acknowledge that there's anything at all wrong with their behavior, some sort of sanction seems to be needed. This has been going on for years and has caused endless amounts of drama - the line has to be drawn somewhere. -- Ferkelparade &pi; 04:20, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
 * @Bielle. I think you are confusing the rules and enforcement.  What is being proposed here is a community imposed restriction (not a total ban).  This is not a special rule for this user, rather it is the means of enforcing the existing rules.  This is a recognised means of enforcement on Wikipedia for difficult cases, see WP:CBAN.  Would you rather have enforcement by a random lone administrator? That could have very inconsistent results.  Spinning  Spark  12:01, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think I am confused about the difference, Spinningspark. What I see is no consensus for any enforcement. I wouldn't agree that Bugs sees nothing wrong with his behaviour; what he appears to see is complete inconsistency in enforcement between named accounts and IPs. One of the reasons IPs are treated more leniently (and it is my perception that Bugs has some merit on his side of the argument) is that they usually appear to be newbies by brevity of the IP's history, even when their knowledge of the site would make this a patently absurd conclusion. There is a second reason, and that seems to be that blocking and/or banning IPs is an action with potential consequences for "collateral damage", and thus it is often not done. The third reason is that there is a belief that these IPs will get tired of there silliness and go away, without further action and that named accounts, however targetted by them, should just suck it up and move on. It makes Bugs's actions understandable, if not acceptable. And we live with a lot of "not acceptable" far more egregious than Bugs's pointed comments to IPs who appear to be behaving badly. Bielle (talk) 19:59, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Section Break
No need to blow this out of proportions (with permanent blocks!) nor to over complicate it with precisely worded statements like we're drafting a resolution for Parliament.

As an alternate proposal, perhaps an administrator could hit bugs with a seven-day (or so) "cool-down" block next time he starts arguing or ranting&raving on this topic. This wouldn't really be any sort of special treatment, it would just be closely enforcing WP:CIVIL on an editor known to have issues with it.

All we need is a sympathetic admin and an agreement that now that he's been warned there's no reason to hold off on enforce existing project-wide rules. APL (talk) 23:19, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

This whole ... well I am at at loss what to call this without ending up offending someone, but this is completely frivolous. If anybody has anything to say against Bugs' behaviour towards certain editors, Wikiquette assistance is that way. Any sort of "interaction ban" proposed here is absolutely spurious. And I must say I am disappointed in a lot of editors casting their vote here, experienced editors who I thought should have known better. --Saddhiyama (talk) 00:21, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Since Wikipedia isn't a bureaucracy, such discussions can take place wherever they happen to have started. There's no need to hold one at WQA when it's already ongoing here. Interaction bans have been placed as a result of discussions that occur in any number of places. Equazcion  ( talk ) 00:26, 24 Mar 2012 (UTC)
 * That's a pretty tame excuse not to use proper procedures, especially since there is a wellknown history of IP editors trolling Bugs on these pages.--Saddhiyama (talk) 00:31, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
 * There actually is no proper procedure for implementing a topic ban, at least as far as where the discussion happens. ANI is the most common place, but that's not outlined in any policy or guideline. WP:WQA is actually specifically not the place, as it says in its header. You're of course entitled to disagree that any action is warranted, but as far as venue goes, this is as good a place as any. Equazcion  ( talk ) 00:39, 24 Mar 2012 (UTC)
 * @APL. A sympathetic admin is much more likely to take action if the RD community can point to a consensus that Bug's behaviour is considered disruptive.  That is the whole point of a community imposed restriction - it makes it easy for admins to prevent a recurrence.  Spinning  Spark  12:08, 24 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose any interaction ban of any wording at this time. Bugs has a bit of a habit of latching on like a pitbull and refusing to let some issues drop, but I don't see that flaw as particularly aimed at IP editors.  We all have our faults, and in my observation of Bugs, I don't think he has any particular problems with IP editors in general.  He may be a bit gruff at times, but he does that to everyone, and his responses at the reference desk tend to drift from the useful to the funny, neither of which are a problem.  I'd rather try to counsel Bugs to let interpersonal matters just dissipate, but interaction bans don't serve any purpose in this case, and I'd rather not lose a good contributor to the reference desk over trite matters as these.  -- Jayron  32  05:29, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment:He must be ban,this can't happen again,by the way I'm IP 74.178.186.35,my Ip changes once a while.--TM67 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.163.16.20 (talk) 20:12, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment - The above editor is a self-admitted sock of a banned user. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:33, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Deleted Birther soapboxing
I have just deleted this section, including all the responses to it. It's just soapboxing. There is no legitimate question in there at all. It should have been deleted from the start - please don't respond to such things in future. --Tango (talk) 16:59, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
 * PS People have previously complained about me deleting responses without informing each individual responder. There are about a dozen responders there and I have better things to do with my time than go and inform each of them.--Tango (talk) 17:02, 24 March 2012 (UTC)


 * That is rather uncivil. I know that if one of my posts were deleted I would appreciate an explanation and not have to go trawling through the edit history to discover what had happened.  Spinning  Spark  19:32, 24 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I informed them for you - it took all of 5 minutes to copy paste the message.  Spinning Spark  19:42, 24 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the notification, it's much appreciated. StuRat (talk) 20:40, 24 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I previuosly deleted two extraneous sentences by Tango, but it seems someone reverted my edit. I guess that Tango is allowed to call me a careless fool here. If he had read my response, he should have noticed that it may have been the only one that was trying to make sense of the OP.--Canoe1967 (talk) 20:24, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I reverted it - see my edit summary. We never remove only those selected parts of another editor's posts that we find offensive; that really does alter what they say, and only the editor themself can change their own words.  Deal with whatever offence is caused in some way other than pretending the words were never uttered in the first place.  --   Jack of Oz   [your turn]  20:53, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks to Spark for the notification. I had no emotional attachment to that discussion whatsoever, but deleting it seems slightly... unnecessary, to say the least. I also dislike how you presume to issue orders ("'don't respond to such things in future'") and question the judgement of those who responded. If it was as clear-cut as you make it, it would have been deleted earlier by an admin, but I don't think it's up to you to determine whether something contains a "legitimate question" or not. Evanh2008 (talk) (contribs) 20:48, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I aplogize for my earlier statements about Tango. I removed them and I also removed his as per Talk_page_guidelines--Canoe1967 (talk) 21:28, 24 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Good deletion. And thanks to Spinning for the notification, though it was not necessary. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:31, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Our position on trolling is very clear - we don't feed them. The judgement of people that responded to that post rather than deleting it was very poor. What do admins have to do with it? You don't need to be an admin to enforce policies unless you need to use one of the tools that are restricted to admins (deleting or protecting pages, blocking users, etc.). --Tango (talk) 21:54, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps we should create a "soap board". One can then move questions of this type and the answers given there, without upsetting posters who have put in some effort on it. Count Iblis (talk) 22:38, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
 * That reminds me of Talk:0.999.../Arguments. In an attempt to stop people using the Talk page of the 0.999... article to debate whether 0.999... really equals 1 or not, a separate page was created specifically for those kinds of debates. Stopping them happening at all was deemed too difficult, so it was agreed to just move them out of the way. The page even survived MfD, so the approach does apparently have consensus. I think a page for any kind of soapboxing is too general, though - it's completely out of scope for Wikipedia. A page for a very specific type of argument that can lead to educational benefits for the people making the arguments just be justified. I think an anything goes soapbox is too much. --Tango (talk) 23:41, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Haha! Can we get the Developers to set up the soap-board as a honeypot that perma-blocks anyone who attempts to post there? APL (talk) 08:27, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Are people suggesting that notification should be done on ALL removals? Or just removals where the entire section is entirely disappeared? For instance, could Tango have saved himself a brow-beating by leaving the section, and a notice that it had been removed. That way the links in people's histories would have brought them to the notice? I ask, because as much as I love transparency and openness, we should strive to keep it easier to remove vandalism than put it there in the first place. That's basically the only reason Wikipedia works at all. APL (talk) 08:27, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
 * There has never been agreement on when and how to inform the people whose posts got removed. Some argue that each affected user should be informed directly for every removal, for the sake of courtesy and also to miminize confusion among those looking for their posts. Some argue, like you and Tango do, that the whole removal shouldn't be too much of an effort. Both arguments have merit. I have to confess that one of the reasons I hardly ever remove threads where people have already posted replies, is because I belong to the first camp, but am too lazy to bother informing people, thus strengthening the second camp's argument.
 * One of the advantages of your (APL's) proposal of leaving the section title with a quick note that stuff got removed and why, is less confusion not only among those who posted, but also among those who merely followed the thread silently (but of course wouldn't get informed on their talk pages in either scenario).
 * In short, there hasn't been any consensus in previous discussions on how to handle removals. Some people even remove entire threads without leaving any trace except for the desk's history. Tango did inform us here which is fine be me. ---Sluzzelin talk  08:38, 25 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I think it depends on how bad the post is. If absolutely everyone will agree that it's vandalism, like an "I like boobies !" post, then no need to do anything but delete it.  Once people have started to add serious responses, though, that seems to imply that enough people think it's a valid post that, at the very least, it should be mentioned here.  I happen to believe it's also courteous to inform those who had their posts removed.  I also prefer hatting it over outright removal. StuRat (talk) 09:02, 25 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Deletion seems like an overreaction here, especially after editors had started posting serious responses. Would have been better to just collapse the section and say "discussion closed". Gandalf61 (talk) 09:13, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with Gandalf. I'm not from the US and I have no idea of political debate over there. If what the OP said constitutes "trolling" in the USA, be aware that editors from other countries may not see it that way. --TammyMoet (talk) 10:18, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Blatantly race-baiting posts of any kind are usually zapped on wikipedia. As soon as it became clear with the OP's term "LHN" stood for, dat was dat. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 11:12, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

I disagree with both hatting trolling and with replacing it with a link to the diff or wherever. Both of those make it an exciting secret and encourage people to click the link to find out what naughty thing was said. We shouldn't make a big deal out of posts like this, we should just quietly delete them and move on. You'll probably have noticed that I've taken to deleting sections that other people have hatted for precisely the reasons I've just stated, and so far I don't think anyone has reverted or even objected to me doing that. Can we all please just delete on sight any posts where it is clear that the OP hasn't come here for the right reasons? This is a reference desk. It is not a place for trolling and soapboxing. --Tango (talk) 00:00, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Your approach on this kind of thing is fine. Zapping it and then announcing it here should be sufficient. In fact, just stating it in the edit summary should be sufficient. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 08:44, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * No, announcing a removal in the edit summary is not sufficient according to our guidelines. Reference desk/Guidelines says editors may remove posts and responses from the reference desks but it also strongly recommends that such removals are noted here on the talk page. I am not sure that this second step has always been followed recently. Gandalf61 (talk) 10:08, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Probably because almost every time it's announced, the enablers argue about it. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 10:55, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Bugs - I am not sure what you mean by "enablers" here. Can you explain who these "enablers" are and what they do ? For example, am I an "enabler" ? Gandalf61 (talk) 11:05, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * If someone is arguing against the deletion of the obviously trolling, race-baiting question, then they are an enabler. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 11:26, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * But what exactly do you mean by "an enabler" ? An enabler of what ?? You are talking in some code that is opaque to me. But it does seem to me that attaching strange (and presumably insulting) labels to editors who, in all good faith, disagree with you is a good way of avoiding a civilised discussion and polarising opinion instead. Is that what you are trying to do here ? Gandalf61 (talk) 12:35, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd rather not speak for Bugs, but I believe what he is saying is that there is behavior which is undesirable, and some people's position here is to encourage the undesirable behavior. That is, people troll the reference desks.  When they do, their questions should be deleted without debate.  The lengthy debates we have over removing obviously unhelpful, trolling, or otherwise clearly disruptive questions is exactly what the trolls want, so every time we have these debates, it only encourages them to post more trolling questions.  Thus, people for a propensity to object to the deletion of certain questions enables the trolls by giving them exactly what they want.  What Bugs appears to be objecting to is the behavior by some reference desk regulars which serves to increase trolling at the reference desks by rewarding the trolls.  I neither agree nor disagree with that position, but merely am explaining it.  Bugs can say whether or not I have explained it correctly, but that is what I read into the word "enabler".  Whether or not Bugs is actually correct in his assessment is not my position, and I have no opinion on the actual veracity of whether or not these discussions actually enable trolls or not, but Bugs seems to think they do, and would rather deleted questions were not endlessly debated.  -- Jayron  32  14:08, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Well-stated. Good summary. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:08, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Of course, he expresses that opinion in the form of inflammatory baiting. I wonder why that doesn't discourage discussion? APL (talk) 19:23, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, so tell us all, what approach WOULD get you to shut up about it??? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:12, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I had assumed this line was meant as a joke, or at least as irony.
 * It occurred to me just now that it might not be. However, I won't bother to state my opinion, because you should know it well by now; you've replied to it many times. APL (talk) 02:28, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
 * It occurred to me even before I wrote it, that NOTHING will get you to shut up about it; so your comment, alleging that my approach is somehow affecting your position, is bogus: You're going to continue to oppose removing race-baiting garbage, no matter what anyone says. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 10:49, 28 March 2012 (UTC)


 * FWIW I agree with the removal here. Even if the editor isn't trolling, given that it's apparent from question that the OP is American, after all this time it's difficult to imagine there's anything we can say that will influence the OP. And as Tango said it wasn't really a question but a statement. Although really the odd unexplained reference to LHN doesn't help with that conclusion it isn't trolling, BB's guess seems as good as any particularly since Obama really is left handed). Not being an American myself I have sympathies to those Americans who weren't aware it was trolling and something that had been dealt with so much outside wikipedia but as said it's clear this doesn't apply to the OP.
 * Also as I've mentioned before I'm with Sluzzelin in that one of the reasons I rarely delete anything is because of the requirement by some of having to notify every single contributor which I'm guessing some people are going to argue should include those like Mr.98 and BB who's only real contribution was to say the OP was a troll and the question should be ignored. Even with Canoe1967 I doubt they cared since their response sounded more like a joke on the OP. And of course JoO and Sleigh were just asking what the LHN nonsense was about. I'm not BTW complaining about these responses simply suggesting the idea we have to notify everyone is a bit strange. As I said, this is only one reason, even if a question hasn't received any answers but seems clear cut trolling I'm reluctant to remove it because as BB has hinted at, how often this seems to lead to needless disputes here.
 * Nil Einne (talk) 14:55, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Should anybody wonder, I indeed cared not. I think you can assume that when someone's response is along the lines of "this is trolling," they are completely happy to find that it, along with the rest of the question, has been deleted. --Mr.98 (talk) 18:09, 29 March 2012 (UTC)