Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/Archive 100

Archive 95

←

Archive 98

Archive 99

Archive 100

Archive 101

Archive 102

→

Archive 105

RFC on changing the "no medical advice policy"

In the current RFC started by Beeblebrox, new questions have been raised about our no medical advice policy. I think it would be good to start a RFC specifically about this issue. But before we do this, we should discuss the positions of the regulars here and the arguments for and against these positions. What is more important than just stating an opinion for whatever rules you want to have, is the motivation for these rules. So, if we didn't have any rules to begin with, why would you want to have these rules, what problems do the rules solve etc.? Count Iblis (talk) 18:52, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

This is a wikipedia-wide policy, not a ref desk rule. See wikipedia:NOT, Wikipedia:Medical disclaimer, Wikipedia:Legal disclaimer. μηδείς (talk) 19:02, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)For me, the prohibition on medical/legal advice is about not providing people with information that could have dire consequences if we were wrong. I believe that these sorts of questions represent a different level of risk than other questions, like how to fix your car, or other such things, despite superficial similarities between medical/legal advice questions and other advice questions, and this distinction is enough to make me uncomfortable with allowing them to be answered by unidentified volunteers. Our only advice should be "find someone who is qualified to answer the question." Again, while we can word questions similarly, "There's oil leaking out of the bottom of my car, what could it be?" represents a very different sort of question than "There's blood leaking out of my anus, what could it be?" The second question is of the type we should not answer, while I have no problem with the first, specifically because the qualitative difference in the risk to life and limb if we are wrong. The difference is enough, in my opinion, to ban the asking and answering of questions of that type. Post edit conflict addendum: and as Medeis notes, this sort of RFC needs to involve the entire encyclopedia (as everything at the Ref Desks does all the time, since we are an integral part of the encyclopedia) because the policy is a Wikipedia-wide policy and prohibits the use of Wikipedia to give advice in all manners, not just the reference desks. --Jayron32 19:04, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

When the question is clearly asking for medical advice, there is no issue: we tell them to go get advice from an appropriate professional. But the real problems come when editors disagree (usually violently and at nauseous length) on whether an OP is asking for medical advice, or simply seeking information that just happens to be of a medical nature. And that often comes down to semantics; precise word choices used by OPs; volunteers' different understanding of why the OP would want to know such a thing, and so on. For some volunteers, a question may be regarded as simple academic curiosity, but for others, it's "obviously" for the OP to diagnose (and possibly treat) themselves. This is where we need to place our focus: Determining when a question is seeking medical advice, and when not. And how to sort this out in each case without an undignified ego-squabble in front of them. There's a wider question here: How to sort out ANY issue without an undignified ego-squabble in front of the OP. But let's leave that for another day. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 19:59, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I disagree. Those sort of "edge cases" create problems for any policy, but that doesn't mean the policy is invalid, just that we need to accept a certain level of disagreement on the edge cases, but it is till important to have a core policy that everyone follows for the obvious cases. The real crux of the problem is that we have editors who want to answer a question like "There's blood leaking out of my anus, what could it be?" with "You have hyperanaleakageosis. Take three aspirin every four hours, and you will be fine in three days". That is, people like Wnt see nothing wrong with providing that answer to that question, and we need to reaffirm that that is NOT ok. Questions like "What are the symptoms of hyperanaleakegosis, and what are the treatments?" are going to provoke some debate (though that debate could be ameliorated if we ask why the person is asking. If they say "I have to write a paper about it for my pathology class, and I can't find a lot of information" then we have a different way to go then "I was reading about it on WebMD and think I have it and want to know what I should do". But the existance of the hard, edge cases will never go away. It doesn't mean we get rid of what is a very important policy because we have a hard question once in a while. --Jayron32 20:06, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

If you read my opening sentence again, you'll see I agree about how to deal with unambiguous requests for medical advice. Nowhere have I suggested getting rid of our No Medical Advice policy. It's the interpretation of how it's applied in individual cases that creates most of the heat. What we need is more light. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 21:34, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

I know. That's not the part of your post that I disagreed with. --Jayron32 23:55, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

You've completely lost me now. You talked about "... that doesn't mean the policy is invalid, just that we need to accept a certain level of disagreement ... it is [s]till important to have a core policy that everyone follows ... It doesn't mean we get rid of what is a very important policy because we have a hard question once in a while". Nobody ever suggested we get rid of the policy, least of all me. So, what part of my post were you disagreeing with? -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 04:22, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

The part where you claim that efforts need to be spent solving the unsolvable problem. My disagreement is that there is no way to solve the problem of the edge cases except by talking it out every time. You expressed a need to solve that problem, and I disagree in the sense that I don't think that that problem is solvable, and efforts spent in that direction aren't going to get us far. --Jayron32 03:55, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

To be clear, I am not suggesting or defending we say "Take" in the imperative. We are not here to give orders! We are not here to give advice in the plain English sense of urging people to do things or not to do things. But we should have every right to say "I took three aspirin for four days, and it was OK." Or "This journal article says 59% of people took aspirin for four days." Wnt (talk) 23:59, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

You shouldn't be able to dodge the spirit of sound policy by circumlocution.--Jayron32 01:29, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with "circumlocution". There is a real difference between telling someone that the local lottery includes $2, $5, and $10 winners with a certain frequency, or saying you got a $2 winner once, and claiming to know what ticket he has lying next to his keyboard. Wnt (talk) 12:51, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

The lottery thing is a bogus comparison. And as far as reporting what you did to fix your headache, it's both original research and irrelevant, because you have no way to know what's ailing the OP. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:38, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

The chief criticism of the "not providing people with information that could have dire consequences" theory is that this isn't actually how our policy is presently written. To quote, Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines/Medical advice: "Any reader may and should remove questions that appear to be soliciting medical, legal or other professional advice, or answers that give the impression of providing such." That says nothing about dire consequences. As written, quite trivial questions like "what is the penalty for filing my taxes two days late?" or "does it make a difference if I floss only once a day rather than twice a day?" are considered the same as medical emergencies. At the same time, a question like "How are pipe bombs made?" doesn't seem to be prohibited by any written rule we have here. We could write a guideline that begins with: "Don't answer questions if your response might have severe real world consequences", and then have subsections like: "Handling requests for medical advice", "Handling requests for legal advice", etc. However, at the moment though, the prohibitions are designed to be categorical rather than expressing a more general principle. That may be fine. Maybe we want to have categorical prohibitions. But it is not accurate to suggest that the guidelines we use here are generally implemented based on a consideration of consequences. Dragons flight (talk) 20:36, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Now, you're asking different questions here, or speaking to different issues. Iblis asked for our arguments why we needed such policies, NOT the wording of the policies themselves. I also don't believe we should put reasons like this in the policy. We should just say "Nope, we don't do that" in the policy page itself, and I'm fine with that too. But this discussion isn't about the wording of the policy, it is about the reason why we think the policy is necessary. Two completely different ideas here. --Jayron32 20:40, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Our existing policy is sound. The fact that there are disagreements over its application in borderline cases does not negate that; virtually any frequently applied policy has borderline cases. The fact that arguments over what is or is not medical advice is not a fault of the policy; it is a fault of the culture on this page, which could use one or two firm-handed administrators to help bring such arguments to a closure. Unless there is a very specific question which is of importance and as to whcih there is significant difference of opinion, I perceive no need for an RFC on this policy, and given the risk that it would become a time-sink, would prefer not to see one. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:16, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Interesting that I cannot readily recall the last time an admin qua admin intervened in anything on the Ref Desks. (I don't visit the Math or Computing Desks, but I somehow doubt they are hotbeds of bad behaviour that involves calling down the mighty hammers of block and ban.) In thinking about it, I may rememberUser:Rockpocket banning someone over disputes with User:Clio the Muse, but that was perhaps two or three years ago -a lifetime on the Internet. Mostly, we police ourselves, usually by way of long-winded screeds, until everyone is bored and drifts off. Bielle (talk) 20:31, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

It does happen. I have, in the past, blocked sock accounts and IP addresses of well known refdesk trolls (Timothyhere and Light Current spring to mind), and there is currently a discussion at WP:AN in need of closure that looks to enact a topic ban against a recently discovered troll (hint to any uninvolved admin reading this; that discussion needs a closer. Not that I'm looking at you Brad. Nope, not at all). However, I don't see this as a bad thing, or as out of the ordinary. Instead, we always assume good faith, even on the part of people we disagree with, even vehemently, and we look to discuss and talk rather than bully and enforce arbitrary rules. As in, exactly how all of Wikipedia should work. We block and ban when necessary to stop deliberate disruption, we talk and work by consensus in cases of good-faith disagreements. I don't see that as one iota different from the rest of Wikipedia. --Jayron32 20:37, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

I actually closed that discussion a few minutes ago, before seeing Jayron32's last comment just now. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:04, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Alike minds have great thoughts. --Jayron32 21:11, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

(ec x 2)Any fiddling with the Legal or Medical disclaimer and prohibitions would, imho, require a review and agreement by the WMF's legal experts. This is one of the few instances where the letter of the law trumps consensus (similar to the ban on libel or child porn). Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 21:17, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

In the RFC above, here's what I posted, though I know I could have posted it more tactfully: "[I]t just stupid and reckless to offer any medical advice to any person sight unseen, no matter how confident you are that they give you their symptoms truthfully and honestly. You don't know them, you don't know their history. Hell, you can't even see them." To me, that's why we should ban medical advice. That said, offering medical information is just fine: plenty or questions are answerable, and not all doctors have the time to give more thorough details. That's a role we can fill. Other people pointed out that we have no problem posting other potentially stupid and dangerous advice. That's a problem, too, and one I have no idea how to solve, kind of like a rat poison argument we had last year. It's a tough spot, but as Dodger67 pointed out, it's really one for the lawyers, consensus or not. Mingmingla (talk) 21:30, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

There's some confusion here. First, nobody's suggesting to change the site disclaimer, which is meant to be the legal protection. Next, we're not even really arguing over the right to give what in plain English you would call "medical advice", i.e. you should take this, get that tested, etc. The Refdesk is not for any kind of advice, that's policy too, the difference is, for other topics people take that to mean what it says and no more. The problem is that the fanatics against 'medical advice' take that to mean giving any information at all. I mean, it is (literally, presently) controversial that if somebody asks whether in general a malignant lump is always cancerous, you point them to malignancy. And if the OP admitted to having the condition, then they would say we can't answer a question we would otherwise be able to answer. All this is contrary to longstanding things like "Kainaw's criterion" that used to keep them in check, to some extent. I want us to be able to tell people what we know about a condition, provided we acknowledge we don't know it about their condition. To tell them what conditions we can think of that might cause a symptom, provided we don't claim we know one of them causes their symptom. To be able to refer them to lists of ongoing clinical trials, without telling them they ought to join one. To talk about research on drugs and herbs that might help something, without saying we know that's the right thing for them. In short, to not pretend to be doctors, but not pretend to be ignorant of biology either. Because there's a whole lot of interesting new information coming out all the time, and odds are, neither you nor your doctor know about it, and you should have the right to follow up on it and investigate and decide for yourself based on all the data you can scrounge up from any source, even us. Wnt (talk) 23:56, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

AS you are putting it now, Wnt, I agree with you 100%. Mingmingla (talk) 00:10, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Wnt often makes this "information" argument. It fails. The reason it fails is that regardless of what symptom an editor might post, no one here really knows what's going on with that editor, and no one here has examined the user in person. So the "information" argument is false - we have NO information that we can give to an editor with a symptom - except for the standard statement, "if you're concerned, then see a professional". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:47, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Here's where it gets crazy: I agree with you here, too, Bugs. Wnt is outline a policy he doesn't follow himself. I agree with his policy as he outlines, but I don't agree with his own application of it. Mingmingla (talk) 15:26, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

I disagree with that. I'm not sure which part of what I say you don't understand, but I believe I have been consistent. Wnt (talk) 23:15, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

I disagree with your disagreement of his agreement. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:36, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Now I don't know how I agree with. Probably not Mingmingla. Mingmingla (talk) 03:30, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Indeed, no one knows. Which is why the editor has, or certainly should have, the right to be pointed at potentially relevant sources of information. Wnt (talk) 05:30, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

You have no "potentially relevant" sources of information for someone you have not personally examined. The ONLY option is to direct the OP to a professional. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:36, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

• "To tell them what conditions we can think of that might cause a symptom..." - that sounds like differential diagnosis so if someone is asking in a way that suggests that it's anything other than a general question it's problematic. "To talk about research on drugs and herbs that might help something..." - here I would be quite concerned if this were construed to mean we'd answer "some people have found rutabaga extract helpful" when someone asks about prostate problems (if a general question, sticking to the same rules that apply to articles would make sense, so unless the herbal remedy is cited in a reliable secondary source it is questionable). Diagnosis and therapy should not be discussed on the RefDesk unless it's a general request for information. The legalities of giving medical advice are complex (and vary from state to state, whether you construe "state" to mean one of 50 or a nation-state); for the sake of WP we can't hew too close to the precipice. Frustrating folks is less problematic than jeopardizing the project. -- Scray (talk) 03:27, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

This 'jeopardy' is ridiculous. All over the Internet there are quacks pushing the most blatant falsehoods with the flimsiest legal cover. Everybody sees these sites day in and day out searching for anything. How can you even pretend that we "jeopardize the project"? Wnt (talk) 05:30, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

The widespread presence of quackery on the internet does not justify Wikipedia likewise lowering itself. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:31, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

• Dragons Flight is correct as to what current policy is and how it's set--and that it forbids all pretense at professional or licensed advice. NewYorkBrad is correct that a lack of committed admin oversight strictly enforcing these rules is the problem. The current "I find this interesting, listen to me roar" culture is a joke, a bad joke that will eventually backfire on the desks or the project or both. μηδείς (talk) 03:39, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

It's called the Internet. People talk on it. They even exchange information. Moan all you want, but it's about time we learn not to listen. Wnt (talk) 05:30, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

You have no valid information to present to any user asking about a symptom. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:31, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Woof woof erm oh dear sorry I've rather given the game away. Anyway we should be careful not to give any sort of advice that should only be given by a professional and stop other people giving the impression that we do anything like that. Having articles describing things is about the farthest we should go and readers can find that by searching if they're desperate to get advice from Wikipedia. We should not get into the market for peddling the stuff, just have it presented with our usual caveats n articles. People seem too ready to accept things as definitive when given by individuals in an assertive manner rather than the erms and ums we have in the articles. Dmcq (talk) 09:48, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

If OPs want online advice before consulting a professional, we can send them to NIH and/or NHS Direct. If after looking at those two sites, and existing WP articles they want more help, then they really do have to bite the bullet and make that appointment. How could we possibly serve them better? Itsmejudith (talk) 23:49, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

No medical or legal advice is a project wide policy that cant be addressed here if any change is expected - that said. Perhaps we should have a system were we simply direct readers with questions to a proper location over deleting the questions as mentioned above. I am not sure what location (website) that could be - perhaps something like this. I would assume that "free advice" is why people come here. Lets not waste everyone time debate what can and cant be answered and/or deleting that may cause an edit war. Lets recommend a solid course of action for all medical and legal questions - that is in my opinion.... guide our readers to a suitable reputable FREE site for real advice.Moxy (talk) 23:53, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

All advice is against Refdesk guidelines. We answer all kinds of questions without giving advice. The extremists indeed want you to bite the bullet and make the appointment, because their objection is based on medical ethics, and medical ethics is precisely equal to medical profit. Those who can't afford the cost (whether in the literal sense or in the more common sense of not having $100 to throw away every time they have some silly question about some minor ache, discoloration, tingling etc.) - well, we count their bodies in blood sacrifice to Moloch; as may be the souls of those who willingly surrender their right to freedom of inquiry to profit. Wnt (talk) 03:56, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

We already know, Wnt, that you hold this odd political opinion that all doctors are frauds and that it is your duty to ensure that you get allowed to provide free medical advice to all comers at the reference desk so as to stop people from having to go to a trained physician, whom you see to be charlatans. This is patently ridiculous, though you are allowed to believe that if it brings you joy to believe it, the medical advice policy needs to exist to stop you acting on your beliefs. No one wants to stop you from believing anything you wish, but your actions must conform to Wikipedia's established policy, and we aren't going to change our policy because of your singular vendetta against the entire medical profession. --Jayron32 04:08, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm not the one who started this. If the "medical profession" were content to allow myself and others on a public education project tell each other what we know about medical conditions, I'd see no reason to complain about them here. If we were even going by the status quo from a few years previous, Kainaw's criterion, there would be few opportunities for argument. They can go on day in and day out demanding more and more obstructive policies, and it's never held against them - but if I try to hold a line for any time, I have people telling me it's a "vendetta". Wnt (talk) 04:39, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Wnt, can you give an example of a question and answer (that you can invent, doesn't have to be based on something that has been posted on the Ref Desk) that according to (your interpretation of) Kainaw's criterion should be allowed but which isn't allowed at present. I'm particularly interested in an example that stays very far away from obvious boundaries between providing a diagnosis and not. What is of interest here is the boundary between the areas where different people here agree and disagree. Count Iblis (talk) 12:14, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Folling from a suggestion by Itsmejudith above about NHS Direct, possibly what we could have instead of a single line saying we don't provide advice is a page per type of professional advice that we can direct them to. This would give the appropriate advice per country like in the UK to consult NHS Direct or ring for an ambulanc eor get an appointment with a doctor fo medical advice. We'd have to be rather careful what we said there but we could probably duplicate some basic advice already available in the countries. For legal advice we col;d direct to different things like citizens advice or lawyers for instance. Dmcq (talk) 12:35, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Alright, checking the last archive - here we could have said we don't give legal advice, but linked to news articles, legal reviews, ongoing cases etc. so long as we didn't pretend they were a representative or complete assortment of data. (Not that this would have helped his case, mind you, since there's nothing we could do to make the physician prescribe more Fentanyl, and indeed, if we were giving advice we might have pointed him to medical marijuana, but a question is a question, and "are medical contracts legally binding?" is just the kind of question any reasonable encyclopedia should be able to answer. The previous archive contains one harder to track down, and [1] which is ambiguous - we aren't qualified to make a referral for a specific case, but we could deliver more data on what specialties of physicians most frequently treat lupus. this one, as people pointed out, was not a medical question at all. this one is hard to argue with on the face of it because we didn't have sufficient data. However, if we had a proctologist deal with that overgrown acacia so firmly planted in our policy orifice, we might have looked on the questioner compassionately and said, "we can't tell you why you're sick, but if you can remember any specific medical terms the doctor used we'll be happy to help you find out more information about them..." etc. These are typical cases - I could go back further and cherry-pick for the more obnoxious ones, but why spend the time when the usual is like this? Wnt (talk) 15:39, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

I think it is going too far if we have people replying with their own ideas. Having a standard page to refer them to get medical advice in their country would just be a standard reply, but saying they had lupus and thinking of particular people they should go to sounds way too much like giving medical advice I think. Dmcq (talk) 17:09, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

I think that's what I said when I said we weren't qualified to make referrals. We should be perfectly free to quote a source that describes what percentage of people go to (for example - I didn't look this up) a specialist in internal medicine vs. immunology, or even one which makes a specific statement about which is better. Wnt (talk) 23:35, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

This is why we don't even try to answer these questions. Our only response should be "We don't answer these sorts of questions. Find someone else." That's what the current practice is, and that should stay as it is. --Jayron32 23:51, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Current practice, the all-important "status quo" that prevails through Wikipedia's endless no-consensus, is User:Kainaw/Kainaw's criterion. If we can answer whether people with lupus usually go to immunologists, policy does not prohibit that. There are some people here who believe (perhaps correctly) that by unceasingly demanding that the prohibitions be expanded, they can generate a new status quo that they can then defend against all comers, but at no point have we ever assented to that. Wnt (talk) 15:39, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

There's a huge distinction between, "I have these symptoms. Do I have [disease]?" vs. "My doctor says I have [disease]. Where can I learn more about it?" In that situation, you could route the guy to the page for [disease], although one might think he could have figured that out for himself. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:04, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Hmmm, I interpreted your reply above to be critical of the idea of pointing someone told about a malignant lump to malignancy. And Kainaw's criterion rules out diagnosis anyway; that's not at argument. Wnt (talk) 03:50, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Why are you so eager to think of a reply tailored to them? That's what leads to the problem. Can't we provide a simple standard reply that conforms with the no medical advice but helps them by telling them where to go? It wouldn't be up to editors on the reference desk to figure out where they should go for a particular condition or who was best in their city for immunology. Absolutely no thought except see a medical enquiry, post a standard reply. The standard reply could point to a standard page; if you wanted to make the standard reply better that would be a job on the standard page devoted to it - but it would not relate to any particular enquirer. Dmcq (talk) 09:47, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Tailoring as you describe it is a weasely way of giving medical advice. The only proper response is, "if you're concerned, see a professional." No one here is qualified to tailor any such advice, because no one here knows what is ailing a given OP. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:59, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

In the UK other options available are to ring NHS Direct or get an ambulance. A page with such advice per country would I think be more informative than just telling them to see a professional and I don't see how it breaches our guidelines. It would have its own talk page so people could discuss there about the exactly how much should be included on such a page but I'd have though a couple of telephone numbers per county would be about it. Dmcq (talk) 07:54, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Now I think you're talking about emergency help (police, fire, ambulance). Anyone with a genuine medical emergency who asks for help on an encyclopedia reference desk probably has more issues than just physical ones (!). People in non-emergency situations could feasibly be casting around for information from various sources and include us in their net. If they really should be seeing a medical professional, that would not be captured by any emergency numbers. Either way, publishing emergency numbers here has the potential to do a lot of damage and not much good. I applaud your good intentions. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 02:06, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

NHS Direct is for things which aren't emergencies and it is altogether possible people don't know how to call something like that. And yes there's plenty of people who need to be told where to go and ask for help rather than just told to ask a professional.I'd prefer they get the emergency and noon-emergency numbers to go an ask for help. Dmcq (talk) 21:30, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

You'd be opening a gigantic can of worms, and I exhort you not to go down that path. There would be literally thousands of numbers we'd have to keep up to date. That is in no way our role here. We have to assume our readers are responsible for their own lives, and they can find the emergency and other numbers for their own local areas. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 03:35, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

We are supposed to be an encyclopaedia and we've lots of room. Put "Emergency services" into Google and see how long it takes you to find the phone number you should ring following the links there never mind the ones leading to Wikipedia. Dmcq (talk) 11:29, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

What encyclopedia have you ever come across that lists emergency phone numbers - or any phone numbers - for any place, business, service or person? It has nothing to do with space. It is no more our role than it would be the role of your local greengrocer to help you with your chemistry homework. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 03:01, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Well whatever you think about it the numbers are actually listed in Wikipedia at Emergency telephone number. It was just my search criterion didn't get it. That seems quite a good page to link to when we tell them we don't do advise on medical matters. And I thnk the topic is quite rightly in Wikipedia as a notable topic. Dmcq (talk) 00:29, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

I see. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 01:58, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Hatting of chemistry question

Recently this question [2] was hatted by Looie, with the statement "We aren't going to advise you on how to synthesize drugs." Jayron had also commented that the performing the sysnthesis may be an illegal activity in some areas. I don't exactly oppose the hatting, but want to discuss the issue here. Does not the ref desk commonly support WP:NOTCENSORED? There have been all kinds of questions on these desks that may involve activities illegal in some jurisdictions, or questions that may be offensive to some readers. For instance, a detailed question about certain sex acts could easily cover activities that are both illegal in some areas and offensive to some. It is my belief that we should not censor questions. Nothing compels people to answer questions they don't like, and the site/WMF is clearly indemnified by various disclaimers. Again, I don't really want to argue about this specific question, but discuss censoring of questions on the ref desks. Is it ever ok to censor questions? What does it mean if we willingly violate WP:NOTCENSORED? I certainly would be unhappy if my question were removed because it was about something that was illegal somewhere, or offended some reader somewhere. Any thoughts? Let's try to keep it civil :) SemanticMantis (talk) 20:13, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

plenty of policies under which not to answer this, including not a how to and no medical advice. Telling someone how to properly synthesize a controlled substance is professional advice and the purpose cannot be anything other than consumption. μηδείς (talk) 20:21, 13 June 2013 (UTC) (PS, the suggestion to keep it civil is rude.) μηδείς (talk) 20:22, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

(ec) If we're going to go down the path of not answering questions that involve some illegality, somewhere, we may as well pack up the shop. It's illegal to even hold hands in public in some places, but does anyone seriously suggest we should ban any questions about such an activity?

At the very least, we would have to incorporate such a ban in our guidelines and our instructions at the top. We have very explicit advice about not providing medical or legal advice, and we would have to have similar wording for not answering questions that involve illegality, personal danger and so on. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 20:25, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Untrue. No professional advice, no medical advice and not a how to all already apply, and would apply if he were asking what was going wrong in his process for making aspirin. μηδείς (talk) 20:45, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

The edit history of this IP may possibly be seen as significant: [3]. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:28, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

I posit that the question linked could be answered without giving legal or medical advice, as determined via Kainaw's criterion. As for WP:NOTHOWTO, if that guideline were followed on the ref desks, and used for a rationale for removing/hatting questions, we'd be closing most of the questions and answers on the math desk, because they ask/tell how to prove something. For example, closing these very nice answers [[4]] as a violation of HOWTO would be a gross violation of the community standards of the ref desks. SemanticMantis (talk) 20:54, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

So, "if you change step five, you will have perfectly safe MDMA to consume" doesn't strike you as medical advice, professional advice, or "how to"? And the fact this is a one-purpose troll account doesn't matter either? This kind of talk=page nitpicking is embarrassing. μηδείς (talk) 20:55, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

No, it's important to get clear what our policies actually mean in practice, and it's important we're all on the same page. Discussion is always preferable to edit warring or whatever. You may be embarrassed that others disagree with you about certain things, but that's for you to sort out. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 21:04, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

This certainly was not a request for medical or legal advice. We endorse NOTCENSORED. That said, I feel no inclination to answer such a question. If a non-problematic editor posted it, I'd be inclined to ignore it. If I'm overlooking some proscription regarding such a question I hope someone will set me straight (but I disagree with most of what Medeis said above). -- Scray (talk) 21:09, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

• My philosophical basis for hatting this was that we shouldn't give advice in situations where bad advice could endanger people. It's hard to think of a better example than home-cooking of drugs for human consumption. Any drug synthesis has a potential to create byproducts, and it's hard even for experts to rule out some of those byproducts being toxic. The fact that the drug is illegal comes into play, but for me that is less of a concern than that the process could be dangerous. Looie496 (talk) 21:10, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

I understand your choice, and I didn't mean to impugn your motive or philosophy; I saw an opportunity for discussion on how we follow/interperet our guidelines. SemanticMantis (talk) 02:11, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

If we follow that philosophy, then we shouldn't be posting advice on any one thing. Everything has the potential to be abused or to endanger people, e.g. how to cross a busy road, the best way to cut an onion, etc. They all have an element which could cause injury or death. I'm concerned that if we generalise the no-medical-advice policy, it will set a precedent. Plasmic Physics (talk) 02:43, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Even how to chew chewing gum, could in theory be hatted, as it could pose a choking hazard. Plasmic Physics (talk) 02:44, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

I feel your equation of drug making to crossing a street or cutting an onion to be a straw man argument. Certain activities are inherently more dangerous than others and equating the two is simply nonsensical. Taking a drink of water can potentially be dangerous but it's not anything like the danger of playing Russian roulette or cooking meth; some semblance of common sense needs to be applied. Matt Deres (talk) 03:27, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

You're missing a major point, common sense is a highly subjective concept. It varies between subgroups of society. Plasmic Physics (talk) 04:32, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Now you're being ridiculous; what subgroup of society thinks drinking water is in any way as dangerous as ingesting homemade chemicals? I mean honestly, are you listening to yourself? The risks involved are completely different for those two activities; suggesting that they're in any way comparable or subject to some kind extreme form of cultural relativism is astoundingly foolish. Matt Deres (talk) 01:43, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. Bear with me as I game out some scenarios in the interest of gaining consensus.

• User/OP asks "How do I do X?"

• I interpret this as "Can I have references that discuss how people have done X?"

1. If X is "make soap," I supply references if I know them, or google some up, or do not answer (waiting to learn from the crowd). Making soap is an ancient an venerable practice, and surely our encyclopedia can help inform its users on the topic. Unreferenced answers are not ideal. They may show up, and I appreciate answers from people who seem to know about soap making. Hopefully, individual bad answers will be called out, and responders will self select to answer questions helpfully and in good faith. Making soap may pose some danger to some people, but it is generally considered a safe practice.
2. If X is "make a zip line across my property", the same logic applies. Technically zip lines can cause harm, and nobody should use one unless they are very confident it its safety, and are also willing to accept some risk. They may even be illegal in some places, without proper permits and zoning. However, I don't think we should close questions about zip lines, merely because they can be dangerous or illegal in some jurisdictions. If you are uncomfortable contributing to such, please don't. However, please don't impede e.g. me or others from sharing information and references about zip lines. We have no legal need to avoid such contributions, because the good lawyers of WMF have taken care of this in their numerous site-wide disclaimers and warnings.
3. If X is "build a rocket", the same logic applies. We can supply references on rocketry, and I am not personally concerned that some rockets are illegal in some locations. Perhaps the OP is just interested in the abstract, or is writing a novel, or testing her conceptual knowledge. That is not my concern, that is the concern of the OP, and we can add warnings/disclaimers if our ethics demand it (again, the WP/WMF disclaimers seem to indemnify all respondents and the encyclopedia, and the foundation).
4. If X is "synthesize a compound" -- unclear. Is this really different than the above cases? I'm not saying we should all jump to answer that question linked above; clearly many/most of us prefer not to. But should we prevent any user from supplying information on the topic, if s/he feels able to? Any number of compounds can do any number of things. I do believe we should follow Kainaw's criterion, but answering/giving references to questions of this form is definitely possible without giving medical or legal advice.

Maybe I am outside consensus on the zip line thing above, or maybe people are interested in policies against potentially dangerous or illegal questions. My understanding is that, at present we have no specific guidlines about questions that are potentially dangerous or illegal, for some people or some places. As Jack and Plasmic point out above, that is a very large category of questions! SemanticMantis (talk) 02:53, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Without taking the history of this editor into consideration, I wouldn't think this question amounts to anything that needs to be hatted. The question as written is asking why this synthetic route doesn't work. I imagine it has to do with the efficiency of certain steps of the process to produce the intended target molecule. Answering that wouldn't tell anyone how to make drugs. It would just satisfy an academic interest as to why a particular process doesn't work. That being said, once you take this editor's history into account, it seems obvious that they're primarily interested either in the production of illicit drugs for consumption, or leading us to believe that that's their goal, for the purposes of trolling. 202.155.85.18 (talk) 08:25, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

The intention can't matter; if it did, then we would need to factor in the intents of the people reading it who aren't involved. If you answer my question about meth, anyone can read it, so you answer it for them too. Thus, if a question is legitimate for someone to ask here, it is legitimate for everyone to ask here.Phoenixia1177 (talk) 11:16, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

It's entirely possible that the synthetic route does work, and that the reason it isn't used is that it produces cyanide as a byproduct, or some other deadly toxin. If we miss that and simply answer that the synthesis ought to produce the desired result, our answer could cause somebody to die (or be damaged for life; see MPTP). I hate all this hand-waving theoretical abstruseness. We just can't be giving answers in situations where a wrong answer could kill somebody. Looie496 (talk) 13:47, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Poppycock, a poster shouldn't be using answers "in situations where a wrong answer could kill". It's not out job to babysit posters. If indeed it is a case of common sense, then let it be so for the poster. Lets not Americanise the Reference desks (referring to the back-to-front logic behind "In the United States a court examined the chain of responsibility and found McDonald's to be liable for a customer who was scalded when she spilled coffee in her lap. Cups now bear the warning imprimatur Caution. Contents may be hot." in Chain of responsibility). Plasmic Physics (talk) 14:04, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

I view this as asking for information about something that can be very dangerous. In such cases we should be extremely careful not to give our own opinions but to refer to a Wikipedia article which has the appropriate disclaimers or to a citable source. If a person asks for how to make a zip line or fireworks rocket I would guess the same consideration applies to a large extent. For this question I would support the removal of any answer which isn't firmly grounded in verifiability. Dmcq (talk) 11:57, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

IANAL. But AFAIK, it's not illegal to know how to do this - and therefore it's probably not be illegal to tell someone how to do it. But if they actually do go off and do it - and if it's illegal and you told them how - then you might maybe be an accessory to the crime. It's not illegal to tell someone how to pick a lock - even though they may go on to use that knowledge to break into someones house - because there are plenty of situations where it's legal to pick a lock (eg if you happen to own the house whose lock you are picking). So, on balance, I don't think we're prevented from answering this question by any legal or Wikipedia guideline - so I don't believe it should have been hatted. On the other hand, I hope that we'd all have the good taste not to answer it. SteveBaker (talk) 14:15, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Let me repeat that I didn't hat this because of the legalities, I hatted it because it's incredibly dangerous to do novel organic chemistry experiments and consume the results. Looie496 (talk) 14:39, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree about the dangers and stupidities - but if the question doesn't violate any of our Ref Desk guidelines and because WP:NOTCENSORED says we're not going to censor stuff - then I see no justification for hatting it. Personally, I would never consider answering a question like this (other than, perhaps, to point out the dangers and stupidities) - and I'd hope that nobody else would either - but when editors take it into their own hands to hide questions that don't violate any policies, we get onto a slippery slope. We have to draw a line between things we delete, things we hat and things we leave to the consciences of individual editors - that line should be set by policy and not by people just deciding to do it because they don't like the question.

Suppose someone from Uganda sees a question about gay people and hats it on the grounds that homosexuality is illegal in Uganda? Do we allow that too? How about a question on the math or computing desk about how to implement the RSA encryption algorithm? Since such encryption is illegal in France, should we allow French editors to come here and hat that too?

In the end, we have an open policy on questions - and except for a very few things, you can ask almost anything. The real point here is whether someone will come and answer them - and in this case, I would hope they would not. SteveBaker (talk) 17:56, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps this thread should be hatted as a fire hazard given all the straw men. No one has hatted the question due to the legality of the substance involved. μηδείς (talk) 18:19, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

The OP should be referred to this website. Count Iblis (talk) 18:25, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Woud it pass WP:V? Dmcq (talk) 18:34, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

It is verifiable to someone who is willing to take the effort to do what is described on that webpage. Count Iblis (talk) 22:54, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

There is another concern: If someone is implying they will take the resulting chemicals and wants to know if it is safe then that is medical advice which we do not offer. RJFJR (talk) 20:45, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

• Incredible. Now we have users not involved in this discussion unhatting the thread without comment or with the false rationale that this was closed due to legality. μηδείς (talk) 20:51, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

This question is clearly appropriate in policy; it also ought to be OK in law (note however that none of us can give true legal advice on that in either direction... I merely speculate in rebuttal of what ought not been argued according to policy). He's asking "why don't criminals use this simple synthesis to make MDMA? Is there something wrong with the chemistry?" We can answer questions like that. We don't have to speculate on his motives, any more than we have to speculate on the motives of people who read our articles. If he said "I need your help to make this..." that would be another thing legally, because if you can be accused of "knowing" you're involving yourself... I'm not saying that isn't a thin and pedantic distinction, largely illusory, but it is present dividing line between the censors who go after a few people and the large part of chemistry instruction on the internet. I'd answer it right now, except... well, organic chemistry sure isn't easy...) Wnt (talk) 22:31, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm happy for people to answer it provided they stick very closely to the reference desk guidelines and interpret "Ideally, answers should refer (link) to relevant Wikipedia articles, or otherwise cite reliable sources." as meaning only such references should be given and there should be no editor's own thoughts on the subject. If there's a possibility they are going to do something really stupid there's no need for us to add our own stupid ideas to the mix, where 'stupid' in that context means any WP:OR. Dmcq (talk) 23:53, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps we could have a 'possibly dangerous' template to warn that answers should be very careful to stick to the guidelines? (I was thinking 'possible eejit' but that would fall under POV and NPA) Dmcq (talk) 00:03, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

I feel like your fears are exaggerated. We don't have some guy coming to us and saying that he's been trying to make meth but all he gets is black goo and can we tell him which step he fouled up? (Which a lot of websites do, without obvious signs of legal intervention, though I imagine they are stalked intensively) What we have here is someone coming to us with a technique and asking why people don't use it, which is altogether a more mild situation. Wnt (talk) 01:50, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Asking what kind of bird some picture shows is not obviously possibly dangerous and we give our own opinion and try and back it up. Saying what's wrong with this manufacture of meth is obviously asking for information that is possibly dangerous whatever about the way they phrase it. Phrasing has very little to do with it. Dmcq (talk) 12:09, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Phrasing has a lot to do with it, compare "What is the best way to commit suicide?" to "Statistically, what is the most common method of suicide" Plasmic Physics (talk) 12:59, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

I see there might be a point there but would telling people the most common way of committing suicide make much of a difference one way or the other if answered factually? A more worrisome one might be 'What pills frequently cause deaths in suicide attempts". There the actual answer can be dangerous. What I'm saying is yes go and tell them how to go and commit suicide in that case if you really must but make certain you have supplied a reference to generally available information in reliable sources and not your own thoughts. Dmcq (talk) 14:08, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Is there any policy for the removal of questions here?

Hello. I have noticed recently that some editors on this reference desk have removed a couple of my questions. I would like to know what the procedure is here - is it the case that just one editor will make the decision to remove a question?

I recently asked this question: [5] concerning the issue of the responsibility for libel in articles posted on Wikipedia which was removed and described as "blatant trolling" in a discussion on my User talk: Horatio Snickers talk page. Not just that, but the editor in question (in my opinion) came close to warning me off discussing the issue.

My response to him here I think is relevant to the wider discussion:

"What is the point of a Reference Desk if you do not allow people to ask questions? Also, I would very much dispute that my question was an attempt to "troll" the reference desk. The question you removed was a genuine enquiry, following on from my previous question about the system that runs this encyclopedia. Do you not consider this to be a real question somehow? The fact remains that a) it is possible that any editor may put a statement on an article on this encyclopedia that contains misleading, false or libelous information, b) that the person whom the information is about may consider themselves to be libelled or defamed by that information, and c) they may question who is responsible under law for the publication of that information on the internet. Please do let me know if any of these facts are demonstrably false."

"As I am interested in the governance of Wikipedia (and please do not take my intention to run for the WMF board next year lightly - it remains my long term goal) - I felt that the reference desk was a reasonable place to ask such a question, and to hopefully receive useful information and/or links to places where this is discussed, not to be 'reverted' as taking part in 'self-indulgent trolling'."

"I understand you may have misunderstood my intentions, but I ask you to please reconsider your actions in this case, and either restore my question to the reference desk, or direct me towards a more suitable forum to make such an enquiry. I for one would find the Reference Desk a more welcoming place without a group of editors who seem to relish leaping on genuine questions, making silly jokes and/or removing the questions because they personally do not like them. If this is supposed to be an encyclopedia where anyone can make a contribution, surely the removal of a genuine question should be a matter of consensus rather than the whim of one person."

Although I understand I am to some extent asking your advice on a matter of opinion, I would be interested to hear what your thoughts were on how the reference desk can (collectively, ideally, or at least involving some democratic process), distinguish what is a "genuine" question without leaving it to the whim of, in many cases, a single user.

Yours,

Horatio Snickers (talk) 16:38, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Off topic and insulting
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Yawn. --Onorem (talk) 16:46, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

The reference desks are required to direct you to a professional for legal opinions. As to the content of biographical articles about people who are alive they are covered by WP:BLP. If you asking about legal action against Wikipedia that is covered by WP:LEGAL. Dmcq (talk) 17:14, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

It's not the question really, it's the fact that you talk about running for the WMF board without having even the most minimal knowledge of basic Wikpedia policies such as WP:BLP. It's also the fact that you are coming close to falling into Category:Users who plague the reference desks with many frivolous questions. Looie496 (talk) 17:23, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Surely it would be right and proper for someone who intends to run for the WMF board to make enquiries on Wikipedia for more information about these key policies, and churlish for members of Wikipedia to ridicule them for always being keen to learn?

I have read WP:BLP but my question was on a slightly different aspect - who is responsible for content written on Wikipedia? Does the responsibility lie with the editor who wrote it, the last person to edit the page (as they last updated & published it), Wikipedia UK, or the WMF? Horatio Snickers (talk) 17:27, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

We cannot give opinions on legal matters to you. We can't answer questions like that. Dmcq (talk) 17:35, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Well, in this case I think we can say something. If you look at the Disclaimers section at the bottom of every page (which every editor should be familiar with), it states in boldface type: None of the contributors, sponsors, administrators or anyone else connected with Wikipedia in any way whatsoever can be responsible for the appearance of any inaccurate or libelous information or for your use of the information contained in or linked from these web pages. But it also gives information about legal jurisdictions that editors may wish to think about. Looie496 (talk) 18:00, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

• There are three types of people who post to the ref desk. One-time users with genuine questions. General contributors who ask and answer questions here as part of their wider work on the project. And single-purpose-accounts (which often show up "out of the blue", making sophisticated edits, rather than the tentative efforts of a newbie).

Three guesses, anyone? μηδείς (talk) 21:08, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Looie496 for actually attempting to answer my question - a courtesy which often seems rare on these pages. μηδείς, I have been around on Wikipedia for three months now and am rapidly learning the ropes, as you may expect as I hope to stand for election for the board next year. I would ask you to provide evidence for your claim that there are "three types of people" here if you are going to make such statements. Can you please explain to me why asking questions is not permitted on what claims to be a reference desk? Horatio Snickers (talk) 09:08, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

See the end of the disclaimer you were pointed to about not giving professional advice here so don't complain about and insult people who follow that. I believe you've already blown your chances of being elected to anything in Wikipedia anytime soon so please just try and do something useful instead. If you do that for a year perhaps people will overlook this. See WP:RfA for the sorts of qualifications needed for adminship. There's also meta:Board elections about the board where I think you don't have a hope in hell. Dmcq (talk) 09:34, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the links. I didn't think I was being insulting - merely noting that a lot of the time a genuine question will be met with a not so genuine response. I always like to assume the best of people until I see otherwise. I did apply for meta:Board elections this year but they told me to go back and prepare for next years ones instead, which is what I'm currently doing. Horatio Snickers (talk) 10:46, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

I really think you're a long, long way from being WMF board material. The first thing potential voters are going to do is to look at your edit history. I just did that and all I see is just two edits in article space and none in policy/guideline areas. Right now, you aren't even qualified to vote in those elections - let alone stand as a candidate! (You need 300 edits to do either). You need years more experience and exposure here on Wikipedia before people would take you remotely seriously. I'd strongly advise you to spend at least a couple of years working on Wikipedia articles and a year or more helping out with policy and guideline documents - probably you'd want to enroll in one of our mentorship programs - initially as a student, then eventually as a mentor. People need to know that you "get" the Wikipedia way - and being here and doing good work is the way that happens. Asking a long series of questions on the Ref Desk isn't helping you any - it says that you're not able to research things yourself...and that's a strong negative for a board candidate at an encyclopedia! Right now, what you're saying is like coming here and saying "I'm planning a trip to Mars in this spacecraft that I'm designing...what color should I paint it?" - we can tell you the answer - but it's REALLY not the problem! SteveBaker (talk) 14:20, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Actually that sounds like quite an interesting question to me whatever about the chances of the rocket taking off! Dmcq (talk) 16:04, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

• looks like someone has begun preparing an exit strategy. μηδείς (talk) 18:52, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

What are you talking about Medeis? Can you give a single reason why that blocked user should have anything to do with this discussion? Horatio Snickers (talk) 15:15, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Maybe to see if it would touch a nerve. Which it looks like it did. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:36, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

It didn't touch a nerve - I'm just intrigued as to why such an off-topic statement is necessary. If Medeis (or indeed anyone else) believe that blocked user to be anything to do with me, I'd advise them to just come out and say it - or alternatively, answer my question, which they have clearly seen. And now they're accusing me of similar behaviour in the thread below - which I shall respond to separately. Horatio Snickers (talk) 16:56, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Request for legal advice removed

I've removed a request for legal advice from RD/M. Tevildo (talk) 17:52, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

It would only be a request for legal advice is you knew that she has no other options. Consulting a lawyer may be one option, but there are others. Here, for example, is a book that purports to show how she can deal with the problem. I think you have been too hasty in deleting this question. Bielle (talk) 18:37, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

This is a request for advice in a very specific and possibly criminal and tortuous situation. Besides the fact that its a non-encyclopedic question and a dubious one to be asking strangers about on the internet, it is a textbook case of request for legal advice. μηδείς (talk) 18:43, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

The OP may well need a lawyer, or at least a visit with HR. Since we don't know where he is, we don't know what laws might apply, if any. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:13, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

What laws are you talking about? And about mobbing, hatting and deleting, the ref-desk sure has experts, far more than enough. 93.132.134.31 (talk) 20:51, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

"Mobbing" doesn't mean what I think you think it means, Hans. 182.8.177.168 (talk) 04:16, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Laws about workers' rights, and also company policy rules. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:25, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Talk about "more than enough", how about these IP bedbugs that crawl out of nowhere to express their opinions about matters they have never before addressed--unless they are socks for people who have expressed their opinions before? Is that possible? Could we have socks giving their opinions here? μηδείς (talk) 21:19, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Were one a Kynikal Kat™, one would speculate that an OP who is familiar with the phrase "Hostile Work Environment" already knows enough about the law in this area not to require genuine advice from a website... Tevildo (talk) 21:32, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

It's not legal advice, but it is asking for advice and opinion that we can't really answer, unless the answer is a reference to a service that can help (workplace counsellors, etc.) We do offer these references (it is a reference, just one to a service rather than a book)at my library, but we don't offer advice. Unless that is the answer we've give, we should leave this one hatted. Mingmingla (talk) 21:55, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

There are all sorts of references for creative, non-legal ways to oppose bullying, and such an answer is fully appropriate. Wnt (talk) 23:17, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

You say "non-legal", it sounds like you're endorsing assassination. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:44, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Technically I suppose that's not one of the big two on the RD librorum prohibitum, but no, that's not what I had in mind. :) Actually, the article bullying and some online searches don't give nearly as many tips as I would have expected - our article links to a "Bullying Awareness Week" that is nothing but a disguised ad for some massively overpriced webinar course that you will quite rightly find yourself publicly mocked for taking should word ever get out. I don't know this field at all, but I would assume that your impulse to terrorism is correct, but merely needs to be diluted about "6-10X", in homeopathy terms. My assumption is that bullying is a fundamentally adult behavior, driven by cost-benefit analysis, and that it is best opposed by making it more expensive to be the bully or more rewarding not to be - i.e. to use little carrots and little sticks. I would like to see some people with social science background answer that question, to see if they have some better ideas and some actual citations needed. Wnt (talk) 00:53, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

If an article is a coatrack for an advertisement, it needs to be pared down to remove the advertising, and see if there's enough left to not justify deleting it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:01, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

• Good and proper removal. --Jayron32 02:17, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
• I agree. This is not the kind of advice we should be dispensing. Matt Deres (talk) 23:31, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Timothyhere

I'm reluctant to open a thread on a trolllish sockpuppet but I suspect if I take action without it it may lead to more controversy. I'm fairly confident that the editor asking questions on Titanic currently e.g. [6] is Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Timothyhere/Archive. A checkuser will never confirm a linkage between the accounts and the IP and the IP changes often enough a block isn't any use and I doubt a range block has any chance so a SPI won't achieve much but the editor has edited from a similar range looking up to an Argentianian ISP before with more obvious linkage. (I'll dig up the diffs when I'm on a computer where I can easily copy and paste etc and I don't risk losing everything everytime I change page i.e. a proper computer not this iPad.) If I see more questions from them, per WP:DENY I intend to remove if unanswered, and close them if they are answered but there is no follow up discussion between other editors that has evolved. This editor is clearly a troll as witnessed by the serial killer and Nazism questions and pretending to be patriotic Japanese etc, and many of their other questions appear to be at a minimum intended as time wasting as e.g. they are obviously not from Kiribati interested in oceanography. You will notice even in their recent questions on the Titanic somehow WW2 was mentioned [7] and they claimed to be from the Phillipines despite their IP looking up to an Argentian ISP [8], and one of the questions was based on a misconception from movies which I'm guessing they didn't really have (diff just before). I actally thought they'd asked about Titanic on a named account before but a quick search didn't find anyting so perhaps I'm mistaken. Nil Einne (talk) 19:55, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

If you're going to file an SPI, include User:Horatio Snickers, whose complaining about his mistreatment at this talk page and interest in murder show a similar pattern, not to mention his sophisticated edits and focus on the ref desk from the get go. At some point, though, when the zoo patrons feed the trolls it is they and not the trolls who are the problem. μηδείς (talk) 02:16, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

It would have been polite to let me know you're once again accusing me of Sock Puppeting. If you have any evidence that I am Sock Puppeting, I would advise you to produce it rather than making baseless accusations on this talk page. Horatio Snickers (talk) 17:01, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

If you're falsely accused of sockpuppetry, your best options are (1) have a sense of humor about it; and (2) go to your most trusted admin (by e-mail only) and lay down your cards. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:37, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

You can add

• User:LoweIan (who wants to know if ships visit Kiribati) to that list. μηδείς (talk) 17:47, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Baseball Bugs and Medeis

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Alright, I know we've been here before, and quite frankly I have little hope of anything productive to come of this, but anyway: after several years of repetition of the same nonsense over and over, and after the latest wt:rd discussions, I hereby call for an indefinite ban of Users Baseball Bugs and Medeis from the reference desks. I'd even offer my admin bit to be the one who blocks them and face the inevitable backlash. In my view, they are a continuous and unavoidable net negative to the refdesks, and to Wikipedia as a whole. I could come up with uncountable diffs to prove my point, but I guess everyone who's been following WT:RD knows what I'm talking about - lots of unnecessary drama and tiny bits of worthwile contributions to set off all the drama. I hope I'm not the only one to say enough is enough - let's block the accounts of Medeis and Baseball Bugs to get the refdesks back on track and get rid of a whole lot of unnecessary drama.

We've had this discussion countless times before, and the consensus every time has been that things aren't that bad and that we should just continue as we've done before - so I expect a lot of dissenting voices against this proposal. Don't get me wrong, I'll certainly follow consensus even if it is to follow the status quo and let Medeis and BB continue - I can only ask you to weigh the net pogative of their contributions against the net negative and come to your own conclusions.

I, for one, would love to see the refdesk get back on its purpose of providing references and answering questions instead of being an inexhaustible font of drama upon drama - and quite frankly I believe the only way of achieving that goal is to get rid of the eternal drama queens once and for all. Yes, I know, we've been through all of that several times before, but seriously - how long do we have to stand by and watch the refdesk being turned into a continual clown show before someone finally decides to take some long-overdue action? How many of those pointless "Bugs and Medeis are right, and the rest of the world is stupid" discussions do we have to repeat over and over again before someone finally takes action?

So...what will it be? Continue to endure one trollfest after the other, or finally block the eternal trolls, and return the refdesk to what it's supposed to be? Not that I expect consensus to spring from this, the most probable outcome of my post is that we'll continue as before because we can't agree on anything, but seriously. Is there anyone who enjoys what the refdesks have become thanks to Bugs and Medeis? cue "banning is much too harsh" discussion in 1...2....3...right. We've been at this point countless times before, and I for one think it's more than overdue we took some drastic action) -- Ferkelparade π 01:08, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

• Sorry, I'm too busy researching answers to questions and providing quality references to contribute meaningfully to this discussion one way or the other. --Jayron32 01:11, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Concur, but like all the other times, nothing is going to happen, we'll just have to wait until they get bored of being useless and leave on their own. Or like Jayron says, just answer the questions properly and ignore them. Adam Bishop (talk) 03:24, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Ignore them? One of Medeis' favourite activities is hatting and/or deleting threads. That's hard to ignore. HiLo48 (talk) 03:29, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

100% support, this has gone on long enough from these editors, both of whom do a disservice to the project. --Viennese Waltz 13:43, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Much to my regret - B/Bugs and Ms medeis possess knowledge in numerous areas - I must support your move. Their knowledge I respect, their antics I detest. Servus aus Wien. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 14:34, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

I ignore their constant conversations, but do wince every time one of them (more often Medeis) criticizes and belittles the questioners, which creates completely the wrong atmosphere. An agreement to stop doing that would be a good outcome. It's perfectly possible to ask for clarification in a neutral or even friendly way, to answer a question without being snide about the questioner's ability to find an answer on their own, or even to leave a question to others with expertise in the area. (I do not really know how these process things work, so can't give input on admin options.) 184.147.118.213 (talk) 20:59, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

The problem here is that their individual infractions tend to fall just short of anything directly actionable - it's the sum total of months and years of this low-level, borderline pain-in-the-assedness that makes them objectionable. Everyone crosses the line once in a while - we're only human - but this long trail of poor-behavior is what characterizes this trio. This is classic WP:DISRUPT behavior and it's certainly not acceptable:

"It is essential to recognize patterns of disruptive editing. Our edit warring policy already acknowledges that one act, by itself, may not violate policy, but when part of a series of acts that constitute a pattern does violate policy. Disruptive edits may not occur all in the course of one 24 hour period, and may not consist of the repetition of the same act. Nevertheless, a series of edits over time may form a pattern that seriously disrupts the project."

What I have suggested in the case of other disruptive individuals is to develop a hair-trigger approach. We issue appropriate "zero tolerance" warnings: If any subsequent post of any kind from these individuals (and I'd include WickWack in this trio) crosses the strict limits of Wikipedia and/or RefDesk policies by so much as a hair's breadth - then come down heavy with the full force of administrative powers. Not small stuff: I'm talking immediate year-long blocks. Because all three produce some useful content, I would hope that with the Sword of Damocles hanging over their heads, they'd be forced to carefully self-moderate their behavior down to a acceptable levels in order to avoid inadvertently straying over the line. But for this to work, it does require an admin on hand who is sufficiently familiar with the problem and the editors involved with the willingness to act decisively when an infraction occurs. SteveBaker (talk) 04:23, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

With all respect, if you spent more time at ANI you would know that solutions like that don't work. Regardless of where you draw the boundary, you get endless arguments about whether the boundary has been crossed. The only way to end those arguments is to indef the subject. Looie496 (talk) 16:56, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

This thread really is no place for jokes

Curiouser and Curiouser: I am surprised that Madame M (aka the μεδ Hatter) has not honoured us pesky clodhoppers by collapsing this very thread. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 11:58, 26 May 2013 (UTC) Ref-desk party with Alice, Basball Bugs and the μεδ Hatter. Cheshire Wiki-Cat Very clever and creative. However, you've somehow forgotten Wickwire, or whatever, who's the actual instigator of this latest skirmish, and who has since seemingly disappeared. Going with the Alice theme, that makes the Cheshire Cat an ideal metaphor for that user. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:39, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

I honestly don't find BB that bad, even if I don't agree with his opinions sometimes. Medeis is often on topic, too, but has compulsively hatted lots of acceptable and even good questions. Neither of them is our classical troll, who's only disruptive and therefore deciding to ban him is a no-brainer. I just wish we had a robot analyzing Medies and un-hatting everything she hats (she's mostly wrong, so it won't be a loss). No banning for either of them. OsmanRF34 (talk) 16:44, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Edits such as this, just show how unproductive BB is. Any and all criticism is shrugged off as the fault of the OP for not asking the question correctly, or how some other editor is just as bad. I think "Double Standard" is a common excuse that he cites. He will storm off for a bit, then return to the same behavior. Anywhere else on this project, his edits would be quickly addressed. It seems that he has found that his trolling behavior finds the least resistance here at the RD. Looking back in his edit history, it is difficult to find a productive contribution to the encyclopedia, to include any well referenced help here that would help an editor in improving an article. If he was in a court of law, charged with improving WP, I doubt there would be much evidence found that could be used to convict him. 184.242.73.49 (talk) 17:34, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Don't make jokes like that - See what happens below?
I'm sure he has a Tom Lehrer lyric that can be used as a response. Adam Bishop (talk) 20:39, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Banning an imposing strict rules will backfire badly, what we need is to somehow get more people to ask interesting questions at our Ref Desks. The problems arise because there aren'st that may questions to answer here which leads to the people who have the most time availble to engage in lengthy debates.

I know from personal experience at Physicsforums that imposing strict rules and banning doesn't work, because the people who have to police the boards will in practice have to be involved. Complaints like "trolling" are always vague. I was actually indefinitely banned from physicsforums because my style of discussing physics was argued to be "trolling" by one Mod who didn't like that. It was no surprise to me that later their website became less prominent, Google has stopped linking to them, stackechange has taken their place. Count Iblis (talk) 18:10, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Speaking of getting more questions asked, it seems like there are a lot less questions here then there used to be (at least on the math and science desk, especially the math desk.) Is there an obvious reason for this?Phoenixia1177 (talk) 18:17, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

I never go to the Math desk, so they can't pin that rap on me. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:46, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Joking continues

Of course it's your fault, B&B. You should be posting on the math desk, increasing the number of questions. OsmanRF34 (talk) 22:53, 26 May 2013 (UTC) Hmmm, I hadn't thought of that. OK, I might go there and ask a question about the famous Tom Lehrer book, Tropic of Calculus. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:59, 26 May 2013 (UTC) Internet tone is confusing, I can't tell if you actually thought I was implying you were that obvious cause. If you did, I didn't mean it that way; just curious in general.Phoenixia1177 (talk) 00:05, 27 May 2013 (UTC) @Phoenixia1177: Sorry collapsing your good faith edit too. --NorwegianBlue talk 00:42, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't say much, but I do read over all the refdesks and discussions on a very regular basis, so I figure I'd throw in my two cents. I have less of a comment, more of question/suggestion: would it be possible to designate reference desk specific powers to users that come here frequently? For example, users that have a good track record could be given the power to hat topics, or other such. Users that are disruptive with that could have that power removed/limited for a time period; further disruptive action could result in refdesk specific editing bans; or require that their contributions be approved by other members first (if wiki can't do this, maybe they have a special page they post on, then another user moves it into refdesk space.) I'm sure this sounds a bit drastic to implement, however, I've noticed that there are a handful of regulars that maintain this specific space, I don't think it would be the worst thing to make that a bit more official.Phoenixia1177 (talk) 18:15, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

WP:TBAN 77.101.52.130 (talk) 21:37, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

• It was I who hatted the three sections above. If we start inviting the two users who are being accused of disruptive activity to make a joke out of this thread, there are more than those two users here who should reconsider the wisdom of their edits. I support the suggestion that stronger action should be taken against experienced users who make the refdesk an embarrassment to the project. It may be necessary to define exact criteria, but the standards expected of experienced users should be high (no unpleasant comments to newcomers or anyone else for that matter, no name-calling or intentional username-mangling to a perceived comical effect, never having meta-discussions on the desk itself, not engaging in quarrelsome behaviour, if you don't have an informative reply, just shut up). A lifetime ban is a way too harsh action IMO, but maybe low-threshold 14-day blocks from the RD without warning might be a way to go? Or would this be such a departure from the rules elsewhere on the project that we'd end up in endless discussions about correct procedure? --NorwegianBlue ^talk 00:45, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Your axiom, "if you don't have an informative reply, just shut up", should be addressed to VW, as he has been known to come to the ref desk specifically to attack users and with admittedly no intention of trying to answer an OP's question.[9] He also enjoys attacking original posters in words that I would never use.[10][11] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:38, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Part of the problem are the questions asked. Realistic questions can be addressed. But unanswerable questions basically cannot. It seems to me a slew of inquirers have become skilled at posing questions that are partially addressable and partially frustrating to the functioning of the reference desks. In such circumstances, followup questions are called for. I rarely see these followup questions asked. Bus stop (talk) 01:55, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

.

I find all this discussion dissappointing. It's dissapointing because the Reference Desk IS going down hill. That's obvious if you compare Science Desk now with Science Desk a couple of years ago. But you won't solve it by banning/blocking users you don't like. In any case, Wickwack only seems to attack personally when he/she's been attacked personally. Wickwack does post when he/she thinks someone else has given an incorrect answer, but surely that can be tolerated? The OP can judge which answer he likes. It seems that some can't tolerate being shown wrong, and that unfortunately includes Steve Baker.

Rather than use the big stick of banning users, there is a better nicer way. One that will solve the problem, lead to an increase in the quality and quantity of both questions and answers, although it may causea temporary drop in answers. The top of each Reference Desk page should list the following rules/guidelines for answering questions, as well as the injunction against homework and medical opinios etc:-

• If you would like to answer a question, but are not knowlegable or qualified (qualified can mean being interested and therefore knowlegable in the subject), wait a while in case an expert in the subject answers. However, if after a reasonable period (eg a day) no expert answer, your imput is welcome.
• Especially if you are not qualified in the subject, check references before answering. Do not speculate or guess.
• Remember, your answer should be designed to help the person who asked the question, not to impress with your knowlege or erudition.
• Review your references and be sure you understand them and they do support what you write.

These rules should be visible at the top of the Edit screen as well. Most of the debate and agro on Reference Desk comes because people post answers on subjects they are not familiar with - which invites criticism - which all too often invites back talk and descent into debates and personal attacks. The above rules won't stop trolls and idiots, but they will reduce the debate and agro, result in better quality answers (though perhaps less answers for a while), and the better quality answers, together with the reduced debate and agro will lead to an improved reputation of Reference Desk and:-

• Better quality questions
• More questions as the word gets around that it is worth asking
• More people, who know what they are talking about, coming on board and writing good well referenced answers.

What I have suggested here has been suggested before, and rejected. But what you are doing is not working. You need to try something different. Ratbone 120.145.154.146 (talk) 15:43, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Here's my take on this whole thing. Wikipedia is free and open to the public. If you want to participate in an encyclopedia that is not free and open to the public - perhaps because you're tired of putting up with how stupid the public is - you've come to the wrong place. If you're qualified at a cut above the rest, you can easily find other places to share knowledge. There are no shortages of closed and moderated intellectual communities - they're called universities and corporations - and you can join one, and prognosticate all you like about your topic of interest in those institutional forums, which are moderated and have a high barrier to entry. Silly people who waste time are forcibly ejected from those communities. On the other hand, if you see the inherent value of free, open, public content, you necessarily must put up with some noise from the plebiscite. Some people come to Wikipedia to waste their own (and other people's) time, and we're okay with that. My advice for the two categories of people with stakes in this discussion:

• To everybody who is being stupid: stop being stupid. This is an encyclopedia.
• To everybody complaining about other people being stupid: stop complaining. This is a free and public encyclopedia.

Nimur (talk) 16:34, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

I doubt that you are right about "Silly people who waste time [and] are forcibly ejected from those communities." My experience is quite different, specially regarding universities. But, yes this is not the topic we are discussing here. OsmanRF34 (talk) 20:19, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Since Baseball Bugs has posted in this section but Medeis hasn't, I've invited her to do so. [12] 184.147.118.213 (talk) 17:34, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Since I have been invited to comment here, let me say that if good-faith hatting of problematic posts is a problem, an RfC for a new policy such as one specifying "no hatting without a nomination and a second" (i.e., no user could hat a thread that someone else has not already nominated for hatting) could always be implemented. μηδείς (talk) 19:33, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

There is no hatting problem in general. It's just you Medeis, who is kind of trigger-happy when it comes to it. OsmanRF34 (talk) 20:19, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

I have tried to offer a real, objective, serious, enforceable and equal solution to an expressed concern. Forgive me if I refrain from further comment. μηδείς (talk) 20:39, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

This says a lot and the fact that Medeis will happily start discussions about which Blu-Ray movies are the best to watch while hatting other less trivial debates. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:58, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Had someone hatted that question I would simply have taken the issue to talk. As it was, someone provided this most excellent reference which I have used repeatedly. (AS for my still commenting, see below.) μηδείς (talk) 21:09, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

That's what Twitter or Facebook are for, not Wikipedia's Reference desks. It makes no difference that your abuse of the board resulted in a list of lovely movies for you to enjoy. It was still a waste of Wikipedia resources. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:15, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Libraries do in fact offer the service Medeis requested: it's called Reader's advisory. It's not outside the bounds of a reference desk at a public library. Mingmingla (talk) 21:34, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

(after edit conflict)Wikipedia is not a democracy and your suggestion, Medeis is flawed for several reasons: it unnecessarily invites debate when hatting is obvious and done competently by creditable editors. Its also an undue burden when hatting/deleting needs to be prompt and even socks or other incompetents can nominate and second a hatting. Which gets to the primary issue here which is the fact that a certain level of competence is required and expected. I've seen other decent editors who edited WP in good faith and yet get sanctioned and/or booted due to plain continued disruptive incompetence which seems to be the case here, thus I am considering joining others here in calling for either a restrictive sanction or an outright ban from these boards. --Modocc (talk) 21:02, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

I apologize for posting again when I said I wouldn't, but this is an excellent example of the nomination/second procedure I suggested above. If it were policy everyone would follow it and should support it. μηδείς (talk) 21:09, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Yep, second that. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:16, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Let me see if I understand this. Medeis is proposing that we have a policy to regulate the behaviour of editors; and this would work because ... all policies are obviously followed to the letter by all people at all times. Obviously. Forgive my incredulity, but isn't the issue here that we already have a a whole swag of policies that go to the behaviour of editors, and that some of them are being flouted with such persistence by certain editors that it has been proposed they be expelled from the ref desks entirely? Why would these editors obey a new policy when they have a track record of ignoring existing ones, and ignoring feedback from the community about these breaches?

"I apologize for posting again when I said I wouldn't" - very nice. Well, how about "I apologize for being disruptive again when I said I wouldn't". -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 21:43, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm not active enough on the Reference Desks to know whether these two users are as big a problem as this thread suggests. My impression from what I have gleaned is that their contributions are often a bit distracting, but that they also participate enough in actually answering the questions that throwing them off the page completely might be an overreaction. If that is the case, perhaps the appropriate solution for consideration is something like this:

For a period of six months, the participation of Baseball Bugs and Medeis on the reference desk pages is subject to the following restriction: They may post only to respond to a question by providing an answer or other information directly relevant information to the question. They are not to handle administrative aspects of the pages (e.g., hatting discussions), to make off-topic remarks, or to criticize the nature or content of the questions. Violation of these restrictions may be sanctioned by an uninvolved administrator by a broader topic-ban from the reference desks for an appropriate period of time. There is no restriction on Baseball Bugs' and Medeis' participation on the RD talkpages, although such a restriction may be proposed in the future if necessary. The continued need for these restrictions will be reevaluated after six months.

This might offer a somewhat amicable way out of the situation, retaining the useful aspects of these two editors' participation while mitigating the less useful aspects. In any event, there it is for what it's worth. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:28, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

I know only too well how easy it is to treat the refdesks as if they were discussion fora. We all need to be more restrained. The whole idea of a refdesk regular is problematic. We should know when a question is beyond our reach, and just wait for a day to see if a really knowledgeable user turns up. Or maybe we should more readily refer OPs to WikiProjects. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:35, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Hooray! At least Judith can see some sense! It should be writen on the top of Reference Desk pages that non-expert contributors wait a day to see if an expert answer turns up. Nimur, as usual has made a good point (ie Wikipedia is free and open, so we should expect some stupidity). But don't loose sight of the basic issue - this discussion is too hung up on individuals. The basic issues is this: Reference Desk isn't working right - its going down hill. Questions are getting fewer, questions are getting sillier. The quality of answers is dropping. Reference Desk's (and Wikipedia's) reputation is getting tarnished. So if its not working, we need to fix it. That is, we need to create an environment where the issues discused here are less of a problem. It's a bit like a business manager seeing the difference between sacking workers who goof off, until nobody's left versus a manager who recognises and corrects a situation allowing and encouraging and supporting goofing off. People like Nimur and Jayron consistently give high quality answers when good questions in their fields of interest crop up. I bet they enjoy crafting their good answers. Do you want Reference Desk to continue getting worse and have no decent questions to answer? Ratbone 121.215.54.218 (talk) 00:56, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Define "expert". I have a highschool diploma and no college; however, I can answer a decent majority of the math and science questions posed here (I study obsessively). If I can adequately answer questions, I don't see why I should wait 24 hours to do so; and if that I can adequately answer questions qualifies me as expert enough in the subject, then "expert" isn't really measuring anything except how qualified people think they are, which may, actually, be worse.Phoenixia1177 (talk) 03:09, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, we've never required any sort of academic qualifications here. The only necessary skill is in tracking down references. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 03:14, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

That is quite wrong. The Science Desk is continually a good demonstration that tracking down refrences is NOT sufficient. Many times I have seen asnwers that assert a certain thing, but the cited reference does not support it, or the reference is an outlier, known by those who work in the field to be wrong. An example of this on Science Desk today is a newspaper article cited as evidence that you can maliciously affect operation of an airliner by means of an app on an android phone. An expert in phone and radio technology would be very extremely suspicious, and in fact newspapers carried follow up articles 2 days later showing that it was a hoax. Ratbone 124.178.148.41 (talk) 04:14, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

I said it's a necessary skill. I did not say it was a sufficient skill. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 07:18, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

And yet, in my opinion, very satisfying responses come from people who know what they are talking about too, sometimes even lacking references. I wouldn't want to miss the well-referenced, -summarized, -explained answers, provided by intelligent and didactically skilled generalists, but I wouldn't want to miss the completely unreferenced answers by people who not only know what they're talking about, but already knew before the question was asked. I wouldn't read too much into 121.215's use of the word "expert". One of the contributors 121.215 mentioned positively (and I agree with the assessment in both cases) is quite a bit of a generalist (in addition to sharing his "expertise" in certain fields). His answers are informed however, and driven by productive curiosity. I think 121.215 and Judith meant people without much experience or knowledge in the field leaping into the question with the first explanation/thought/comment they can come up with. Sadly, Nimur has a point. Yeah, there is no qualifying exam to be a volunteer at the reference desks, just like there's no qualifying exam to be Calvin's dad. ---Sluzzelin talk 03:40, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I know what you mean. Some answers, while totally unreferenced, are very good answers because they are written with the voice of authority, plausibility, experience and reason, and provide food for thought and possibly some ideas for further research. I would also never like to see these sorts of answers suppressed simply on the ground that they did not include any references. But that does not mean a free-for-all for all comers to impart their opinions, wild-assed guesses, sundry thoughts and pearls of personal wisdom. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 03:55, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

I did not mean academic qualifications. Academic qualifications, on their own, have little relavence. "Qualified" in this context could well mean a hobby interest, or a bit of personal experience, depending on the question. ItsMeJudith had it pretty good: "We should know if a question is beyond our competence, and if it is, wait a while and see if a competent answer pops up." If it doesn't then go ahead and have a go. Sluzzelin has come up with a very good test: If you already knew the answer before the question appeared, you are "qualified". If not, you are not qualified. Asking people to apply Judith's and Sluzzelin's rules to themselves before posting answers should stop most of those who post "off the cuff" on all sorts of subjects causing debates and slanging matches due to their mostly well intentioned but also often incorrect answers. I never meant that unqualified (whatever that may mean) persons should never have a go at answering. I merely ask that they wait a bit before jumping in. Reference Desk by definition isn't urgent. Ratbone 124.178.148.41 (talk) 04:07, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying, I very much agree. That said, why would anyone answer a question if they didn't think they were qualified? Meaning: I tend to think people providing problem answers, probably, don't think that they are, or that they aren't qualified. To a certain degree, asking people to apply the criterion to themselves may not change much; if I'm willing to answer, but don't know the subject well, it's doubtful I know that I don't know. (I'm not trying to be contentious, I just have a lot of friends that fit the bill of what I'm describing)Phoenixia1177 (talk) 05:04, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

You might be right. A little knowlege can be dangerous. But in my experience, most people internally have a fairly accurate view of themselves. Mostly, a false sense of ability doesn't help you to survive in the real world too well. There are certain people who post answers on just about everything. I don't want to mention names, but I think they get fun out of posting whatever they dream up, even though they just might be genuinely trying to help. One or two just like the sound of their own words. Either way, I think that Sluzzelins' Rule will make enough of them think first before posting - provided that Judith's and Sluzzelin's Rules are on the top of the Reference Desk page, and the top of the Reference Desk Edit page, and not hidden away like a lot of WP policies. We've got to try something. Having all these discussions about banning people is not working, and as it is visible to the public with only a mouse-click, these constant discussions about bad behaviour and banning people is itself degrading Wikipedia's reputation, repelling good people and attracting the less good. Ratbone 120.145.76.52 (talk) 05:53, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

I definitely agree that it would be a good rule to have posted prominently; I don't doubt that it will have a positive impact on many. I think another part of the problem is that there is too small a pool of questions and too small a pool of dedicated answerers. In other words, when there isn't anything pertinent to the desks' function going on, there's nothing to do here. A few years ago, I remember there being a load more mathematics questions being asked, and science/computing questions (I don't go to the others usually), there seemed enough topics to actually discuss that banter and in fighting was less prominent. Now, there seem to be far fewer question and, maybe it's just me, the depth of the questions being asked has, in general, deteriorated (not to say they aren't technical, just not as thought provoking/multifaceted). I'm beginning to rant, and my perceptions may be off, so I'll stop; especially as I have no solutions to offer.Phoenixia1177 (talk) 06:09, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

You are exactly right. Not the bit about stopping because of supposed ranting, I mean the rest of what you said. I think there is a certain level - above it and good questions and answers encourage more good questions and answers - below it and the pools of questions and answerers shrink as good folk are discouraged. Science Desk has clearly gone below that level. Ratbone 120.145.76.52 (talk) 06:14, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

I sometimes get the feeling the existence of the ref desk isn't something widely known; outside of a link on the lower part of the main page, I don't see any reference to it. Couple that with the fact that most people are probably coming to wikipedia via google search, and I'd imagine that it's hard to get people coming here. Moreover, word of mouth only works if we are giving phenomenal answers; and people have little reason to come back after their own question is answered. Ultimately, supposing this is accurate, we not only need to find a way to limit the volume of bad experiences, but also amplify the utility of the desk as a tool. I somewhat wish we could expand upon the desk to include pages with moderated discourse on common subjects here, with references, that askers could also utilize (something like how good answers/discussions happen on the desk, but in response to areas of interest.) Honestly, any expansion that makes this place more useful and more user friendly would stand to increase the quality and volume of users (and, hence, decrease the negative behaviours), is there a way to achieve something along these lines? [I've derailed the topic, sorry. I also have no idea how to deindent, so if someone wants to, please do.]Phoenixia1177 (talk) 06:55, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Actually I, for one, think your points are extremely valid. I think there would be benefit in reviewing the work we do here, and the 'customer experience' that we deliver, in order to see if it can be improved at all. I think there's a valid discussion to be had, although I don't think here is the time or place. I'd rather not join the discussion on the merits or otherwise of users' behaviour, but maybe we can talk about this in a new section once this conversation dies down? - Cucumber Mike (talk) 08:47, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Once this dies down (I'm a bad judge of this...), then, anyone interested in this side discussion, please start a new topic on it. I definitely think it would be worth further discussion.Phoenixia1177 (talk) 08:55, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

...unindent like this (though I sometimes don't). New article creation has tapered from the peak rate of a few years ago; its approximately half of what was then, which means fewer questions. Poor answers sometimes leads to squabbles of course, but I doubt that poor answers (which involves many editors) has much to do with the proposed ban or sanctions of Bugs and Medeis! I do think though that misunderstandings regarding tone sometimes happen here simply due to the occasional differences in expressions, e.g. "being silly" is likely to be more offensive to some than to others depending on the emotive content one has been exposed to with it. Thus, it would best if we could avoid escalations such as this and be less combative, because it does not always matter what we say, but how we go about expressing ourselves, and that sometimes means reaching for reconciliation and avoiding the boomerangs with restraint. Modocc (talk) 09:46, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Recent specimen captured in the wild: [13] - Seriously, can we stop with the tangents and address the fact that there are people who routinely make unhelpful, misleading contributions to RD? AlexTiefling (talk) 07:13, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

I pretty much always abstain from taking a position on these sorts of questions these days. I might make some incidental contributions while abstaining from the primary question. History shows we talk and talk and talk but it just peters out, exactly as has happened here. Ferkelparade went to quite some effort to make a case, and many others have contributed their views. Surely that level of effort deserves a definite outcome one way or the other, and not this ... nothingness. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 04:38, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Really, I came to the opposite conclusion. This should have been nothingness, and I'd not be disappointed to see it return there. --Jayron32 04:45, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Well, why do we permit these sorts of issues to be raised in the first place? Hot air only has a value if it results in some decision. That might be to take some sort of action, or to foreshadow some consequence if certain conditions are not adhered to, or to confirm the status quo, or whatever. But something, rather than nothing. Otherwise, everyone here has wasted their time. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 04:59, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

There are more likely to be problematic responses to problematic questions. For instance AlexTiefling above[14] points out a problematic response by Medeis. But if we look at the original question posed I think we find it is somewhat unanswerable. The question reads: "Is it fashionable for men to wear fanny packs?" Bus stop (talk) 05:41, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

And Medeis' answer was really just a convoluted way of saying "No". Could have been a lot clearer. That was a problematic question in more ways than one. In case any Americans reading this aren't aware, the word "fanny" in most of the Anglosphere has a very different meaning to that in the US. See the first paragraph of Fanny pack for an explanation. Non-Americans tend to titter and laugh when they hear the expression. Much silliness could probably have been avoided if my advice two sentences back had been added to the thread early on. (I just noticed that the caption of the first picture in Fanny pack is about a red fanny pack, with a forced line break after fanny, thereby seeming to emphasise a red fanny. Most unfortunate.) HiLo48 (talk) 05:57, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

I thought the essential problem with the originally posed question was that it simply asked for opinions which necessarily vary among people. Bus stop (talk) 10:29, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

I can just about guarantee to you that every non-American who read that thread thought about something different from a little pack to wear on a belt around one's waist.

I have my doubts as to whether or not the person posting the question was particularly mindful of the variations in meaning of the word "fanny" in various English-speaking cultures. Bus stop (talk) 14:35, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Oh, absolutely, but that didn't stop it being a big issue with that thread. The vagaries of the English language are naturally a big issue for English Wikipedia. And we need better ways of dealing with them. The ignorance of editors doesn't prevent these issues from arising. In fact, it causes them. HiLo48 (talk) 21:32, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

We are all ignorant. Who is not ignorant of something? Bus stop (talk) 22:30, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Alright, for the record: I oppose voting anyone off the island here, on this talk page. There are other places where I'd find the discussion and possibly ensuing enforcement more appropriate. The main two reasons I have repeatedly held this position (last time it was Cuddlyable3, who has since been blocked from the entire Wikipedia, and I realize my position is a vulnerable one): A) We might in fact suffer from cabin fever and be too involved to make such a drastic decision; it is better suited for disinterested editors. Hardly anyone watches this page who doesn't also contribute to the desks. B) There is enough bickering and grudge-bearing going on as it is. I feel that the moment we set this precedent, we're in for more bad blood, here, not just on this talk page, but it will spill over on to the desks as well. I prefer the library atmosphere to feuds and threats.

That being said, hot air, Jack, can also have a cathartic function. Several proponents of this ban who normally don't go around policing anyone here (Ferkelparade rarely even contributes to this talk page) have expressed how fed up they are. Posting this was fine. If we're lucky, it might even help the two users reconsider some of their more irritating editing patterns.

Though I suggested considering other venues, I won't vote for banning either of the two editors elsewhere either. In fact I won't participate at all, because I don't care what happens, unless the annoying stuff ceases, in which case I'd probably add diffs and words of defense. ---Sluzzelin talk 00:40, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

The questions, and answers, on this desk have gotten increasingly less interesting over time. All forums have ups and downs, but it feels like it has been a continual slide for the last year or so. The amount of in-talk and dumb joking and rule-bickering has made the entire thing not very fun. It is one reason (among a few others) that for the most part I don't participate anymore (I check in once a week or so to see if anything has improved or changed for the better, and I glance at this talk page to see if others feel the same way). I wouldn't necessarily single these two users out among all, but I will say that they are the chief dumb joker and rule-bickerer of the bunch. There are others, to be sure. But the desk has more or less ceased to be a source of interesting questions, which I can't help but think is related to the fact that it is also become a rather stale place for answers as well. I have no hope whatsoever that either of these editors, much less the others who do similar things, will change their ways, because these particular habits seem to be their primary motivation for participating in the desk in the first place. Bugs is not a Ref Desk contributor who occasionally makes bad jokes — making bad jokes is clearly why he is here. Medeis is not a Ref Desk contributor who occasionally decides that her role is one of a traffic cop — she is here because she likes to act like a traffic cop. Such is my perception of them, anyway, from what little one can know about someone else based on their online scribblings. --Mr.98 (talk) 02:31, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

You've got my motivation wrong, but you might have a point in general: Maybe the ref desks should, in fact, be abolished, as proposed in that RfC or whatever to call it. At the time the ref desk started, Wikipedia was not necessarily widely known. Nowadays, google almost any topic and Wikipedia articles are liable to be near the top of the list. So maybe it really isn't needed anymore? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:47, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

I am basing my understanding on your motivation from your actions. Take that for what it is worth. Consider that probably nobody on here knows you in real life — we are all basing what we think of you based on how you participate, and there are a tremendous number of people here who think your participation makes you appear like a schmuck. What you think your motivations are is actually an irrelevant part of whether or not you are perceived to be a schmuck. Being a schmuck on the Internet doesn't make you a schmuck in real life, of course. But it still strikes me as a rather pathetic thing to aspire to.

As for your other suggestion, I think "abolishing" it is an unnecessary move. When it ceases to be useful it will fade away like everything else on the Internet; it will effectively abolish itself. I don't think it is inevitable, but I think it's what's happening. I think the jokey, rule-obsessed, "let's just make up answers rather than referencing them," "let's write a small-text pun on every question no matter how serious," "let's derail every possible discussion", "let's worry more about whether sockpuppets are participating than actually answering questions", etc. etc. etc. approach to things has made it a very unproductive atmosphere for both new users as well as people who have productive knowledge to offer. When a resource becomes a playground for half a dozen people it ceases to be anything but trivial. --Mr.98 (talk) 16:42, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

 Confirmed Schmuck and Baseball Bugs are one and the same. 184.242.31.141 (talk) 21:30, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

The reason I came to the ref desks is because I like to answer people's questions. And I also thought it would be a place where there wouldn't be so many malcontents. I found out differently. There's a "clique" atmosphere here which I find highly offensive, and which I've commented upon much less often than I might have. But I still like answering people's questions. So as long as there are reasonable questions turning up, I hope to continue to try answering those questions. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:36, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes but you don't answer them, do you? You guess, or you make a stupid joke, or you tell them to go and use Google. Not what I call answering questions. --Viennese Waltz 21:35, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

If you really think that, then you're not paying attention. And I don't see you commenting on that IP obscenity above, so it's clear you're operating from a biased, double-standard perspective. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:45, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

• Will One of the Admins Here Please Shut This Thread Down? when it gets to calling people penises based on opinion and then having other editors step in to repeat the obscenity no constructive purpose is being served. μηδείς (talk)

Ah, you've finally noticed what happens in an awful lot of "disciplinary" parts of Wikipedia. Such situations give everyone with any grudge against an editor, for any reason, to all pile on and add their own bigotry, lies and insults. Some of the worst behaviour in Wikipedia occurs in threads attempting to address alleged unacceptable behaviour. Having been a victim of this multiple times, I now tend to avoid contributing to threads attacking me. I let the others all throw their mud around until the thread dies a natural death, as this one seems likely to do soon. If I was you I'd just wait till that happens. HiLo48 (talk) 23:29, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Good point. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:13, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

• The entire premise here is not just wrong, it's pernicious. The thread is based on the presumption of guilt. No argument or diffs showing there is an actual current problem are given; we have only subjective claims by a few editors that certain people have ruined the ref desk in their eyes. No one can prove, disprove, or address such a claim. It's now gotten down to the point that the IP editor who asked me to give my side of this kangaroo court (to help pretend this has anything to do with fairness) has "confirmed" that you are a penis, Bugs. The response to my suggestion there be no hatting without seconding by any party has been met with silence. No suggestion that all joking be banned has even been raised. This attack thread should have been shut down in the beginning--actual remedies exist for actual offenses--it's a farce. It should be shut down now with no further comment from any party involved. μηδείς (talk) 00:36, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I apologize because I know it's extremely poor form to comment on a closed thread, but I didn't notice it in time for reasons I think are relevant : I had been avoiding the reference desk because of frustration with the issues outlined in this discussion.

I won't go into detail replying to a closed thread, but before this lands in the archive I just wanted to express, for the record, my strong agreement with user:Ferkelparade's original post. APL (talk) 18:20, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Oddly enough, that nearly 4-week-old post was the last one made by Ferkelparade (talk · contribs), at least the last one under that ID. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:28, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Then perhaps I'm not the only one driven away by this issue. APL (talk) 19:43, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

No one is driving you away. The "look what you made me do" excuse is childish and bogus. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:46, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

FWIW, I also have not posted or read the actual ref desk since April due to rampant jackassery by a few select editors. The fact that a concrete example of someone being driven away from the ref desk is challenged as "bogus" is a prime example of the problem. This isn't "look what you made me do" but more like "I've had enough of this bullshit". There's a difference. Not sure why I never unwatchlisted the talk page but that's going to get corrected now. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 20:19, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

If you're not interested in contributing, then that's your choice. No one is driving you or anyone else away. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:34, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

User:Fête is back

See the prior history at User:Fête and the current post here. μηδείς (talk) 16:47, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

I've reported him to AIV. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:53, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

And, as I feared, a lazy admin refused to take action. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:14, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

This lazy admin took care of it. --Jayron32 03:22, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

It's a duty, not a privilege. μηδείς (talk) 03:30, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for taking care of this. I knew you wouldn't fail us. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:53, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Your faith, though WOEFULLY misplaced, is still appreciated. --Jayron32 04:23, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Permanent link to reference desk questions

Hi,

I asked a few questions in the reference desk, but now when I look up in my contributions, the links are pointing to reference desk page, and not a permanent link to the questions I had asked. So my questions have fallen into the archive, and no easy way to get at them except by searching. Why is it this way? A lot many interesting questions are answered in the reference desk, and permanent links to these questions should be easily available.

Gulielmus estavius (talk) 10:36, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

One way to do it is to go to your user page, then click "What links here", then activate "Wikipedia" in the "Namespace" filter >>> Pages that link to "User:Gulielmus estavius". The bottom links are the most recent ones. Click on a likely link, for example Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2013 June 1 and then search for your name and you find yourself under Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Humanities/2013_June_1#Why_was_Omoo_named_so.3F. Maybe not the easiest way, but it works. ---Sluzzelin talk 11:46, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Or, you could simply go to the archives and search for your username (this would only be useful if you exclusively ask questions, because if you answer them as well you'll probably get a whole bunch of unrelated threads in the search result...) Alternatively, you could just copy+paste the name of the question (should be viewable in your contributions) into the archives search bar. --Yellow1996 (talk) 17:26, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

For questions, your contribution history includes the date when you contributed, so you know exactly which dated archive page to check. For example, I see you contributed:

• 18:11, 14 May 2013 (diff | hist) . . (+353)‎ . . Wikipedia:Reference desk/Science ‎ (→‎What do you call the inverse of speed?: new section)

If that's no longer in Wikipedia:Reference desk/Science, it would go into the archive at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Science/2013 May 14. DMacks (talk) 18:17, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

The only way I can think of to make this happen that the Wikipedia architecture might possibly support would be to have each question on the Ref desks automatically given a "unique identifier" when it is added -- some sort of unique text string or number that would be inserted automatically, perhaps in a hidden template or comment. Looie496 (talk) 17:51, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

I think that's a pretty good idea. Someone should post that at the pump. --Yellow1996 (talk) 18:35, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

We're not alone in needing this - it's really frustrating when you're trying to follow the progress of an administrative action - and the relevant noticeboard gets archived every few days. SteveBaker (talk) 19:08, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

True - I think our proposal could get serious attention. Anyone feel like posting it in the idea lab? --Yellow1996 (talk) 19:33, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Maybe the assignment of unique identifiers can be retroactive.

—Wavelength (talk) 20:21, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Obit Comment removed

Marnette has removed this. I warned the user we don't publish unsubstantiated allegations. This is not the only recent problematic post from an IP by Miami, FL. If we have more they should be documented for appropriate action. 22:57, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Good call. I have no idea which Michael J Smith they're talking about, but I presume it's a living person per the OP's comments; those sorts of allegations are pretty clearly in violation of our WP:BLP rules. Matt Deres (talk) 19:14, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

MattDillon87

from the user name, contrib behavior, and this thread it looks like we may have another sock of timithyhere. μηδείς (talk) 17:08, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

I wouldn't be surprised, but let's let him spool out some more rope first. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:23, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Hatting unrelated and problematic part of a thread

I have hatted a part of the discussion on Communion, most of which contained an unrelated, and entirely unsupported rant by Plasmic Physics over some connection between the Catholic Church and ancient Egypt. I couldn't follow most of it anyway, but it was a) entirely unrelated to the OPs question on communion practices in various Christian denominations and b) entirely unsupported by any reliable sources which is a must for ref desk responses, especially responses whose content consist mostly of exceptional claims. Exceptional claims require exceptional evidence, and given that the comments themselves provided nothing to answer the question anyway, it seemed prudent to shut them down lest we distract from the mission of the reference desk, which is to provide others with additional reliable reading material about a topic and not to ramble on about half-remembered claims about things. --Jayron32 02:39, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Good move. Last I looked there, he hadn't provided any sources, despite repeated requests to do so. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:14, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

diff or a link? i don't even know which desk this is μηδείς (talk) 04:00, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

WP:RDH, the thread on communion wine. There are three hatted sections that contain the offending text. --Jayron32 04:13, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

It's kind of a shame, as I thought maybe he was onto something interesting. But since he couldn't provide sources, I was forced to conclude that he was making it up. :( ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:17, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

He didn't make it up; it's an internet meme. I Googled "Jesus Mary Horus Isis" and found the promotional and debunking sites. Even more reason to hat, really. Itsmejudith (talk) 08:37, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Most of it traces back to works like The Two Babylons, which are cranky polemics, but printed books. And everyone knows you can trust a book... 212.183.128.239 (talk) 07:40, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Answering hypothetical questions

I’m easily confused, so bear with me.

How come it’s OK to answer Humanities: Franco-Spanish Union's language (which is totally up-front with regard to its hypotheticality), but not OK to answer Miscellaneous: flight SU150 avoid flying over US airspace so that US authorities cannot blacklist its passengers??

Is the rule now that we can answer a hypothetical question as long as the OP acknowledges it’s a hypothetical question, but not otherwise? Where was this rule promulgated? -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 22:53, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

They're both valid questions that can be answered within the scope of our guidelines. They're both being answered. You are, I assume, referring to one person who gave an answer to question A and instructed us not to answer question B. That is but that one person's opinion, not a rule or guideline.

I don't see why hypothetical questions, or questions about the future, or questions requiring assumptions or speculations in their answers shouldn't be allowed, as long as these answers can be referenced to what notable others have guessed, speculated, assumed etc. I know I'm sounding like a broken record emphasizing this all over again, but I just don't get why hypothetical questions shouldn't be "allowed". ---Sluzzelin talk 23:53, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

OK, let’s see what our Guidelines say. The words “hypothetical” and “speculation” are not mentioned anywhere, but there’s this:

• Aside from calculations, however, answers must be verifiable, that is, to the extent the questioner wishes to verify that the answer is not fabricated, there should exist a reliable source (or sources) that would give the same answer.
• Personal opinions in answers should be limited to what is absolutely necessary, and avoided entirely when it gets in the way of factual answers. In particular, when a question asks about a controversial topic, we should attempt to provide purely factual answers.

In the first of the two questions, nobody has yet provided any links that refer to "what notable others have guessed, speculated, assumed etc" on the question asked. It’s all about what Ref Desk editors have guessed, speculated, assumed etc. Yet, as you say, the person saying we shouldn't do that on the 2nd question is the same person leading the speculation on the first question. It's all terribly confusing. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 00:42, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

I am likewise confused. I've seen countless questions boxed up on the grounds that they call for opinions, before any discussion even starts. Recently, somebody asked if 11th and 12th graders should wear uniforms. To me, that sounds like a call for opinions. I raise that question, and I get scorned for it. So then I wonder, "Did I wake up in a parallel universe, and this version of the ref desk allows opinions? If not, then when did the rules change here?" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:52, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

(after e.c, replying to Jack) Maybe that person sees speculating on the first question as more harmless, because it's on alternative history, old stuff without real-life implications, while guesses for the second question touch on actual present-day international laws etc, and real-life implications are easier to imagine here. Maybe the second question was seen as more difficult to interpret (it was brief and crammed into its section title). I don't think it's that relevant. If one doesn't understand a question and isn't willing to do some interpreting one can also either ask for clarification or remain silent.

I agree that no direct references were given in either thread. I don't want to encourage speculating without references at all, but certain elements that might lead up to a better understanding of a hypothetical question can also be inferred from basic scientific or scholarly knowledge and from experience without necessarily and immediately being devalued by lack of reference in the first instance.

To make a long post even longer: I don't mind that question A got answers, even if they lack references, though I do think it's always worth providing a referencea. I didn't get a thrill out of reading that comment on question B, however. I am tired of being told or seeing others being told what we may and may not answer, especially when we've never had any clear-cut consensus on any of this. A relaxed laissez-faire attitude is what works best. If I see too much noise, I sometimes try to provide more signal. Complaining about the noise only adds to the noise. ---Sluzzelin talk 01:06, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. SemanticMantis (talk) 01:16, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Is our policy about not answering hypothetical/opinion questions, "We don't answer questions that have opinion answers", or, "We don't answer questions that require giving our opinions"? The first has to do with the nature of the question, the latter with the nature of the answers. For example: "Should 11th graders be made to wear uniforms?" is a question for opinion of the first type and it can be answered by providing the opinions of policy makers, educators, and psychologists; the question, "Should my 11th grader where a uniform?" is of the second type, it can only be answered by me if I provide my opinion (assuming reliable sources don't speculate on your 11th grader...). I can see why the latter is something that shouldn't be answered, I can't see any clear reason to not answer questions of the first type.Phoenixia1177 (talk) 10:03, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

We should never be giving our own opinions as the core answer to any question. It's ok to expand on a source in order to explain it or interpret it, and this can include opinions, personal anecdotes and what have you. But to provide just an opinion, with no external source to support it, would be analagous to going up to a RL ref desk librarian, asking them if they can direct you to resources that give some discussion of Subject X, and being told "Well, if you want to know my opinion, blah blah blahbety blah ....... blah blah blah". You might listen attentively, maybe take some notes, but at the end of the librarian's ego-trip, you'll probably say "Thanks for that. Now I wonder if you can direct me to some published sources on Subject X". Life is too short to spend time listening to librarians go on ego trips rather than do the job they're paid for; and the same applies here. Provide a source first, and then, if appropriate, add some commentary of your own. But not just whatever's in your own head. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 11:17, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Just to clarify how this relates to the questions at hand: I would also argue that if one can provide relevant information from which the asker can refine their opinion, then this too should be acceptable. For example, with the language question (I know nothing about it), but if the languages couldn't be blended (as one of the answers indicates), providing that information should be permissible since it, the info, is not opinion and is directly relevant. For the flight question, personally, it seems as coherent and opinion requesting as the math desk question under "Weighted Average"; both require a certain bit of speculation and determining what exactly is being asked, but I don't think that prevents coherent answers from being given, not enough to stray into the same level as the question I used as an example of the second type above. In the latter case, I don't know enough on the matter to know if the specific answers are acceptable (or should be considered personal opinion), but I don't think the question itself is something that can't be answered in the scope of the desks.Phoenixia1177 (talk) 10:34, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Like all policy on Wikipedia, this is overwrought. Just use common sense: we can't answer a question like "if the empire state building was taller, how high would it be?" nor is it useful to debate "is euthanasia good or bad?" as a matter of pure opinion, rather than as an exercising in providing references for one or both points of view. People need to stop looking at this like censors - the question is, or should be, whether the question has something we can answer, not whether it has something somebody thinks we shouldn't. Wnt (talk) 06:35, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

In the case of a clear request for opinion, what we can do is link our OP to actual notable sources that have published an opinion, or a Wikipedia article on the debate if one exists. I sometimes feel like we are stuck in this situation where if we close the question, people complain that it can be answered, but if we leave it open, certain respondents simply go hog-wild with the personal opinions. The appropriate answer for a reference desk should be, "What you are asking for are personal opinion or debate, which we can't provide, but we can't point you to people/groups X Y and Z which have debated the issue and provided the following arguments for and against... (references here)". Someguy1221 (talk) 06:41, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't think it's wrong for responders to give their opinions about an issue, nor to debate an issue, provided that we are moving toward the goal of providing useful data. If something is solely a request for opinions, a chance to line up and vote, then we're not doing that. But if someone mentions his POV on the topic, that does much to put the reader on guard for which side is being represented better. If we have a debate where one person gives a source pro, and another fires back with a rebuttal, and the first returns with a rebuttal to that --- great, we're really digging out the sources then, and that's what we're trying to do. Opinion isn't some kind of contamination we're trying to purge out of the ground - just like policy arguments, it is merely one more kind of dirt in your mine that doesn't happen to be gold. Wnt (talk) 06:49, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

My point wasn't to have a policy debate; personally, I think we should just try to determine what the asker is after and, then, provide info relevant to that. However, I do see things getting hatted, or deemed unanswerable, on the grounds that it calls for opinion, etc. Given that, I want to have an idea of what is going to get removed before putting effort into answering it; especially since it's not up to me if an answer get's removed. I would like to look at it as "whether the question has something we can answer"; but if other people are looking to act on the basis of "what we shouldn't answer", then I don't see how that doesn't become a factor since it isn't up to me.Phoenixia1177 (talk) 07:58, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

More socking by Timothyhere

I have removed one question by IP 190.178.165.250 on Canada supporting Syria and another on watching videos, both very typical TH-type questions, both from an IP in Argentina. I request one of our non-lazy admins give a little help? μηδείς (talk) 01:32, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

What non-idiotic admin could resist a request like that? -- Scray (talk) 02:53, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

It seemed to work for Bugs. μηδείς (talk) 03:08, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

??? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:17, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm both idiotic and lazy, but somehow found the intelligence and effort to take care of it. --Jayron32 03:16, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

One properly deserves sincere thanks for doing one's faithful duty; so, Jayron, my sincere thanks. μηδείς (talk) 03:24, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Duh ree en. --Jayron32 03:57, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Question removed with possible BLP concerns

Given the BLP concerns regarding a recent question, I have removed it. I will not repeat the statements made in the question because that would be recreating the possible BLP violation. Others are free to discuss the appropriateness of the removal. The material is still in the "history" of WP:RDH for anyone that would care to review it. If consensus is clear that this was not a BLP violation, we may return the question. However, in light of the nature of the material, please do not repeat the potential violation here, merely comment on whether or not the question was right to be removed or whether it should be returned. You have enough information to find the question if you need to. If consensus is that the material was not appropriate, and removal is justified, I will take further steps and REVDEL it, but will not do so until such time as consensus is clear here. --Jayron32 00:53, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Your concern is noble but baseless, since it is the subject himself (and his supporters) who go around quoting the flattering description of his penis and his sexual power, only to say it is exaggerated. The Guardian quotes the subject mentioning the story, as does his friend Mark Steyn in whose writing I came across the story today. TRM has provided what seems to me a definitive answer, the description of the subject's huge endowment is not available on line from the now defunct News of the World, and only available in allusion or hard copy. But this should be restored immediately, here being the Guardian] article repeating the anecdote, as well as the Telegraph, the Spectator, The Independent,.... μηδείς (talk) 02:50, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

@Medeis: If you already have found online reliable sources, then you have answered your own question. There is no point in restoring a question when it has already been answered. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:59, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

No, my question is, can I read the original interview. I said that quite clearly. Nor is there any actual justification for the deletion, although I understand the prima facie concern. μηδείς (talk) 03:05, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons is quite clear in the lede that "titillating claims about people's lives" are to be avoided on all pages, not just the person's biography, so removal is justified.184.147.144.173 (talk) 11:19, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

I read that as meaning back up anything with reliable sources. Dmcq (talk) 12:30, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

WP:WELLKNOWN, etc. Wnt (talk) 12:46, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

• I have reposted this question with a different header and directly quoting the various reliable sources saying that Farage willingly repeats and denies the not-very-embarrassing charges in public. This falls under WP:WELLKNOW and WP:NOTCENSORED. If there are still objections (which I don't expect) they should go to BLP notices. μηδείς (talk) 02:22, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

New Timothyhere

sock asking about death penalty in Japan. μηδείς (talk) 21:17, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

I closed this after BB's comment that this is the same user. μηδείς (talk) 03:32, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Collapsing request for medical advice.

Diff: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AReference_desk%2FMiscellaneous&diff=560507883&oldid=560504349 The question gave StuRat the opportunity of offering the following advice to peanut allergic patients: "Most people aren't so allergic that such a small amount of peanut would harm them". I deleted StuRat's answer, and left the question hatted. --NorwegianBlue ^talk 21:07, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

That quoted statement sounds more like an uncited claim about people with peanut allergies than a medical advice. I suppose it can be treated as medical advice, because a person with peanut allergies can take it seriously by thinking that a little bit of peanuts won't harm them. I once watched an episode on Arthur, in which Binky Barnes had peanut allergies and ate cashews from a package that also packaged peanuts. I am not sure if that is a fictional exaggeration or reality, but that is something to be aware of. Sneazy (talk) 21:30, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Whether or not it was medical advice it sounds very definitely lacking in thought to offer it without at least a cited reference to a very reliable source when the effects of it being wrong can be so dangerous. Dmcq (talk) 21:43, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

StuRat's comment was a very risky thing to be saying, because even if "numerically" true (and I'm not so sure of that), some people (including maybe some wikipedia readers) can have very severe allergic reactions to certain foods. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:52, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

The context of StuRat's statement was the notorious "may contain peanuts" labels that producers tend to put on food where peanuts are not an intended ingredient, to cover their ass when saving money on proper cleaning of their manufacturing equipment between production of peanut-containing and hopefully-not-peanut-containing food. Stu's statement is true in the sense that such food items from many producers usually will contain only trace amount of peanuts, if anything at all. But as the label says, there's no guarantee that they once in a while won't cut corners to meed a deadline, and deliver the same food item with a significant amount of peanuts. Giving patients advice about which foodstuff warnings they can safely disregard is not something we should be doing. --NorwegianBlue ^talk 22:25, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

An easy illustration of the problem comes from eating peas. Every once in a while you get a cube of carrot in one. It's easy to see a cube of carrot in a bag of peas... harder to see a stray peanut in a can of cashews. Wnt (talk) 06:42, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Support removal and hatting. Of the four questions asked, two might pass Kainaw's criterion. Two do not, and Stu's answer also did not. This is another reason why we discourage multi-part questions. SemanticMantis (talk) 21:48, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

I do not think the question(s) crossed the line into a request for medical advice and would support un-hatting. I did not get the feeling that the OP was asking about a particular person, but was asking a generic question about what folks with multiple allergies have to do. Matt Deres (talk) 00:20, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. StuRat (talk) 00:21, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't understand the problem at all here. I said that many people don't have peanut allergies so severe that a small amount will harm them. I'm not saying that this is true for any particular patient, they would need to talk to their doctor to figure that out. So, I didn't give medical advice. Do you need to go to a doctor to hear that statement ? Heck no, so it's not medical advice. StuRat (talk) 00:21, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Still, given the propensity for people to (a) take things out of context and (b) believe whatever they read on the internet, it might have been better had you followed that statement with something like "But highly sensitive people still need to be scrupulously careful in their food choices". -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 00:28, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

The safe thing to do would be to reference Wikipedia's own meticulously referenced section on this, at Peanut allergy#Treatments, which describes the consumption by sufferers of sub-toxic peanut doses. And there, any reader would find the very important reminder that one sufferer attempting to consume (be injected with, actually) a sub-lethal dose died because the concentration was miscalculated. That same section mentions that ~50% of children with peanut allergies can't even handle a tenth of a peanut, so it's not something anyone should be doing without medical supervision. The rest of the question seemed well within the desk's remit, so I'm not sure that getting rid of it entirely was necessary. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:14, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Yep support that. We should really try hard to have less of people's own thoughts for things like this and more pointing them at our articles or good quality reliable sources. Dmcq (talk) 08:46, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

I would certainly be inclined to agree with "Someguy1221" that the last part: "In what type of situation or location will having these allergies be an evolutionary advantage?" is certainly a legitimate question - although it's very dangerous to encourage anyone with an allergy to eat even the smallest quantity of the substance they're allergic to. However, in practice, the guideline "May contain traces of other nuts" will exclude someone who is allergic to only one type of nut from eating any other type of nut. I'd imagine most people would be prepared to take this risk, epi pen in hand. But it's probably not a wise thing to advise random people to do on the internet.

Personally, I'd be interested in hearing the answer to the last part of the question, however. Horatio Snickers (talk) 21:25, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Last question, me too. For the rest, What can that person eat to avoid uncomfortable reactions? That is potentially asking for medical advice. A proper version of that question might be "what kinds of foods don't contain any of these?" And then you have How can a person be sure that the cashews he/she is buying has no residue from the peanuts? That is a question I don't think we can answer in any form. It's like asking, "If I eat this will I have a potentially lethal reaction?" As far as I read the ref desk guidelines, there is simply no answer to that one. I also think that in most cases, the real danger of medical advice questions is that a good lot of ref desk regulars (myself included at one point) simply cannot resist giving their personal opinions on everything under the sun, including medical issues. Someguy1221 (talk) 23:58, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

I disagree with portions of StuRat's response. I still don't think they breached the line of being medical advice, but I do think they were potentially dangerously misleading as it implies that people who claim to be allergic to peanuts are somehow mistaken or being overly dramatic. Yes, I'm sure some are, but it's clearly a very real problem for some people and a life-threatening one at that. We should be very careful of how we phrase stuff like that; most people don't get hit by lightning when they shelter under a tree in a storm. Again, I feel that the questions there do not violate our proscription on medical advice; the only question there that seems inappropriate at all to me is the first one, which seems more like a call for recipes. What is the consensus here? Matt Deres (talk) 23:57, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

• I'd like to express an opinion somewhere outside the range of StuRat's and Norwegian Blue's, but between that of all the rest who've opined here, except, of course, for Dmcq, Mantis, Jack, Matt, and Someguy, whom I won't even mention. The reason the ref desks exist is not to provide links or references pointing to relevant materials about a topic of encyclopedic interest. Google and the search field above left serve that function admirably. What we actually need is an endless discussion of how we can imagine that if a troll had asked a question it would not have fallen outside the guidelines of this page. (Fcuk the guidelines of the rest of wikipedia. I mean really, Bee Ell Pee? Sounds like a sandwich.) If the OP wants to know how fast he should drive to the hospital while his wife presents a breech birth in the back seat to make the ideal compromise between speed and safety, we can always say what he could do if it were his dog having puppies instead, or suggest that however fast, whether the husband is drinking a cup of coffee is unimportant, and he should not be discouraged from doing so. (OR at least we can't think of any references saying so.) That is the primary purpose of the ref desks, second guessing trolls. The secondary purpose is obviously to keep the threads rolling on the talk page. μηδείς (talk) 02:12, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

• I've put my comment back in, without this line: "However, most people aren't so allergic that such a small amount of peanut would harm them", which, inexplicably, many of you seem to consider to be medical advice. StuRat (talk) 09:16, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Could you just leave out your own thoughts please and stick with the second paragraph of WP:RD/G. I'm sure what you write is very good and nobody can complain about it but it allows all those other people who aren't as knowledgeable or as careful as you to stick in their misguided attempts at helping. So could I ask you yet again to desist and just leave people in the ignorance that reading an relevant Wikipedia article and reliable sources brings. Thank you. Dmcq (talk) 10:27, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

"Inexplicably", Stu? Various people have outlined why they found this troublesome. What's inexplicable is your failure to accept and acknowledge these concerns. You don't have to agree with them, but if it's so incomprehensible to you that others don't think exactly the same way you do, then best of luck with planet Earth. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 11:04, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

I didn't see any convincing argument that a general statement like this is medical advice. What I did see is statements like yours that people might take it out of context, assume their peanut allergy is minor, and eat a bag of peanuts. I don't see how we are responsible for idiots who misread what is written, nor do I see any policy that we must avoid any statement that any moron might misread. Indeed, if that was the policy then advice like "use a hammer and nails to join the two pieces of wood in question together" would be out, because somebody who doesn't know how to use a hammer could seriously injure himself. (BTW, I seem to have an extremely minor peanut allergy myself, in that eating a bag of peanuts makes my throat itch and I cough for a while, but I doubt if most people like me are included in the stats.) There seems to be the tendency of many here to intentionally misclassify any answer they don't like, which happens to involve human biology, as medical advice, so they can justify removal. StuRat (talk) 16:52, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

That's absolute nonsense. You are seriously going to say the reason the editor hatted this question was because he didn't like it? What, a paid editor for the peanut board? Next you'll be saying there are no Americans in Baghdad, and Saddam has defeated them. μηδείς (talk) 17:58, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

And I've touched 240V a couple of times without any particular ill effects but I would be acting irresponsibly if I said "However, most people aren't harmed by touching such a voltage" Dmcq (talk) 17:36, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

And would that magically make such a statement into medical advice ? StuRat (talk) 22:46, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

What I said is that it would be a very stupid and irresponsible thing to say on the reference desk if someone asked if the mains electricity was dangerous. Can you not see any analogy with your "However, most people aren't so allergic that such a small amount of peanut would harm them"? As I said before direct them to a suicide booth if you must if that's what they seem to be asking for but please don't give your own thoughts just reliable sources or a Wikipedia article in accordance with the Wikipedia Reference pages guideline. Dmcq (talk) 11:35, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

The underlying principle is that we do not make authoritative statements that open us or Wikipedia up to legal liability. The issue with telling someone they don't need to worry about touching their electrical outlet is not whether or not such advice is strictly "medical advice", but whether our saying so opens us up to blame for portraying ourselves as experts upon whose advice someone was harmed--physically, financially, or otherwise. "No medical or legal advice" is a shorthand way of conveying this--but the principle is broader. Unfortunately the endless excuse-making that a specific phrasing is not exactly a request for medical advice suggests a total failure to grasp it's not the wording of the policy but the underlying principle that matters. μηδείς (talk) 17:48, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

If we can discuss this topic here, why not discuss it there? Is there something magic about Wikipedia policy griping that shields people from liability? We should just be open about our limitations, not give up all opportunity to answer an ever-growing list of categories of questions. Wnt (talk) 06:42, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps I'm not getting what you are saying. Are you saying we should forget about the reference page guidelines in WP:RD/G and treat the reference desk as a forum for peoples own thoughts? That is done already to some extent despite WP:NOTAFORUM, but are you really saying you are happy for people own thoughts to be expressed on the reference desks even if they look like they may possibly cause grave personal harm if wrong? Dmcq (talk) 07:51, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

What I'm saying is that a lot of ideas about peanuts and allergies get discussed above, and that is accepted because it advances Wikipedia's #1 core purpose of histrionic arguments over stupid policies. Yet the world does not end. What's the difference between discussing it there and discussing it as part of actually answering a question, provided we acknowledge we're not in any position to diagnose or treat disease? Wnt (talk) 12:50, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Are you actually unable to see the difference between saying that doing xyz is stupid and actually doing xyz? That's where xyz is telling people that it is okay for those with a peanut allergy to eat some peanuts? Dmcq (talk) 21:56, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Editor conflict

Please take this elsewhere per WP:Talk. -- Scray (talk) 22:44, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
For some time, I have a sense that this member - Medeis - does not really like me very much. One time on the Reference Desk Talk Page, Medeis seems to imply that I am a "troll" on the Talk Page here for asking a question about food allergies. Medeis said: "If the OP wants to know how fast he should drive to the hospital while his wife presents a breech birth in the back seat to make the ideal compromise between speed and safety, we can always say what he could do if it were his dog having puppies instead, or suggest that however fast, whether the husband is drinking a cup of coffee is unimportant, and he should not be discouraged from doing so. (OR at least we can't think of any references saying so.) That is the primary purpose of the ref desks, second guessing trolls." Seeing that the question on the Reference Desk regarding food allergies was me, and that Medeis used "the OP" instead of "a OP", my initial interpretation was that Medeis was implying me as a "troll". However, if Medeis was not referring to me specifically, then the quote above may indicate that Medeis was inventing an absurd scenario to ask on the Reference Desks by an imaginary OP and conflating that absurd scenario with what he or she perceives of my Reference Desk questions. I am not sure what Medeis has against me. One possibility is that she or he accused me of vandalism here and may still hold a grudge against me for making a small spelling/typographical error in his/her mistake, which amounts to vandalism. Another possibility is that he or she really dislikes my Reference Desk questions for some reason. I also looked up my name on this Talk Page's Archives, and I found this page. I immediately checked the location of the IP address and noticed that the IP address user is from Hungary. In any case, it seems to me that Medeis has failed to check the IP address. All I am asking is this: what does Medeis really think of me? I put this question here instead of on Medeis' talk page, because I want everyone interested in the conversation to pay attention to the conversation, so that we, as a community, can learn how to deal with a future Medeis-like persona. Sneazy (talk) 22:11, 30 June 2013 (UTC) Yes, I absolutely think you are a troll, and from your edit history it is obvious you were not a newbie when you started using your current name. That being said I feel no obligation to hold any grudges against you or abstain from answering questions you have asked. You should do the same, and drop drama like this. μηδείς (talk) 22:23, 30 June 2013 (UTC) (e/c) I very much hope this thread is not used to canvass what any editor thinks of any other editor personally. Our sole interest should be the quality of our deeds, and their adherence to Wikipedia rules, policies and guidelines - or lack thereof. -- Jack of Oz [Talk] 22:25, 30 June 2013 (UTC) It says at the top of this page "This page is for discussion of the Reference Desks only". Discussions regarding what one editor thinks of another are therefore outside the remit of this talk page. I suggest that this thread be hatted accordingly. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:34, 30 June 2013 (UTC) I have to agree, this should have come to my talk page first, if anywhere, which is the point I was going to make before I saw the above comments. You will note from Sneazy's contributions that the first edit he ever made as a contributor was on another user's talk page. If you have any pressing questions for me, do ask them on my talk page, Sneazy. μηδείς (talk) 22:42, 30 June 2013 (UTC) I have suggested dispute resolution as one option if the user wishes to proceed. -- Scray (talk) 23:12, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Media -identifcation service...

Hi,

I was wondering if there are reference desk people that would be interested in setting up a reference desk sub-section, whose objective was the identification of subjects and items in 'free' content images.

Whilst encouraging the responsible upload of 'free' material , It would be nice to try and identify some of the existing images Wikipedia has definitively. Hence the request for a 'Media identification service' either as part of the refdesk or as a separate project.

At the very least some guidelines on how to ask image subject identifcation questions would be appreciated. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 07:57, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Graphics Lab may or may not provide that service.

—Wavelength (talk) 16:24, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

I disagree with this proposal. The problem is that the identification of items in photographs is a per-discipline activity. For example, if I wanted to know where the image at right came from, I'd get a very quick answer from the math desk because it has an equation on it. A picture containing an insect or something is best asked on the science desk, a question about an album cover or a photograph of a rock star is best asked on the entertainment desk. Furthermore, we only get one or two of those kinds of question each week - the newly formed desk would be by far the most quiet of any of the existing desks. SteveBaker (talk) 23:38, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Escher "Belvedere" image

This is the image being discussed -- Scray (talk) 23:02, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Including this on a non-article page is technically in violation of Wikipedia Fair-use policies. AnonMoos (talk) 21:54, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

I believe you are right, and I removed it, but left a link and explanation, since people had referred to it. diff. ---Sluzzelin talk 00:49, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for including a link, at least. My opinion is that, if the image is fair-use in the article about the artwork, it is fair-use when discussing said work on the ref desk -- but I'm no IP lawyer, and I suppose it's good to err on the side of caution. SemanticMantis (talk) 20:09, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

This was not a technical violation of policy. Or the situation is at least unclear. The disclaimer says "commentary on the work in question" is considered fair use, but that "Any other uses of this image ... might be copyright infringement." (emphasis and elision added). Because I was discussing what the title means, I believe that my use on the ref desk was fair use. I don't care about this instance, but I want to clarify for if/when this type of thing happens again. I've read the disclaimer several times. While it might seem to be implying that you can only use the image on the artwork's article page, that is not what it actually says. SemanticMantis (talk) 20:46, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I'll admit I'm not an expert in fair-use policy. During the past years I saw at least two images I had posted myself being removed for the same reasons (albeit these were different kinds of images: one was an album cover from the 1970s, one was a current company logo), and I thought I was doing the right thing. But I do hate removing stuff other people posted not only in good faith, but in the best spirit of the reference desks. I certainly won't oppose reposting the image, though I will ask Angr to weigh in, as he is quite familiar with the language desk as well as with how to handle non-free content. ---Sluzzelin talk 22:50, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Per WP:NFCC#9, "Non-free content is allowed only in articles (not disambiguation pages), and only in article namespace, subject to exemptions." The exemptions do not appear to apply to the reference desks, so displaying the image (as opposed to linking to it, which is fine) is a violation of our Nonfree Content Policy, regardless of whether it's a violation of U.S. copyright law. Angr (talk) 23:02, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for the clarification! SemanticMantis (talk) 03:16, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, well put. As in some other areas, WP has decided to take a more stringent line than is required. For example, how many other websites do you know that would bother listing the use licenses for stuff like the little-bitty icons we use on the RefDesk main page? Not too many... Matt Deres (talk) 21:43, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Race & Genetics/Intelligence questions.

We've been getting an unusually large number of questions about race and genetics or intelligence or whatever recently. It's beginning to seem like there is some POV pushing going on. Any thoughts? SteveBaker (talk) 14:48, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Let's put off any Inquisition until after the questions are answered. They're not actually so obvious - there's a great mystery behind the equality of race. However legally convenient it may be, how can we explain the evolution of the human mind when nowhere in the world can somebody come up with an island or valley of people who are incapable of working mathematics but can write a great song, or vice versa? Let the curiosity continue - I'm hoping someone will dig up something truly interesting to throw in.

Not sure if this is related, but there have been some stories in the last few weeks about coccidioidomycosis,[15] a bizarrely racist disease that led to a recent order to move some vulnerable prisoners in California. Wnt (talk) 21:20, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

The fact the disease is confined largely to certain ethnic groups doesn't make the disease "racist" but rather "race-specific" (using "race" in a rather loose way). And being vulnerable to a particular disease doesn't make that race "inferior" in some way, but only "different". The genetic disorder called Sickle cell anemia comes to mind, as something that's a problem in general, but it's actually helpful to those who live in malaria-prone areas, as it enables the individual to resist the disease better. So if a white guy and a black guy go to such an area, and they both get bit by malaria mosquitoes, and the white guy dies and the black guy recovers, does that mean the black race is "superior"? No, just "different" - locally fitted to an environment. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:39, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Did I say otherwise? I don't base my political opinions on what some crummy borderland fungus has to say. Wnt (talk) 21:43, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Techicality: You called a disease "racist". There's no such thing. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:40, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

I only skimmed the articles you linked to, but didn't see anything about race. Could you elaborate? Matt Deres (talk) 21:48, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

The disease affects Filipinos at something like 4x the frequency of whites, and blacks nearly that - it's almost comparable to the difference between AIDS and uninfected. And it's a disease that comes in spores from the air, which for some reason tend to get inhaled by prisoners in their cells even more often than by the general population of the region, which means that you have about as well-controlled an experiment in human exposure to pathogens as it is possible to construct. Wnt (talk) 21:43, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

An easy solution is to tell the OP to search our archives and come back if he has any questions. I suspect half the question we get are intentional chain pullers. I regret having effectively reopened the recent video question with comment that the first 20 minutes weren't self-evidently problematic. μηδείς (talk) 22:10, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree that "don't feed the troll" is generally a good plan - but it's not working out. Today's pointlessly repetitive question in this series was answered by several regulars. SteveBaker (talk) 02:25, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, little point in blaming the beasts when negligent zookeepers leave the doors unlocked and enjoy feeding them their favorite intoxicants. μηδείς (talk) 03:09, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Well, you have to balance WP:DNFT against WP:AGF. Asking a similar/repetitive question is not necessarily trolling, in my book. For instance, we regularly get weird questions about black holes and dark matter, and other related arcane physics. I usually just skip it all, but I'm not about to suggest that our respondents are feeding trolls, simply because they are popular/common types of questions. I'm not sure which question you're referring to above, but I saw nothing trollish in this recent question about human genetics/race [16]. I was happy to AGF an possibly help the OP. I actually think that questions beget questions here, and I think maybe that OP was just trying to sort out the science. If he was inspired by recent, poorly phrased, and trollish questions, why should I care? SemanticMantis (talk) 18:43, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

I think you'd get a better idea of the problem if you looked at threads that were hatted as requesting opinion or so forth, and were then reopened with the excuse that they were "interesting" (i.e., my answer was interesting), or that if the OP had actually asked something else (but he didn't) there wouldn't have been a problem, only to see the OP eventually blocked as a troll or a sock. The ref desks are plagued by a ridiculous number of single purpose (look at today's unsigned contributors) or trolling accounts, and the only reason for that is that regulars and admins don't put a stop to it. μηδείς (talk) 19:48, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Note for example, this thread http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Humanities&diff=563439777&oldid=563439585 created by a "new" Ańotede whose "first act as a wikipedia user is to creat a sophisticated question at the ref desk, image included, and who, when hatted at the consensus of myself and hilo is defended by Osman who claims to know what the OP really was asking. μηδείς (talk) 23:20, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

The question as asked is unanswerable and was appropriately boxed up. Osman's re-invention of his "friend's" question comes closer to being answerable. As to whether it's truly the editor's first edit, I can assure you it was not. Oh, no. His first edits were to his user pages, to prevent them being redlinks. Something that would occur to every newbie. Ja, shoor, yoo betcha. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:23, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Also, Ańotede (talk · contribs)'s only edit since was a trolling comment on a random article. AGF! AGF! ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?}carrots→ 00:28, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

That question has nothing to do with race or genetics (the topic of this thread), so I'm not sure why you bring it up here. I was mostly asking Steve Baker what question he was referring to, though I suspected it might have been the one I linked. As for "single purpose" accounts, I do not share your concern. We don't have any rule that says "you cannot create an account solely to ask questions on the ref desks." To the contrary, recent discussions here have lead me to believe that the community encourages posters to make accounts, or else be branded as "trolls" who dare to sign edits with IP only. I myself made many edits and posts as an IP before I made an account. I am very glad nobody accused me of being too savvy when I got an account, and made some edits that demonstrated familiarity with WP tools and techniques. SemanticMantis (talk) 02:34, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

That's not exactly correct. You need to read Wikipedia:Sock puppetry and see what the restrictions are on multiple accounts. And if you made sincere edits while still editing as an IP, you wouldn't likely be labeled a troll. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:33, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Right, we have rules about using multiple accounts used for an "improper purpose" -- but that doesn't say anything about having a single account, that is only used to participate on the ref desk. I'm sure you know that, but I wanted to set the record straight. SemanticMantis (talk) 15:56, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

You can make a single account to edit as much or as little as you want to. Or you can remain as an IP. Creating multiple accounts for different purposes can be a bad thing. IP-hopping also can be a bad thing. It all depends on what you're doing, or not doing. But when a new account shows up and goes right into questionable behavior, it sends up a flare. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:43, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Right, but edits should be judged on their own merits (unless the editor has actually been banned). That an editor is unregistered should never, in itself, be a reason to question the bona fides of an editor. And that an account is used solely to ask ref desk questions should never, in itself, be a reason to question the bona fides of an editor. But so often, that's all some people need to know before they jump on an editor. To them, unregistered editor = troll, and single-purpose account = troll. And that is garbage. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 23:01, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Maybe you missed the edit the guy made to a wrestling talk page. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:13, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was not moved. --BDD (talk) 17:07, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reference desk → Wikipedia:Answer Desk – Ok, it seems pretty clear that pretty much nothing is going to come of the RFC. As i said when I opened it, that's ok, at least the discussion was had. However, there was almost no discussion of simply renaming it to better reflect how it actually works. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:48, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Frankly, in hindsight I wish I had thought of this from the beginning. Sometimes it takes an RFC that doesn't really accomplish anything to see an easier solution that could alleviate the underlying concern without upsetting a bunch of people. It seems to me to be a "have your cake and eat it too" solution. Refdesk is the same as it always was, we just don't call it that anymore. So, just to be abundantly clear, this would not change any aspect of how the refdesk works in any way. The rules would be exactly as they are now, just on a page with a different name. In this way we alleviate the main concern behind the RFC, that this isn't really a reference desk, without changing the way it actually works. Sigh. It seems so obvious now. What do you say everyone, keep it exactly the way it is, just don't imply that referencing is always being used to formulate answers. Sounds good to me! Beeblebrox (talk) 19:48, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose This is a question of semantics, so that is the focus of my response: I think "Answer desk" would evoke superficial sites on the web that provide low-quality answers without reference to reliable sources; in contrast, the current name evokes the seriousness of the library reference desk, and serves as a reminder that providing references is an important aspect of answering. -- Scray (talk) 20:03, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose, and agree with Scray's reasoning. I too would like to see more refs posted at the ref desk, so I post/provide them when I can. SemanticMantis (talk) 20:33, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

(Also, take a look at the RD/S today. Almost all of the answers since July 2 have refs. There is at least one ref posted to every question in that range. There are a few responses that should/could have refs, but don't, and there are a few that don't need refs, because they are discussing previously ref'd responses. But don't say we don't provide refs!) SemanticMantis (talk) 21:54, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose "Answer" implies "anything goes". While the scrapping and silliness sometimes suggests that this is the standard we seek, it is not. The change in name would be at serious risk of changing the general approach, otherwise, why would we have done it? Bielle (talk) 20:54, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose At least with the current title, we still have obvious grounds to insist on references. I don't really see the point, otherwise. Mingmingla (talk) 23:01, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose We really do try to provide references in preference to answers. We don't always succeed - and some people ignore that mission statement - but it is an accurate description of what we are trying to do. SteveBaker (talk) 23:02, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
• I'm against this change of name for the same reasons mentioned above. I believe calling it "Answer Desk" would make it even more difficult to maintain a certain standard, which, as the request for comment has shown, is not that easy to uphold, let alone improve, as it is. ---Sluzzelin talk 23:05, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose: This would be taking the line of least resistance. Not always a bad thing, but definitely a bad thing if one's focus is on the maintenance of a particular standard. We are not just any old Internet site that alleges it can answer any question posed. We provide references for people to read and investigate so that they can find their own answers. The "answer", much less the "truth", is not our business here, and it would be folly to make it appear that it is. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 23:27, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose if it doesn't change anything, it doesn't change anything. The name itself is a good reminder that we're here to provide references, so changing the name actually works against that mission. Bad idea. --Jayron32 00:47, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
• Opose "Answer desk" is too general and undermines our gold standard which is to provide not just any old answers but answers that "refer to relevant Wikipedia articles, or otherwise cite reliable sources". Gandalf61 (talk) 10:08, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. We're not here to provide answers. We're here to try and provide references to answers. Dmcq (talk) 11:38, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
• Support. The name "Reference Desk" suggests we only provide references, but we try to do whatever is necessary to get questions aswered. For some subjects, giving references is the best way to address a question but for other subjectes, particularly the hard sciences, this doesn't usually work. If a student is stuck in the middle of a complicated calculation, giving references is usually irrelevant as the student already has the textbook and the lecture notes. The student needs step by step help that we can and do provide here. While everything we do is based on the contents of textbooks, the problem is usually interpreting and using the information you can find there. Count Iblis (talk) 16:24, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose - "Answer Desk" would imply that all questions will always get an answer; which is hardly the case (though we try.) The Refdesk may not be a Library reference desk, but it's still the Wikipedia reference desk. The name doesn't have to change just because not every answer includes a reference - it's still a reference desk. --Yellow1996 (talk) 16:53, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose I intended to say something similar on the RFC where a rename was suggested but never got around to it (partially because it became increasingly clear that my projection early on was right and nothing much useful was coming from that RFC so I couldn't be bothered to pile on). But since this came up here, it seems many others are basically in agreement anyway. I'm opposed to a rename in general and this proposed rename in particlar as I feel the reference part is a helpful reminder that we are not simply an answer service and it's not unresonable to expect people to provide references when there is dispute as happens occassionally, and when answering in general whenever they can. This proposal particularly conflicts with that and would seem to suggest people shouldn't feel the need to provide references. In addition to answers, in terms of questions the proposed title would seem to imply any question goes but while we do tolerate to so e degree questions which don't have much of a chance of having references like personal advice questions, there is frequently objection when people feel it's going too far. I would consider other proposals for renames if they are really better but I don't consider the current title a bad one, in fact it seems fairly decent and while we're obviously not a library reference desk, as most or all participants in the RFC woth experience said, we're evidently not that far off as much as the concept transfers to a place like here. So I'm not really sure what a better title would be. Nil Einne (talk) 23:25, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose The proposed change would be detrimental, in that it suggests there is no need to refer questioners to relevant articles, or to guide them to reliable sources outside Wikipedia, as is commonly done today. Edison (talk) 03:06, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose, but It's a conversation that needed to happen, if only to explore and reject another possibility. "Answer desk" will encourage unreferenced answers and would sound, to those who want to see the RD vanish, even less relevant to their view of what Wikipedia should be doing and thus harder to justify. This constant self-questioning and scrutiny does seem to make us up our game though. SemanticMantis is right that there has been a good crop of useful, well-referenced answers lately and some nice teamwork to keep disruption to a minimum. -Karenjc 20:49, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Just when you thought we were doing well, the pendulum swings the other way...this, too, shall pass. -- Scray (talk) 11:20, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Me and my big mouth - Karenjc 21:03, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose. The proposal seems WP:POINTy to me, proposed by the originator of the RFC and based on the same false premises that something serious has gone wrong with the ref desks and a false, over restrictive, view of what the desks are here for. Sussexonian (talk) 05:11, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.