Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/Archive 126

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 120←Archive 124Archive 125Archive 126Archive 127Archive 128→Archive 130

Futurist110's "fears of fatherhood questions" getting worse

heat has far exceeded light in this discussion. In the future, abide by the following procedure to avoid this silliness. If someone does something you don't like, step 1) tell them on their user talk page, explain in polite terms what the problem is, and politely ask them to stop. I hope that long process is not too complicated. Ban discussions are a LAST RESORT when all other avenues have been exhausted. Never start a ban discussion as a first attempt to solve a problem. --Jayron32 02:51, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

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.

Look, others have commented that many of Futurist110's questions seem to show some sort of pathological dread of ending up fathering a kid who, heaven forbid, he needs to support. Even having a vasectomy does not reassure him. The mere thought of the possibility of him fathering a child he needs to support, however remote, seems to drive him into some state of terror.

Now, personally, I was willing to tolerate questions like this, even though they were a symptom of this issue of his. But now we have this and this. The issue seems to be getting worse, can or should we do something about it? Is there some way we can "topic-ban" Futurist110 from asking any questions relating to his "fatherhood fears"? (I would define that possibly as any questions involving topics of sterilization or child support?) We obviously cannot solve his issue. Note many contributors suggesting he get psychological help. Obviously, him doing so is his job, not ours, but the questions issue still needs to be dealt with.

He does occasionally ask questions unrelated to this particular issue of his, such as this, which I am perfectly happy to answer. What do others think? My stature here on Wikipedia is very low - does anyone with more expertise have any opinions or suggestions? Shall we hat all questions of his which deal with this "fatherhood dread" issue of his? Or some other approach? What do the more experienced users think? Eliyohub (talk) 13:00, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes; correct! After all, if I only consent to sex with a woman on the ?condition that she will not hunt me down for child support afterwards, then hunting me down for child support anyway would certainly be a case of her swindling me and absolutely nothing more than that! :( Frankly, government-sanctioned swindling certainly pisses me off like crazy! :( Futurist110 (talk) 20:15, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
Of course not; after all, even vasectomy doctors themselves certainly don't have full confidence in their own shitty surgeries! :
https://np.reddit.com/r/legaladvice/comments/3x86il/would_a_written_promise_by_a_doctor_to_pay_all_of/ Futurist110 (talk) 20:15, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
If it's an unwanted child, then Yes, absolutely! :( Futurist110 (talk) 20:15, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
So, you want to topic-block me? :( Futurist110 (talk) 20:15, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
We don't need to discuss reproductive strategy here
Well, how about you tell me how exactly I should both get my entire reproductive tubing surgically removed and get the attention of politicians and judges so that they make our child support laws more reasonable and less extreme, eh? Futurist110 (talk) 20:15, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
How does being compelled to take responsibility for your actions "extreme"? And by the way, vasectomies work. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 10:49, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
Baseball Bugs, I am no psychologist, and I have never met Futurist110 in person, but the impression I get is that this is not about any logical fears. I could refer him to Vasectomy#Efficacy, but I highly doubt it will make the slightest difference. The stated rate of post-Vasectomy pregnancy, when performed by a competent surgeon, is, according to one study, 0.07% - but for those with his mindset, this would still be too high, I suspect. Eliyohub (talk) 13:13, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
Also, please let me make this crystal-clear: I will treat any (hypothetical) unwanted child of mine as if I am a sperm donor ... specifically an extremely resentful sperm donor who is currently getting swindled with the help of our government for 18+ years! Futurist110 (talk) 20:16, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
Why don't you just refrain from having sex? I myself have been consciously celibate for about a decade, because I feel "the game is not worth the candle", as the saying goes. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.12.94.189 (talk) 20:44, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
If abstinence works for you, great! However, it certainly doesn't work for me over the long(er)-run. Futurist110 (talk) 22:08, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
Practical advice futurist110, if you feel such terror at the thought of fathering a child, stick to dating post-menopausal women, zero risk of pregnancy. But what do others think of the concerns I am raising about this problem, and these ever more extreme questions? I do think Futurist110 would be better off taking these specific types of questions elsewhere, they are starting to get absurd, IMHO. See the examples I linked to about castration and self-harm. He is otherwise a valuable contributor to Wikipedia, from what I can see, but this is an issue. What do other, more experienced editors think? Can we gain some consensus? Is my concern unreasonable? Eliyohub (talk) 20:58, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
In regards to your menopausal women advice, no can do; after all, I am most of all attracted to fertile/pre-menopausal cis-women. Futurist110 (talk) 22:08, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
Well, that makes evolutionary sense. What we perceive as attractiveness is ultimately an assessment of fertility. So, in the words of a probably-no-longer-fertile 900-year-old male, "Do it. Do it. Or do it not." And stop worrying about it in our space. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:22, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
Exactly the issue, he's attracted to "fertile/pre-menopausal" women, yet dreads even the remotest chance that he'll get one pregnant, and need to support the child. Eliyohub (talk) 13:12, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
There is one ancient and widely read account of post-menopausal pregnancy. (You may choose to view it, along with the rest of the book, as myth.) Robert McClenon (talk) 21:06, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
I am inclined to recommend a topic-ban. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:06, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
Would I still be able to talk about this topic on other users' talk pages, though? Futurist110 (talk) 22:09, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
I would think not. Please see WP:NOTSOCIALNETWORK and WP:NOTTHERAPY. There are 100s to 1000s of places on the web where you can post whatever your want. Please avail yourself of them. MarnetteD|Talk 22:37, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
@Nil Einne: and @Jayron32:, both of you are experienced Wikipedians, I gather, and have answered such questions - what do you think we should do? I'm inexperienced in policy matters of this sort. I don't think answering the sorts of questions dealing with sending your testicles to a judge, or self harming in front of your child, will in any way deal with the underlying issue causing Futurist110 to ask such questions. So what action should we take? He seems to do a lot of other valuable work on Wikipedia, but his fixation with this fear is never-ending. Will we have to deal with such questions for years to come? What do you two think? Does Wikipedia have any mechanism for "community imposed topic bans", and if yes, what does policy say about imposing one in this sort of situation? Eliyohub (talk) 00:48, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
Probably by 80.5 remembering one or more of the times, due to relevance to a query and answer, that I've indicated my approximate age, which is currently 60. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.12.94.189 (talk) 21:17, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
We don't need to debate paternity laws here
  • Comment There is a recorded case of a woman who had sex with a man who discarded the condom. The woman picked it up, inseminated herself and a pregnancy resulted. Would the usual liability on a man to maintain his children apply here? 86.143.179.115 (talk) 12:37, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
Please someone hat this comment, it's irrelevant to the discussion at hand. Last thing we want to do is further fuel Futurist110's fears about how he could end up being liable for child support. (I say this without offering any opinion as to actual liability in this situation, it's just not what this discussion is about. If you want an answer, I suggest you research the outcome of the case in this respect). Eliyohub (talk) 13:03, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
Done. ApLundell (talk) 15:18, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
  • As the original proposer, I Support topic ban as per the terms suggested by Ian.thomson ("reproductive questions, be they biological, legal, or social"). These are specifically limited to the issue at hand, and should not affect Futurist110's ability to continue his work on Wikipedia, or even to ask questions about other unrelated topics on the refdesks. This issue of his around fatherhood fears is simply not one for us to deal with (it will never end, as it's not logical), and I'm surprised nobody seems to have suggested something be done about it before. Others have replied to past questions around fatherhood fears of Futurist110 by suggesting he should be seeing a therapist, but nobody seems to have suggested taking action to stop such questions. The latest batch, which, as I've mentioned, involve self-harming in the presence of one's child, or cutting off one's testicles and sending them to the judge who orders him to pay child support, have clearly crossed the line for me. We need to put a stop to this, he needs to take it elsewhere. (Personally, perhaps Psychforums would have members who would understand him, and be able to help?) The rest of his Wikipedia work does not seem problematic to my knowledge, just this one issue of his, which clearly requires skills we don't have, and things we don't do, in order to deal with. "Get professional help" seems to be the consensus answer when he asks these types of questions. @Robert McClenon: can you submit a formal vote a well, as per your earlier stated intentions to support this proposal? And @MarnetteD:, I suspect you'll vote "support" too, but whichever way, would appreciate your view. Also, both of you that I've pinged, are Ian's proposed terms of the topic-ban appropriate to deal with the issue? Personally, I think they're perfect, just asking if you have any input. Eliyohub (talk) 13:03, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Also, as a comment, my ideal outcome would be for Futurist110 himself to voluntarily agree to take questions of this nature ("reproductive questions, be they biological, legal, or social") elsewhere in the future (as in, not Wikipedia), so we can mark this "resolved", and move on. I don't like drama. Futurist110, any chance of you indulging us on this? Honestly, we can't help, and this isn't the place. I'm sure you can find other corners of the web to migrate your questions on these issues instead. Eliyohub (talk) 15:22, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Is sending one's deceased testicles (as a gift) to someone illegal?
...What the actual fuck? This is either intentional trolling or bald faced idiocy and neither is a valuable use of our time. Support topic ban. This should not require a lengthy debate, where the user patently ignores the issues being raised by other editors and repeatedly hijacks the thread so he can talk about his cock. Letting this thread continue only feeds the obvious troll. TimothyJosephWood 16:52, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
Don't think it's either trolling or idiocy, more like insanity ("mental health issues" would be the modern politically correct way of putting it). Still, we need to put a stop to it. As per Wikipedia convention, how many more "support" votes do we need before I can ask WP:AN/I to accept that there is "consensus" here, and notify the user of their intent to enforce the topic ban? Eliyohub (talk) 17:49, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
I have posted a link to this discussion on ANI to solicit input from uninvolved editors. For future reference, if a discussion is explicitly about user misconduct and/or is seeking community sanctions, it should probably take place on ANI in its entirety, that or a related noticeboard like WP:ANEW, WP:COIN, etc. TimothyJosephWood 18:38, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

It has been suggested that this conversation should be continued here : Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Reference_desk_discussion — Preceding unsigned comment added by ApLundell (talk • contribs) 19:05, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Certainly issues with disruptive behaviour can be taken to ANI, but I'm not sure how much support you're going to get for a community sanction. What community policy has this user truly violated, after-all? None that I can see, and ANI admins and contributors are going to want proof of something along those lines, or else they are likely to point out (as some have here) that people routinely submit inquiries here that seem very bizarre indeed to the outside observer, and we usually do not engage in an analysis of their motivations.

The problem here, insofar as I can see, is not with the OP (who I agree is maybe a troll but more likely struggling with mental health issues. But I'll direct everyone's attention to the fact that each of his questions (at least with regard to those discussed here), contains a medical and/or a legal question, and should have been hatted immediately. Nevermind the fact that the OP attempts to get around this roadblock by saying it's not a legal/medical question--each clearly requests legal and/or medical insight on a highly fact-specific matter which is very relevant to their express concerns (notice in one case, Futurist says, in effect, "I hope to never to be in this situation", meaning he clearly is asking the question because he potentially could be in that position. This is more than enough cause to close down the discussion before the first response. But unfortunately, the same problem which underlays all of the RefDesk's biggest headaches comes to the surface here: we have some users who are so obsessive-compulsive about responding to every possible, because they want to always be the person with the answers or just don't take WP:NOTAFORUM seriously enough, that they look at the OP's "this is not a legal/medical question" disclaimer as all the greenlight they need to go full steam ahead, tossing the RefDesk's own rules straight out the window.

Which is a problem if you want to take this to ANI, because there are no community-wide behavioural policies that I can think of which prohibit Futurist's questions (at least none that would not prevent most other good-faith questions which would be disallowed on Wikipedia in general but are considered appropriate because of the unique role of this space), only our own local policies--the advisories at the top of the page. But it's not just Futurist ignoring those mandates alone--it's every single editor who responded to those questions, or responded to the responses, rather than just shutting the whole thing down as soon as the legal/medical issue was obvious. So getting a topic ban for just the one user is going to be tough (and arguably unfair). And even if we succeed, what then? We just wait for the same problem to crop up with another user whose personal obsession touches on legal and medical questions. The users that need to be targeted here in order to get any kind of longterm resolution to the issue are not these obsessed individuals--I assure you, they will keep coming as long as there is a RefDesk. The solution is to change the culture of expectations from our own regulars, such that this impulse to so lightly set aside our own guidelines in a rush to answer a question is not tolerated. The solution to keeping insects out of your house at night is not to "House Ban" every individual moth and gnat....you get a screen door (we've done that) and if someone keeps leaving it open, you make sure they stop (we've been less accomplished at that). Snow let's rap 19:20, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

The basic problem is this. The reference desks have decided to create their own set of rules, and the administrators have decided to ignore them, thus leaving us toothless. Contrast this with the help desk, which follows Wikipedia's rules and gets all the help they need from the admins at ANI. Until we address this basic error and give up our custom rules, we will never solve our troll problem. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:35, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
True. One of the biggest issues was that a number of the "regulars" here don't actually contribute to the Ref Desk in the manner for which it was intended, instead offering anecdotal evidence or plain opinion. This has become endemic and now the Ref Desks are a place "not to go" to get the answers, hence they are regularly trolled by both vandals and regular users alike. It's a bit like the wild west, and it's not getting better, nor will it until some of the pointless responses and responders are excised. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:48, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
Agreed, but it's clear that one or two TBANs would be required, and I don't see that happening. No matter how many times it's said, no matter in how many different ways, no matter by how many editors, those users are never going to get that the desks are not a place to hang out and engage in forum-like discussions. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:34, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
Well it's up to people like you (who still appear to have an iota of faith in the ref desks) to kick this behaviour out. Or else consign them to history, mark them as "historic". Call out the disruptive users, hold them to task. Save the project. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:00, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
To be clear, I'm speaking of one or two regulars, who have been "called out" countless times to no effect. If regulars won't use the desks appropriately I certainly don't expect anyone else to. I don't think this Futurist is a regular, unless there has been a username change. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:18, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Snow Rise: Which is a problem if you want to take this to ANI I'm pretty sure WP:Disruptive editing applies to the reference desk. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:17, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

And I'm pretty sure you've entirely missed my point. The question is not whether ANI is an appropriate venue for disruptive editing that takes place here. I stipulated that in the very first sentence of my post. The question is whether the TBAN (or any other sanction proposed here) is likely to be validated by the community at ANI. In part because of the issues raised by Guy and TRM above, I suspect it will not. The issue is that we can't just enforce idiosyncratic standards about who is going "too far off topic", when the fact of the matter is, as TRM correctly points out, that's a daily order of business here, as certain regulars routinely flout WP:NOTAFORUM to provide unsourced (and often unsourceable) opinion and wild speculation in answer to questions, or just veer off into random attenuated discussions about whatever. This desk was meant to provide references (the hint is in the name) to help people resolve their inquiries themselves, not an open forum to discuss any topic casually and scratch the ego-building itch of those who want to position themselves as AnswerMan/Woman, no matter how ill-prepared they are to respond to most of the inquiries they do, mostly without a single ref to back up their wandering commentary.
Now I differ from Guy on one small detail (while agreeing with his broader point): the no legal/medical advice provision is just plain good practice. It insulates the project from liability and helps protect people who ask questions here from those who leap to answer with very limited capacity to do so safely. That danger is not so great on other project spaces, where WP:NOTAFORUM is enforced more strictly, but it is absolutely vital here where people are encouraged to ask open-ended questions and some of our regulars are more than willing to venture speculative answers when they should know better. And you can bet that some of those contributors would eagerly do so on medical/legal questions where they could cause someone harm, if not for that rule. And many project spaces do create their own rules guiding contributions for that specific page, so I don't see the harm in doing so here, provided said rule aligns with Wikipedia and WMF policy. That said, taking this matter to ANI and asking that this user be topic banned from a certain line of inquiry because he is being supposedly "disruptive" is going to invite a very obvious question from ANI regulars and the broader community: "What makes it so disruptive? It looks like people are asking random, bizarre questions there every day, and it looks like the RefDesk contributors routinely engage over these questions with long-winded speculation without a single reference being mentioned. What is the Wikipedia behavioural or content policy that you wish to invoke here today that demonstrates Futurist's behaviour is disruptive?" Snow let's rap 20:54, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
And I'm pretty sure you've entirely missed my point. You assume that I even bothered to read you whole comment. I didn't. I came across a part of it that was obviously wrong and I commented on that.
What is the Wikipedia behavioural or content policy that you wish to invoke... Could you go back and quote to me where I said this guy should face sanctions? I seem to have completely forgotten saying anything to that effect... Oh wait, stop! I just remembered: I don't care. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:22, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
You implied that I said WP:Disruptive editing doesn't apply to RefDesks. I corrected you by pointing out that I didn't say or imply that in any way, shape or form. End of story. Snow let's rap 21:59, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
Except that's exactly what you did: Which is a problem if you want to take this to ANI, because there are no community-wide behavioural policies that I can think of which prohibit Futurist's questions (at least none that would not prevent most other good-faith questions which would be disallowed on Wikipedia in general but are considered appropriate because of the unique role of this space), only our own local policies--the advisories at the top of the page. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:33, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
Absolutely none of which is equivalent to saying "WP:Disruptive editing doesn't apply to RefDesks." Saying "be sure to have your ducks in a row when you do X" is not the same as saying "don't do X". You seem to have completely misinterpreted (in fact, reversed) my argument. Perhaps you should read an entire post before you leap to criticize it in broad terms? I'm not saying WP:Disruptive doesn't apply to the RefDesks or that ANI isn't the place to discuss sch disruption. In fact, my arguments hinge on saying the exact opposite of that. You read part of my comments (by your own admission), got an incomplete/flawed understanding of what I was advocating for and then went gung-ho on a terse reply. Slow your roll, please; you are deeply misunderstanding my stance. Snow let's rap 02:48, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
Oh, I understand exactly what your stance is. I've just strongly implied that it doesn't match your words, and I think it's pretty obvious that some of those words were just plain wrong. I was literally trying to help, because you seemed to be looking for an answer to your question ("what policy vio can this guy be accused of that applies here?") and I happened to have that answer off the top of my head. When I did go back and thoroughly read your entire comment, nothing in it changed the meat of that point, which was that you asserted that this guy hasn't done anything which could be construed as a violation of policy, since the helpdesk is handled differently than other wikispaces. I understand how that contributed to your large point of advocating for broader reforms to the way this space is managed. But the way you phrased it left it resting upon a false assumption, and by providing an answer to that assumption I thought I could help you make a better case for advocating for broader reforms. Instead, you seemed to take it as an attack, as if I were specifically disagreeing with your main point, and proceeded to go on the attack, arguing against a position which I never stated. Let me offer you a tip: In the future, the phrase "Okay, I could have phrased that better," or "Sorry, I was trying to say..." or even "Well, yeah, but that doesn't change my point which is..." would go over a lot better than reacting argumentatively to a comment like mine. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:33, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
Please, I'm not going to go in circles with you anymore on the question of whether my post was vague on whether you completely misinterpreted what I was advocating for because you rushed to a conclusion or I was vague in how I phrased things (though I will say it's pretty damn bold of you to take a hardline on that question when you made a point of saying that you didn't even both to read the whole post before you responded). And don't try to posture me as someone who made an incongruent statement and then couldn't handle a request for clarification. You made no such request; you used a passive aggressive "I'm pretty sure that..." comment to put words in my mouth that any casual observer would see was not even remotely close to what I actually said--had they bothered to read the full post. Which you didn't. Indeed, even if you had read the first sentence without pre-assumed assumption, you would have seen I was saying the opposite of what you claim I said. And I was perfectly civil in responding thereafter too, but you seem to have to keep revisiting this in such a way that you succeed in promoting the notion that you were in no way responsible for misunderstanding my comments, despite going out of your way to make a dismissive comment about having read only a small portion of my post... I leave my fellow editors to draw their own conclusions on who actually lost the plot here, if any of them care. But unless you have an actual substantive question about my position here, this line of discussion has ceased to be useful to the matter at hand, so respectfully, let's be done with it. Snow let's rap 03:19, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
I general give a lot of leeway on the refdesks, but isn't there a point where persistent questions of this sort cross the line, as Ian.thomson said, into WP:NOTHERE territory, or one those characteristics listed thereunder? Besides, we shouldn't be answering questions driven by mental issues, which require professional help. Eliyohub (talk) 21:06, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
I'm skeptical of using WP:NOTHERE as a guide in these circumstances. Because the truth is that the vast, vast majority of inquiries made here are never used to improve the encyclopedia (which is what NOTHERE concerns); almost all of the inquiries come from a place of curiosity or other personal interest, and while the questions do sometimes lead regulars here to spot errors or shortcomings in our articles which they then correct, that is certainly the case only with a very small minority of RefDesk threads. So, the problem with invoking that provision against any one editor is that most of the RefDesk activity could be fairly classified as WP:NOTHERE. Now I'd reluctantly support a rule that said that all inquiries must be at least tangentially related to editorial work (I hate that it's come to that, but the lack of self-restraint in some of our fellow contributors here make it an attractive option at this point). Or, perhaps more pragmatic, a condition that all assertions made in RefDesk responses require sourcing (same as would occur in article space). But until such rules exist, I don't see the NOTHERE argument going over well at ANI, given it would seem we are picking and choosing when it applies based on idiosyncratic standards, not community policy. Snow let's rap 21:19, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
I'm not sure this requires a thesis or an opinion on the grand scheme of the ref desks. We have a user who is asking about very possibly illegal behavior, appears to be in the habit of soliciting medical and legal advice, and doesn't seem to care that others have taken issue with that as inappropriate. If you want to affect the grand scheme of the ref desks, you do it by addressing individual trolls and telling them to WP:SODOFF. TimothyJosephWood 21:24, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
Two big and interconnected problems with that. First, there will always be another troll/genuinely deranged person to come along and exhibit these behaviours. Second, admins are not going to help us enforce our topic bans if we can't supply them with reasons which comport with general policy as vetted by the broader community. As Guy pointed out, our idiosyncratic rules are generally not going to be seen as legitimate community-sanctioned reasons to block someone, especially given how inconsistently they are applied. We may get lucky on this one, maybe not, but why not address the underlying issues instead and position the desks to avoid these matters altogether, while streamlining the process for blocking legitimate trolls by bringing it line with the broader policies of this project? Snow let's rap 21:34, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
I agree that most stuff on the refdesks is unrelated to article improvement. What I meant is, go read NOTHERE, it lists specific problematic behaviours and attitudes. No mention of "article improvement", just generally problematic behaviours and agendas. Do none of those apply here to what Futurist is doing with these sorts of persistent questions? Eliyohub (talk) 21:26, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
Maybe, but you'd have to tell me which provisions you think would, because none of them stands out as a smoking gun to me (or distinguish how Futurist's inquiries are disruptive, where other personal inquiries are not). And whether the exact phrase "content improvement" is used or not, the full title of WP:NOTHERE is "Clearly not being here to build an encyclopedia", so I'd say it is very much focused on the issue of whether an editor is ultimately here for that purpose. WP:NOTNOTHERE provides some further guidance. Again, just for clarity, I'm not making the argument for whether Futurist is or is not NOTHERE; I'm just pointing out that, if we invoke NOTHERE in this instance, non-RefDesk regulars at ANI or other community spaces are going to ask the very pointed question of why we want to designate Futurist as NOTHERE, when there is so much other random discussion and participation in is not so-classified, despite also never going towards improving the article. Snow let's rap 21:45, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
I don't think NOTHERE is applicable, since a NOTHERE ban should probably never result in anything less that an indefinite block. If there is a systemic issue, you address it like you do everything else. There will always be vandals, and you deal with them by blocking them as they arise, not by deferring action until some messianic policy proposal is formulated that will end vandalism forever. TimothyJosephWood 22:10, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
We're more in agreement there than you seem to assume. NOTHERE doesn't apply to this case really (or if it does, it applies to a great portion of other RefDesk activity and that issue must be addressed, rather than calling out just one editor because his posts happen to be a little creepy in addition to being NOTHERE to the same degree as those of many other contributors). But you're very vague when you say "If there is a systemic issue, you address it like you do everything else.". I'm not waiting for any kind of "messianic" new policy; I'm happy to accept an existing Wikipedia policy which clearly explains why Futirist's actions are disruptive, under established community consensus (not just "he creeps us out"). And to the extent that any such policy explanation is likely to impute a large number of contributions made by others in this space as well, it needs to be made consistent and applied equally to all users. My point is that we have two options here: create a new broad standard, or apply the old broad standards equally. I have not seen any policy argument anywhere in this thread which shows me that there is community consensus for treating Futurist differently from other editors where they exhibit the same behaviours, simply because we are unsettled by his apparent obsession. Snow let's rap 22:35, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
The applicable guideline is WP:DISRUPT. The argument you are making is that because the ref desk is poorly enforced, it is de facto safe from enforcement, and it only serves to prop up the problem you yourself raise. TimothyJosephWood 00:01, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
WP:Disrupt is an umbrella principle. You still need to specify what behaviour the user engaged in and which specific behavioural or content policies it violates; if you doubt that, go to the ANI archives and see just how many successful calls for action there have been based on the assertion "This user has been disruptive!" with no further context or description of how they violated policy. You keep posturing your perspective as the "pragmatic" one, and seemingly suggesting the rest of us are just bureaucratic wikilayers who are overcomplicating what (to your mind) is a straightforward call. But there's nothing pragmatic about trying to get an editor sanctioned without a specific policy argument about specific behavioural violations, because no admin is going to block on a vague assertion of "disruptive", nor is the community going to apply a TBAN under those circumstances. That's not blind devotion to process, that's simply reality--if you want to talk about pragmatics. If you want to suggest specific policies that Futurist has supposedly violated as a means of proving he has been disruptive, and you want to apply them equally to all contributors, I'm all eyes. But I haven't seen those arguments yet anywhere in this discussion. Snow let's rap 02:09, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose topic ban until such a time that similarly disruptive and non-productive and non-encyclopedic edits from some regular ref desk "contributors" are addressed. Treat the causes, not the symptoms. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:35, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
We still need to decide about hatting such questions. Should we allow questions clearly driven by mental disturbance to stand? Eliyohub (talk) 21:41, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, just to clarify, are accusing an editor of having a "mental disturbance"? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:42, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
Oh, sorry, should have phrased things better. Sorry for the policy violat. I'll cop my first ever block if need be. But yes, when someone talks about chopping off their testicles and sending them to the judge who ordered them to pay child support, perhaps I did make that assumption. How do I atone for this? I am sorry. Eliyohub (talk) 21:49, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
No, it's fine, whatever someone else has said is all very well, but you are accusing another editor of having a "mental disturbance", yes? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:59, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
Mea Culpa, sorry, though note others expressing similar sentiments on this editor, I should have been more sensitive in my choice of words. Eliyohub (talk) 22:10, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
If those questions involve even the shade of a request for legal or medical advice, they should be hatted immediately, in my opinion, as inconsistent with the conditions clearly set out in the guidelines for this page. If they are merely questions which one finds indicative of a "disturbed" mind, editors should feel encouraged to ignore them, but they should not be removed unless they violate prohibitions found in our rules or in broader community consensus/policy. Again, I'd love it if we had rules that explicitly say that questions have to be tied to editorial work, since WP:NOTAFORUM is regularly abused here, but the fact of the matter is, we don't have those rules at present. Snow let's rap 21:54, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
It does feel that I unwittingly unleashed a can of worms with my original post. If Futurist posts any more "fatherhood fears" questions (assuming no medical or legal advice is requested), may I civilly reply by explaining to other contributors the history here, and why answering is pointless? Eliyohub (talk) 22:02, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
Well, context is everything, right? In most cases, I wouldn't call you out for it, but take that with a grain of salt--perspectives are likely to vary on this matter, as TRM's responses above suggests. It might be better to just ignore. Everyone is volunteering their time here and can choose which questions they think are worth answering, based on the merits of the question itself and what they know about the matter/what sources they can supply. Provided that there is no violation of the legal/medical advice proscription (even a small one) and Wikipedia policy broadly, I'm not sure the motivation matters all too much. Snow let's rap 22:10, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
Tu quoque does not appear to be a policy based argument against community sanctions. I don't really hang out at the ref desk, but it occurs to me that this argument doesn't appeal to a reform of the area at all, but rather reinforces it as a safe space for users to engage in behavior not at all connected with building an encyclopedia. TimothyJosephWood 22:04, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
Tu non quoque also seems to be an easy way to get out of a difficult situation. Deal with the problems, stop picking the low-hanging fruit. Your tacit acceptance of the ongoing issues with regulars at the Ref Desk is very much removed from how to build an encyclopedia, absolutely in conflict with how to manage a Ref Desk, completely at odds with creating and engendering a community. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:11, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
I happen to think that low hanging fruit is exactly the right place to start addressing a large problem. As an enlisted man, I have a bias toward solutions that are practical. TimothyJosephWood 00:36, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
Are you really certain that your approach is more practical? Is it really more pragmatic to play "whack-a-troll" and open an ANI thread every time someone displays an obsession here? Or does it make more sense to establish a standard wherein disruptive threads are immediately closed (per WP:DENY) when they violate policy or the RefDesk guidelines? Bearing in mind, of course, that this is not necessarily an either/or situation. Snow let's rap 02:36, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
I understand what you are getting at here, but remember that we have to work within the framework of broader Wikipedia policy, and apply said policy equally to all contributors. Can you clearly describe to me the behavioural/content policy argument under which Futurist should be topic banned for disruption, in a way that does not apply equally to any number of other activities that take place here for which contributors are not topic banned? If so, I can endorse; if not, I'll wait for broader rules which apply to everyone and solve the issue at its source. Snow let's rap 22:16, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
I do understand, from both a fairness and policy perspective, the need to apply rules consistently And yet... I suspect if we could remove the 10% of contributors who consistently cause the most issues, the problems would drop by 70% or more? Eliyohub (talk) 22:47, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
Sure, I agree. I'm just not sure that making a distinction between those two classes of editors is all that easy, given the current (and longstanding) state of affairs at the RefDesk. If you want an admin to block an editor or if you want to apply a TBAN, you need to prove that said editor has been WP:Disruptive. If you want to prove that an editor has been disruptive, you have to appeal to violations of other behavioural or content policies. I just haven't seen those arguments here. And to the extent that I can imagine said arguments taking this or that form, they very clearly apply just as equally to much of what goes on here as they do to Futurist. Myself, I'm happy to see our restriction on legal/medical requests/opinions strictly applied here. But it seems to me that the most efficient way to make sure that rule is applied is to make sure they regulars who routinely answer these questions (when they know the rule) begin to tow the line on an important principle. Because someone else will be along to do exactly what Futurist is doing in asking these questions, and admins will be skeptical of blocking those users too, while we allow regulars to continue to engage on the same matters.
In short, maybe your proposed solution of shutting down people who ask these questions will improve the situation. But enforcing our rule against medical/legal inquiries by closing threads that make them on sight will accomplish that same end much more absolutely, and will have the added benefit of making our calls for administrative action consistent with policy and with themselves, meaning admins will actually act to support us. But it will mean holding to account those regulars who don't want to follow that rule. Still, there are far less of them than there are trolls/vandals/those who just don't get out rules out there. Snow let's rap 23:05, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
I think it's a bit WP:pointed editing to resist all consensus until a comprehensive solution to all problems is devised and implemented.
But, I also don't think formal administrator-enforced bans are necessarily needed. If there was a consensus here that these posts are inappropriate, and should be stopped, likely the user would stop making them. (If he didn't, then that would be strong evidence of disruptive intent when it did eventually go to ANI, which is important, because involved admins tend to have difficulty seeing what is and is not disruptive in this strange little enclave of Wikipedia.) ApLundell (talk) 23:08, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose any sanction. Futurist seems to have an abnormal fixation on something, and I think he should get over it. But there are other Wikipedia editors who have fixations on other things ... there are a remarkable number of people who know more about railroading than I know about everything, and I like to think I know a lot. I would like to tell the pro wrestling editors no, just stop.... I'd rather have Futurist asking awkward questions than people starting awkward admin processes. Maybe one day he will invent a great new male contraceptive and show us all we were the puny minds. Wnt (talk) 23:38, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
And since this comment makes basically no sense, and even less of a point, it should probably be ignored. If this is emblematic of how the ref desk works, then it's even more reason to start fixing that with the task that is in front of us. TimothyJosephWood 23:52, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
There are people who come here to answer science questions, and there are people who come here to harangue us with strange reasons why some or all participants should be made afraid to speak. It is the latter who need to be ignored. Wnt (talk) 01:38, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
Excuse me if I'm wrong, but neither are the purpose of Wikipedia unless they relate to the improvement of the project. TimothyJosephWood 01:45, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
If the questions had been strictly what-if questions without the (too much) personal information, would they still be considered disruptive? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:48, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
Would it be any less a thinly veiled attempt at asking advice on committing the definitely illegal act of harassment against a government official?..not to mention the definitely illegal act of transporting an unmarked biohazard through the USPS? TimothyJosephWood 01:57, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
I would say that those particular items you cite are not appropriate ref desk questions. I'm talking more in general terms. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:24, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
Which is exactly why we need editors to take the restriction on asking for legal/medical advice more seriously here, and WP:DENY any discussion about such matters by closing the thread immediately. Snow let's rap 02:40, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
To be clear here, we're talking about an editor asking advice about cutting off his testicles and sending them in a package to a judge. If there is conceivably a less nuanced situation, I would love to be enlightened. TimothyJosephWood
OK guys enough - I'm sorry I started this mess, I withdraw my request for any topic banning of Futurist (though I hope that of his own understanding of our concerns, he voluntarily take questions driven by this problem of his elsewhere). It's clear that as things stand, we can do no more than enforce bans on discussion of legal or medical questions. Developing rules and policies to deal with questions of this sort in the future (from any editor) will take work - hard work. I accept Wnt's view about "awkward admin processes", and will look for other ways to deal with this instead. A discussion as to developing policy in this area is vital, IMHO, but I accept that as it stands, no policy exists. Sorry for starting a discussion which ended in such messy drama. At some point in the future, we need to discuss the general policy issues this matter has raised. Eliyohub (talk) 04:17, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
You may wish to share your decision to change approach at the ANI thread so that they know the party that first proposed the ban has rescinded their support for it for the time. Given discussion has only barely been touched upon there, the thread will likely be closed with no action if you do so, but no guarantee; ANI contributors may have already taken enough interest to keep the matter open. I tend to doubt it, though. Mostly the community doesn't push unless someone is really advocating for an action. Snow let's rap 06:54, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
  • I'm pretty disappointed in the tone of this entire discussion, and I'll simply say that if we make it our policy in practice to entertain and defend users who post about doing things that are illegal and potentially harmful, when we have even the slightest reason to take them seriously, then we are setting ourselves up to find diffs on a court transcript, because someone, at some point, is going to act on their impulses. The same goes for tolerating editors who actively solicit for medical and legal advice. That the subject may be bizarre just makes it a better story for the media.
The only correct response in such a situation is to advice editors to seek independent professional counseling from someone who is licensed or qualified in the applicable area in lieu of acting on any information, opinion, or advice contained in one of the Project websites, and to ensure that that is the end of the discussion, period. Any other course of action is wrong, and if we are wrong we need to fix ourselves. TimothyJosephWood 13:15, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
Can I clarify, are Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Guidelines and Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines (the first of these explicitly says the second applies too) the relevant rules here? Should we discuss of either needs updating or expanding to deal with these sorts of issues? Besides for the rules against legal and medical advice, they seem to be the only sources of guidance for "refdesk-specific" expectations. I know they're only guidelines, not policies, but it seems like they're all that we have to guide us as to this? The refdesk is quite a different place to the rest of Wikipedia, and yes, we need some clear minimum expectations. I know there is a lot of debate as to the exact boundaries of what is acceptable on the refdesk, but the guidelines should be a starting point, shouldn't they? As far as refdesk-specific guidance, they're all we've got, correct?, And nothing in the way of refdesk-specific policy (besides the legal and medical advice bans, which presumably apply to all of Wikipedia, it's just that the refdesk is where they become most practically pertinent)? Is this an issue that needs addressing? I, personally, do not want to see this kind of thing go on in the future. I'd like any questions of the sort which reasonably suggest the OP needs serious professional help (even if it's not "medical" or "legal" - though I consider mental health issues of this sort to fall under "medical") hatted immediately. Note the answers given to the questions, namely "you need help". We should hat such questions on that basis (with that given as the stated reason for the hatting), would you agree? Can guidelines be changed to allow this? Note this does not apply to Futurist alone, but also all others like him, both current and future. Hopefully, that would stop this kind of thing, without the need to take action against individual editors. Might this work as a "solution" to the general issue? Eliyohub (talk) 13:32, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Procedural notice: IBAN discussion needs to take place at ANI

Per WP:CBAN, any !vote about whether to subject Futurist to a TBAN should take place at ANI. Broader discussion about policy and how it applies to the RefDesks should stay here. Obviously we may need to refer to this recent incident to discuss broader principles, but be aware that your !vote on the community ban will probably only be taken into account if you voice it at ANI. Snow let's rap 02:26, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. ANI has been notified of this discussion, and notified that the continuation of this discussion here rather than there, is an invocation of WP:IAR. TimothyJosephWood 03:01, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
I'm not sure why you are citing WP:BURO at me over an action you initiated, but I am only placing this note here as a consequence of the discussion you started at ANI (which no one objects to). Per the discussion there and WP:CBAN, this is not an appropriate place for a TBAN discussion, and I assumed that was why you opened the discussion at ANI in the first place. That's not to say that anyone should feel compelled to repeat their perspective there, unless they choose to, but letting everyone know the state of affairs is appropriate... Snow let's rap 06:49, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
Note my comment above, where I aspired to exactly this outcome from this discussion - that Futurist voluntarily agree to cease and desist, and we could mark this matter "resolved". As it happens, I said the same on your talk page, when asking for your input. I don't know if anyone explicitly said "please stop asking these kinds of questions" before, but many pointed out that there was something wrong with his obsessions, quite a while back. Perhaps I should have explicitly put the request on his talk page to stop any such questions, though I don't know if it would have worked. I did point out on his talk page (before beginning this discussion) the pathological nature of his fears, as have others in responses to his questions. Perhaps I should have been more specific. It's just that his latest batch are a lot worse than the previous ones (see his edit history), so perhaps I was too hasty in raising the issue here, rather than asking him directly to cease and desist. But yes, if he agrees to take it elsewhere, the issue with him can be deemed "resolved". This discussion has progressed to other problematic refdesk contributors, but this is a separate issue. Eliyohub (talk) 19:03, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
  • I think this discussion ought to be viewed as Futurist110's warning that he's going to be discussed on ANI, and actual deliberation regarding bans or other sanctions be pursued there. We all need to drop the stick and decide as more experienced editors not to respond further to his questions on this topic. We're not allowed to advise him medically, and family planning is medical advice. There are other objections to indulging Futurist110 in discussions on this topic, and others have covered them, so I don't have to. Ignoring his further questions on this topic's the best course, because it deprives him of what he so obviously craves - attention of other editors. loupgarous (talk) 21:41, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
Putting him aside, there's the much tougher question discussed here of drawing up some sort of refdesk policy, so in future issues of this nature (involving other editors), steps can be taken. At the moment we have none, resulting in the desks being somewhat chaotic. AN/I admin says, none of the usual rules cover the desks, so they can't really do anything, we need to deal with it ourselves. (I got the perception that the admin thought the refdesks were an odd part of Wikipedia, and he may well be right). Note the mention above of to additional problematic contributors (long-term ones) who Mandrass feels need topic-banning. The lack of policy leaves us toothless, and admins can't enforce non-existent rules. Do we have anyone here who's willing to take the lead in policy development? I have absolutely zero experience in the area. I would prefer we start relatively minimalist, and we can build from there. Is this a possibility? Eliyohub (talk) 21:56, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
I'm afraid the Ref Desks are too engrossed in navel gazing, they do seem keen to protect their own, despite some of them offering very little other than personal opinion (oftentimes wrong), and that's resulted in the project being held in relative ridicule. You don't have to look far to find regular users who feel obliged to answer almost every question posed despite having no idea how to do so encyclopedically. Until this is corrected, there's no point in singling out the odd extreme user, you have a defunct project on your hands until you can create a genuine Reference Desk atmosphere. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:01, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
[Edit Conflict, inserted here as it's a direct response to the comment above] The Rambling Man, I broadly agree with your analysis (even though I myself am not infrequently guilty of being less than purely encyclopedic). However, somewhere in the extended discussion above, and not for the first time, the idea has been expressed that the RefDesks' primary purpose is to "improve the Project", i.e. the quality of articles on Wikipedia, and that queries and answer that do not contribute to this should not be here – WP:NOTHERE has been invoked.
Near the head of the RefDesk Project Page is this advice to users:
"The Wikipedia reference desk works like a library reference desk. Ask a question here and Wikipedia volunteers will try to answer it".
Neither this nor anything else on the page implies a purpose of "improving Wikipedia", and while improvements to articles do sometimes arise as a result of RefDesk exchanges, which is of course a good thing, it is scarcely surprising that most users take the advice at face value to ask factual (or sometimes not) questions, and most regular or occasional respondents usually (though perhaps not usually enough) attempt to answer them with the aid of reference to material in or sources beyond Wikipedia.
If in fact the community feel that "improving the Project", and not answering users' factual queries, is the purpose of the RefDesks, then the advice sited and the overall presentation of the RefDesks need to be extensively amended. If however the latter purpose seems valuable, perhaps we need to set up a new and different "Improve the Project" function, more explicitly labelled and designed as such: if done well (and I don't claim to have the expertise to do so) it might encourage and facilitate more focussed activity on Article improvement than currently takes place. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.12.94.189 (talk) 23:17, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
Eliyohub, I think we have the rudiments of a policy evolving in this discussion:
  • Warn problematic users when their questions are abusing the RefDesk (whether it's attention-seeking, ranting on various topics, or good old-fashioned trolling) that if they persist in a specific problem behavior, that will become a discussion topic in AN/I (and I see your point that Admins are reluctant to get into our issues, but that's actually a 'feature' to prevent us taking every little thing to them).
  • Initiate an AN/I discussion if such abuse becomes well-defined and problematic enough to merit sanctions. Again, this ought to be behavior that's (a) repeated despite courteous warnings and (b) where every instance has a common feature - either an unacceptable category of question or offensive behavior of another sort which is disruptive to the users and editors in RefDesk.
  • We ought to have a template that asks editors to ignore repeated problematic behavior by a user, and whether the admins act or not, use that template. We can't enforce a consensus to ignore this kind of behavior, but if the admins can't or won't act, that's as good as it gets.
Please note that I'm focusing on the behavior, not the user. I've noticed that on Administrator Notice Board that even conscientious editors can have bad days, or in some cases, whole bad weeks.
My first introduction to another editor who most people agree has done very good work for many years was her characterization of my edits as "shit" that needed to be "cleaned up", followed by a template on my user page alleging edit-warring (when such was not my intent). Stung, I went on ANI about what at worst was a WP:CIVIL issue and got schooled, big-time. I adjusted my attitude after a few weeks off the project, and I've even defended this same editor in ANI and other fora when I thought she was right. The moral: focus on the behavior, not the user. Not only does that steer us away from drama of all sorts, it's a good way to make sure we keep editors in the project and don't reward bad behavior with more attention. Dissecting users publicly with personal remarks and even unqualified assessments of their psychiatric status is counterproductive - but if we focus on their behavior, there's a decent chance we can get the editor to stop the behavior we don't like before anyone has to bother the admins. loupgarous (talk) 23:07, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. I think I'm going to give up on accomplishing any significant change here. Did you notice how much I've backed off in this discussion, even though I (stupidly) initiated it, even explicitly dropping my topic-ban request. The admin at AN/I fairly said that he himself had tried to effect change here before, to no avail. He said "it's notoriously difficult to effect change in walled gardens". So I'm mostly backing off. I will simply take your advice to ignore inappropriate questions in the future. But yes, a template of some sort may be handy. I was the idiot who unleashed a can of worms here, I hope some good can come out of all this drama. Others please take up the torch, I think Vfrickey is on the right track. Minimalist. Eliyohub (talk) 23:56, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
You got me re-directed away from one user's abuse of RefDesk to the more important issue of our lack of a policy toward the generic problem. That was very useful. So I wouldn't beat myself up too badly, you definitely got discussion started and may ultimately be have supplied the seed around which a consensus grows, if it does. I sure wouldn't, if I were you, grow despondent because we don't have immediate consensus on this. I like minimalist solutions, but policies have their place, too.
It's not often we have a user who comes back again and again with a "question" or line of "questions" which really constitute bids for attention (on in the case of one user I won't name, some unsubtle exposition of the person's sexual activity, gender identity and desire to make complex psychotropic organic chemicals at home beyond the ambit of "asking questions at the reference desk"). After a while, they get bored with us here at the RefDesk and open a redlightcenter.com account or something. loupgarous (talk) 01:09, 8 February 2017 (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 have never watched Game of Thrones (or followed Harry Potter) but I wonder if Futurist110's question was inspired by this. 80.5.88.48 (talk) 10:00, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Don't see any reason to think that. Futurist110 was asking wacky questions relating to his fear of siring children long before he started talking about cutting his balls off. And Varys, at least in the movie was not a voluntary eunuch. And while perhaps he were castrated at too young an age for it to really come up, there was never any suggestion he had some morbid fear of siring children with the financial burden apparently being a significant factor, to they extent he ignored all statistics or common sense (like the plenty of other financial burdens he could incur much more easily at any time, not that that's something likely in the GoT universe anyway). Nil Einne (talk) 15:25, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Joke etiquette

Would anybody support a guideline that says the first response to a question should not be a joke? I understand many people feel the need to attempt humor here, and it is not against the rules. Can we at least agree to not have "jokes" be top priority? I feel that joking before anyone can attempt to give references makes us look unprofessional, and diminishes our credibility. SemanticMantis (talk) 22:34, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

I agree that jokes should be reserved until the question has been answered. Unless the joke is like, really amazingly funny. Someguy1221 (talk) 23:18, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
Unfortunately, I have seen questions that deserve a joke answer as the first response. Also all too often questions asked violate the guidelines noted at the top of each ref desk as well as the Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines. The problem is what are you asking to be done to those who respond with a joke. If you want a block that is going to be a non-starter. Remember that the ref desks goals are different from those of the rest of the encyclopedia MarnetteD|Talk 00:10, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Might those questions not just deserve being ignored or removed instead? From my experience with SemanticMantis I doubt he is asking for sanctions against editors who respond with a joke before anyone has addressed the question. I read it more as a reminder. Something that has been raised here before. When asking in a library, I enjoy receiving a joking comment from the librarian most when it comes with the answer or service I'm looking for. I don't think the rest of the encyclopedia's goals include landing a good punch line either. ---Sluzzelin talk 00:18, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
I would like people to stick to answering the question to begin with as well. There are lots of reminders on the ref desks. What good are they when they are so often ignored. For example, I and others have removed inappropriate questions in the past. Others have restored them. As you say the question has been raised before. In my nearly twelve years here I have yet to see things change on the ref desk. I could find at least a dozen current threads that violate at least one of the bullet points at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines#What the reference desk is not and a dozen more that are not going to lead to any article improvement. My apologies for how negative you will find this. By all means discuss making things more civil and more power to you. I just don't want the frustrations for any of you to build when things don't change. MarnetteD|Talk 01:06, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
To clarify: I propose no actions to be taken against any editor, I only seek loose consensus for including a new sentence in our guidelines. Something along the lines of "The first response to a question should not be a joke, and such responses may be removed or collapsed." In general, I'd also encourage us to start following our guidelines that suggest Generally speaking, answers are more likely to be sanctioned than questions.[1].
In case anyone missed it, the joke that prompted my inquiry was a HILARIOUS joke about CHILD ABUSE, and it's still there on the science page [2]. SemanticMantis (talk) 15:19, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Not any more.[3] --Guy Macon (talk) 16:02, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
That kind of joke is like shooting fish in a barrel - never mind that nothing was ever proven. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:47, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
  • As a point of fact, our guidelines already ask us to refrain from joking, period. I have added some words [4]. The text now reads
And fair warning, I will now remove, without comment, any joke-as-first response that I see, as well as any joke that relates to abuse, sexism, racism, etc. SemanticMantis (talk) 20:25, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Fair enough. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:50, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
I support that. Matt Deres (talk) 14:20, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
I often remove jokes I see without comment, regardless of whether or not they are the first response or are racist or sexist. --Viennese Waltz 08:35, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
Now that I would object to - can we stick to SemanticMantis' proposal? No humour at all would make the desks a far less pleasant place. I think jokes are certainly fair when attached to a legitimate answer. And perhaps even when they aren't, as long as they don't get in the way of the question getting answered, or involve racism, sexism, etc etc.
Also, SemanticMantis, "removing without comment" is fair, but please still include something to the effect as to your reasons for removal in the edit summary. Otherwise, I fear confusion may result. Eliyohub (talk) 14:14, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
I like jokes as much as the next editor, but on that one question, the whole informative value of the question and any on-topic answers was pretty much lost in the welter of pedophilia and butt jokes, and Apollo 11 conspiracy theory explained away as a humor attempt. Those of us who actually come here to ask and answer science questions have to fight for the reader's attention with - and SemanticMantis put it best - "humor attempts". I'd be willing to forgo jokes at all here in responses, it'd make serious answers more available to the eye of the reader. loupgarous (talk) 21:26, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
User:Vfrickey Thanks for your support. I have a confession to make. In the weeks since I made this post, I have made not one but two jokes, a rate of say 1/11 days, or 1/100 edits to the ref desk. In both cases, the question had already been well answered in my estimation, and in one case I was "thanked" for my contribution by another long-term editor, and also had another user jump in on the fun [5]. Really, what happened there is that I was writing up a response very similar to Jayron's but he beat me to it, and while I didn't see the need to post a highly redundant answer. Like Jayron, I had made an assumption of which Raphael was meant, but when I considered other possibilities, I made myself chuckle, and caught up in the moment, I decided to share. I agree that we should keep joking to a minimum, and only after good refs have been posted. But if even an anti-humorist like me occasionally succumbs to temptation on occasion, I think a total ban on jokes would not get much traction. SemanticMantis (talk) 22:04, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
I like to crack the occasional joke, too, but I'm just no good at it, usually. That probably colors my attitude toward jocularity on the RefDesk. However, at some point we have to decide whether or not we're going to enforce the more substantive guideline that answers be encyclopedic in nature. It's confusing to me when someone cracks the whip on that guideline, then we all go back to treating RefDesk as the project's office water cooler.
That said, I think your suggestion's the best start toward making RefDesk a better resource for the people who come here for advice, and the rest of us who find the questions interesting. I personally try to restrict my activity here to what a reference desk librarian actually does - refer original posters to sources of information, with brief summaries of what information to look for when they're needed. When we get the occasional OP who wants his homework done or other reasoning done for free, I try to courteously point the OP to more specific sources of information, then drop the stick when it's clear the questioner isn't reading the material I suggested. That's hard enough without actually having to be amusing. But I do enjoy the humor here - you do it in the right proportions and at the right times. loupgarous (talk) 22:24, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
Joining this rather late I am afraid. Like most other editors it seems, I would not be asking for a blanket ban on jokes, but, when they become disruptive to answering the question being asked, something needs to be done. There is a current example relating to the terminology of animals that eat meat. When I first read the post, I AGF and thought it was a joke. I now actually don't know whether it is a joke, or is simply wrong and misguiding readers. Perhaps we should develop a tag which states something like "This post is intended for humorous purposes and is not intended as a serious attempt to answer the OP question". (I think I have seen something like this, but I can't find it) The tag could be self-imposed by the joking editor, or placed by another editor and if there was disagreement this could go to the Talk page. DrChrissy (talk) 00:28, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Ref Desk removal (Trump Versus the World)

[6], removed by General Ization.

It was hatted, which seems appropriate, but removal seems like going overboard, to me. StuRat (talk) 22:21, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

I was okay with the hatting and I'm okay with the removal as well. Matt Deres (talk) 22:52, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Ref Desk removal (Drug mushroom)

This has been closed multiple times, and there is precisely zero chance of any constructive outcome if people keep reopening it. The thread in question was removed and remains removed, period. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:36, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

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.

[7], removed by The Rambling Man

The last comment should probably be hatted, but the rest seems OK, to me. Also, 3 deletes by the same user seem to have violated 3RR. StuRat (talk) 22:23, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Should be summarily removed and denied. We're not in the business of telling people how to go about risking their lives for a high. Recognise such threads and deny them. Also, lack of understanding of WP:3RR means this "user" needs to get more of a clue before continuing in this style. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:29, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
I remember you now StuRat, you're the one who answers just about every single thread on every single Ref Desk without giving any citations or references, and in most cases without any knowledge of the subject matter. Why do you do that? The Rambling Man (talk) 22:48, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
I give plenty of refs. See this current Ref Desk page: [8]. But, in any case, this is all quite besides the point, as it has nothing to do with your removal. StuRat (talk) 23:01, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
I don't agree with this removal; Jayron answered it well. Medeis' comments should be reverted/flagged as vandalism, etc. Matt Deres (talk) 22:54, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
Medeis' responses were sarcastic, aimed at an OP who's asking how to do something that's likely illegal. Jayron's answer was factual, but anyone can look for mushrooms here. All in all, removing the whole shebang is probably the best option. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:54, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
You can't look for them directly without knowing the name, which seems to have been the case for the OP. StuRat (talk) 01:14, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
See Mushroom#Psychoactive mushrooms. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:24, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Wow, that must have been way beyond our OP to look at the "mushroom" article. The thread encouraged trolling and was basically pointless. Perhaps one day the RD regulars will do something about their trolls and make the RDs a useful place. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:59, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Jayron's response was factual with references and should not have been deleted. Medeis's response was inappropriate. Gandalf61 (talk) 09:24, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Well considering several editors have thanked me for removing the thread, himself included, I think this debate is a complete waste of time. Focus on getting the trolls off the project. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:32, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
So that we can all see the whole picture, can you give a link to where Jayron has thanked you for removing that thread ? Or was this in a private communication ? Thanks. Gandalf61 (talk) 10:24, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
They probably clicked the thank button, which I don't think can be replicated by way of a link. --Viennese Waltz 10:37, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Actually, it can: [9] Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:41, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Bingo. Now move on to other stuff, stop wasting time here, and stop feeding the trolls. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:03, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Oh, rubbish. You have no power here. Begone, before somebody drops a house on you. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:06, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
No-one has "power" here, but at least one or two of us work to improve the place while others just use it as an alternative to social media. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:09, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Where the ref desk is concerned, you're not on that list. You're merely a nattering nabob of negativism. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:11, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
I also don't agree with the removal. It was a legitimate question. The RefDesk has never had a policy of forbidding questions that are about activities that are illegal in some regions. In fact, if you ask about something exciting and interesting, like hiding a body, you'll get an enthusiastic response, even though that would be decidedly illegal in all regions.
Moreover I especially don't agree with the automatic assumption of people who ask questions we don't like as trolls. Are you seriously denying that this is information many people want? Of course not. Then why assume that the person who asked the question isn't one of the people who want the information? ApLundell (talk) 15:03, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
There was more than one troll at work. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:04, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
I very much doubt the WMF would approve of ref desk users giving questioners how-to advice on illegal activities, especially activities illegal within its region. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:43, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
How do you know it's illegal in the OP's jurisdiction? --Viennese Waltz 16:18, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
How do you know it isn't? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:33, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
In any case, they are generally illegal in the English-speaking world, according to Legal status of psilocybin mushrooms. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:36, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
The point, as Jayron correctly pointed out, is that we don't know whether they are legal in the OP's jurisdiction (which may be Bangladesh). Given that we don't know, we should not be deleting it for being illegal. --Viennese Waltz 16:45, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
It's illegal in the US, which is where the WMF is based, last I heard. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:46, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Irrelevant. What matters is whether it's legal in the OP's jurisdiction. --Viennese Waltz 16:48, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Says who? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:50, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
It's simple common sense. --Viennese Waltz 16:52, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Common sense is that the WMF doesn't want to approve anything which could get it in legal trouble in its own jurisdiction. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:54, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
I have asked Jimbo Wales for his opinion on the matter, since he is likely to be closer to these matters than you or I. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:57, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Re: "I very much doubt the WMF would approve of ref desk users giving questioners how-to advice on illegal activities, especially activities illegal within its region.", got a written policy to back up that assertion? We have material on Cannabis cultivation and Methamphetamine#Synthesis. We have material on Suppressor#Design and construction and on Sarin#Production and structure. Baseball Bugs, please note that continued assertions that certain things are against Wikipedia or WMF policy without any evidence that said policies exist could be considered disruptive editing and, if you persist, may end up with you being blocked. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:58, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

[EC]Note that I am only referring to removing information on things because they are illegal in the US. Removing material because it is obvious trolling is another matter entirely. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:09, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Further clarification: It is proper to remove material from Wikipedia that is itself illegal (child porn and copyright violations, for example). Giving how-to advice on illegal activities is not illegal in the United States. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:12, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
If I was certain of my take on it, I wouldn't be asking Wales about it. But until we know for sure, I'm on TRM's side on this matter. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:42, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
That's why I asked Wales for his opinion. He's likely to better know where the legal boundaries are than you or I do. In fact, there's already an article on psychedelic mushrooms, which I linked to earlier. As regards the appropriateness of the original question and its responses, you can slug that out with TRM. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:04, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Here is your answer: There exists no US law that makes providing how-to information about illegal activities illegal. There exists no Wikipedia or WMF policy that prohibits providing how-to information about illegal activities. You won't get a different answer from Jimbo. I predict that he will ignore your question, as he has ignored countless similar questions from editors who clearly will only accept certain answers. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:53, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

STOP FEEDING TROLLS. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:56, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

I've not yet had an answer to my question on why this question-asker was assumed to be a troll. A troll, in this context, is someone who asks a question he's not interested in the answer. It's a well known fact that many people want this information, and many people would unashamedly ask for it, so how was it determined that this person was not one of them?
As assuming good faith is one of the pillars, I don't think my question about good faith is an inappropriate. (Especially when asked by a known long-term contributor to the ref-desk.) ApLundell (talk) 20:03, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
The original question was posted by 116.58.205.128 (talk · contribs), who has just the one entry asking for help in an activity that's illegal in most of the English speaking world. The IP geolocates to Bangladesh, where it's not illegal, but there's no way to know for sure where the IP user really is. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:37, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
I don't think one question makes the OP a troll. So I don't understand who TRM is referring to when he shouts about trolls above. Gandalf61 (talk) 06:16, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
My post above was deleted by TRM. I have restored my post and reopened the thread, because there is an ongoing discussion here and this is the correct forum for that discussion. TRM - I understand you have strong views on this subject but that is really no excuse for your frequent rudeness and incivility. Gandalf61 (talk) 09:16, 22 February 2017 (UTC)xxx
This discussion has been closed multiple times. There's really no excuse at all for you to keep edit warring to keep it open. It's not helping anything or anyone, least of all you. Oh, and while you're in the mood to criticise me and accuse me of being "incivil", why not apply some consistency and discuss the personal attacks on me, e.g. "a nattering nabob of negativism"? Because you cherry-pick who you want to have a go at, right? The Rambling Man (talk) 09:21, 22 February 2017 (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.

Purpose of the refdesks / Another discussion at WP:AN/I

The discussion is currently here, should anyone be interested. --Sluzzelin talk 12:54, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

WP:BLP and WP:NPOV in regard to controversial figures

The ref desks are not the place for open-ended discussion of BLP's, especially in ways that might to seen to disparge them or their critics. We provide facts, links to actual quotes. Not statements such as "Any politician who lies as often and as badly as XXXXX does will get attacked". This is a personal opinion, and cannot be countenanced. Had the OP said, is it true that X has announced she will boycott the Prime Minister's Roast, we could link to such articles, although the simple use of a search engine would do as good. When we get to the point where people are debating according to their POV we are breaking every rule in the book. The next stop for this is the admin boards and an RfC on the scope of the ref desks. None of us want that. μηδείς (talk) 04:18, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Fine, but I want to salvage the part about the monkey. It's good to know. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:54, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
The question began with a provocative question from a one-shot IP, probably the same guy as the multiple v6 IP's that keep trying to box up a part of it. Maybe the best thing would be to box the entire thing up... which I have just done. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:16, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
Medeis, I agree with you in principle, but your interpretation of WP:BLP is, may I suggest, sometimes controversial such as this case. There was no commentry, negative or otherwise, by the OP or any responders about the individual, his actions, or his guilt or innocence, and the facts were well-verified (including an entire wikipedia article devoted to them). You were alone in considering it BLP, I gather? And your simple view as to why was, "it's not necessary to mention his name". (Your claim as to the "staying" of charges sounds irrelevant, a normal part of the to-and-fro of the criminal justice procedure). Is there anything in WP:BLP which refers to necessity of mentioning a name as a criteria of the policy? Eliyohub (talk) 08:41, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Libertarians

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Humanities#Libertarians

What is the relevant guideline being violated here? Benjamin (talk) 17:55, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

That post looks like a text book case of WP:POINTY violation.
However, I am a keen advocate of WP:AGF, so I will not stop there, and try to help with elaboration and further references on your question. To other editors, the post may be construed as a WP:SOAP violation. Also see WP:NOTAFORUM, Loaded question, etc. It's just not something suitable for a reference desk. If you doubt this, try asking the same thing at a real reference desk. At best you'll be directed to sources on Libertarian_Party_(United_States), Libertarianism_in_the_United_States, Violence, Aggression#Culture. Depending on the librarian, you may be directed to bitch slap, public humiliation, schadenfreude, or perhaps social tolerance, etc. I have now done that, attempting to AGF and help you find further information.
The simple fact is such a poll likely does not exist, and I'm pretty sure if you can manage to post a question here, you probably already know that, and that itself does not speak well for you motivations. SemanticMantis (talk) 18:31, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
If you have a genuine question which someone could help you research, start a new thread that doesn't attempt to make a political point. That thread is already beyond being rescued. Just let that one go, and show us you really do mean well. Because you're straining credibility to the breaking point so far. If you genuinely seek references to help you research something, step back from the brink, start a better thread, and go from there. --Jayron32 18:48, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
OP may like to read up on"sea lioning"[10], and think about why it is generally frowned upon. If he can phrase the question in a way that is not clear political posturing, he will get better results here, I guarantee. AGF is a two way street, and if you want an honest answer, you have to ask an honest question, in good faith. SemanticMantis (talk) 18:51, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for helping me. What would have been a better way to word the question? Benjamin (talk) 21:09, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
You could ask whether there is information on the rate of violence approved by various political ideologies. And the heading could be "Political ideologies and violence". As for punching libertarians, did you have any specific cases in mind? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:25, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
Yes, I saw a rather popular tweet saying it's okay to punch nazis and male libertarians, and I was wondering how widespread that belief is. Benjamin (talk) 23:27, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
As compared to punching commies and liberals and anyone who's not a white male? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:31, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
What do you mean? Benjamin (talk) 23:33, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
I assume the tweet was in response to Richard B. Spencer getting punched in the face. Someguy1221 (talk) 23:36, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
Yes, I presume so. Your point? Benjamin (talk) 23:37, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
Because he's not a libertarian, he's a neo-Nazi. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:39, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
Yes; your point? Benjamin (talk) 23:41, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
Your original question was about libertarians. He's not a libertarian. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:42, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
How widespread is the belief that it's OK to punch commies, liberals or anyone who's not a white male? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:37, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
That's what I'm asking. Benjamin (talk) 23:39, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
Then your question should be about violence within ideologies - not about whether it's OK to punch out a neo-Nazi. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:41, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
Thank you. You already said that. Benjamin (talk) 23:42, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
In addition to sea lioning, we may also learn from reading about the concept of a concern troll. OP, please see WP:NOTAFORUM again. I think you may be confused: this is not a page to discuss politics. We don't care what you think or who you want to punch or why.
Reddit has several forums where these contributions may be more welcome. Consider /r/politics [11] or /r/libertarian [12]. If you continue to talk about USA politics on this talk page, many of us will see that as a sign of bad faith. You are welcome to ask new questions on the reference desk. It is not that hard to make good faith questions. The main ingredient is good faith :) SemanticMantis (talk) 00:43, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
I can ask for sources about political topics, right? That's what I was trying to do, not start a discussion. Benjamin (talk) 00:47, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
Nobody has yet referred to Loaded question? Something best avoided, in any refdesk question, if you want us to assume good faith, and give proper answers. Reading that article may be a start in giving some insight into question phrasing? Eliyohub (talk) 01:19, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
What assumption was in my question? Benjamin (talk) 01:24, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
That libertarians are being unduly picked on. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:28, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
That was pretty much what I was asking. Benjamin (talk) 01:29, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
Based on one tweet about a guy who isn't even a libertarian? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:36, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
I'm not making a claim, I'm asking a question. Benjamin (talk) 01:37, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
Your question cannot be answered. There appear to be no scientific studies on how many people think it's appropriate to punch libertarians. There might be a study out there on the public perception of whether it's OK to use violence against people who spread hate speech, but it's hard to find in the sea of studies on whether hate speech encourages violence against the target. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:40, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
I bolded your whole response for all to see clearly; didn't think you'd mind. OP needs to ask a new question or stop testing our AGF. SemanticMantis (talk) 04:10, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
I unbolded per WP:SHOUT, I didn't think you'd mind. :D ―Mandruss ☎ 04:12, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

"Dropping the stick" reminds me of what happened to Admire Rakti in the Melbourne Cup. A spectre which caught the whole nation's attention, as the favorite horse died from a heart attack during the biggest race of the year. What was needed was a horse-scale defibrillator, not a whip! Unfortunately, those don't currently exist. What would be the equivalent in a Wikipedia debate to revive the horse? Eliyohub (talk) 08:55, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Textbook example of a bad hat reason

See [13], where Jayron's "reason" was "Closing this before the OP embarrasses themselves more than they already have". To make matters worse, he then deleted a reply I added, along with the OP's reply. My reply was designed to get the discussion back on track to something we can actually find sources for. I reinstated my reply, as Jayron greatly exceeded his authority. StuRat (talk) 05:08, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

I agree it was not a great explanation. The closure was proper though, as per WP:POINTY, WP:SOAP, loaded question, WP:NOTAFORUM, and the above section. I understand your post was trying to get things back on track, however by the time Jayron removed it, it was clear to me that OP was interested mostly in pushing buttons, not getting actual references. If I'm mistaken, it doesn't matter, OP I think learned a bit about our policies, and we've told him he is welcome to ask further questions in good faith. The fact that he has not may or may not be informative to your assessment of the situation. SemanticMantis (talk) 21:15, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
That is false. I wanted references. Benjamin (talk) 01:06, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
OK, my opinion was wrong. As I said, it doesn't matter. Below, it looks like you are interested in learning how to ask appropriate questions, and you will be able to get references from our service soon. SemanticMantis (talk) 15:20, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
I'm impressed that others have agreed with me when I invoked an unwritten "loaded question doctrine" in earlier discussion. There may be no formal ban on loaded questions, but they are still problematic, and any OP asking them needs to be told to re-phrase, if we are to be able to give a sensible answer. Or we can perhaps re-phrase for them, but they may not like the outcome. Eliyohub (talk) 08:46, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
I realize my wording may be problematic and I welcome help with rephrasing. Benjamin (talk) 08:48, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Request of "hatters" - what do others think?

I understand "hatting" things here which are deemed to violate the rules or whatever, but my request is, please sign the "hatting statement" (the one which is visible, to explain the reason for the hat), like Jayron32 did to Benjamin's humanities question, and SemanticMantis did in the post just above this one, so we can know whom has decided that the question(s) and/or comments are to be hatted? Many editors already do this, I'm just asking the rest to do it too. Possibly even include it (that "hatting statements" should be signed) in Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Guidelines, if there's consensus. It makes things easier in cases where others dispute that it should have been hatted (and such disputes are not at all uncommon, in my experience) and, in general, adds transparency. We can always look through the edit history if we really want to know (so you're not revealing anything we couldn't figure out anyways), but I prefer transparency and accountability to be as easy as possible. Not referring to any specific editor, just what I see as desirable practice. How do others feel? I'm no expert, is this a good suggestion, or am I missing something? Eliyohub (talk) 01:13, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

I forgot to sign mine the last time. I agree they should be signed. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:27, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
In my opinion editors should sign any hat, archive, or collapse on any page for any reason. If they fail to do so, any other editor can find the edit in the page history and add the appropriate {{unsigned}} template. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:28, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
Yes, everyone should sign, and also explain reasons, in hats and edit comments. Also when something is deleted. And "Enough of this", etc., is NOT a reason. StuRat (talk) 03:03, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
Yep, agreed. "include it (that "hatting statements" should be signed) in Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Guidelines, if there's consensus. " I'll support this. If you or someone else doesn't add it this week I most likely will myself. The fact that you and I and Bugs and Mandruss and Stu already all agree is a strong indicator this is reasonable and has wide approval. Thanks for suggesting! SemanticMantis (talk) 03:37, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
Somewhere within the dark, dank depths of the archives there should be at least one other discussion in which consensus (or maybe even unanimity) was that hatting should be signed. I don't recall if formally encoding it in the guidelines was discussed. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:47, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
As to better explanations, that's a little harder to define. Anyone following a discussion can pretty well see why, "Gentlemen! Enough of this!" would be invoked. But maybe it's unfair to expect a viewer to read all the sordid details. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:49, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
What's blindingly obvious to the hatter is often not so obvious to others, so an explanation is definitely in order. Writing the explanation might also cause the hatter to stop and think for a minute, is this hat really justifiable? If one can't make a better case than "enough of this", it probably is not. But that's a different and far more complicated issue than the one being addressed in this thread, best kept separate. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:54, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
Side comment: Hatting is not just for rule breakers and violations. See below if you're interested :) SemanticMantis (talk) 04:02, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
further discussion on hatting, not central to the signing of collapsed sections SemanticMantis (talk) 04:02, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
"HAT" stands for "hidden archive top". There's also the {{cot|explanation & sig}} ... {{cob}} syntax that leaves a "this is closed, do not edit" explanatory text. Some reasons to "hat" are to avoid cluttering the page with long tables, code, or side discussions that are off-topic with respect to OP. Hatting is more gentle and WP:AGF, because it doesn't tell people they can't type there. I "hat" my own stuff some times when I think someone might be interested but the conversation has drifted a bit.
I'll also hat things that I think are in violation of our guidelines where admins or other users might "close" the thread. This is because I only edit subject to WP:BRD, as I know many of us do follow. SemanticMantis (talk) 04:02, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
A reason should refer to a policy which has been violated. And if a claim is made that the OP is a troll, which troll ? The Nazi troll ? The skidmarks troll ? Etc. You can't just call anyone who asks a Q you don't like a troll, any more than we should call any news we don't like "fake news". StuRat (talk) 05:13, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
Sometimes stuff is just off-topic, or a spot of confusion, unrelated to the question? No policy violation, just clogs up the goal of giving answers to the question asked. Sidetracking serves no purpose. That's not to say that some users don't abuse hats. I don't want to name names. Eliyohub (talk) 15:16, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
If you think a specific hat or closure was made erroneously, feel free to revert/remove it and discuss it with the hatting user, or perhaps discuss here. That would be standard WP good conduct, supported by WP:BRD. SemanticMantis (talk) 17:49, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
I agree it's a good idea; I hadn't really considered it. My apologies for not doing so when I hatted the horse question (above); it honestly never crossed my mind to do so, but I will try to remember henceforth. Matt Deres (talk) 15:27, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
Hatting reins it in. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:44, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Okay, so it sounds like we have consensus? No dissent has been voiced. I have zero experience editing wikipedia guidelines, but I think it's OK for someone to add this to the refdesk guidelines page I linked to above. Be my guest... Eliyohub (talk) 08:59, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

 Done I added this sentence "Any user who collapses, closes or "hats" any part of thread should sign their closing action and include a short reason." Anyway, thanks for bringing it up, small progress is the best progress here, in my opinion (I also note the sentence directly prior to my addition sort of contradicts WP:BRD, but hey, WP:NORULES! A conversation for another day perhaps. ) SemanticMantis (talk) 15:26, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
StuRat says that when deleting a comment the reason should be provided in the edit summary. Also the relevant policy which has been breached should be specified and, he says, if deleting a post as trolling the edit summary should state who the troll is (e.g. the Nazi troll, the skidmarks troll). I agree, and as there is no dissent can this also be added to the guidelines? This is of course additional to the existing requirement that deletions be recorded on the talk page. 86.176.120.205 (talk) 10:39, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
There's no need to further memorialize the ref desk troll on the talk page. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:22, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
Agreed. So I suggest that we add the following after the sentence which reads "I have removed a question seeking a medical diagnosis":

If a post is removed and identified in the edit summary as being from Soft skin and contains a reference to any or all of

  • Gas chambers — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.176.120.205 (talk) 13:18, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Hitler
  • the Holocaust
  • Jews
  • National Socialism

there is no need to annotate the talk page.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.176.120.205 (talk) 13:12, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

who's in charge here / some advice to refdesk regulars

Whenever I see threads like the one above, they make me cringe. The thread seems to be about whether a certain question was legitimate, and it got repeatedly closed based on the obvious (to some) response to that issue, but as is often the case, there was a deeper subtext, and one of control.

Refdesk regulars used to have a strong tradition of "anything goes". The refdesks, like the rest of Wikipedia, weren't censored. The benefits of being open, and the cost of having to endure the occasional troll post, were held to outweigh the conflict-inducing and openness-chilling costs of routinely removing lots of questionable posts.

So in that light it's quite reasonable for User:ApLundell to ask "why this question-asker was assumed to be a troll", or for User:Gandalf61 to feel that there is an ongoing worthwhile discussion and that this is the correct forum for it. But from where I sit, the answer for ApLundell and Gandalf61 (and me, for that matter) is: tough beans, you lose.

The refdesks are held -- rightly or wrongly, but by enough people to matter -- to be a cesspool in need of cleaning up. Trolls are held -- again rightly or wrongly -- to be a big enough problem that almost any means are justified in fighting them. Finally, in practice admins are often held -- this has been true for as long as I've been on Wikipedia -- to have a lower standard of civility (and incidentally a lower requirement for skin thickness) that mere users.

So the bottom line is that 116.58.205.128 was assumed to be a troll because someone with more power than you thought it was, and we're not going to talk about it here any more because someone with more power than you is tired of it and thinks it's counterproductive. (Sorry to be so cynical; I was more idealistic once.) —Steve Summit (talk) 14:31, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

I agree entirely. The actions by Future Perfect to close the discussion, threaten to block anyone who reopened it, and delete Gandalf's link showing that Future Perfect had violated the guidelines (by closing the discussion within a week) were an absolute abuse of Admin powers. I'd take it to AN/I, but Admins are almost completely immune from being disciplined there, and anyone who complains about an Admin there is likely to be blocked themself. I really don't care all that much if the original Ref Desk post was closed or not, but this form of silencing all discussion on the matter I do care about. StuRat (talk) 22:00, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
Well as one of the regular Ref Desk opinionators, you would have that position. You seldom offer anything beyond your own opinion, and hundreds of times without any kind of reference or any real benefit our readers. Silencing some of the regular user trolls would significantly increase the value of the Ref Desks. Right now it's just a complete joke, some desks getting less than 300 hits a day. Worst of all, most of those hits are from the regular opinionators who add nothing but social media-style content. Facebook is a suitable relocation for those individuals. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:06, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
If you don't like it here TRM then you are free to fork off. Stu is right about the poor quality of adminship we see on the Desks, and in addition there are a couple of regular account-holding trolls who are supported and encouraged by certain admins and others. I rarely comment on this talk page because of the appalling behaviour of FP and TRM and others here, and I am a much less regular contributor to the desks for the same reason. DuncanHill (talk) 22:26, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
It's nothing to do with whether I personally "like it" or not, and it's apparent from your post that you've completely missed the point of both the discussion and the problem in general. The desks are regularly trolled by regular users who add nothing but personal opinion. I have no opinion on if you, Duncan, were one such offender, but if you were, it's a good thing that you're no longer contributing in that regard. You need to get a reality check. This "project" is dead, not dying, dead. It's self-sustained by virtue of the drama and the social media aspects of the so-called contributors. I'm appalled by the behaviour of several such users, and I'm much less inclined to encourage anyone to use Wikipedia's ref desks than ever before because they're full of opinion, in-jokes, drama, and other completely inappropriate nonsense. Your continual enabling of such trolls is a real problem, so the less you do that, the better. By the way, if you really believe in your assertion, quote: "the appalling behaviour of FP and TRM and others here", at least have the balls to post diffs, take it to ANI or something constructive, rather than just sit on the fence please. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:36, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
Calling me a troll enabler is a direct lie TRM. Like Stu I have very little confidence in the value of trying to do anything about it, having tried time and again in the past. DuncanHill (talk) 22:40, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
Allowing the continued abuse of the ref desks by the so-called regulars who just offer opinion and nothing more, e.g. Stu, you are enabling trolls. Simple as that. This tacit acceptance of lower-than-medicore behaviour at the Ref Desks combined with continual railing against people who are looking for an encyclopedic approach added to the accusations of " appalling behaviour" makes you an enabler of the kind of people this project should be working tooth-and-nail to remove. So well done you. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:49, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
You're playing true to form TRM, repeatedly goading anyone who disagrees with you. Exactly what you used to do as an admin. DuncanHill (talk) 22:53, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
I'm playing true to myself, telling you that you enable poor behaviour here with your acceptance of such shoddy behaviour. What that has to do with "goading" is uncertain, but take a closer at look at your own behaviour before casting aspersions my way. You have plenty to apologise for here. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:57, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
That's a common misuse of the word troll, so I suggest you ignore it and focus on the word enabler. One either supports or opposes the use of the desks as forums, and either supports or opposes topic bans for users who have shown that they can't help themselves in that area and will not stop without beiing forced to do so by the community. I oppose the former and support the latter. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:47, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
The desks are inevitably fora, as discussion helps clarify both questions and answers. The occasional joke harms nobody, and can help foster a collegiate atmosphere. If you don't like jokes then don't interact with human beings. DuncanHill (talk) 22:54, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
It's not the jokes, it's the in-house, self-protecting, unreferenced opinionatied bullshit that goes on. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:57, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
The desks are inevitably fora - No. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:59, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
So there should be no discussion to clarify questions and answers? DuncanHill (talk) 23:03, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
So there should be be references to reliable sources with answers, not just opinion and jokes and socialising. This is really important: you get that, right? The Rambling Man (talk) 23:07, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
I've never suggested there shouldn't be references, and I've never suggested it should be "just opinion and jokes and socialising". Please try harder. DuncanHill (talk) 23:11, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
Who said you did? You just accept the fact that users abuse the Ref Desk every day and do nothing to stop the social media wannabes, and worse, you rail against those who object to it. You're an enabler of the worst kind of Ref Desk abusers. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:13, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
I'm sorry, you appear not to have read your post above mine. DuncanHill (talk) 23:14, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
I'm sorry, you appear to be blissfully ignorant that your behaviour (whether you see it or not) continues to enable the social media wannabes and the decline of the RDs to dust. I'd say "carry on" because in not too many months, we'll have enough backing to close this omnishambles for good and relieve Wikipedia of a number of embarrassing individuals. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:19, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
You've moved a hell of a long way from your comment above when you said you had no opinion about my contributions. DuncanHill (talk) 23:24, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
It's more about your "lack" of contributions. You stated my behaviour was "appalling" yet your behaviour in enabling the trolls, the Ref Desk social media wannabes, the whole shooting match, by your abject refusal to accept that something is required is your downfall. It's a real shame when someone with your experience can't quite see that we're not serving our readers properly. How can pageviews in the hundreds (and most of those from the regulars) be indicative of a successful ref desk environment? How can your allowance of users to just chat away and talk shit and not actually answer questions with references be right? How can your acceptance of in-house humour and thus rejection of passers-by be right? You're an enabler, and it's embarrassing to see how low the Ref Desks can go. Per Mandruss, you're operating somewhere in a world I don't quite understand. I believe in respecting and serving our readers. You and your compadres seem to believe in something quite different. I won't be conversing with you on this any more, but I will certainly not be giving up the fight against the RD in-house trolls, the enablers and their buddies. This isn't about us, it's about creating an encyclopedic reference that can be replied upon. The Ref Desks are pretty far from that, and if you can't/don't/won't see that, it's a pointless debate to be had with you. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:33, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
I've put up with far more than my share of abuse for trying to get rid of trolls like Medeis And BB, that I have given up on them is, I think, to be understood. Again, I have never said that I don't think things could be improved, or that we couldn't serve our readers better, in fact the truth is quite the opposite. Sadly you seem to think that anyone who disagrees with you in anyway, or anyone who ever agrees with Stu, is to be driven out with flaming pitchforks from your personal playground. I am delighted to read that you won't be replying to me ever again anywhere. DuncanHill (talk) 23:54, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
The "discussion" too often (usually?) goes far beyond said clarification and the connection to the question is soon forgotten. The desks are here to serve the needs of the questioner, not as a place to engage in stimulating conversation with fellow Wikipedians. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:12, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
So let questioners say so if they feel a thread has strayed too far from the point. We don't need, or want, nannies telling us what is good for us. DuncanHill (talk) 23:13, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
Do you ever wonder why so frequently the "questioner" never returns? Probably not, you just let the social media troll enablers play out their pathetic game. For a website whose main page gets 20 million plus hits a day, to see ref desks down in the sub-500 range (most of those from the "regulars" talking shit to each other), there's little hope here. Your ongoing defence of your own position is understandable, but the project as a whole is actually meaningless and a drain on resource. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:17, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
Oh right. No, the questioner is going to just leave, having gotten what they needed (or not). Now you're indulging in pure fantasy, which is when I get off. Best of luck. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:16, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
The desks have become fora because of the tacit acceptance of users who just use it as a social media replacement, and who render it hapless and ridiculous in the eyes of the readership. That a ref desk gets fewer than 300 hits a day, and most of them are from the regular ref desk users talking shit to each other should tell you something. And you enable it by claiming that those who dislike it and try to work against it are somehow "appalling"? Seriously. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:02, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
It's clear that the culture has changed a lot since the last time I was a regular on the RefDesk. (Edit: Oh! I just remembered, my user name has changed since those days. Hello, all! I used to be APL, but had to change it when the unified logins were introduced.) So far as I can see, it's far more conducive to infighting between regs, but much less welcoming to new editors who might have earnest, but slightly off-color questions.
When I asked the question you refer to, it was boxed with the edit summary "You aren't going to be given an answer. Get used to disappointment.", which very much supports what Steve is saying.
Another involved editor recently expressed the hope that the reference desks would be dissolved [14], so perhaps there's no longer enthusiasm for providing an open reference desk. It's true enough that the Internet landscape has changed greatly since it started, many other places exist that provide similar, perhaps better, service. (The Stack Exchange network, for instance. Including, but not limited to, Stack Overflow.)
Still sad, though.
ApLundell (talk) 15:49, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
I think you all need to look closer to home. There are several users who troll this project with unproductive, unreferenced, subjective, anecdotal, attempted humorous commentary. The ref desk is not a ref desk at all, it's an excuse for a alternate social media club. There are several decent contributors but there are several users whose sole aim is to "give opinion" which is exactly NOT WHAT THIS IS ABOUT. Start rooting those lot out, then worry about the troll questions. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:01, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
You were right to remove that section which requested advice on illegal activities. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:34, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
And you were -- and are -- wrong to keep repeating the above opinion while refusing my requests to cite the Wikipedia policy or guideline that says that we cannot offer advice on illegal activities. BTW, here is some more advice on illegal activities: if anyone reading this is thinking of cooking up some methamphetamine, be aware that doing so releases some really nasty gasses (See Rolling meth lab). Also be aware that the police go after production more aggressively than possession and that rival drug gangs can be particularly violent. The icing on the cake is what meth does to you (See Methamphetamine#Side effects). --Guy Macon (talk) 03:13, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
FWIW, another fine example is lock picking. —Steve Summit (talk) 13:33, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
I asked Wales about it, and he didn't respond, so the issue remains open. And I was not involved in that revert war, so you should direct your complaints to the participants. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:25, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

I don't contribute here anymore because of all of this nonsense from all sides of the argument. It's almost comforting to see that absolutely nothing has changed over the past few years, except that it isn't and that this is all pretty petty nonsense that will never stop. Good job in driving away otherwise interested contributors. Mingmingla (talk) 02:21, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Medeis is not a troll. She's an intelligent, articulate contributor. 81.147.142.155 (talk) 14:10, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
I've had good interactions with Medeis back when I was regular. It's not Medeis in particular that bothers me. It's the immediate leap to assume the worst the more than one editor here does that bothers me. Mingmingla (talk) 03:57, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
User:Mingmingla Please consider coming back more often! It's much nicer if you largely ignore the talk page, as well as any user who you know acts badly. I struggle with these issues myself, but I'm working on it. Good folk leaving just means the... less good folks make the desks dumber and dumber, and I for one don't like that, and will tolerate some annoyances in order to help the balance of good vs. bad responses. SemanticMantis (talk) 18:17, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
Thanks! I do look in occasionally. I might find my way back regularly some day. Mingmingla (talk) 03:57, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
I find Medeis to sometimes have useful things to offer in terms of answers, so I don't personally consider her a troll. I just wish I could somehow stop her habit of putting on hats a little too enthusiastically. Enough to start a hat shop. And I gather others agree. Eliyohub (talk) 02:45, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
Yes, but if you don't let her put hats on every Q she doesn't like, then she starts deleting every Q she doesn't like. StuRat (talk) 04:03, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

That question...

Why don't the mods just allow that 'question' on the misc desks. Sure it's an odd one but what is the big issue with it, seriously? Is it purely because the q simply comes from a user that was 'once' banned? 92.244.150.120 (talk) 21:04, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Just what exactly is it you're talking about? -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 21:07, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Miscellaneous&oldid=768440808 92.244.150.120 (talk) 21:22, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
Saying you're not a troll makes you sound (to some people) like a troll, because it's something trolls say. Anyway, I'd not have removed the question, though I can see why someone did. Limb regeneration is a perfectly valid topic to ask about. There is lots of scientific study on the matter, and plenty of refs to give. That doesn't mean the question has an easy answer. Perhaps you should try asking again on the science page, making an effort to use less flippant phrasing. While we have no rules against flippant phrasing, you'll find that here (and in many place, online and in real life), people will take you more seriously if you use a more serious tone. Perhaps something along the these lines would be a good way to ask about this sort of thing:
"What animals can regenerate limbs? Why can some animals regenerate limbs while others cannot? Is anyone working on regenerating human limbs?"
Honestly, the WP article I linked above has tons of good refs, and also links to regeneration in humans, and together they probably give you more and better references than most any response anyone would have given you on the misc. desk. You are welcome to ask specific questions about what you read in those articles as well. Hope that helps, SemanticMantis (talk) 21:48, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Dates on the language desk

They seem to have run amuk. Could someone de-muk them please? Carbon Caryatid (talk) 15:12, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Done. I'm not sure what happened there; Maybe someone added the March 5 in there manually while trying to be 'helpful'. Matt Deres (talk) 15:26, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
Scsbot itself misplaced that March 5 header. It was confused by the March 4 hat on the preceding March 3 question. -- ToE 18:45, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Horse question troll?

Isn't there someone who has been trolling the Ref Desks for a long time with asinine horse-related questions? If so, I think they just showed up again on the Computing and Misc desks. --47.138.163.230 (talk) 07:01, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

I assume you mean this question. Call me an enabler if you like, but I would put that one in the "daft but harmless" bucket. However I expect someone will get very cross about it ... Gandalf61 (talk) 09:34, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
The biggest issue is that they almost definitely are not the original author of these questions, therefore copying them here is likely WP:Copyvio. The questions are always copied from other forums with multiple different authors and indications (e.g. writing style) suggesting they are different people. If people want to answer questions from other places posted where the poster here almost definitely isn't interested in the answer, that's up to them, but the questions themselves should not be preserved here. People are free to read the original questions on the original forums if they want. Maybe they can consider posting their answers there too so someone will actually find them useful.... Nil Einne (talk) 12:17, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
I boxed up the one on the computing desk because I thought it was a malformed computing question (ironically, I couldn't make heads nor tails of it - har har!), but I support what Nil has done. The motive for stuff like this eludes me. Matt Deres (talk) 14:38, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
BTW, I would add unlike with another? poster who IIRC was posting new questions from StackExchange, these questions seem to sometimes (or often?) posted after a few days, so there tends to be decent discussion on the forum before the questions even appear here. Often far better than here. Not a criticism of the RD but to be expected considering it's specialised forum and as Matt Deres's response indicates, many of us barely understand the questions; plus the questions are generally asking for personal advice that isn't easy to reference. So even ignoring the copyvios, linking to the original questions makes sense. Nil Einne (talk) 10:54, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Other questions

Someone, probably the same editor, now posted a question that was posted to 2 Christian forums over 19 months ago. The poster there seems to clearly be the same person (not that it concerns us) but considering the time etc, there's good reason to think it's not the same editor posting here. I've given this the same treatment [15] Nil Einne (talk) 12:26, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Violence

To what degree is violence accepted by various political ideologies, and how is this changing in recent years? Also, how effective is violence at effecting political change?

Is that a good way to word it?

I am not trolling.

Thank you for your help. Benjamin (talk) 05:51, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

"Violence is justified in the service of mankind." ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 07:59, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
I personally see nothing wrong with the question as worded here. I suggest you wait at least 24 hours for more opinions; then, if there is no objection, copy the question to the appropriate reference desk. (BTW, all trolls say they are not trolling, so it's somewhat pointless to say it. To some editors around these parts, saying it is evidence of trolling since all trolls say it. Ask reasonable, intelligent, and answerable questions, refrain from endless arguing, pushing an agenda, and flooding the desks with your comments, and you're not trolling in my book, even if you have done so before.) ―Mandruss ☎ 08:04, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
Have I? Benjamin (talk) 11:03, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
I haven't been around for all of that, so I have no opinion about that. What matters is what you do from here on out, not what you have done before. Given that you have managed to become the center of some controversy, you would be wise to tread softly and not test the limits of tolerance. I've been an active defender of late, but my opinion of you could change. ―Mandruss ☎ 11:08, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
If I have violated policy in the past, I would like to know, in order to change. Thank you. Benjamin (talk) 11:10, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
There is a behavioral guideline, Wikipedia:Disruptive editing. The spirit of the guideline is that no user should disrupt the development of the encyclopedia or, in this case, the operation of the reference desks. It is impossible to define every possible thing that would be considered disruptive, so violations are often a matter of opinion among a local majority. Repeated demands to "show me the policy I'm violating", in the face of a widely-held view that you are being disruptive, are fairly good evidence of trolling. You are free to take such issues to Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) and, if you refuse to accept what you hear there, you will be seen as disruptive and may be blocked temporarily or permanently. That's how it works, take it or leave it. ―Mandruss ☎ 11:24, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
What steps should I take to ensure I don't violate policy in the future? Benjamin (talk) 11:37, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
Again, it's not about not violating policy, it's about not wearing out your welcome at the reference desks. "Ask reasonable, intelligent, and answerable questions, refrain from endless arguing, pushing an agenda, and flooding the desks with your comments." Don't make a hobby out of asking reference desk questions. The web is teeming with other information resources and places to engage in discussions. ―Mandruss ☎ 11:43, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
See also sealioning which Benjamin is approaching here as well. Don't ask questions whose purpose is to provoke confrontation. If you don't know what kinds of questions provoke confrontation, pay attention to what people do in response to the questions to ask. And if you can't tell the difference, then perhaps this isn't the place for you. --Jayron32 00:20, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
This is a neutral phrasing, and a question that we can address with references. I think you can see the difference between this and your earlier question that was closed! It is very broad though. While we can try to help with broad questions, our abilities are limited. I'm sure there are entire books written on this topic, so it's not something someone here can summarize for you in an afternoon. However, many of us may know just the kind of books you'd like to read! And that is what we're here to do: give references where people can find more information. So: please feel free to ask this question. We will help as we can. You may consider narrowing the scope to your area of interest, so that we can provide more directed references, and not "waste time" talking about things that you're not interested in (e.g. are you interested in the Middle East, Asia, North America, Europe, or maybe the whole world? How recent is "recent"? A decade? Do you care about e.g. political violence in ancient Rome? None of these are necessary, just things to consider. A "good" question does take some time to formulate, but good questions help the asker a lot more than impulsive ones :) SemanticMantis (talk) 15:18, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
I am specifically interested in the effect of Richard Spencer getting punched, but I'm not sure how to ask that without sounding loaded or whatever. Benjamin (talk) 02:38, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
You know, you can type "reactions to Richard Spencer getting punched" into Google, and you wouldn't have to involve any of us in that at all. --Jayron32 03:34, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
That's true, and I typed it for you. Here you go:[16] On the other hand, the same applies to any refdesk question that can be answered using web resources. To a large degree the desks exist to provide information assistance to people lacking in Googling skills, reading skills, time, and/or energy. There are web services where you actually pay (a little, and it's a voluntary "donation") for that assistance; I've used one of them a couple of times myself, ages ago, and I got pretty good results. There are one or two refdesk regulars who enjoy doing that pro bono, but for the most part the desks continue to exist because (1) their ideal persists and (2) a number of vocal regulars like to hang out here and discuss stuff. In my opinion a community cost-benefit discussion about the continued existence of the desks is long overdue. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:03, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
Of course there's that Google search, but I ask the ref desk because I don't know those sources 1) actually answer my question, and 2) do so in such a way that would be reliable, for such a contentious and speculative claim. They are also all news stories. I would be particularly interested in analysis from a more scholarly perspective. Also, how can I ask about Richard Spencer without sounding loaded? Benjamin (talk) 04:14, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
I've looked through those hits before. News stories, blog posts, and opinions from ethics experts. Nothing approaching even an unscientific study. The data you want has not been gathered. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:18, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
I'm not convinced such sources don't exist, but if that is the case, I would also be interested in sources discussing similar events in the past, if an analogy could be drawn. Benjamin (talk) 04:22, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
I know of one regular refdesk responder, SemanticMantis, who I would trust to provide a competent, quality answer to such a complex and nuanced question. The rest of us lack the skills and/or the motivation. Ask us how many total solar eclipses will be visible from within North America this century, and you're more in line with what the refdesks are designed to handle. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:32, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
Aw, Mandruss, if you go on like that you'll make this bug blush! While I thank you for your vote of confidence, and I do pride myself on research skills and strive for WP:NPOV, this question is fairly outside my wheelhouse. I am here to help, but I am perhaps a bit selfish in what I choose to help with, usually it has to be something I already know a good bit about, or something I already want to learn more about. Maybe another case where I don't know much and don't care, but I do know how to quickly find some references to research. Anyway, if OP asks on the desk, I may try to help, but imo it's not that useful to mix answers of question with discussion of questions here on this talk page. SemanticMantis (talk) 16:25, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

This is a reasonably well studied subject, but the question you asked is a bit broad for a simple answer. Here is just one example of a paper on this subject, specifically looking at public support for political violence in Northern Ireland over time, and by affiliation. If you something specific in mind, we can help look for references, just not as crazy specific as your previous question. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:29, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

The question is half of the answer. OK, maybe not literally "half". But it has to be recognized that there is a burden on the person posing the question, both in its initial formulation, as well as in followup commentary. Bus stop (talk) 13:42, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Would it be okay to ask specifically about the effect of Richard Spencer getting punched, or would that be too specific or loaded? Could I ask if there are any sources on similar events in the past?

Also, in the future, is it okay for me to get help with wording on this page before I post to the desk?

Also, User:Eliyohub invoked an unwritten "loaded question doctrine" in earlier discussion. Perhaps something along those lines could be added to the guidelines page?

Benjamin (talk) 07:39, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Don't you think people can be depended upon to engage others in a way that they would like to be engaged if the positions were reversed? Why expand the guidelines? Bus stop (talk) 12:53, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
WP:DBAD is a sufficient guideline and does not need any expansion. It's a good life principle. --Jayron32 12:58, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

How's this for a question?

Are there any sources analysing the effect of Richard Spencer being punched?

I've seen some saying it makes his ideas stronger, some weaker, but none reliable.

Also, if there are no sources about this event, are there any about similar past events?

Thanks.

Benjamin (talk) 08:19, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Hatted materialism question

I hatted this [17]. I'm not going to fight over it if someone, including the OP, disagrees. Nil Einne (talk) 09:02, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

The question assumes a particular premise, which is typically not a good sign. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 09:39, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
Looking over the OP's contributions, I'm starting to get a sense of WP:NOTHERE. Anyone else? Ian.thomson (talk) 09:53, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
Money is tight (talk · contribs) has been here for 8 years and never blocked, but that might change. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 09:59, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
Wow you're suggesting to ban me when I call out the fact that wikipedia is biased? Go ahead, do it, so I can appeal and have your admin priviledge revoked. I'm not surprised that a bunch of materialists are angry and want personal revenge. Please, abuse your admin powers and ban me. Money is tight (talk) 10:31, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
Wikipedia already has an essay on systematic bias. Benjamin (talk) 10:40, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
Your comment doesn't make much sense. If wikipedia is as biased as you claim and the community here is as bad as you claimed elsewhere, then you're not going to get anyone's admin privilege revoked even if the block was inappropriate. There's no "unbiased" Supreme Court here, WP:arbcom who are the only ones likely to revoke admin privilege is appointed by the community. (BTW an admin cannot generally ban an editor, they can only block them.) Nil Einne (talk) 10:50, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
In the past some of their questions were provocative, but they seemed to mostly avoid following up with arguments. The recent question about conciousness and the origin of life (but not really evolution despite the heading) was problematic but they also seemed to eventually stop trying to argue with the respondents. Maybe they would have done that here but I decided not to wait. Of course they also asked this question [18] and even asked for it to be "unlocked" [19]. (Yet I somehow suspect they don't see the connection of that with this question [20].) Nil Einne (talk) 11:46, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
For the amount of dedication you put into investigating my previous ref desk questions, I'm flattered. Money is tight (talk) 21:44, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
It's not as hard as you seem to think. I maybe opened 10-20 contribs total and have a multitab browser. And your contribution history is not very high, it fits in a single page of 500 results. Some of the stuff are obvious red flags like the inhibition thing and even the plastic surgery title sounded questionale and/or I semi-remembered them; also the sockpuppetry thing (albeit that was from your userpage not contribution history and you don't seem to have done anything wrong there). Others I just opened out of interest than because I suspected to see anything. I almost definitely spent significantly more time replying then I did checking our your contribution history. Nil Einne (talk) 08:22, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
Let's not turn this into a general indictment of a user. Thread got problematic and was properly closed. I think Money is tight is (mostly) fine, they just need to learn that it's not a good idea to respond to most every reply with a rebuttal. Clarification and discussion are fine, but they seem to be approaching recent questions in a forum-like manner, and that's not ideal. Also perhaps read up a bit on loaded question. SemanticMantis (talk) 15:08, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
  • The guiding principle is that questions seeking information are fine. Questions seeking affirmation are not. Questions seeking confrontation are ESPECIALLY not OK. --Jayron32 00:18, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

The "personal attack" card

I ask User:Baseball Bugs to kindly desist from pulling out the "personal attack" card unless there is clear evidence of an actual personal attack. He does it far too often, and has been doing so for well over a decade. I've explained it to him more than once, but nothing ever seems to change.

The latest episode started here:

  • The definition posted by Dbfirs proves your personal attack to be incorrect.

The so-called "personal attack" that BB was objecting to was User:Fgf10's:

  • Rump is a perfectly normal term in English. The BBC writes in English, not American. (Even though it's a perfectly normal term in American as well). There is no lack of 'neutrality' or insult, apart from in your mind. This 'question' can be closed now.

How is this possibly a personal attack? There's nothing derogatory, pejorative or negative about saying that a certain idea exists only in a particular person's mind. It's another way of saying "you are the only person who thinks that", or "nobody agrees with you". So what! It's not a PERSONAL attack. If you must couch it in "attack" terms, then it's an attack on what you said. But YOU are not what you say or do. One can attack what you say or do without attacking you, personally. That was exactly what FgF10 did.

An attack on you, personally, would be something like "There is no lack of 'neutrality' or insult, apart from in your obviously diseased mind". But merely adverting to the fact that you have a mind is not any kind of personal attack.

The consequent palaver was very disrupting, and is exactly the sort of thing that we abhor. It's the sort of thing, inter alia, that has caused me to withdraw in large part from the ref desks and focus my energies elsewhere.

Can User:Baseball Bugs please come here and indicate, once and for all, that he understands the difference between a personal attack and an attack or commentary on, or rejection of, what someone has said?

And can he please, once and for all, undertake to mend his ways and stop calling "personal attack" except when this is actually justified?

Thank you. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 21:25, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

He's not the only one. Several people find the concept of "correct a mistake you made" or "justly note an incorrect thing you did" as definitions of "personal attack" as though, when people behave against expected norms, or continue to press forward with demonstratedly incorrect answers to questions, those corrections of fact and behavior represent personal attacks. There needs to be a reminder that telling people they are doing the wrong thing, when they are actively doing the wrong thing, is not a personal attack. --Jayron32 02:49, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
FGF is a sporadic editor whose main goal here seems to be to insult other users. How many references did he provide in his self-styled "corrections"? Or are we to assume that his personal opinion is gold? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:28, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
Agreed with Jack. Too many editors are too loose with that term as well as others including "vandal" and "troll", and the result is counter-productive. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:31, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
There's a right and a wrong way to "correct" other users. FGF consistently goes the wrong way. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:34, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
Even if true, that doesn't make the cited statement a "personal attack". ―Mandruss ☎ 03:35, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
The apart from in your mind is the main problem. Not only does he have his facts wrong on the question I raised, he also asserts that there is something wrong with my mind. It's hard to get more personal than that. And it's typical of his approach to other users. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:18, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
Didn't even notice this bit. There were several posters before me already stating the correct answer, and my correction was correct as well. So lets start by saying I was correct, and you were incorrect. You keen insisting the usage of a term was a problem. Therefore it was an opinion, and it was only wrong in your mind. I am a sporadic editor because I only answer stuff I know about. More people should follow my example. Fgf10 (talk) 13:58, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
That is not what that phrase means to most people - as Jack said above. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:29, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
It was a personal attack in his mind. <ducks> --Jayron32 04:32, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
"There is no lack of 'neutrality' or insult [with that use of "rump"], apart from in your mind." That entire sentence is demonstrably incorrect... and personalized. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:36, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
First, WP:NPA says nothing about being incorrect, which clearly demonstrates your tendency to interpret the term too loosely. Second, if you're going to invoke the "Comment on content, not on the contributor" clause of NPA, you're going to have to explain how this, this, andthis are not personal attack. I have no doubt I could find more examples from the desks themselves. One needs to hold themselves to the same standard to which they hold others. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:49, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
Jayron, I concede that it may well have been a personal attack in Fgf10's mind. But the only person who can know that is Fgf10 themself. If Baseball Bugs suspects this was the case, that's his call, but he cannot act as if it were established fact, without violating WP:AGF. So, in the very act of naming an editor for allegedly breaching one important rule, he must himself breach another important rule. Some would say that's the definition of hypocrisy. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 06:23, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
It was not a personal attack, it was merely a correction. People here have an annoying habit of posting things that are factually incorrect, without and supporting evidence, and then calling personal attack when they are corrected. BB is merely the most obvious example of this. If people can't stand being corrected, they shouldn't be on the refdesk. If I behaved like that in my day job (medical research), I'd probably have been fired by now. Fgf10 (talk) 09:08, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for clarifying, but who else is regularly guilty of the same behaviour we're discussing here? -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 09:15, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
I'm not sure it's helpful to the general health of these desks to further the conversation in that direction. People who get reminded of these problems have every reason to know that they are causing them. Playing tattle-tale and dragging people through the mud because we want to make them feel bad isn't useful, and I'd have actually preferred if no individual was named, even the ones that have been already. A general reminder to not use a blanket "personal attack" defense when people point out your mistakes is sufficient. --Jayron32 11:32, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
See Richard Avery's response to Baseball Bugs on this criticism at Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Science/2016_December_5#Ginkgo_fruit_yield, when accused of a personal attack for saying "you are wrong". He brilliantly re-phrased his response, in line with the finest traditions of diplomacy. I felt duty-bound to award him a barnstar for his efforts. Eliyohub (talk) 13:41, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
Yes, but in rephrasing his response, he ceded ground to BB which should never have been ceded. He didn't need to rephrase, and should have stood his ground. Rephrasing it as he did is as good as siding with the Bug. --Viennese Waltz 13:51, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
If people are wrong, they're wrong. Simple as. In that example, the original response was entirely appropriate. That is not even remotely a personal attack. Fgf10 (talk) 13:54, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
Speaking personally, I don't see anything wrong with Richard Avery rewording his response on request. In fact I'd agree that people should generally be commended for trying to be more diplomatic. In the Richard Avery case, while this may not have been the intention, there is a risk the re-worded response could be intepreted as highly sarcastic and even more offensive than the original response so I do think there are risks there but this doesn't negate the general idea. I would particularly disagree it should be avoided because your ceeding ground to someone. I myself have a tendency to get heated when I see something that annoys me for some reason, and but I do sometimes reword my response later when I've calmed down a bit (often before anyone says anything). Other than hopefully helping the conversation, a good reason to be diplomatic is it avoids you looking like an idiot if you turn out to be wrong (so it does depend on how sure you are that it's the other party). However I'd never agree there's anything instricly wrong with saying someone is wrong and agree it's most definitely not a personal attack nor is the example highlighted by Jack. Nil Einne (talk) 14:30, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
Given the stats I cited below, one could argue it's not really a "personal" attack, because he treats everyone this way. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:42, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
Or you could, you know, just accept that it's not an attack at all and move on. --Viennese Waltz 15:32, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
So far in March, I count 19 edits by FGF. Only one of them has anything resembling a reference. The other 18 are uncited personal opinions delivered in a condescending way toward at least 5 different editors. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:28, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
Even if true, that is not a description of personal attack in the Wikipedia sense, which is the topic of this thread. PA is blockable, and none of that is blockable. The corollary: If it isn't blockable, it can't be PA. You continue to miss the point, so I'll refer to what I said to you one year ago.[21] ―Mandruss ☎ 20:06, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
I had not been aware of the Science desk Gingko fruit discussion but it demonstrates a flaw in your thinking, Baseball Bugs. You find a position that suits you, and you stick to it against the weight of all evidence to the contrary. Stickability can be a very good quality - but not in these sorts of cases. When you assert that those who say "You are wrong" are making a moral judgment and a personal attack, and they reply that there is no judgment and no attack, you must rethink your opinion. How can you claim to know better what was in their minds than they themselves? You cannot. Nobody can. You must accept what people say about the intent behind their words - particularly in an environment like this where we're deprived of all the non-verbal parts of normal human communication, which make up the huge bulk of the meaning. You are entitled to suspect otherwise all you like, but, as I said above, you are not entitled to act as if your suspicions were established fact. Otherwise, it is tantamount to accusing them of lying. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 20:40, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
I'll disagree with the thrust of that. "You are wrong" may lack humility and tact ("You are wrong in my opinion" would be an improvement), but it is never a moral judgment nor personal attack and no defense should be necessary. You might say that "You are wrong" is the basis for all debate. In my opinion. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:05, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
Is your disagreement with Bugs or with me? Your indentation says me but your words seem to refer to Bugs. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 21:11, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
My previous comment was my first disagreement with you. You said, When...they reply that there is no judgment and no attack, you must rethink your opinion. And I'm saying they shouldn't have to say that and the MJ/PA accusation should not be made in the first place. Referring specifically to "You are wrong."
If I don't feel somebody's wrong, there is no debate. That I feel they are wrong is implicit in the fact that we are engaged in the debate, and saying it is no more MJ/PA than the debate itself. Again, "in my opinion" helps, but I often omit it for brevity, and humility is fairly uncommon anywhere in life. Most folks are far more certain about things than they have any reason to be. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:15, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
I think we're in furious agreement. I agree that people shouldn't have to defend their words against baseless accusations of MJ/PA. In a perfect world, such charges would never be made in the first place. But we live in an imperfect world, where such charges are sometimes made, and we're discussing exactly such a case here. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 00:05, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
Ok. But wait, let's not miss an opportunity to wallow in semantics. Here's the dictionary entry for "wrong". Adjectival sense 1 is a synonym for sinful or immoral. In most contexts I think the far more common usage of the word is adjectival sense 3, which is a synonym for incorrect. If Bugs is applying sense 1 to this case, he's, well, wrong. If he's not, saying that someone is incorrect is hardly MJ or PA, per my previous comment. In my opinion. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:39, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Without naming names (you know who you are) let me ask a simple question. If an individual has in the past received significant pushback regarding their behavior on the refdesks and has never changed their behavior in any way because of this social pressure, would it be fair to say that anyone who posts a brand new complaint about that individual is wasting our time? -Guy Macon (talk) 03:00, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

It serves our readers. If someone gives an answer that should not be heeded, then we should flag that answer with an explanation of why (usually because it's off the cuff and provides no useful sources to read). Readers should be told to ignore such answers. --Jayron32 03:53, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
The above seems to describe the benefits of criticizing an answer on one of the reference desks, which may very well serve our readers. How does criticizing the person who gave the answer on the reference desk talk page serve our readers? --Guy Macon (talk) 14:45, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
It doesn't. --Jayron32 14:52, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
Yet this thread is not at all about criticising someone who gave an answer. It is about asking someone who regularly engenders disruption by falsely accusing others of personal attack when there was none, to stop this practice, and to understand what "personal attack" means around here. So far he has not indicated he has such an understanding, and has not undertaken to cease being disruptive. See this short interchange as well. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 00:50, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
Guy, are you proposing an alternative solution, proposing a pragmatic surrender, or simply making a rhetorical statement of frustration? ―Mandruss ☎ 15:05, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
I would propose a pragmatic surrender to FGF, who treats most everyone with contempt, hence it's never a "personal" attack. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:06, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
Bugs, I rather like you and I don't consider you to be particularly disruptive, ,but you are one of the people who does not change their behavior when confronted with pushback and social pressure from other users. I apologize for writing "you know who you are". Apparently some of you don't. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:48, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
Mandruss, I do not consider not doing something again after doing that exact same again and again has never had any effect a "pragmatic surrender". I consider it being stupid. I consider it willfully ignoring the obvious fact that what we are doing is not working.
While I did not propose an alternative solution in my comment above, I have done so on multiple occasions, and have never been able to generate a consensus to try my solution, even as a limited-time experiment. My solution, once again, is:
  • Get rid of all of the special rules that only apply to the refdesks and which the admins refuse to enforce.
  • Apply the standard rules that apply to all talk pages. In particular, apply WP:DISRUPT and especially WP:TPOC.
  • Stop complaining about other editors on the refdesk or the refdesk talk pages. Instead, complain on the user's talk page, and if that doesn't work, file a report at WP:ANI.
  • Let the administrators do their job.
Why refuse to try the above, even as a limited-time experiment? Beats me. Nobody has ever bothered to explain why they refuse to try it.
--Guy Macon (talk) 02:48, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
Sounds good. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:35, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
I don't recall such a proposal, although it may have been lost in the noise. I know I've said in multiple contexts including RD that it costs very little to give something a try. If it fails, we gain tangible evidence to replace WP:CRYSTAL arguments. And then we try something else. Inertia sucks. But I also support a community-level discussion about the continued existence of the desks. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:08, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
That's a question for another place. But I support Guy's proposal. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 06:09, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
In general one should eschew terms that are overused. Since Wikipedia speaks of "personal attacks", one should couch that concept in other language—any other language. Bus stop (talk) 18:36, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
One should not eschew "personal attack" because it's overused. They should learn its definition and use it correctly and only where it applies. Accusing someone of blockable behavior is a serious matter. Bugs spends so much time at WP:ANI that he can't possibly be unaware of how Wikipedia applies WP:NPA in practice. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:36, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
You mean there are certain words people shouldn't use because policy uses those words? That is a debatable idea. Bus stop (talk) 11:15, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
If FGF could "correct" other users without resorting to condescension, it would be much more productive. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:58, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
Again, that has nothing to do with your misuse of the term "personal attack", which is the topic of this thread. I don't think anybody in this thread is defending FGF. Certainly not me, since (1) I don't know much about it, and (2) that's off topic. I fully understand that it's common practice to respond to crticism of one's behavior by diverting attention to someone else's behavior. As a former parent of small children, I have never bought that and I never will. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:14, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
There's something you don't understand: I LIKE being corrected - with actual facts, not with condescending personal opinions. What FGF calls "corrections" ARE ATTACKS - on 5 different editors just this month. Did you ridicule your own children? Or did you merely explain to them why they got something wrong? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:25, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
Diffs, please. "You are wrong" is not personal attack by any reasonable interpretation. The preceding statement is an actual fact, well supported by reason above, not a condescending personal opinion. If you like that so much, why are you doing everything in your power to resist hearing it? ―Mandruss ☎ 01:39, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
Where did I say you made a personal attack? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:45, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
Sigh. Let's review. FGF said, "apart from in your mind". You called that a personal attack. We have made a very strong case that "apart from in your mind" is a way of saying "you are wrong", which is not a personal attack, so your use of "personal attack" was not appropriate. We would like you to acknowledge that fact and say that you will make an effort to avoid false accusations of PA (and other blockable behavior, while we're at it) in the future. Are we on the same page now? ―Mandruss ☎ 01:51, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
FGF has attacked FIVE DIFFERENT EDITORS in March, and when I stood up to him about it, Jack brought a complaint here. You want diff's? Look at his grand total of 19 edits in March, and you'll see only one of them had any kind of reference, and the other 18 consisted of ridiculing condescension toward those FIVE DIFFERENT EDITORS. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:56, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
Ok, I've now looked at those 19 edits. The closest thing to PA is "If you're so thin skinned...". That's one occurrence, not a pattern, and it's very borderline. For the most part, I object to FGF's confrontational tone (I'd call it a sort of TRM Lite), and I agree that it's condescending. I personally find it offensive, but it's regrettably quite common at Wikipedia, and Wikipedia never blocks based solely on that kind of tone. If we did, half of our experienced editors would be temp-blocked at any given time. If it isn't blockable, it can't be PA and we simply ask that you be more careful with the application of that term. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:19, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
Bugs, there seems little point in raising the extent of FGF's behaviour only now. You didn't complain about it when it was happening - except for the specific case we're discussing here, and then you overreacted with your claim of personal attack. You can never use another editor's claimed inappropriate behaviour as a justification for your own inappropriate behaviour. Little kids have that defence in their armoury ("But s/he started it", "S/he made me do it"), however I suspect you're slightly more senior than that. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 06:45, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
Or as blocked users sometimes say in their unblock requests "You forced me to sock". 5.150.92.20 (talk) 10:51, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
No one makes anyone do anything here. FGF chooses to attack other editors. And I chose to stand up to him. But since he does that with everyone, there's no further point in standing up to him. Instead, I'll say something like, "Per discussion on the ref desk talk page: If you've got a problem with someone else's editing, take it to their talk page." ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:58, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
You have a deal, sir. We'll all hold each other to that.
For future reference, as per WP:TPOC, a true personal attack can be simply removed by any editor without warning or any further ado. If a post does not qualify as a personal attack but still seems undesirable, it can be raised on the editor's talk page as per your suggestion. As can an apparent pattern of negative and/or aggressive posts. Or the WP:DISRUPT protocols can be invoked. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 19:20, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Vegetable

What say y'all about the best way to handle the editorial-disguised-as-a-question on the language ref desk? Knowing that the OP has edit-warred on the Vegetable page over what the definition of a vegetable is. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:55, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

The best way to handle such questions is:
  • Get rid of all of the special rules that only apply to the refdesks and which the admins refuse to enforce.
  • Apply the standard rules that apply to all talk pages. In particular, apply WP:DISRUPT and especially WP:TPOC.
  • Stop complaining about other editors on the refdesk or the refdesk talk pages. Instead, complain on the user's talk page, and if that doesn't work, file a report at WP:ANI.
  • Let the administrators do their job.
I would really, really like to see someone -- anyone -- here try these steps in case we are discussing, then report back here telling us how well it worked. Perhaps my plan is unworkable. Perhaps it just needs a little tweaking. perhaps it is perfect and we will end up kicking ourselves for not trying it earlier. We will never know unless a few of the regulars try it.
(I would advise being specific at ANI that you are trying the above steps so that the administrators at ANI are clear that this isn't just one more attempt to get them to enforce our house rules.) --Guy Macon (talk) 19:01, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
Excellent answer! Thank you for your efforts in improving The Reference Desk. This is refreshing. 2600:8806:4807:E700:C46C:938B:1C34:F3CC (talk) 19:33, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
Fresh vegetables are indeed refreshing. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:49, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
You're worth your carat in carrots.--WaltCip (talk) 12:04, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
My first instinct was to take it to WP:AIV. I thought it would be better to ask about it here. Sorry I bothered. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:23, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
You don't have to agree with my advice, but if you do agree with my advice, "Stop complaining about other editors on the refdesk or the refdesk talk pages. Instead, complain on the user's talk page, and if that doesn't work, file a report at WP:ANI" is part of my advice. WP:AIV would also be a good choice for experienced users like you who know which board is best in a particular situation. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:49, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Reference_desk/Archive_126&oldid=1234002183"