Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/Archive 109

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 105 ← Archive 107 Archive 108 Archive 109 Archive 110 Archive 111 → Archive 115

Proposal to close the Reference Desk

StackExchange is the place where people go if they have questions on some topic. While Wikipedia is a prominent Website, the Ref Desk is not. The Ref Desk compares to StackExchange as Wikiversity compares to Wikipedia, a totally irrelevant corner on the internet. Count Iblis (talk) 02:52, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

The cool people might go to StackExchange, but I'd never heard of it until now. I just tried it. It took 20 seconds to open. Unlikely to try it again. This is a silly idea. HiLo48 (talk) 03:17, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
I'd not heard of StackExchange either, although I stopped being a cool person approximately 3 years ago. It sounds like an awesome chaos experiment where you exchange the current processor stack of your own PC, with that of the owner of another PC somewhere in a distant part of the world. The refdesk is awesome, from my personal point of view. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 03:52, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
In otherwords the devil, Iblis, whose user page avows his disrespect for evereything, and everybody, wants us to abandon WP and go work as unpaid volunteers at Skynet? Vade retro, Satana. μηδείς (talk) 18:12, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
Odd proposal, coming as it does from a fairly regular contributor to the Science desk here, et al. Do you often spend your valuable time in "totally irrelevant corners on the internet"? In any case, I hope your attitude to Stack Exchange is more collegiate and collaborative than that which you have espoused in relation to Wikipedia: Count Iblis rejects most of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. He just edits in any way he sees fit to improve Wikipedia. Whether such edits violate Wikipedia's policies is neither here nor there. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 04:05, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
I got sanctioned by ArbCom some time ago which made me reflect on the way the policy making part of Wikipedia works. Things tend to go wrong when you are in a dark corner and there are too many regulars fighting out who is the boss. Count Iblis (talk) 15:00, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
The ref desk is listed on the Wikipedia "front page", and many first-time users seem to be able to find their way here. As regards StackExchange, it sounds like hacker heaven. And despite my protestations to the contrary, my wife considers Wikipedia itself to be "a totally irrelevant corner on the internet." ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:02, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
Relevance is a relative thing, of course. Nothing is inherently relevant, or irrelevant. It all depends on the context or the issue at hand. Count Iblis's premise is a false premise. I'm not given to naming people as trolls, but this episode must surely be sailing close to the wind. How about we hat this and quickly move on. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 07:35, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
No, just like in case of East Germany, the question of whether or not it is worthwhile to continue with a system that doesn't work, should be on the agenda. Count Iblis (talk) 15:00, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
Define "doesn't work", in reference to Wikipedia. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:06, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
If you compare this site to other prominent sites such as StackExchange or Quora mentioned by Looie, what you find is that here the regulars dominate the discussions; most questions are asked by the regulars. And that is an important factor in the disputes we've had here. Count Iblis (talk)
Did you not notice that several people here had never heard of what you regard as a prominent site? I've heard of Quora, a month ago. We don't all frequent the same worlds. HiLo48 (talk) 01:43, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
Why does this have to be a binary question? If you identified "the best site on the internet" (btw, good luck with that), would that mean that ALL other websites should be closed down forthwith? Not bloody likely. So, despite your active involvement at the WP Ref Desk, you don't seem to like the WP Ref Desk. Apart from the psychiatric aspect of that issue, so what! If you want to go to Stack Exchange, nobody's stopping you. But please live and let live. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 01:32, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
  • StackExchange seems mainly oriented to programming. Quora is much more of a general-purpose question-and-answer site. Looie496 (talk) 15:31, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
Slighlty off topic but most questions here would be swiftly closed on StackExchange as too broad/narrow or for requiring subjective opinions or falling foul of some other rule.
The reference desk does help the wider encyclopaedia, I've seen a number of questions about something unclear in an article or with someone needing help writing an article. It may also help with recruiting more editors as its an easy way to start editing.--Salix alba (talk): 15:51, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
  • If I parse the rationale, it is 2-fold 1) The OP found other websites that get more traffic than the ref-desks and 2) the OP once got sanctioned by arbcom and is still bitter about it. I fail to understand how either is a justification for shutting down the ref desks. --Jayron32 01:41, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
I've spent a little time around SE (different name), I don't really see them as a replacement for here. More importantly, I don't see how their existence impacts our existence, the internet has room for two - dare I say, even three:p - sites that answer questions. I have a hard time thinking this can be a serious proposal, you're obviously not lacking in intelligence, yet the logic of your suggestion fails to make even basic sense. Unless you have some clever elaboration you plan on presenting, I'm assuming this is a less than funny jape that fell a little flat.Phoenixia1177 (talk) 15:33, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Google searches sometimes yield links to Yahoo Answers, StackExchange, but I never found a link to the Ref Desk. A great answer to a question on the Ref Desk won't be noticed by anyone except the few regulars here. It would be great if this could be changed (I've raised this issue a few times before) but this is the ultimate cause of the problem that then leads to most of the other problems here. Count Iblis (talk) 16:18, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

A great answer on the ref desk should be integrated in to the relevant article. That's what the Ref Desk was built for, if I recall correctly. Mingmingla (talk) 16:45, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
I agree with your criticism, but I don't think that's a reason to close the refdesk; it is a reason to try and get build popularity for the desk. I seriously doubt, though, that closing the ref desk would move people to stack exchange, or elsewhere. I know I'm unlikely to move there, I'm sure others feel the same. Personally, I would like to see a refdek link in the left hand pane, I've mentioned it before too, but I'm not the person to campaign for it - though, I do think it would increase traffic.Phoenixia1177 (talk) 17:02, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Full Support - The reference desk has become a joke and has nothing at all to do with building an encyclopedia. The reference desk was created as a containment area but the justification for having a completely irrelevant side-project consuming Wikimedia resources - ie the problem of people asking dumb questions in article space - has long since ceased to exist with the advent of automated vandalism reverting tools, edit filters, ip range blocks, non-admin rollback, etc which did not exist in 2005. Added to that, a handful of "regulars" have decided to make the reference desks their personal playground for telling jokes and wasting other editors time. It detracts from the purpose of Wikipedia and it is time to take this old dog out back and shoot it. 190.202.217.6 (talk) 17:08, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
No, it is you, the Venezuelan troll, who are a joke and have nothing at all to do with building an encyclopedia, and who use Wikipedia as your personal playground for wasting other editors' time. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:36, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
There's a lot that could be improved; and I'm not so sure it is quite dire as you make it to be. Setting that aside, though, how does it waste other editors time? If you mean wastes their time in main space, I don't see how; if you mean wastes their time here, then if they are coming here and are not problematic, then I assume there is a decent reason, in which case I assume there would be something to improve towards.Phoenixia1177 (talk) 17:23, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
A lot of people here seem to be confusing "Stack Overflow" with "Stack Exchange". Stack Exchange is a general network of question/answer sites on virtually all topics. Stack Overflow is part of the stack exchange network for technical questions.
If the reference desk is to continue, it should try to learn from the Stack Exchange model. Stack Exchange is far more efficient at answering question. Much better at letting people find old questions/answers. And best of all, the software is designed (surprisingly well) to discourage discussion and joking. It's also reasonably good at avoiding the elitism that's been pretty strong on the RefDesk the last year or two.
The refdesk has always been a weird off-shoot of Wikipedia. It survived because the alternatives weren't suitable. Now they are.
Additionally, it's clear that most people don't even know the Reference Desks exist. Sites in the Stack Exchange network routinely come up near the top on Google Searches, it's rare to see the RefDesk in such searches.
The RefDesk is an old fashioned forum, hidden where nobody knows it exists, and contributing little to either the Internet as a whole or the Wikipedia project specifically.
APL (talk) 19:43, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
Based on earlier posts in this thread, it's clear that most people don't even know StackExchange exists. HiLo48 (talk) 22:21, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
"If the reference desk is to continue ...". Man, you've got completely the wrong end of the stick. It's not like it's definitely going to be decommissioned (on Count Iblis's say so, apparently) unless we can come up with some compelling reasons to keep it. The truth is exactly the reverse of that. Count Iblis has proposed it be removed, that's all. Sure, he's not the first to threaten us with being closed down - but so what. This will go nowhere, just like all the other vacuous attempts. There have to be really compelling reasons to close down what has been an outstanding success that has lasted way longer than any number of fly-by-night websites that, truly, nobody has ever heard of. The people who hang around the refdesk while agitating for its removal ought to take a good hard look at themselves and their real motivations.
To those people: If you don't like the way a website or any feature thereof operates, GO SOMEWHERE ELSE and let those who want to stay here stay here. There is no shortage of alternatives on the interwebulator. If you want to agitate for a positive change here, then make some constructive suggestions for improvement. That would be the adult thing to do. If you can't think of any improvements, then (a) what are you whinging about?, or (b) maintain your silence until you can. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 20:24, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
Sure. And If the reference desk is to continue it should try to learn from the Stack Exchange model, which is far superior for the reasons I mentioned and others.
APL (talk) 20:35, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
Once again, there is no "If the reference desk is to continue". -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 21:57, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
There's always an "if". But yeah, only to that extent. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:10, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
There's no if. The world will always be filled with bitter, whiny people who would rather tear down the work of others than do something worthwhile themselves. This is no different. --Jayron32 01:27, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Those sorts are the force behind two of these four "if"s. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:09, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
  • I agree that the ref desks have become a haven for obsessive regulars and IP trolls who object to the obsessive regular. Either way it's not fulfilling its original purpose, to provide reliably sourced answers to questions. There's far too much in-fighting, far too many obsessive editors claiming ownership over particular topics, far too many obsessive regulars providing opinion rather than fact. Sometimes it's worse, with the obsessed providing plainly erroneous information. You have to ask yourself one question: if the ref desk stopped existing, would anyone beside the obsessed who use it as a chat board really care? I doubt it. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:58, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
So, why do you care enough to even make that comment? What are you still doing here, if it's such a dysfunctional place? Seriously. What benefit do you get from coming to a website only to criticise its very existence? I really struggle to understand this. Apply this policy to the billions of other websites that really don't deserve to exist, and there's your next 50 lifetimes taken care of. Get started immediately, there's no time to waste. What are you waiting for? -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 20:33, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
If your only argument is to berate people who disagree, it only bolsters their arguments that this has just become a club for the people who WP:OWN it.
I argue on principles. And I ask challenging questions. TRM can answer for himself as to why he'd bother spending even one second of his life being involved in what he considers to be a place that few would miss if it stopped existing. I await his answer with genuine interest. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 21:57, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
Sorry Jack, I usually understand and respect most of what you say, but you've gone bonkers on this one. I didn't "come to a website only to criticise its very existence", far from it. I made my opinion clear that this Ref Desk sham is simply self-serving on the whole, i.e. the majority of it is overwhelmed by the handful of regulars who occasionally answer a question with referenced answers but generally just guess or provide OR or even worse, just provide plainly incorrect answers to questions. I don't believe I have any interest in the other "billions" of websites you mention. And how you think I could "criticise" them, I know not. As you know, none of us have 50 lifetimes to do anything. One of the biggest problems here is that the majority of contributors don't actually contribute positively to Wikipedia, they just lurk around these chat rooms pretending to know the answers to questions posed by other lurkers. I'm not wasting time here, they are. I actually help build the encyclopaedia, and when I do try to answer questions at this chatroom, I try to reference my answers. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:47, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
I think you exaggerate the situation - and main space has a large number of vandals, trolls, bad edits, lack of sources, etc. I've seen a lot of pages that suffered from such things. Why are all of these things an excuse to kill the ref desk, but not to kill Wikipedia? I've also seen pages "owned" by small cliques, or whole subjects - and if you look around a lot of the more advanced topics, you'll notice a lot of the same names popping up - so main space has "regulars" too, or at least subject matters, do. A lot of what you say about here can be converted to be about the project as a whole; but, in both cases, it misses the mark because the good is being forgotten. You also seem to be operating under the false premise that all of us misguided souls pissing away our time here are doing so when we would, otherwise, be contributing to articles - there is no clear reason to believe that to be true, I occasionally edit articles, when I do, it is not because I had nothing else to do on the refdesk, but for completely unrelated reasons; getting rid of this space would not increase my contributions to articles, it might actually lessen them since some of the articles I've edited have come up by doing research for here. And, even if you think this place is a waste, you are far from showing it harms the project, or that it is bad in general. --And, again, my answers are almost always sourced (often oversourced), and I'm certainly not the only one.Phoenixia1177 (talk) 18:54, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
@ The Rambling Man: Thanks for your considered response. All I can say is that I read what you wrote, and it seemed to be at best a statement of what's wrong with the ref desk and at worst (You have to ask yourself one question...) an argument for closing it down - but NOT an argument for making positive changes so that these issues wouldn't arise in the first place. Yes, it's good to identify problems so that they can then be addressed and corrected; but so much better to couch such statements in positive terms, including suggestions for improvement. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 23:26, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Negative comments by non-contributors (e.g. the Venezuelan troll) remind me of something Lucy van Pelt once said: "I don't claim to have any solutions - I just point out trouble." ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 08:44, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
The RefDesk has always been a strange exception to WP policies on talk pages, and the project in general. It is completely valid to ask if that exception is still useful. APL (talk) 20:39, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
As someone who both asks and answers questions, I find the Reference Desk to be very useful. Often, I learn something from a discussion in which I am not even a participant. Closing it because of a few problems is like throwing out the baby with the bath water. Also, if steps are taken to increase awareness of it, what can be done to attract desirable posts while not attracting undesirable posts?
—Wavelength (talk) 20:31, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
@RamblingMan: I would care if the refdesk went away, I get a lot of good answers here; and I've learned a lot here too (I explicitly thank Trovatore for his insight into Set Theory, and implicitly thank everyone). If you look through most of my answers, I provide a more than fair number of sources, and I am not the only one. If you count Wikipedia pages as sources, then a lot of people are providing something. And, yes, there are bad answers, unsourced answers, and trolls - on the other hand, Wikipedia pages suffer the same problem: ought we to shut down Wikipedia because there's a load of shoddy half sourced edits and trolls? Because you can't deny that there are. The desks could use a little tightening and a lot less bickering (and some more traffic), but this place isn't some half-rate hellhole, I think it is absurd to pretend it is. The problem cases are not the only cases, especially if you look over all of recent time - there's lots of foolery, but lots of good too, it's unreasonable to outright discount that. (I'm sleepy, ignore poor wording)Phoenixia1177 (talk) 21:38, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
I agree with Wavelength and Phoenixia1177. Despite their problems the ref desks are, on balance, an asset to Wikipedia. Gandalf61 (talk) 21:50, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
If editors such as Iblis and the Venezuelan troll don't like the Ref Desk, there is no anchor keeping them here. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:38, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
Yes, but to them it isn't just important to leave something they don't like, and forget about it. It's far more important to punish those people that do like it... --Jayron32 02:55, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
Bingo. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:18, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
Don't worry. When Flow comes in, all the editors who don't keep up with the main project will have a hissy fit and leave, hopefully leaving us with a workable desk for answering questions. Alternatively, I am fully in favour of killing the desks off for a few months, if it has a chance of reducing the more virulent strains of infection. Maybe then the many good editors who stopped coming here due to certain issues would come back, or we would retain the next generation of these. 86.164.73.169 (talk) 06:09, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
IF Flow comes in, it might drive everyone away. Read the recent comments about it on WP:ANI (possibly archived by now). ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 06:52, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
Wow, did I miss some general announcement about Flow? I had never heard of it till now. Wikipedia:Flow is quite enlightening, but when were they planning to tell those not yet in the know? Is this the price one has to pay for hardly ever visiting ANI? -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 08:30, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
Precisely. The WMF programmers are infamous for keeping as low a profile as they can and then springing something new on the unsuspecting victims, a.k.a. the Wikipedia community. The file viewer, for example. Things may look all rosy in the Flow article. But for a reality check, read that heated discussion between a WMF guy or two and a regular admin or two, on a recent ANI archive. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive854. My takeaway from all that is simply this conclusion: If I were testing a buggy program in the production system, as the WMF guy is doing, I would likely be fired for it. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 08:53, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
I'm not such a cynic as that. Besides, you're on recent record as considering your Wikipedia experience a "colossal waste of time", so you're hardly objective. I have no problem with development and change per se, but Flow has been around since May 2013 - as I now latterly discover - and obviously a lot of users are now aware of it. So, it's hardly a case of anything being "sprung" on "unsuspecting victims". I have to believe that any system changes are made not to destroy the project but with the object of improving the project. At least that must be the intention, even if the execution sometimes falls short. So, there are no "victims" in this equation except in the minds of those who see themselves as that, or who transfer their mentality to others. No, my concern is one of communication. If those in the know are able to voice their concerns about any aspect of Flow, or any other proposed features, what about those not in the know? What is the strategy for introducing Flow to the wider WP community? Does such a strategy even exist? If not, why not? -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 10:19, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
I reckon we'll just have to go with the Flow. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:39, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
It's been super-secretly announced in the same place all technical and similar stuff are always announced, and regular pleas for editors to test it have been posted everywhere. I rather like it, assuming the bits they acknowledge are problems and promise to change actually get changed. It's much more user-friendly for newbies, and might drive off a few unsavory types. That would be nice. 86.136.125.63 (talk) 16:57, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
Meaning we have to go looking for it, as opposed to their usual spam begging for money, which they post where everyone knows about it. As for driving away unsavory types, that would indeed be nice, starting with the drive-bys. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:24, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
Yes, where is "everywhere"? Certainly no place I've ever visited, and I'm not exactly a casual visitor to this website. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 00:18, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
It's been on the village pump, which is the basic place to go to discuss upcoming changes and things. It's been brought up on the signpost, and on the tech news bulletin (which is written for non-technical users). It's been brought up on the main page talk page. It's been brought up on ani. Where would you expect to go to learn about upcoming technical changes? 86.136.125.63 (talk) 17:00, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
How about in the same place they beg for money? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:39, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
I missed this before, but I should just point out that the point of Wikipedia is to create public resources. Saying you can use stackexchange -- or worse, Quora, a site so proprietary you have to sign their agreement even to READ the questions, and have all your curiosities logged -- is like saying you can use Britannica instead of Wikipedia.
As for the quality of Wikipedia, well, stuff gets answered, interesting information is shared, so it's to the positive. Having submitted more than a few questions that never got answered, I can't say it's perfect, but this isn't the only place on the web where that happens. More often than not those complaining about infighting are looking to start it, so it's best to focus on the questions. If the Refdesk has shrunk recently, this is not a special disease here, but a phenomenon that is affecting all of Wikipedia, which is ever-shrinking, and I would say further all of the internet. We created the Internet as a means of sharing information, discussing substantive topics, under the holy shield of freedom of expression, but starting in the late 1990s and accelerating recently there is a commercial disease loose on it, that reduces Web to "Web 2.0", neat information to "upvotes", destroying free and fair forums in favor of those where self-advertising rather than logic rule the day. The eventual outcome of this has been a loss of respect for the value of freedom of expression, and therefore of the expression itself -- I hear too many hearts here beating fast for the thought of getting some editor sanctioned, having some forum reconstructed with (they imagine) someone like them in power. If it is not the prospect of catching word of some peculiar aspect or new development in human knowledge that drives your interest, then you do not see what the Refdesk is at all.
And yes, Flow is a disaster. Wnt (talk) 14:06, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Re: Are we still living in a world dominated by the western civilization?” on the ref desk

User:Ian.thompson and / or Jayron have closed the question “Are we still living in a world dominated by the western civilization?” on the ref desk. They considered the posting to invite debate and speculation, which clearly, is not the purpose of the ref desks.
It seems to me that (not so) current developments in the Near East are sufficient reason to consider this to be a valid and interesting question. Indeed, academics have attempted to analyse the emergence of alternatives (Islamism being one of these) in numerous papers and books, as is evidenced by the reference sections of some of our relevant articles.
Needless to say, editors supplying answers must refrain from polemics, soapboxing and prejudicial generalisations.
I do not singlehandedly want to reopen the thread as I am aware that multiculturalism (to start with the thin edge of the wedge) is not an unproblematic matter.

Huntington (1996)

Oops: --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 17:12, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

If you have a request for references, please post it on the appropriate ref desk. If you wish to ask people's opinion on something, the place to do that is a place called the rest of the internet. --Jayron32 17:21, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
The questioner's assumed premise is of the "Are you still beating your wife?" school. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:37, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
I think closing the question was the right move, and frankly the desk could do with a bit more judicious closing of such open-ended and vague discussion topics, which seem to have been eating more and more space on the Humanities page of late. - EronTalk 20:06, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
Agreed. Sadly too many ref desk regulars seem to think that it is put there for the sole purpose of allowing them to promote their favourite hobby horse, and to tell the world why they are personally right about anything and everything. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:40, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
Sorry Andy, you "misunderstand". That's what most of the Ref Desk lurkers are here for, just to make themselves appear knowledgeable (or actually, mostly, and embarrassingly otherwise....! I seem to remember reading about someone who thought that passports were taken away and held in a safe on international flights..... these people need to stop answering questions on our Reference Desk...). We should operate some kind of feedback that allows those with genuine questions rate their actual answers. I suspect that we'd be shocked. Mainly that most of the questions and answers come from the same tiny set of editors. Also that most of the answers are purely based on personal experience, conjecture or guesswork, and don't relate to Wikipedia or reliable sources in any way. Simply substitute this URL with Google, the answers would be more accurate and have less bollocks personal research. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:26, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Why do I see you comment on the talk page here to criticize us, but I hardly ever see you on the ref desks providing references? I might ask the same of Andy, but at least I see him occasionally drop in with some refs. One of the easiest ways to make the ref desks better: WP:SOFIXIT -- why don't you help us make the world ref desk a better place and lead by example? I honestly think your (polite) activity would improve it. I also agree with you that a few of our regulars could improve their behavior to make the ref desk a better place - and these talk pages have plenty of history of users chastising others for their behavior. But there are many editors who do it right. Off the top of my head, I would list Jayron, Looie, BenRG, Eron, Trovatore, and Nimur as people who almost always include references and do not come here to preen and speculate as you accuse "most" of us of doing. Anyway, when you go around accusing "most" of us of acting in bad faith, I fear it may cause some of our excellent contributors to drift away, and that would make the ref desks worse. So if you can't or won't help us, please don't come here to insult us. SemanticMantis (talk) 16:45, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, I missed this response. In fact I have helped at the Ref Desk but tend to stick to areas that I know about, which is the primary issue with most those here who believe they know something about everything and are prepared to give their opinion about it. Which of course is completely incorrect for a Reference Desk. It's not "bad faith" I accuse most of the editors of, it's plain ignorance and plain "listen, I've got a theory..." editors who feel obliged to respond to just about every thread at the Ref Desk, in some cases adding nothing, in some cases just adding completely incorrect information. Google beats this place almost every time. The sooner you and some of the other lurkers get your head round it, the better. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:55, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

OP: I have read this question on a different level. To me, it was a superset of (inter alia) Catalonia vs Spain, Irish Catholics vs Irish Protestants, Ukraine vs Russia. Simultaneously, I read it as a query on Islamic Caliphate vs moderate theocracies, Chinese economy vs the rest, Star Trek vs the US Constitution (and the list goes on).
As to the point of soapboxing et al: Any respondent has the option to answer / to ignore a query or part thereof / to collapse a query. If regular editors in their response waffle on, they should be reprimanded / blocked. That nobody has the balls to kick out regular fuckwits is an administrative problem.
--Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 20:51, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Some users do have the courage to do so, and then they get shredded on this page for having shown that courage. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:58, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
That "shredding" has been your saving grace more than once, Mr Bugs. Would you prefer that the moves to oust or silence you be resurrected? -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 22:26, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
"Any respondent has the option to collapse a query." Do you agree with that statement? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:37, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
When I first read that question, I wondered who "we" referred to. HiLo48 (talk) 22:15, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
I assumed by "we" the OP meant all of humanity. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:19, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
On the Humanities desk, someone asked why America still supports Israel. Someone then complained that it should be boxed up because it's like the western civilization question. There's a crucial difference, though: America most definitely does support Israel, and the question can be factually answered. The question about western civilization is an inherently loaded question which cannot easily be answered, factually or otherwise. Hence it was appropriate to box it up, while it's reasonable to keep the US-Israel question open (unless consensus says otherwise). ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:13, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
The question about America's support of Israel could, theoretically, have been factually answered. However, what actually happened was a shitshow of POV and debate. It should have been closed as soon as it went off the rails - which was just about immediately. - EronTalk 06:10, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
What's stopping you? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 09:57, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
What is stopping me? Experience and an ability to read this very page. I like to provide factual answers to questions that interest me. I don't like dealing with the wikilawyering that results from all but the most uncontroversial closings/hattings/etcs. - EronTalk 19:02, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
Yes, what's stopping you is the likelihood of being savaged for boxing it up, as I said earlier. Cam't say as I blame you! ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:49, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
And the issue is moot now, as it's been archived. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:07, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
I would think this Q could be answered with reliable sources:
1) From a cultural POV, we could look at the percentage of TV programs, movies, music sales, etc., which are of Western versus non-Western origin.
2) From an economic POV we could list the economic output of Western versus non-Western nations.
3) From a military POV, we could compare the military strengths of Western versus non-Western nations.
4) From a linguistic POV, we could compare Western and non-Western languages, both in percentage of native speakers and second language speakers.
I didn't choose to look up any of this data, though, as it seemed like a lot of work with little benefit. StuRat (talk) 00:51, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
The first world is still mostly West by population, GDP, and area if that means anything. If you like 200 mph trains and 1,500 foot roofs and love the West though then you're out of luck. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 05:35, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
This whole section reads like the "I'm not arguing, you're arguing" school of domestic relations. The main thing that stands out to me is that the map counts Papua New Guinea as a Western country, which definitely is not something I had thought of before. Wnt (talk) 14:12, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
  • See this sockpuppet-troliing on the exact same topic after a week's hiatus. If only I had some nukes of my own with which to dispute this bee ess. μηδείς (talk) 00:36, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

"Oh, please just bugger off Baker"

Medis just posted: "Oh, please just bugger off Baker, we know you think your created image files surpass actual policy. Trolling is to be removed as noticed, not as recognized by you." (Diff: [1])

Do we consider this to be acceptable behavior on the public-facing part of the ref desk? If not, would some passing admin please like to take some kind of appropriate action?

TIA SteveBaker (talk) 17:42, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

'Just posted'? Two days ago actually. And as for it being appropriate, possibly not - but neither is it appropriate for the 'contributor' responsible for starting the thread to be once more wasting everyone's time with this repetitive nonsense. If you want to feed trolls, do it somewhere else. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:49, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
I find it completely inappropriate, Steve. I will now support any attempts at further sanctions against Medeis, having run out of patience. Please alert me on my talk page if there is any action pending, following up the warning given here. IBE (talk) 05:14, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Separate discussion about the OP in the thread linked by Steve

The guy who keeps asking how to import products into various countries may be a bit of a pest, but what rule is he violating? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:49, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

The 'being a pest' rule. Which is to say that this isn't a court of law, and if someone is abusing the reference desks we don't need a specific 'rule' to block them. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:55, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
Obviously not a court of law. But let's suppose he had asked just one occurrence of that kind of question. Would it still be "trolling"? If so, why? If not, how many such questions are required to cross the "trolling" threshold? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:03, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
Consider the user "Kavebear", who has asked many obscure questions about old Hawaiian royalty and such. Nobody has called him a troll (nor would I). So why is the other guy a troll? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:10, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
The issue isn't really the user who asked the original question. It isn't really if that user is a troll or not. The issue is "Oh, please just bugger off." When did WP:CIVIL stop mattering? - EronTalk 03:57, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
On this website? Long ago. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:44, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
Individuals may have stopped obeying WP:CIVIL long ago - but it still matters. SteveBaker (talk) 13:45, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
It matters to you and me philosophically, but if you read most any discussion about it on WP:ANI you'll see that incivility not only doesn't matter to the admins, the mere idea of civility rules is frequently ridiculed. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:45, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
If "Being a pest" is an offense that can be punished with removing someone's posts on sight, please let me know, because I think I've thought of a way to significantly improve the Reference Desk's load-times. APL (talk) 23:47, 9 October 2014 (UTC)


This kind of internal bullshit which makes it way to the public Ref Desk is a prime example of how poor the standards of the Ref Desk have become. Keep the pathetic in-house bickering in-house. Please. There's some good advice out there for those "helpful" editors who bounce around various questions doing nothing to help with the answer: stop it. Do something else. Try to improve Wikipedia rather than just rack up edit after pointless (and unhelpful and often hostile and vitriolic) edit. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:09, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia policies

I took a wikibreak of a few years until a couple of months ago. Apparently, in my absence, any number of Wikipedia policies and guidelines have been downgraded to "suggestions" or "quaint traditions". WP:CIVIL, WP:SOAP, WP:DYOH, WP:RS, etc., to name a few that I have tried to fall back on recently, are apparently no longer relevant. (For example). So, can anyone let me know where the new policies and guidelines are? Or if there aren't any, when can we expect the old ones to be taken down? Just trying to understand what the hell we are doing here any more. Thanks. - EronTalk 23:05, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Uhm, actually, the standard disclaimer you posted says " Please attempt to solve the problem or answer the question yourself first. If you need help with a specific part of your homework, feel free to tell us where you are stuck and ask for help. ".
It seems pretty clear (to me anyway) that the poster has made a good-faith attempt to solve the problem on his own, is stuck, has told us where he is stuck, and has asked for help. APL (talk) 02:30, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
I am sure a good faith argument could be made to that effect. My concern isn't so much with that - I am always prepared to be persuaded - as it is with being so politely addressed by "Yadda yadda. That pretentious template (it's a boilerplate warning) ought to be taken out back and beaten with a lead pipe," in response to a legitimate and good faith use of a standard warning template. - EronTalk 03:58, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
That this is standard is the problem. There should be a much gentler way to tell the OP to work through the problem a bit more before posting, if in fact he really needs to. I don't think I've ever used these kinds of warning templates, because it doesn't seem fair for me to expect that somebody has to read something I say if I don't even have the motivation to write it out myself. Wnt (talk) 04:02, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
(ec) I happened to notice this, so... WP:CIVIL applies to people on a haphazard basis, but I don't think I have to be civil to an obnoxious boilerplate template. I think the machines around here start half the tiffs; templating of newbies has been recognized as one of the major systematic problems reducing Wikipedia traffic. WP:SOAP I don't see the relevance. WP:DYOH, per above. WP:RS doesn't directly apply here (we don't have to give external sources) and I thought pointing out that there were Wikiversity and Wikibooks resources was a useful start. Even so it is (as I admitted) not a splendid answer because I have only a general notion of how phasors work without practical experience. You're welcome to try to do better. Wnt (talk) 03:59, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
My post here has to do with a lot more than the specific edit of yours.
Regarding your edit though, you weren't being uncivil to an "obnoxious boilerplate template;" you were being uncivil to me. You were totally within your rights to provide the OP with an answer - just because I thought it was a homework question doesn't mean you have to agree. But if you had an issue with my use of the template, you could have taken it up with me either here or on my talk page. Templating the newbies may be an issue, but so is being rude to established editors in public, as it were. - EronTalk 04:06, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
It does seem to me that as the RefDesk slowly shrinks it really seems like the regs are more and more clique-like. More modern question/answer websites like the Stack Exchange network try to combat that by intentionally breaking the threading to discourage off-topic conversation.
Of course, that's easy for me to say. I'm not volunteering my time nearly as much as I once did. Even if the problems (as I perceive them) were fixed, I wouldn't spend nearly as much time here as I once did, so I can't pretend to be part of the solution. APL (talk) 05:44, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
At times it appears to me that templates are the Wikipedia equivalent of the airplane in the Middle East (if you drop your bomb from an airplane, it's not terrorism). I would measure civility in terms of the ability of people to continue discourse, so to me a template that sends the OP away, never to examine the answers again, is more uncivil than a complaint about a template. Wnt (talk) 16:03, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
Are you seriously comparing the use of a mild warning template to dropping bombs on the Middle East?
People have different views on templates. No one has to use them, but they exist for a reason. You believe that they are rude and show that those who use them don't want to, or don't know how to, communicate directly. I do not; I believe they serve a useful purpose by providing a consistent and measured way that any editor can respond to a situation. And let's just look at the actual text of the template in question:
"Welcome to Wikipedia. Your question appears to be a homework question. I apologize if this is a misinterpretation, but it is our aim here not to do people's homework for them, but to merely aid them in doing it themselves. Letting someone else do your homework does not help you learn nearly as much as doing it yourself. Please attempt to solve the problem or answer the question yourself first. If you need help with a specific part of your homework, feel free to tell us where you are stuck and ask for help. If you need help grasping the concept of a problem, by all means let us know." (emphasis added)
This template positively bends over backwards to be welcoming and deferential. The first WORD is "Welcome". It contains an apology in the third sentence. It makes two offers of further assistance - that is, to "continue discourse". This is "obnoxious", designed to "send the OP away", and comparable to a "bomb"? Seriously?
Look, as I've said, I have no issues if you disagree with my interpretation of this as a homework question. I don't even mind if you want to challenge my use of templates. But do it on the talk page; that is what it is for. - EronTalk 17:04, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
Oh, for sure, templates have been known to cause widespread fatalities. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:51, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
My point was that the templates provide a sort of diplomatic cover. They are obviously worded very carefully, and yet --- their intent is to send the person asking the question away, never to be heard from again. Wnt (talk) 03:11, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
Is that a proper intent? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:40, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
"If you need help with a specific part of your homework, feel free to tell us where you are stuck and ask for help. If you need help grasping the concept of a problem, by all means let us know." (emphasis added)
In what possible way is explicitly offering assistance sending the person away? Look, I get it. You don't like templates. So don't use them. - EronTalk 05:18, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
I can't go through every subthread, but I'm inclined to agree with Eron. This whole thing could have been avoided if people had not used sarcasm along with their reasonable complaints. I'm referring to the "beaten with a lead pipe" bit, and to a lesser extent, Eron's reference to rules being downgraded to "quaint traditions". You'll save yourselves a lot of trouble if you avoid this stuff. Sarcasm/ humour, when used to emphasise a negative point, is a form of escalation. If gentle humour is used to downplay the point, obviously the opposite effect will be achieved. But here people are using a kind of negative and sneering humour, rather unnecessarily, and it really just annoys people. IBE (talk) 07:30, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

When do questions get archived?

Do questions get archived (1) a set number of days after their section was created or (2) a set number of days after there's no longer any activity in their section? Contact Basemetal here 17:42, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

(1). (The number of days varies by desk.) —Steve Summit (talk) 20:50, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
I don't know where to find that info directly, but you can look at a given desk's history and observe the frequency and behavior of the SCSbot archiving program. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:03, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
See table at Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/Archive 105#archiving changes imminent. —Steve Summit (talk) 15:16, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
For future reference, wouldn't it be good to post the current archiving schedule on this page somewhere? Permanently, not subject to archival. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:27, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Medeis' unusual reasons for hatting a thread

We had a thread smouldering about the idea of bathing in onions to prevent Ebola. Sure, that was pretty out there, but it didn't seem to bother anybody... until I started adding some relevant sources about allicin and interferon. Then Medeis hatted the thread, claiming:

  • " hat to save space for real questions" [2] (edit summary)
  • "medical something" [3]
  • "ref's" [4] (edit summary)
  • "be warned If you unhat this pseudo science it will be reported to WP:ANI based on Wikipedia:General Disclaimer" [5]

All this from a user who was under serious consideration for sanctions previously. [6]

So as not to have a simple edit war, I'd like some reassurance that these are, in fact, totally not valid policy reasons to hinder discussion. Wnt (talk) 20:47, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Somewhere further up the page, the user Cockatoo says, "Any respondent has the option to answer / to ignore a query or part thereof / to collapse a query." Is he wrong? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:13, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
I have reported both User:Aspro and user:Wnt to WP:ANI. I have to say I'm a little surprised at Aspro's unhatting, but Wnt has a history of unsupported pseudoscience, and Aspro was warned an unhatting of such nonsense would be reported to ANI. Let's see what they say, they are perfectly capable of restoring this unreferenced unsense if they feel hatting it is unwarranted. μηδείς (talk) 21:55, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
You really think ANI is the arbiter of what is pseudoscience? You didn't notice that the answer I gave cited scientific references that state that garlic increases interferon alpha level in humans, and that interferon alpha signalling is a target of one of the seven Ebola proteins, and that interferon had been raised as a possibility for Ebola treatment? A large number of the most common drugs we use are from plants, so you can't reasonably claim that it has to be "pseudoscience" to consider whether a plant might be useful in fighting Ebola. I should add that even the OP's idea of bathing in onions is not actually pseudo-scientific, nor is it impossible -- yeah, I think it's extremely unlikely, but it is a testable hypothesis. For all I know Ebola might turn out to have some unappreciated ability to auger its way straight through the tough outer layers of skin, and onion might have an antiviral effect on those cells. So it's a scientific question that we can answer with scientific concepts and that's our purpose here. When you're taking two separate people to ANI with no consistent statement of what policy we are even supposed to have broken, you ought to realize something is wrong. Wnt (talk) 22:06, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
I have nothing useful to say here that hasn't been said already; I just want to say that I am in complete agreement with what Wnt says above and think that this is getting a bit ridiculous - I thought we were past the whole "hat at first sight over half imagined rule violations" thing, I guess not. Not to be melodramatic, but how many contributors need to be driven away and turned off by over zealous policing before something is done to stop it? I know that I come here way less as a result, I'm sure the same holds for others - these desks are less populated all the time, I'm sure this is a contributing reason.Phoenixia1177 (talk) 02:44, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
It's more of Medeis' old tricks. They blanked your recent question about tooth pain as well. Dismas|(talk) 03:01, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for alerting me to that (which makes this doubly ridiculous); I did not notice that, but looking at the history, I do now.Phoenixia1177 (talk) 03:05, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
The bottom line is, do we have rules about giving medical advice, or don't we? I'm not so sure this is a clear-cut case of medical advice, since the OP was simply inquiring about whether some quack remedy might work. However, we don't need Wikipedia to be giving out false advice. At present, there is nothing proven to work against ebola except to treat the symptoms aggressively and let the immune system try to defeat the bug. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:08, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
I don't think we should give out false information, on any question - but that's not the issue - the issue is if the op is asking for medical advice, I don't see how they are. Asking if something will kill a virus is not asking for advice, that's a matter of facts, it does, or it doesn't - no one needs consider any specific person or their situation, nor is anyone telling anyone what to do.Phoenixia1177 (talk) 03:54, 19 October 2014 (UTC) 03:37, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
If you feel that this is pseudoscience and want to make your case for that, you are very welcome to do so at the question itself; this is a valid and useful response. But my feeling is that, as the Hong Kong government says here, Ebola mortality can be prevented, to some small extent, through the use of a balanced diet. And it is my assumption that a balanced diet contains garlic if only because garlic is a "yuck" item that doesn't fall into our favorite junk food, candy, ice cream or roast meat food groups. :) (Actually, I see our article balanced diet specifically mentions garlic) But I think it is clearly more scientific to speak of garlic's effect on interferons and the role of neutralizing interferons in Ebola, than to speak generically of "balanced diet", just as it is more scientific to speak of, say, willow bark in terms of inhibition of prostaglandin pathways rather than as a "cooling herb". Now to be scientific does not mean to be proven - I don't think my response can possibly be accused of presenting itself as confident advice - but this is after all the science refdesk, not the medical advice refdesk. And in the absence of any medical advice to Ebola patients to avoid garlic, it surely does no harm to discuss the possibility that this plant could give a person a small improvement in odds. Wnt (talk) 03:59, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
Without getting into any responses, the key part of the question is "If it can be administered topically in a bath, wouldn't this kill ebola? Or do they not use this wax due to their size? Next ; what of natural chlorine from onions or garlic in heavy doses?"
-That seems like a clear request for information to me, and it passes User:Kainaw/Kainaw's_criterion in my estimation. If there someone has a problem with reponses, they are free to challenge with a citation needed, or provide their own refs that denounce the claim in question. SemanticMantis (talk) 15:04, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
[comment also posted to AN/I The information at issue here, while somewhat speculative, was appropriate and well-cited. No "cures" were offered or promised. There was no reason to hat the thread. The stated reason for hatting, "medical something", proves that there was no reason to hat the thread. We have a well-defined and well-applied prohibition against offering medical advice. We have no prohibition against discussing medical information. —Steve Summit (talk) 15:31, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Do talk page guidelines apply to the Reference Desk?

Do talk page guidelines apply to the Reference Desk? In particular, is the editing of one's own comments after they have been replied to discouraged? (I am not asking about other editors' comments, which should normally be left standing unless they are completely off-topic, in which case they can be hatted, or are insulting or otherwise completely out of line and should be deleted.) My concern is that if an editor edits their own comments after they have been replied to, the replies may appear to be incorrect. What is the proper procedure for warning an editor who edits their own comments? Robert McClenon (talk) 20:48, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

In general, no, comments on the ref desk should not be deleted once they've been answered, nor changed without some indication of change like bracketing or crossing out. The basic principle is that except following specific guidelines like the Wikipedia:General disclaimer, and other policies such as WP:BLP, etc., one should not be editting other's comments or removing the context in which they have been made. BUT the fact that someone has responded to a comment that should never have been made in the first place doesn't immunize that comment or response to it from appropriate closure or deletion. μηδείς (talk) 21:34, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
The reference desk has its own guidelines Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines. However it is quite short and refers most things it doesn't cover properly itself to WP:TALK. Dmcq (talk) 22:16, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
The regular talk page guidelines very much do and don't apply to the reference desks. It's "obvious" to those who've been around for a while where the exceptions are, but not necessarily to everyone else, and the inexplicitness of the exceptions makes them fertile grounds for debate. It would be good if we updated the Guidelines to say explicitly that "Talk page guidelines apply to the ref desks except for X, Y, and Z."
With respect to ex post facto editing, you're exactly right, doing so can leave behind a confusing situation. Various strategies include (a) using strikeout text, (b) updating the date after one's signature (as I have done here), and (c) replying to oneself as a separate comment, rather than editing the original comment. (There's also a sense that if you edit your original comment fast enough, before anyone has replied to or perhaps even read it, you can get away with more, but it's hard to know what a reasonable time limit is.) —Steve Summit (talk) 23:10, 21 October 2014 (UTC), edited 23:14, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
In the case in point, it wasn't before anyone had read it, so much as in response to comments. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:49, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
I must admit, I often make several minor changes in wording in the first few minutes after I post. Probably a bad habit. I do use the preview, but for some reason hitting "post" immediately makes me think of a way to says something better, or decide I need another reference :) SemanticMantis (talk) 18:43, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
I don't see anything wrong with making minor changes after a post, certainly not if the post hasn't been responded to, or to correct spelling. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:49, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
The big difference, and the one that's most violated, is that answers should be supportable by reliable sources, even if that's not always done explicitly in case where there's little confusion, like a claim that starfish are more closely related to sea cucumbers that pumpkins are. Ideally any such general claim should be supportable with a reference.
We also have requests for specific expert opinion--such as, can someone identify this language, song, species; translate this text; say if this statement is grammatical or can be improved; or how do they pronounce propanol where you live? These aren't technically always supportable by references, but we usually have smart enough people to point out mistakes or call shenanigans when the answers are obviously wrong. A lot of times we have people say things like "that looks like Cyrillic to me" only to be corrected that it's actually Greek, but the effort is in good faith and approaches the truth tangentially.
I think the best practice is to assume that in most cases both talk and article space rules apply, or should be kept in mind. I also second Steve's suggestion that replying to yourself is often the best way to fix a comment you'd otherwise wish you had made differently. μηδείς (talk) 00:03, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
From [7] it was pretty clear that people don't think of the Refdesk as a regular talk page. I think there are times when we do things that wouldn't cut it on general talk pages. For example, I find that when questions are definitely misfiled, it is best to simply swoop in and move the question outright to the right place, leaving a note on either end to explain that. I've seen people do it the other way and it always gums up with a big long awkward conversation, usually decorated with irrelevant comments. Wnt (talk) 11:52, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Questions seeking opinions

I'm really stunned and surprised that Drmies' question about the Iliad or the Odyssey continued to attract responses, particularly after I raised my objection. A clearer case of unreferenced opinions being sought, I could not possibly imagine. The next time someone asked for an opinion, he was quickly given his marching orders, as he should have been.

So, explain it to me, in words of one syllable if necessary: Why was this particular question acceptable in the eyes of so many, when other opinion-seeking questions so clearly breach our guidelines?

And why did nobody support me? -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 18:26, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

At the outset, it was just a really unclear question - it looked like an accidental "Save page" or something. The problem wasn't so much that it was a request for opinion, as a really weird non-question thing. What's not good is how it spiralled out of control into abuse. As it stood, there are many questions of that form that could be answered without opinion: "Which is an easier read for 15 year old students?" could be solved by finding an authority on those writings who would provide an informed answer. It's also possible that one can offer opinions with some kind of substantive backing:
  1. "I think X is better than Y" -- bad answer.
  2. "I think X is better than Y because this reliable source tells me that X has fewer calories and trans-fats and Y has a lot of salt" -- good answer.
SteveBaker (talk) 19:12, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
But it was deliberately unclear, Steve. The OP refused to provide any context apart from connecting it in a vague way to his students, and made it clear he wasn't going to come to the party, because he believed that that would limit the answers. Even if he had, it would still have been a question canvassing opinions. A classic brain-storming session. We don't answer such questions. That is very clear. So why was this OP accommodated? Appearances of unfair application of the rules (where, for example, administrators seem to be given more latitude than others) are the very last thing we need if we want to remain remotely credible. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 19:29, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
It was a silly question, but if you don't like a question, you don't have to take the questioner up on it. You can just ignore it. I'm more bothered by the fact that this guy is an admin and was writing in an abusive manner. IMO he should be stripped of his adminship for that. As for why I didn't support you, sorry but I couldn't be bothered. --Viennese Waltz 19:24, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
That's honest. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 19:29, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
It wasn't a case of a question I didn't like, VW. I'd have been more than happy to engage in it in a pub or almost anywhere else (hypothetically, that is; I've never read either of the works). We have guidelines about what types of questions we answer here, and what types we reject, and they have nothing to do with anyone's personal tastes or interests. Just ignoring unacceptable questions is no answer to anything, because silence connotes assent, and it implicitly invites others to respond. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 19:38, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
I don't agree that silence connotes assent, and I have no problem with ignoring unacceptable questions. I find pretty much everything Medeis posts on these desks unacceptable, but if I called him every time I'd never do anything else. --Viennese Waltz 19:54, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
I'm not a subject of or participant in this thread. But, apparently I said something about sex or politics once that offended User:Viennese Waltz, who's been like a harpy on my shoulders ever since. If this is not just another violation of WP:CIVIL, VW can start a new thread on one of my current two dozen or so answers that is offensive. Otherwise, I myself reserve the right not to hold grudges, and to deal civilly with any good faith issue, and offer that as good advice to other users. μηδείς (talk) 20:39, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
I know we have rules against requests for opinion and debate. I mostly follow them. But there are a few categories that might be considered opinion that I think we should give to askers. For example, I recently asked for a good resource for learning IPA. Someone else recently asked for good book on a topic. The answers I got were ultimately opinions, e.g. the respondents were giving resources that they thought were good. I may or may not like the suggestions I got, but a bad suggestion doesn't do me any harm. I personally think it would be silly for me to demand a citation to a reliable, third-party reference that says that original resource is good, when I knew darn well that there was a bit of subjectivity necessary. This is in fact similar to how a brick-and-mortar ref desk operates. If you go ask them for a good book on X, they will probably take you to the book they prefer.
On the question of naming a company, I have no interest in offering OP potential names, but figured it doesn't hurt (and might help) to give a reference on the topic. Did I break the rules by responding to a blatant request for opinion, or did I follow the rules because I gave a reference and no opinion? I see it as the latter.
Anyway, with respect to the Iliad/Odyssey question, I agree that it was terse and confusing, and I have no idea why an experienced admin would not think to give a little more background, which could help us provide answers that were less opinion-based. In my responses, I gave references to many WP articles that I thought were relevant, though I did state one opinion, while being very clear that that part was only my own opinion. I don't see much harm in that, but I thought I'd explain how I see it. In short, sometimes I do think it's ok to give some light opinion (WP:OR, etc), as long as it is clearly flagged as such and there are actual references provided. I must also admit that I enjoy discussing the Iliad and the Odyssey very much, and that probably was part of why I jumped in to give some links even though it was a strange terse request for opinion, and Jack and OP had already had a strange bit of light bickering before I entered. I intended to be helpful to the OP and other readers. SemanticMantis (talk) 20:30, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Am I allowed, as a non-regular, to speak here? I am stunned at the abuse leveled at me for one question. As I said, JackofOz could have said something on my talk page--it's what polite people do. And VienneseWaltz wants me to be stripped of my admin bit for asking a question? That's the height of stupidity. Maybe, if you can do better, you should run for adminship yourself--I'll be happy to let you shovel some shit for a couple of weeks.

    If you don't like a question, fine. You can say something politely. With all the talk of civility, I found this little spat to be highly amusing, though hardly laughable. "Abuse" is a ridiculous term to use here and Jack (who admits he hasn't read the books, so no wonder he couldn't recognize a valid question in my brief sentence), maybe you should take that lack of support as an indication that this wasn't as abusive as you think. If it is, take it to ANI, take it to AN, ask the Arbs to strip me of my bit, and see how fast you get laughed out of court. Even Jayron, who also didn't like my question, thought you were rude. SemanticMantis, I appreciate your help very much: you are a credit to the Ref Desk, giving relevant answer and being willing to stick your neck out. The others, not so much. Drmies (talk) 21:45, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, of course you're allowed to speak here. That's why I went to your talk page and alerted you to this thread.
You're still making this about you and that lucky set of people who've read the Iliad and the Odyssey. My objection has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with the substance of those books or whether any particular person has ever read them or not. My objection has always been that you are seeking personal opinions, on a reference desk. More on that below. But you compounded that (not exactly unprecedented) error by refusing to even put your question in some sort of context. I've already asked you how you would respond to the question "Henry VIII or Elizabeth II?", but you've remained silent. Stupid question for a reference desk, eh? Sure it is. Yours was no less so. But you're an administrator of this website. You're supposed to be helping to ensure users play by the rules, not acting as a shining example of how to break them.
I am sorry if any of my words have offended you. That was not my intention. I make no apology for their substance.
I wrote the following before I saw your post above:
  • Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines say:
  • Personal opinions in answers should be limited to what is absolutely necessary, and avoided entirely when it gets in the way of factual answers. In particular, when a question asks about a controversial topic, we should attempt to provide purely factual answers. This helps prevent the thread from becoming a debate.
  • It seems to me that that presupposes questions don't seek personal opinions in the first place. References showing what such-and-such notable person's expressed opinion on some matter was are fine, as these are factual from our frame of reference. But our own personal opinions are not that. If we're going to allow such questions after all, we should make that decision very clear in the Guidelines, so that we can be even-handed to all comers. But if we still want to confine the desks to answers that can be referenced, let us please apply that policy consistently. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 22:16, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
I agree completely with Jack. The original question was so vague as to be impossible to answer on the RefDesk in accordance with the guidelines. Clarification was sought and was refused. It isn't necessary to have read the books or not to fail to "recognize a valid question." Any question that reads "A or B?", with zero additional clarification, should be ignored or removed for any and all values of A and B.
"Valid question" of course means only valid for the Reference Desk, which is all we should be considering here. - EronTalk 19:03, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
There are times when you wish you still had Saddam Hussein instead of ISIS. It's more pleasant to randomly banter under the banner of a poorly-formed question than to have a big talkpage dramafest about whether it should be allowed - a pointed forceful intervention is just more trouble than it's worth. I think the best practice with something like this is, if desired, to restate the question as something you can answer, answer that, and move on; otherwise to ignore it. Wnt (talk) 11:58, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
Not to tinker with the original question, but to write "If you mean... then..." Right? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:32, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
"It's more pleasant to randomly banter under the banner of a poorly-formed question than to have a big talkpage dramafest about whether it should be allowed." (Emphasis added). Two questions:
"The Wikipedia reference desk works like a library reference desk. Ask a question here and Wikipedia volunteers will try to answer it." - Does this still apply?
"We don't answer requests for opinions, predictions or debate." - Does this still apply?
If those two statements still apply, then the Desk is not a place for random banter, however pleasant. There are many fora on the Internet that welcome pleasant random banter. Post these sorts of questions there. Not here. - EronTalk 20:38, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
Wnt, there are a number of aspects to this. One is the inappropriateness both of Drmies' question and the fact that many people answered it anyway. More troubling to me is the perception that an administrator is given special licence to flout the rules, which licence is denied to mere editors. The next question seeking opinions was immediately shut down (see link in my opening post). Could the difference in application of the rules possibly be any starker? Why wasn't Drmies' question likewise immediately shut down? Or, given the precedent set in Drmies' case, why wasn't the IP's question welcomed?
We have to get on top of this sort of messy, inconsistent, haphazard, random, discriminatory and unjust way that policies are applied. Otherwise, why do we bother having policies and guidelines at all? That's the real nub of this. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 21:47, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
I could get behind not shutting down the request for domain names. We could work that up into quite a serious question - I mean, there must be an actual industry of sorts behind getting a good name for business. Wnt (talk) 00:48, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

My 2c: Drmies original question was a technical error given the refdesk guidelines, while Jack's over-the-top and abusive response was a more fundamental transgression of standard of communications one would expect in real world, and especially if we take the refdesk~ library analogy to heart. Given that the question was finally clarified enough for several refdesk regulars to give useful responses, and that Jack acknowledged his own mistake, I wish the matter had been laid to rest right there. Am disappointed at the continued badgering at User_Talk:Drmies and silly imputation that somehow (subliminally?) Drmies is waving his admin status around, but I'll stop and not myself contribute to that thread.

If there is a wish to tighten the enforcement of refdesk guidelines for for questioners and responders, lets discuss that but lets not personalize the discussion anymore. Abecedare (talk) 23:51, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

I largely agree. But the problem with the rules, Abecedare, is that there is a large faction of users here who want to ignore all rules and, was just said above, "work that up into quite a serious question" whenever they come across blatant rule violations. Our job here is to assume good faith, but not to fix bad questions. The proper response even for people who want to make invalid questions is to hat or delete the invalid question and explain to the OP on his talk page your suggestions. Instead we get bad answers to worse questions and then fights on this page about it. μηδείς (talk) 02:40, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
The only reason I raised the matter again at Drmies' talk page was that it was left hanging. It was not resolved. Resolution is best, so I took the initiative. But no matter how many times I apologised and took responsibility for my rudeness, it always got stuck on that issue. I could not get Drmies to enter into any discussion AT ALL on the issues I raised to begin with:
  • the inappropriateness of his question itself
  • his refusal to supply any context to help make it marginally appropriate
  • the perception that he was playing a silly game
  • the fact that an administrator should have known better than to engage in any one of the foregoing behaviours, let alone all of them; and
  • the perception that the question was only accommodated at all because it was asked by an administrator, and the injustice inherent there.
The only time Drmies had ever even commented on any of these issues was to deny the question was inappropriate. That's it. I told him that denial is no way to address an issue, but that got me nowhere. Finally, last night (my time) he admitted his initial question was "wrong". This, after his previous denial that there was anything amiss with it. If he had made that acknowledgment right away when the matter was first raised, and hadn't engaged in stonewalling and massive deflection, all this palaver would have been avoided. Isn't Drmies required to accept ANY responsibility for that? Even after my apologies I'm STILL being told how rude I was and how I've been badgering and haranguing Drmies, and given a lecture on civility; while his behaviour, which is pretty reprehensible, is being just let through without further ado. After all, it was Drmies who started this. All I did was to take a stand and say "Not good enough, Drmies", but he's given a free pass while I end up the bad guy for my troubles. A fair and just outcome we can all be proud of? Hmmm ........ -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 19:16, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Observation

What started this was that User:Drmies, a respected Wikipedia administrator, asked a meaningless empty question: "The Iliad or the Odyssey?". User:JackofOz criticized him and the question. It appears that he may have been trying to ask which one to teach to his students, but that wasn't the question (unless the question has been changed maliciously, which I doubt). The question was inappropriate, and the editor who said that the question was inappropriate was correct. I don't expect Drmies to take my advice, but I think that he should acknowledge that the question, as asked, was inappropriate, and that JackofOz is entitled to an apology. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:47, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Drmies' question wasn't well expressed, but it isn't a massive deal. We are bound to get a lot of really badly expressed questions. Drmies did clarify when asked to. Itsmejudith (talk) 19:51, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
I agree. The subsequent discussion has been overblown. However, criticism of JackofOz was inappropriate, in my view. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:56, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
(e/c) No he did not, Itsmejudith. His "clarification" of "Iliad or Odyssey?" was "I'm not asking for knowledge--I have that. I just want to know, Illiad or Odyssey? Can't do both". You call that a clarification? I certainly do not. His only teensy concession was to mention "students", but that was way short of sufficient. So far from any clarification, this was willful refusal to clarify. That's what got up my nose. So much so that, in my raising of the matter, I uncharacteristically over-reacted, and ever since then the debate has been about my over-reaction rather than what got this started in the first place. I'm glad to see it's finally moving on to that matter. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 20:04, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
He actually kind-of explained it to me, on my talk page.[8] I apologize for not copying that answer to the ref desk. (Though he should have done that.) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:20, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
To throw my own two cents in. While we have a rule against opinion questions, the desks are not so clogged up and busy that the occasional one is a big deal; especially if reasonable, or educational, opinions can be given. However, the lack of context, and the empty clarification, are, in my opinion, a major issue - it's one thing to request informed opinions on if eating chicken or steak is more useful for building muscle, it's another to just say "chicken or steak?". The lack of context, and clarification, makes it seem like the op could care less, and cares not at all for our time - that they are an admin makes this all the more ridiculous as they should know better, personally. I think Jack's response was a little testy, but nothing that out of line, there is no reason the op could not have made better efforts, and their responses (across talk pages) seems lacking, far more than anything Jack said. --And, for the record, I'm usually all in favour of leaving questions for those who want to answer, even when they are asking for opinion, or nonsense, or etc. In this case, though, it should definitely have been hatted/removed until the op was willing to clarify.Phoenixia1177 (talk) 08:09, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
If we're going to discuss rules can we please respect WP:INDENT? Jack, the simple reason that the "rules" (I prefer "guidelines") are enforced inconsistently is that we're all volunteers, whose reasonable interpretations of the guidelines may differ. Adding to the issue is our lack of collocation in space and time, the lack of communication cues carried by text, &c.
When pondering the differences between your two linked examples, also note that your first entry to that thread started "Do we really have to put up with this sort of abuse of the ref desk" while Llama's was "Sorry but we don't answer questions for opinion" (with an appropriate link). I don't think anyone is saying that Jack was way out of line on questioning the question, but I think a few of us were surprised to see him lose his temper, which seems otherwise rather rare here. Likewise, I don't think anyone is saying Drmies was perfectly appropriate with his question and responses. Similar to what's described by Bugs and Wnt above, I responded as though a well-formed question had been asked, even if I had to guess some parts and make up others. I think that's a good way to help OPs without going against our guidelines. As Phoenixia says, we're not exactly suffering a surfeit of requests for references these days, though I might indeed advocate a more dismissive approach to requests for opinion if we were inundated with questions. SemanticMantis (talk) 22:01, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
I'm definitely not of the view that the response to any question should be conditioned by the volume of traffic we happen to be currently receiving. That is completely out of any OP's hands, and the answers they get to their individual questions should not vary in quality or otherwise suffer as a result.
However, I would support a culture that goes "Where an OP asks an inappropriate question, endeavour to reframe it into an appropriate question, and respond to that". That has often happened. But what has happened just as often is OPs being given short shrift, whether by way of deletion, hatting, being told they've stepped out of line and to come back when they have a better question for us, or some combination thereof. Sometimes they're told how they've transgressed, but we answer their question or a revised version thereof anyway. It's a mish-mash. Can we work toward a consistent way of dealing with these questions?
In amongst all that is the frequent need to seek clarification of badly worded questions. Often, we just don't know whether we should be answering a question or not, until we have more information. So, that is often the first step. If they come back with a clarified question, and it is clearly beyond the scope of this desk, then we can consider going the reframing way as I suggested above. Or, if it's an OK question, we answer in the normal way. But if their clarification doesn't help us understand the question at all, as was the case with Drmies' "clarification", then that would usually be prima facie evidence they're toying with us, and we can feel justified in just deleting the whole thing outright.
Another factor is the language issue. Many of our OPs are not native speakers of English, which can add an additional layer of complexity when we're assessing the merits of a question.
I'm sure it's not beyond our collective wit to come up with a simple procedure (or flowchart?) that considers all these factors and guides us towards operating in a consistent manner, speaking with a single voice, and giving our clients equal and fair treatment. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 23:06, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
I definitely agree with that. I'll add that I think much of the point of the Refdesk is not simply to help an individual poster, but to create a big open database of questions and answers. If we take the OP's question, rephrase it into an interesting question, and answer it, we've still our part for the database even if we were wrong about what he was really trying to ask. Wnt (talk) 23:34, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
This is unacceptable disruption
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
  • Come one, come all! Burn him, he's a witch! Pitchforks to the right, faggots to the left! Torchbearer up front and center!
You really want to know what the problem with the ref desk is? It's the constant endless preening posturing unproductive hysteria on this talk page.
Will an admin please archive this thread? μηδείς (talk) 02:04, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Admins, please ignore the above post. This discussion has progressed to the point where we're now discussing the core issue, namely, how to improve our treatment of inappropriate questions, and we're doing so in a very positive and constructive way. This should be allowed to run its course. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 03:27, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
Notice Jack can't even be civil enough from his high ivory dudgeon to say, "I disagree, please leave this thread open...." No, it has to be, please ignore the above post. What if everyone just ignored Jack? What would Jack do? μηδείς (talk) 04:55, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
Odyssey. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:19, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
Notice Medeis is being disruptive. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 08:03, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
Incredible. You don't hat someone who disagrees with you or criticizes you in a discussion.
This is such an utterly wrong rejoinder that I must say something. You came out of left field to make some crazy mini-rant about "endless preening posturing" and "unproductive hysteria", which was both the worst contradiction in terms I've ever seen in my life and totally irrelevant to the topic at hand. Then, rather than being satisfied with yet again drawing attention to yourself, you took it upon yourself to ask for the thread's closure. That is the action of a spoiler and a vandal. This was not, as you put it, "disagreeing with me in discussion". You made no reference whatsoever to the existing discussion. You introduced a new issue, but one that was so desperately important that you wanted it immediately shut down without any responses. WTF! That is soapboxing. That is the quintessence of disruption. That is is why I hatted it, and why it has since been re-hatted after your attempt at manipulation.
What was that sermon I read somewhere about "reserving the right not to hold grudges, and to deal civilly with any good faith issue, and offer that as good advice to other users"? Such wisdom. Such a statesperson. How noble and loving. What a wonderful example this person must set in their daily life, totally free of things like hypocrisy. I wish I could remember where I read it.
Unfortunately, you gave the game away when you said this in a later edit summary: criticizing a witch hunt across three pages by one user is not disruptive. That makes it clear your intervention was personal against me, despite your not having the balls to say so at the time. Everyone, please meet the Quinn Fuller of the Reference Desk. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 21:46, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Day Light Savings and More On Opinions

The question on DLS on the Science [actually Miscellaneous —scs] desk was hatted as requesting opinions, I'm tempted to remove it, but figured I'd just bring it up here as I've been unhatting a lot of things lately. My issue: the question can, easily, be read as asking if DLS serves a purpose in the modern time. That is something that can be answered with sources; perhaps, though, others disagree. Our current policy does not draw a strong difference between "what's better coke or pepsi?" and "Is IPv6 a good replacement for IPv4?" - the former can only be responded to with opinions, the latter can be intelligently answered by discussing why address exhaustion won't apply to it, etc. More than anything, though, I don't understand why "we have a rule" translates into "we must enforce this rule"? I can fire an employee for being late 3 times, that's in our policy at my workplace, it's not something that I, or anyone else with authority, is going to do on a routine basis. The existence of a rule is, usually, to give authority for handling problems, not as a blanket excuse to exercise authority, nor as some absolute that must be followed without question, in every case. (I realize that this seems like a lot of whining for a single question, but it is part of a general annoyance I have with how things are handled here: we have a microscopic audience, yet some of us are about censuring them whenever the option exists; that is simply absurd to me, if something isn't a problem, why does anyone need to intervene?)Phoenixia1177 (talk) 09:42, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

"The existence of a rule is, usually, to give authority for handling problems, not as a blanket excuse to exercise authority, nor as some absolute that must be followed without question". Some people should probably have this sentence tattooed on their arm as a reminder. I cannot disagree with that sentiment in any way. In the case of the specific question on daylight savings time, we could provide links to reliable sources which discuss the debate over DST. That would answer the OP's question without delving into providing our own personal opinions. Or, we could do nothing if we don't want to do that... --Jayron32 13:46, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
As I recall, the first response, or one of them (possibly even yours) was to link to the explanation of what DST is and where it came from. It could have been marked "resolved" at that point. But that wasn't really the OP's question. The question was an invitation to a debate. A recent episode of How We Got to Now explained the evolution of timekeeping, and how it was driven by various needs and wants. It can be taken all the way back to when everyone kept "local time", which could be called "sundial time". Time zones and Standard Time were invented for practical reasons, and the same is true for Daylight Saving Time. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:53, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
The difficulty with this rule is that we can't know the intent of the OP. Are they requesting an opinion, or are they asking for references containing facts? Even in the "Coke vs Pepsi" kind of question, there might be some kind of solid reference as to which is better...but even if there isn't, the OP might be hoping there is, and asking us to dig it up. It's always possible that the question might be badly phrased - and should have been "Which is better for my health - Coke or Pepsi?"...OP's often assume we can read their minds!
In this case, the question actually was: "Now that we are going off of daylight saving time why should we ever go back on it." - I can't imagine why that would be a matter of opinion. I'm sure there are documented reasons why DST is useful and governments around the world continue to apply it.
Hatting the question ensures that nobody will go off and find a documented reason why we'll go back on DST next year. For example, a 2007 study from RAND Corporation found that the increase in daylight in spring produced a 10 percent drop in car crashes...there are 30,000 fatal car crashes per year in the USA. Reducing that by 10% for even a part of the year will save around 1,000 to 3,000 lives. There is a great, non-opinion, reason for go back to DST.
Just because your imagination is too limited to come up with a way to answer a question without giving an opinion, doesn't mean that other people can't. So, again - if you can't think of a way to answer a question without giving an opinion, then just don't answer it. If it really is a question that absolutely requires an opinion - then nobody will be able to answer it. If it turns out that you're wrong and somebody *can* answer it with an opinion-free answer - then surely that's a good thing.
Really the only time we should be telling the OP that we can't answer their question is when they explicitly say something like "I'd like the opinions of the people here about Coke versus Pepsi"...then you can't answer, and it might be worth pointing out to our OP that we can't answer questions like that.
In general, (and I say this a lot), it is the height of arrogance to say "I know better than everyone else on the Ref Desk, so I'm going to HAT this in an effort to prevent those lesser idiots from answering it"...and that's how it feels like when someone does that. If you respect other members of this community, and WP:AGF, then it's safe to simply not answer the question - and assume that (if you're correct) they won't either...and accept that you're going to be wrong some of the time - and so are they - and that the world won't end because of that.
SteveBaker (talk) 15:23, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
And responders often assume they can read the OPs' minds. There are some examples in this very section. All you have to go on is what the OP actually said. The question was answered almost as best as it could be. However, the right answer is "because the laws say so." Now, if someone wants to live by standard time, they can do that. But if they show up at work or an appointment an hour late, it won't be the fault of whoever they were going to visit. If someone doesn't like that law, or any law, they can always write to their appropriate legislator. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:35, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
The ban on opinions and debate is one on asking for debate on RefDeskers' opinions - it's not a ban on asking for (well referenced) third party opinions. I think most here would agree that closing the question "What was Paracelsus's opinion on the doctrine of signatures?" with the rationale "We don't answer requests for opinions" would be inappropriate, and excuses about "but they explicitly *said* they wanted an opinion" would be considered fatuous. I think the principle should extend in general, even if the third party is not explicitly specified. We should assume that the questioner is making a good faith attempt at obeying the RefDesk guidelines, and if a question can be interpreted as a request for (well referenced) third party opinions, it should be interpreted as such. With ambiguous questions, assuming that they're definitely requesting for RefDesker's personal opinions - or that they're explicitly requesting a debate - is as much, if not more so, "reading their mind" than the other way around. Answerers should limit themselves to providing references to third party arguments, and *answers* which don't conform should be hatted/deleted, with the *answerer* being (politely) admonished to follow the rules. (Perhaps there could be some template for such questions with reminders to people to stick to references when answering.) Only in cases where it's clear to the majority that the questioner is looking for personal opinions specifically of RefDeskers, or where a question poses an attractive nuisance which rises beyond the capability of the desk to handle, should a question be closed as asking for opinions. (Though the latter should be viewed as a failure on the part of the people answering the question, rather than the person asking.) -- 160.129.138.186 (talk) 16:41, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
The only nuisance such questions attract is people who feel like their role as the police force at the ref desks is more important than just ignoring such questions. --Jayron32 17:27, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
The theme I'm gleaning from the above is that we run the Reference Desks and we are the ones who must stay in control (that's a reminder to myself as much as to anyone else). That means, inter alia, that just because a question asks, or appears to ask, for opinions, that does not mean our only choices are (a) give them an opinion or (b) hat or delete the question. There's usually an embarrassment of easily obtainable and relevant referenced information we can supply in response. That may include well-sourced third party opinions, but it may be something else entirely. Our job is to be helpful, and that sometimes means not being slaves to the literal wording of an OP's question. We do get to reframe their questions into something useful. We also get to ask for clarification where a plethora of unrelated responses would otherwise be possible, with no guarantee that any of them would be even close to the mark. Our policies and guidelines are there to guide us, not to be used as a stick with which to beat people up (but they give us authority to act differently where questioners come here to cause disruption). I also strongly support the enforced tattooing of Phoenixia1177's dictum on whichever body part we visit most often. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 18:05, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
↑ Sign my name to what Jack said. Abecedare (talk) 18:19, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
Mine's likely not big enough to fit the whole sentence... Perhaps in a really small font... --Jayron32 03:08, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
We should try an experiment of ignoring the guidelines totally, for a week or two, and see if it makes any difference. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:09, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
Here's an idea: Mandatory reading of the guidelines at least once a month or so. I admit it's been somewhat longer than that since I last read them. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 18:51, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
Using what method of enforcement? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:30, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
When an OP, in this case 206.255.28.252 (talk · contribs), plunks down a question like this one, and then doesn't bother to come back and clarify, it's a sure sign of trolling. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:17, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
How could you possibly know that? Maybe this person expected an answer in like 5 minutes - and when (s)he didn't get one, gave up looking. Maybe the OP found the answer by his/her self? We can't know for sure whether someone is a troll or not until we've had many problematic interactions with them. SteveBaker (talk) 21:28, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
It was clearly a reasonable question. I've unhatted it.
The metadiscussion on whether the question was inappropriate, however, is an unnecessary distraction (it should have been here), so I've hatted it instead.[9] —Steve Summit (talk) 23:36, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
My read on the consensus here -- though I concede that I am not an unbiased participant -- is that the DST question was a reasonable one, which is why I unhatted it. Does anyone disagree? Medeis does, as she has reverted my unhatting, but I am going to go rerevert it. —Steve Summit (talk) 02:25, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
You're in the wrong, and out of line. So what else is new? I take it back. You're actually following my suggestion of ignoring the guidelines. Bravo! ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:21, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

A positive example

See this recent question in which OP asked about using his spouse's credit-card. It could well have been hatted as a question about possibly illegal conduct, and I doubt anyone would have unhatted it. But I was happy to see that refdesk regulars gave reasonable and helpful responses instead, even though

  1. the question was borderline impermissible,
  2. on the wrong desk,
  3. giving a referenced answer would perhaps be regarded as giving legal advice

And I was very happy to see that none of the responders chimed in anecdotal evidence, "well, I used X's credit card and it turned out ok". Given that we are so self-critical about the issue of rule-enforcement, let us pat ourselves on the back when we get it right (at least IMO). Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 18:37, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

The question the OP asked looks like he's up to something. And, as usual, has not returned to comment. The answers given were reasonable. Maybe the OP liked them, maybe he didn't, but he hasn't bothered to clarify what he's up to, so it's basically done. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:29, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Questions seeking opinions, II

(I've started a new thread to help organizational clarity) To continue some of the discussion above, mainly the part where myself, Wnt, Bugs and Jack were discussing the notion of responding to questions that may run afoul of our guidelines: How about this: if a question is problematic to you

  1. )If the question contains a very serious violation (hate speech, threats, etc.) remove or hat as normal
  2. ) Answer a better question
  3. ) Ignore and move on

Example1: "Which car brand is better, Honda or Ford?"

Response1: You might be interested in reading our articles on Ford and Honda. Here is a recent review of a recent Ford model (link), here is one for Honda (link)

--The idea is that the response is answering the unwritten question "Can you give me information and references that compare Ford to Honda?" Obviously my example case is cleaner cut than many that will occur in the wild, but I personally believe this is a better response to the OP than the boilerplate "we do not give opinions" type answer. This also helps improve the archives-as-database aspect that Wnt mentions above. Notice that I didn't explicitly write out the question that I was answering, but merely avoided offering opinion. Perhaps it would be better to be more explicit, and type everything out, to help OPs and other respondents understand what we're doing. Would anybody support adding language to this effect in our guidelines, or at least tolerate myself and others continuing to respond in this way? SemanticMantis (talk) 15:02, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't think we should be guessing what the questioner might have meant or trying to divine meaning from gibberish - we are not clairvoyants. And why should lazy driveby OPs who cant even be bothered to read the guidelines before posting nonsense be afforded such patience and curtsey in the first place? If the question falls foul of the guidelines it should be removed, no ifs no buts. They are free to format it correctly and repost it. 177.99.164.167 (talk) 16:22, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
Every person should be afforded a baseline level of courtesy and dignity, and if you are not in the mood to afford them that dignity, you're quite allowed to do nothing at all. No one is forcing you to respond to questions you find distasteful, and if you can't be bothered to be courteous, I'm not sure why you feel the need to do anything. Doing nothing at all is ALWAYS an option for you. What other people do or don't do causes you no harm at all, and thus, is none of your business or concern. --Jayron32 17:17, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
Agree with SemanicMantis and Jayron, and couldn't disagree more with the IP.
Just as library reference desks, we don't only serve those who stand erect and ask perfectly formed and phrased questions. If the question is ill-formed, ask for clarification politely; honestly try to think what the OP might have intended; offer leads to related resources even if the question cannot be directly answered; or, just ignore the post. Even for medical, legal and homework question, we should explain politely why we cannot or do not answer such questions (either in our own words or using the template) and not berate the questioner for having the temerity to ask them. Barring narrow exception (such as Light Current style trolling; vandalism; threats, harassment or BLP concerns) unexplained deletion of the question, or worse, haranguing the OP should not be an option here, just as it is not an option for librarians.
Btw, I am not sure expansion of instructions to questioners is really useful. As we know from the extensive EULA-related literature, such pre-conditions are rarely read (and, the lengthier they get the less likely they are to be read at all). But I do agree with the content of SM's proposal, so if others believe adding it to the instructions would be useful, I won't stand in the way. Abecedare (talk) 17:46, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
I agree. Very often our questioners have poor command of the English language - or are simply un-used to asking questions in places like this. Very often they assume we know much more about the context of their question than we really do. It's not our job to either police or punish OP's. We're here to answer question, as we can, and within the scope of WIkipedia's rules. In the face of a request for opinion, we can often provide data that is useful to allow the OP to form their own opinion.
"Which car brand is better, Honda or Ford?" can be answered by pointing to crash-worthness statistics, to recall numbers, to owner satisfaction surveys, to cost-to-repair data from insurance companies...all sorts of ways to provide information upon which the OP can form their own opinion. We could also ask another question in return: "Is there any specific aspect of these cars that you want to compare?"...which might lead us to discover that the OP's request is actually about fuel consumption figures or off-road capability in four wheel drive mode.
What we shouldn't do is say "I've always thought that Hondas were way better than Fords".
The point is that we should try to avoid GIVING our opinions, that's not the same thing as helping our OP's to form an opinion based on hard factual data.
What went off the rails in the case above, is that we actually asked the OP for clarification of the question and got bizarrely unwarranted abuse in return...that's just weird from an experienced Wikipedian admin.
As always, if you don't like a question, you can simply avoid answering it. Hatting a question is like saying "I know better than everyone else - and I don't trust other editors to decide whether-to/how-to answer this question"...and that's just abusive "I'm better than you are" crap.
SteveBaker (talk) 18:18, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
I know many questioners won't read the pre-conditions, I meant to consider adding a short few sentences to our guide for answers here [10]. Of course many of them won't read it either, but at least we potentially have something to point to as a reference when having similar discussions here in the future. I see that as the real value to any of these documents. SemanticMantis (talk) 19:35, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
I agree with everyone above, I have nothing more cogent to add than what I did in the section above this one. Though, I will again say: there is no reason we cannot give some attempt at answering, or provide something useful, especially while the desks are not overrun with traffic - questions that do not stick to the letter of the law are not hurting anything, nor detracting from other questions being answered. I'd rather us be as open armed as possible given that we don't get a lot of comers; the time to be a hard ass is certainly not when you are lacking friends.Phoenixia1177 (talk) 19:54, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
I agree with Abecedare and others. I also think it's important to point out that one reason that questioners have confused and misguided questions is because they likely have a confused and misguided understanding of the topic they're asking the question about. That's why they're asking a question in the first place! It's counter productive to require that questioners formulate a precise, unambiguous and non-misguided question in order to post on the RefDesk. We should realize that people asking questions will likely be confused or mistaken about the topic they are asking questions about, and shouldn't reject the question if it's fuzzy, or jump down the questioner's throat if they have a mistaken assumption underlying their question. Instead, it's better to provide whatever information which can be provided to help the questioner clarify the question, and to (gently) correct any mistaken assumptions which might be underlying the question. As has been mentioned, if you don't understand the source of the questioner's confusion well enough to suggest ways to help the questioner, you don't need to answer - just like you don't need to answer clear, unambiguous questions on topics you don't understand. -- 160.129.138.186 (talk) 19:59, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
Wise words indeed. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 20:36, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
None of us are clairvoyant, and sometimes I may end up providing an answer to a related question that is not precisely what the OP meant. Understand that I'm not suggesting everyone do this all the time, I'm suggesting that it is a viable and useful option that respondents can choose to exercise if they like. I can't see how that does any harm, and I can see how it can do some good.
Oh, and any of us can spend as much time as we like with "lazy driveby OPs." Why should I care if someone else thinks I'm wasting time or effort? Some might even say I'm doing it right now ;) SemanticMantis (talk) 19:40, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Ok, this seems to have a decent amount of support. I will not edit our guidelines at present, but may consider doing so after we see how this goes for a bit. Thanks everyone for your input. SemanticMantis (talk) 14:55, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
I am confused. How exactly would this have applied, except to keep JoO who started this at the ref desk, then at the user's page, and now here, to his making his argument? Is the agreement that he should have kept silent from the beginning, rather that writing over 21,000 bytes on this matter? As for any changes, SM, neutrally word a conservative RfC and get a good consensus before you decide to unilaterally edit any guidelines, please. μηδείς (talk) 22:28, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
The agreement is not that everyone must keep silent. The agreement is that "If the question offends you, bothers you, or if you can't understand it or answer it in some constructive way, and if you aren't in the mood to ask for a clarification then it is better to keep silent than to do anything else. Or more succinctly, you have the option to either be helpful or keep silent, and if you either can't or won't be helpful, the best course of action is to do nothing... --Jayron32 01:40, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
But does the "you" here mean just Jack, or does it mean those who would uphold the current rules? And frankly, I think it does not just mean Jack, I think it does just mean all of the 50% of us who think the rules apply to everyone, including ourselves.
In the meantime, the rest of us (i.e., you) seem to be claiming the right both to do and ignore as we (you) like. I suspect the underlying case here was one where two people (an Aussie and a Niederlander) who do believe in the rules just came into conflict unnecessarily, and to no one's benefit. A huge part of the problem was that I, Medeis, undeleted the discussion when the OP deleted it. I thought further rational discussion was still possible. I'd probably have served all better had I not undeleted the OP.
Given the normal hysteria here when I hat someone according to the rules, I find that hugely ironic. But I apologize. Regardless of my apology I think this whole thing should be dropped like a stone in The Crucible, on some accused witch's chest. Unless we're going to have an RfC, which I oppose having. μηδείς (talk) 02:25, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
We don't have rules that need enforcing so much as we have questions that need answering. If you can't answer the question, there's no need to busy yourself enforcing a rule. You don't actually have to do anything... --Jayron32 02:48, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
(e/c times 2) That would work most of the time, Jayron.
In this case, clarification was sought; but not only was none forthcoming, the OP just reiterated their unanswerable question using exactly the same words. That sort of game playing would hardly be acceptable from a non-native speaking newbie, let alone an experienced admin. That's what started this episode. Do we just ignore that sort of shit? Who polices the police? I was prepared to take a stand, and I've had a lot of support for having done so. There is universal agreement that I was a little testy in my manner, and I've apologised more than once for that. But does anyone say I was wrong in principle in objecting to Drmies' crap? (But lesson learned: Next time any such thing happens, I'll just delete the entire thread outright. He wouldn't have dared to come back again, unless supplying a properly formed question.) Drmies did finally, finally acknowledge that he was wrong, after previously blustering and deflecting and outright denying he was wrong. That refusal on his part to take any sort of responsibility for his own behaviour, more than anything else, contributed to the longwindery. So please, Medeis, get your facts straight before launching yet another of your snide smears. You don't hold grudges? Please excuse me while I vomit. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 02:51, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
Wow.
Medeis, that was a truly splendid job you did "dropping the stone". The argument had really been raging, with almost one post in less than 4 days, but thanks to your sage and calming words, that rate is down to only 6 posts in over 4 hours.
Jack, I hope you can calm down and ignore Medeis's nonsensical baiting; this rage is not like you. Drmies was wrong, and Medeis is too, but that's understood, so I don't think we abandon our principles if we relegate some of these tempests back to the teapots they belong in.
Everybody: Jayron is right. A great deal of the time, we only need one "rule": if you don't care for something, just ignore it. But I'm a little wrong: that's not a "rule", it's just a guideline. But for that matter, most of our guidelines are just that: guidelines. Much of this internecine squabbling over their rigid interpretation is quite seriously misguided, because the guidelines weren't all intended to be ironclad rules in the first place. —Steve Summit (talk) 03:16, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
If a question and/or response to the question violates ref desk standards (presuming there are any, such as the prohibition against professional advice), or Wikipedia rules (BLP, etc.) then it is irresponsible to "ignore it". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:45, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
Medeis, independent of any earlier incidents, I mainly wanted to discuss my point 2) way up above - answering a better question if a question is mal-formed. That is the concept that seems to have some support as allowable. I understand that if I continue this practice that I risk edifying readers in a manner that they did not specifically ask for, but that's a risk I'm often willing to take :) SemanticMantis (talk) 22:58, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Great activity on RD/S

Just wanted to say that the RD/S is humming along pretty nicely. Great content, thanks to many contributors. -- Scray (talk) 15:29, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Formal dinner discussion hatting...

...unhatted. The majority of the thread was useful, both in direct advice and in pointing out how the question might be clarified for even better replies. I don't condone hatting of borderline discussions based on overly strict reading of rules. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:39, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

It is most certainly a referenceable question. The advice of Miss Manners or Emily Post might labeled "opinions", but they are informed opinions. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 10:44, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
Agree with that. If somebody asks what people would be like if they had wings and could fly I would have no objections to somebody pointing to Olaf Stapledon's Last and First Men. Dmcq (talk) 13:41, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Alex Sazonov

User: Alex Sazonov has been editing Wikipedia for six or seven months. His editorial history seems to consist entirely of the Reference Desks and of responding at his talk page to comments about his posts to the Reference Desks. His English is poor, and no one knows what his native language is. (Native speakers of Russian do not understand his posts any more than native speakers of English.) Two recent posts make no scientific sense, because they use the word 'valence', which is a technical term of chemistry applicable only to chemical elements as if it applied to compounds and manufactured materials. He has been repeatedly advised either to find a web site in his own language or to use automated translation. I have posted to his talk page to that effect again today. I see that his talk page includes previous such advice. If he continues to edit the Reference Desk in ways that do not make sense, we should go to WP:ANI and ask that he be either topic-banned from the Reference Desk or blocked from editing. (Since he does nothing but post his stuff here, there is little difference between a topic-ban and a block.) I think that we have been patient long enough. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:00, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Well the first bit is no problem: anyone is free to use the refdesks, there is no requirement to do other things on WP too (though some editors do seem think so). I personally am happy to ignore his posts, and occasionally supply some links if I can get a general sense of what he's asking about. If he is editing in bad faith/trolling, IMO he is a very poor one, because he doesn't disrupt much, and doesn't really argue with us or do other things that make trolls bothersome. Finally, it doesn't matter to me what the native language is, e.g. if his native tongue were Greek but he chose a Russian-sounding username, why should we care? In my view, ESL status should not make users into second class citizens, and this particular user is not harmfully disruptive in my estimation. SemanticMantis (talk) 17:58, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
He sounds like many regular editors at the ref desk, who are single-minded and don't really understand that they're not actually improving Wikipedia with their "contributions" here. Why just pick on one editor? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:53, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
I don't know what you do elsewhere on WP but when you seem only show up on the ref desk to disparage said desk on its talk page, it's hard to AGF with you. Do you really think this kind of feedback is improving the discussion? You don't have to like what we do here but if you won't help fix the problems you perceive then please be polite enough to just ignore those of us who enjoy using the desks to help people. SemanticMantis (talk) 21:43, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
Agree with SemanticMantis. It was getting to be excessive and disruptive for a while but the number of contributions has gone down to a level where they don't cause too much trouble. Try just ignoring the posts if they annoy you. Dmcq (talk) 20:13, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
I have hatted his two most recent posts. I agree that he isn't a troll, just a clueless editor who doesn't know English and uses scientific terminology incorrectly. Evidently he thinks that 'valence' means something other than its technical meaning in chemistry. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:48, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
One previous editor about a month ago at the Mathematics Reference Desk was indeffed for posting flawed proofs. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:48, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
I'm willing to ignore him for a while, but he is a nuisance. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:48, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
For my part, I decided weeks ago to ignore him. I'm not convinced that he or anyone else is getting any benefit from the conversations that he has been starting. That said, I don't have a strong opinion on doing anything other than ignoring him. Dragons flight (talk) 20:59, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
This is difficult. We're required to WP:AGF - and he doesn't seem to have done anything to cause us to believe he's not acting in good faith. His questions are invariably meaningless babble - and because the words seem correctly spelled - but wildly meaningless in context - it certainly seems like he's using automatic translation from some non-English language. In the last case, who knows what word in his language is being translated into "valence"? His questions don't seem to violate any guideline - so we kinda need to gently point out that asking questions here is a complete waste of his time, and ours...and failing that, I'd suggest that nobody even attempt to answer them unless their meaning is completely clear. But when he starts to ANSWER questions - I have concerns. His answers don't survive translation any better than his questions do - they are just complete nonsense - and I'm quite sure they are very confusing to our OP's. I'm actually of the opinion that we need to block his answers from the list somehow. Technically he's engaging in "disruptive editing" - but because of WP:AGF, I don't think we should take punitive sanctions here. SteveBaker (talk) 21:34, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
I very much doubt that he is using automatic translation - his persistent use of 'been' inappropriately (until he was told to stop doing it) suggests that he either thinks he is writing coherent English, or is trolling. Personally, I have to suggest that the latter seems more plausible. If his English is as poor as appears on the surface, one would have to assume that he would find understanding replies difficult, but he rarely seems to suggest this - instead, he usually responds (where it makes sense at all) by disagreeing, and adding his own confusing opinions. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:43, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
I was wondering for a while whether they weren't some sort of Eliza program with the bad language being there deliberately to disguise it. I've come to the conclusion now there is actually somebody there strange though their thought processes must be. Dmcq (talk) 13:32, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Many of our askers are "clueless", presumably we are here to try to help them get a clue. Based on this discussion, I do not see widespread support for starting ANI business on this user. However, anyone is of course free to start that process of their own volition. SemanticMantis (talk) 19:09, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
A thread below took issue with hatting an opinion question. Is there agreement that when this poster's responses to our replies to his questions become incomprehensible, hatting them is an appropriate action? Robert McClenon (talk) 21:36, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
I wouldn't agree with that. If you are answering a question, it is their thread, essentially, you're engaging them. If the user answers with nonsense to another question, sure, hat them, but if you expect nonsense, don't engage them, ignore the question. More than once, I'm fairly certain I was able to beg down what they were trying to say, but I'm not sure, so I refrain; but, it does seem they are saying something, or believe they are. If they were being horribly disruptive and flooding the desk with ten questions a day, then there would be reason to do something, but one harmless person who doesn't seem to have mastered language isn't hurting anything and there isn't much of a reason to do anything - I'm not sure what is actually gained by policing this person as long as they are contained to their own questions.Phoenixia1177 (talk) 08:37, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Unsigned Posts

Is User:SineBot supposed to be signing unsigned posts at the Reference Desks? There is a recent thread at the Science Desk that has two unsigned posts by an IP that were not signed by the bot. Should the Reference Desks enable the bot, or is the bot down again (which happens periodically)? Robert McClenon (talk) 21:38, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

It appears that the bot is down. However, can someone check whether the reference desks have enabled the bot? I have asked the bot maintainer whether there is an alternate maintainer, but I know that question won't be answered until the bot maintainer gets back. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:43, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
Yes, all desks belong to the category Non-talk pages that are automatically signed. SineBot's last action on the Science desk was Nov 11 [11]. ---Sluzzelin talk 22:18, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
The bot is working again. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:30, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Professor of physics

I got an EC when trying to hat this question [12] as it had already been hatted. I did find a followup, outside the hat, by the IP which I deleted and left (nearly except for spacing issues) the same rationale I had planned to leave with the hat [13]. As I implied in my edit summary, regardlessof whether there may be professors of physics who answer questions here on occasion, it's not acceptable (as I think we've discussed before) to demand that only certain editors answer your question. (It may be okay to ask people to take particular care to avoid answers which are offtopic, unreferenced or otherwise inappropriate.) Normally we may simply ignore such requirements (and perhaps ignore the question), but in this case, since the editor has already asked the question and received answers and I see now even deleted answers and is simply giving lots of follow ups complaining that the wrong person answered (rather than anything fundamentally wrong with the answers), I feel it's acceptable to hat the followup any further followups or even delete them if they continue. (My deletion was reverted by the IP and Robert than moved the hat to cover the latest followup. If that convinces the IP to stop, I'm fine with that. If the IP continues to give followups, deletion and blocking may be in order.) I would add that if this editor is User:Wavyinfinity as it appears some people suspect in the original question Wikipedia:Reference desk/Science#Gravitation / Relativity / Cosmology, then they are evading a topic ban as I mentioned at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Science/2014 November 5#Black Holes, Dark Matter, General Relativity (and is perhaps why they are now editing from an IP) and have given even more reason to be blocked. Nil Einne (talk) 03:49, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Actually seems they're evading a block and not just a topic ban. User:Wavyinfinity was blocked due to continual topic ban violations. Nil Einne (talk) 04:02, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
See the IP user's edit history, that he dates to today, and see this edit where he restores the relativity / cosmology nonsense at Gravitation by the obviously identical User:N738139. Given he has given us both a named account and a Static IP address any admin's job should be simple. μηδείς (talk) 04:34, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
The suggestion that the new IP is Wavyinfinity doesn't really QUACK for me. Wavyinfinity (talk · contribs) was comfortable signing his name and using indentations in threading. 178.194.81.188 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) seems to have trouble with both of those. Also, Wavyinfinity's comments regarding relativity seem very different than the IPs. I don't think they are the same person. For the record, I am the one who blocked Wavyinfinity. Dragons flight (talk) 05:49, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
Looking at User:N738139's user page, I'd have to suggest that a Wavyinfinity sock seems plausible - compare with the now deleted polemic on Wavyinfinity's user page. [14]. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:40, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
I read both. Aside from both being attacks on establish physics, I don't see a lot of similarity. N738139's short text mentions many terms, such as "Poincaré", "Sagnac", "Wormholes", "standard model", "aberration", "time dilation", and "Newton", which don't occur in Wavyinfinity's long text. Dragons flight (talk) 06:54, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
Of course, if it is important, one could ask for a sockpuppet investigation. Though there are some similar issues here, I'm inclined to believe these are different people. Dragons flight (talk) 06:57, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
Based on Dragons Flight comments who I think has a fair amount more experience with Wavyinfinity than me and a more careful look I withdraw my claim that the IP is Wavyinfinity. I saw an editor who appeared to me to be showing up to try and convince us that general relativity was wrong with great vigiour which we'd just had from Wavyinfinity and I assumed they were connected as I'd seen someone else also suggest, and made the above comment. When I looked more careful at their edit history and saw them asking the same stuff on talk pages, as well as bothering Dragons flight (who I'd noticed was the one to block them), this further reenforced my view and I started to delete their talk page comments as well. However I see now that Dragons flight had replied to their comment on the RD. Also, while it appears the editor thinks there's something wrong with physics and is not particularly willing to accept that it's probably their understanding, I'm was never that sure if they're particularly going to the extremes of Wavyinfinity of saying general relativity etc is pseudoscience solely from their comments. (They did link to [15], which does talk about conspiracies in physics but I couldn't be bothered working out what it's about and it doesn't quite seem the same as the stuff Wavyinfinity was talking about.) Finally I'd noticed the connection with N738139 mentioned above which told me there was some stuff in the French wikipedia. but I didn't look in to that aspect until now. While I don't understand French, it looks to me like the Swiss IP probably has a decent command fr:Spécial:Contributions/178.194.81.188, fr:Spécial:Contributions/N738139, fr:Spécial:Contributions/MM=2000. I'm not seeing any sign of that from Wavyinfinity. I've therefore apologised to the editors involved. As I said there, I don't withdraw much else. The editors contributions appear unwelcome as long as they're going to make silly demands and delete answers. P.S. I would add that, I have doubts a SPI would be much use as it stands. The number of edits from N738139 is small, it definitely doesn't seem there's anything there enough to connect to to Wavyinfinity. The IP and has a lot more, but of course a checkuser won't connect the IP to Wavyinfinity so it would need to be behavioural evidence. The IP and N738139 are obviously connected, but I presume evidence for the IP can't be used to do a checkuser on N738139 (even if CU won't comment on the IP itself). Nil Einne (talk) 15:51, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
The IP is not Wavyinfinity. Wavyinfinity writes English at the native level, and the IP does not. If two ducks quack differently, they are not the same duck. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:51, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Trolling...?

Could anyone sensibly explain this edit?

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Reference_desk&diff=prev&oldid=635224265

CiaPan (talk) 13:15, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

It was basically a reversion of this removal. ---Sluzzelin talk 13:24, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
I see... Thank you, it seems I didn't look deep enough into a history.
Anyway, the thread has a pretty well chosen title ;)
EOT. --CiaPan (talk) 13:31, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

disruptive thread

The OP has continued the hatted thread about restaurants with two petulantly worded questions. I have deleted the thread [16] and asked the OP to start a new thread on a single question if he likes. μηδείς (talk) 23:12, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Is this weirdness the normal behavior of Pablo the Penguin, or has he taken a wrong turn recently? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 07:23, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
Thou hath been done. Pablothepenguin (talk) 12:21, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
Given the repeated opinionating coming from the OP, I have collapsed the thread. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:07, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
Interestingly, the user does geolocate to Scotland, see the IP address from this thread with his first registered, but unsigned edit. Anyone guess what the topic was? μηδείς (talk) 01:38, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
Oh, it's definitely a Scot, or someone pretending to be. For further info, check out Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Pablothepenguin/Campaign. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:22, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
The user has been indeffed. Amazing how easy it is to predict such detrollings, yet nevertheless food gets wasted on them μηδείς (talk) 01:48, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
For some reason the thread was not archived, so I have simply deleted it, since the user's indeffed and the subject matter's irrelevant, to be polite. μηδείς (talk) 19:54, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

What do i do if i don't find any answers to my question helpful enough?

What do i do if i don't find any answers to my question helpful enough? i asked one question and because i didn't state it clearly enough, the answers weren't helpfulWhereismylunch (talk) 00:23, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

The answer is right there in your question ("... because i didn't state it clearly enough ..."). Restate your question more clearly. If that doesn't work, look around for somewhere that will meet your needs, because believe it or not, we are not the only website on the internet. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 02:48, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
Which question or questions are the most frustrating for you? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:57, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

I asked about the risk of hpv from oral sex without being more specificWhereismylunch (talk) 06:41, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

I already edited my questionWhereismylunch (talk) 06:59, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Here is the question in question. In addition to Jack's two suggestions (clarify , look for a more specific forum) you sometimes also need patience. In some cases, you'll receive a good answer after more than 24 hours. I see you did clarify! You may also ask the rephrased/specified/clarified question in a new thread, if you feel it will attract more responses. (What you probably shouldn't do, is remove the whole thread ;-) ---Sluzzelin talk 14:53, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
It is unfortunate that some kinds of questions (especially those on topics surrounding sex or drugs or criminal activities) are seen by some members of our community as being either inappropriate or indicative of someone asking the question for nefarious purposes...or that the person asking the question is a school kid trying to get us to talk dirty...or a troll trying to get us arguing about their post...or something of that nature. Our standard approach when we encounter such things is generally for each person to decide whether or not they, personally, want to attempt to answer those questions that they find unpalateable. Rightly or wrongly, that may be partially what happened here. We can't force people to answer questions, or to come up with wonderfully informative answers - so there isn't a whole lot that can be done about it. The best you can do is to express your question clearly - and perhaps to explain why you're looking for an answer to it.
We also have actual rules that forbid us to answer questions that we suspect are "homework questions" or questions asking for legal or medical advice. Your question somewhat strays into the latter category too...and that may have put off more people.
But sometimes, the reason is that none of us know the answer, and nobody is sufficiently motivated to go off and do a bunch of research to find out. We are, after all, a volunteer group. Nobody pays us to do this - so we're at liberty to pick and choose what we decide to spend time on.
SteveBaker (talk) 15:12, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
It seems like a not unreasonable question, but one which might required more research than the average editor is willing to put into it - as you indicate. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:16, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
I think if you post a follow-up question/clarification more than 24 hours or so after the initial post, it will attract more attention if posed as a new question (linking the previous question would be a nice courtesy). Agree with Steve that we are WP:NOTCENSORED; I've replied to all sorts of questions that aren't usually brought up in public/"polite" company. Finally, the fact of the matter is that there is a bit of bias that we have here due to what interests responders, where their knowledge/experience lies, and who happens to be reading that day. For example there were a series of questions a few weeks ago about details of soil mechanics (e.g. [17], [18]) -- when there were few/no responses after a day or so I tried to supply some links, but I'm sure that OP felt they weren't getting great answers overall. I believe that we just didn't have any expert eyes on those questions. Such is the blessing/curse of a volunteer reference desk! So another solution might be to post a similar question in another month or so, you may get a different crowd of responders (but please use your discretion, as frequently posting similar questions could be interpreted as disruptive if it is done too much.) SemanticMantis (talk) 17:45, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

And you do notice that i edited my top question after i received all the answers.Whereismylunch (talk) 18:19, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Here's what the top question was before i edited it:What are the chances of getting hpv from oral sex, not the chances of oral cancer from hpv? I asked a similar question a few days agoWhereismylunch (talk) 18:48, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Chat re Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Science#Will_there_be_any_consequences_if_a_human_eats_the_glands_of_an_animal.3F (moved from project page)

Thanks to Wnt for actually answering the question rather than just joking around. This is Reference Desk, not a chat room. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:44, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
Not all of the jokes are that offal, are they? --Jayron32 20:13, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
I often wonder why some are keen to compare this place to a realistic help desk. While I'm certain you make massive contributions to the mainspace of Wikipedia, several others don't. What are the purposes of the various responses to this question? Self-aggrandising and a definite of "love me because I'm funny/clever/satirical, although I have nothing encyclopaedic to add, I'll add something jocular yet hopeless" feeling. Terribly sad, not part of the encyclopedia. Time to improve this. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:28, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
What is the purpose of this "contribution" that you just wrote? It does not help answer the question, nor does it add to Wikipedia in general. Despite what you profess there is no requirement for responders here to also contribute to our encyclopedia, though of course many of us do. Bugs' response above is not a complete answer but it is indeed a relevant piece of information - there is at least one animal gland that is commonly eaten by humans with no well-documented hormonal effects. Part of what makes WP so great is that no one person has to do all the work, we can each make incremental improvements. Surely you are familiar with this concept? Your criticisms of the ref desk are well known to us regulars. I implore you again: either help us be better and lead by example, or kindly stay out of the way of those of us who do volunteer our time and effort to provide references and resources to users who come seeking our help. SemanticMantis (talk) 22:32, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
I suspect it's more useful as more than half the preceding responses. If you are so blind that you can't see those who are just here to increase edit counts without actually contributing referenced answers, that's your problem. But worse, it's making Wikipedia look stupid. We have "users" here pretending to answer questions. If people aren't going to actually answer questions, but instead offer anecdotes, this isn't a Reference Desk, it's a chat room. Rather pathetic I'm afraid. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:37, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
Very much agreed. Far too many people on here just posting random bovine excrement without ever being useful in any way. Not naming any names (cough)Baseball Bugs(cough) Fgf10 (talk) 22:43, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
@The Rambling Man, Baseball Bugs, Fgf10, SemanticMantis, and Jayron32: I've taken the liberty of moving this meta argument off the main page. My opinion is that per SemanticMantis above, neither jokes nor arguments over what is appropriate contribute to answering the question. But jokes are meant to make people feel good whereas the meta arguing is intended to make somebody feel bad, so I prefer the former, especially when they're short and inobtrusive. You can move the original joke bit here too if you insist, but I don't think the Rocky Mountain Oysters part is a joke; it does demonstrate that the steroid hormones don't have a dramatic negative effect (though I don't know what the limits of that are) Wnt (talk) 23:07, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
The Rocky Mountain Oysters thing was certainly NOT a joke. It was the first thing that came to mind for the OP's question. I don't know what Fgf10's problem is. Maybe he should read the article and eddycate himself. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:01, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
I, as well, provided an answer to the question, and it has now been removed to here. I would like my answer with its linked referenced returned. --Jayron32 01:05, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
Well it might have been easy to miss as an answer because it was also wrapped in a joke. I don't really mind, just sayin'. I'm adding a link to organ meat to the thread presently. SemanticMantis (talk) 15:44, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
As someone uninvolved, I have added back Jayron32's answer. I do agree it contained a helpful link, although also easy to miss since it was wrapped in a joke. I have also added back TRM's comment which Jayron32's was in reply to, to ensure proper context. I have not added back anything else and have asked anyone who wishes to continue the discussion to do so here. Nil Einne (talk) 01:25, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
Yes I think your link and answer was helpful in this case, just not very complete. Incomplete answers are fine by me, as I said above, that kind of incremental progress is what makes WP tick. SemanticMantis (talk) 15:52, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for moving Wnt, this kind of off-topic discussion can be very distracting from a thread. I probably should have posted my reply to TRM here and left a link at the original thread saying I replied here. SemanticMantis (talk) 15:44, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Reference_desk/Archive_109&oldid=1074645021"