Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/Archive 116

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 110 ← Archive 114 Archive 115 Archive 116 Archive 117 Archive 118 → Archive 120

Hatting a Q with claim that it was a request for opinion

Medeis hatted this:

Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Miscellaneous#Underclass

She hatted the Q as a request for opinion, while it is quite clearly a request to clarify a definition. I unhatted it, then she rehatted it and deleted my contribution, with the comment "Take it to the talk page". She seems to think that she should be able to unilaterally hat any Q, on rather flimsy grounds, but to reverse the hatting should require a massive consensus on the talk page. I unhatted it, restored my answer, and added this section. StuRat (talk) 23:41, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

And I've removed it back. Consensus is not required to remove blatant rule violations. Answering unanswerable questions and restoring said answers when they have been correctly removed is controversial and therefore DOES require consensus. That's the way Wikipedia has always worked. 39.187.44.172 (talk) 00:05, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Stuart, first, we don't name threads about people or accuse them of insanity. Second the OP has showed up here with a reference already in hand, and wants to know our opinion of whether he fits the diagnosis he gives:
My economic activity is currently zero. I don't even receive income support. My bank balance says zero. Does this mean i'm below the underclass? 84.13.149.202
At best that is a request for opinion, if not something he should take up with a licensed social worker, an accountant, a solicitor, or a psychoanalyst, not us. We know nothing about this person. And your response is to answer him with your opinion entirely lacking in references:
*As your link states, the underclass is the "lowest possible position in a class hierarchy". Therefore, there is nothing below it. However, also note that your class doesn't immediately change as your income changes. Indeed, many wealthy people may lose millions of dollars in a given year, or even lose all their wealth and go deep into debt. That doesn't automatically move them into the underclass, as friends, relatives, business associates, etc., may well "keep them in the lifestyle to which they have become accustomed". One example of this is Kwame Kilpatrick, former criminal mayor of Detroit who pleaded poverty when he claimed he couldn't pay back the citizens of Detroit all the money he stole from them. The court agreed, but then he was found to be living in a mansion, supposedly on money he had borrowed from friends. Well, that was a violation of the settlement, as he was supposed to disclose all income, including that. (He is now in jail, for that and/or other crimes.) StuRat
This time I am simply going to delete this, we cannot answer it. μηδείς (talk) 00:11, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
Are you blind ? I did include references. The first one had already been linked to by the OP, but I added a quotation of the relevant bit. The second reference was a link and was my example of how losing your assets doesn't automatically make you part of the underclass. And even if I hadn't included any refs, that certainly wouldn't give you the right to delete my answer. StuRat (talk) 02:55, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
What is the purpose of removing the question and Stu's response, but leaving the section as well as links to the questioner's and Stu's talk pages? -- ToE 00:45, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
That was either a glitch or due to an edit conflict, since the IP said he was restoring the hat at the same time I was deleting the request for a personal comment, and the referenceless non-answer. μηδείς (talk) 02:09, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
WP:BRD. I see no "blatant violation", at least no more "blatant" than some things we regularly choose to engage, apparently depending on our current mood. 100% consistency isn't practical, but we can't be that selective in enforcement. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:35, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
IMO, even if it was a request for opinion, it could have been (and was by Stu) answered by educating the OP about the term. I don't see why this is so hard for some to understand. Just explain what things mean or point questioners to the relevant articles and let them reach their own conclusions. Much like you would in assisting someone with their homework.
If you want me to answer some question of yours in this thread, please ping me. Dismas|(talk) 01:17, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
By the way, this illustrates exactly why I expressed the view that there should not be a ban on discussions of Reference Desk behavior on this Reference Desk talk page. Do we really want either to allow unrestricted hatting of questions or to have all questionable hattings of questions taken directly to WP:ANI (do not pass Go)? I disagree with the hatting, that has been reversed, because I think that it was a request for a definition, not an opinion, but I don't think that it calls for reporting Medeis to ANI, only for clarifying the rules on hatting, and I still think that RFCs, and not a subcommittee, are the way to address Reference Desk issues. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:48, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
Re the subcommittee, that was a proposed way to formulate RfC propositions, so it was never a matter of choosing one over the other. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:55, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
Re "This illustrates exactly why I expressed the view that there should not be a ban on discussions of Reference Desk behavior on this Reference Desk talk page", please wait until this, the latest such discussion, dies out and gets archived, then get back to me and explain exactly what good was accomplished. I suspect that in the end this will be yet another illustration of the opposite view. I'm just saying. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:32, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

StuRat, if you use the section title to attack me again, I'll gladly take this to ANI. Section heads are to be neutral per WP:MOS. μηδείς (talk) 03:13, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Listing the name of the person who removed the Q does NOT constitute an attack. You changed the title to one that's not the least bit neutral. I changed it to one that's completely neutral and doesn't list your name. And everyone at AN/I knows how you love to waste their time with all these perceived "offences" against you. The more often you waste their time, the less attention they will pay to you. StuRat (talk) 04:11, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
Info: Here is the initial edit creating this section. -- ToE 05:17, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
Well, this talk page had been pretty quiet for a few days, good thing we've got some unnecessary drama to spice it up.
The question in question is completely unobjectionable. It's not causing any harm; there's no need to sanction it.
But, Stu, no matter how wrong those attempted sanctions were, using an unnecessarily provocative section title here just takes the stick in the hornet's nest and shakes it. —Steve Summit (talk) 11:11, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
Yes, the original section title could have been more neutral. But my second attempt was neutral ("Medeis' hatting of what she claims is a request for opinion"), and she then changed that to something non-neutral, suppressing the cause of the issue (her hatting), stating as fact that the Q was a request for opinion when that is only her claim, and outright lying about my answer being non-referenced ("Dispute over non-referenced answer to request for opinion"): [1]. StuRat (talk) 15:38, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
Stu, put yourself in the average reader's shoes. They know little to nothing of our internal disputes, and they don't need to be exposed to them. And they probably have no clue what "Medeis" means, anyway, since her display name is μηδείς. Mommy and Daddy don't argue in front of the kids. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:51, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
That's why I take such disputes to the talk page, rather than arguing on the Ref Desk. I wish everyone would do the same. StuRat (talk) 16:10, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
I disagree. My point is that "Medeis going off the deep end again" is arguing on the Ref Desk. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:13, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
This is not the Ref Desk. This is the talk page for the Ref Desk. StuRat (talk) 16:45, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
Ah. Egg on face. Again. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:49, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
My apologies if I scrambled those eggs for you. When I linked above to the creation of "this section", I meant this WT:RD section, not this WP:RDM section under discussion. -- ToE 22:05, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Question is fine. Lots of very good questions come in the form "can a foo be considered a bar?" cannot be answered unequivocally, but they can be addressed by providing context and references. SemanticMantis (talk) 16:53, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Well, now that we ave linked our friend from London to the Kwame Kilpatrick article I wiffdraw all objections. Presumably this will be perfect advice, assuming the OP is Red Ken, now living on a platform of the Underground, underneaf a tenement. μηδείς (talk) 03:47, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

What does no economic impact mean?

  • I asked a fair and logical question, which has been falsely characterized as "apeculation". However, StuRat had initially indicated it should be asked at the ref desk instead of here, so that's where it is now. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:33, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
You can claim that the question was "fair and logical", but as expressed it very clearly insinuated that the original poster was homeless (which he had neither stated nor implied), and the discussion went from there to mention of smelly homeless people causing problems at libraries.
I have deleted the offending discussion and request that it remain deleted. —Steve Summit (talk) 17:54, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
OK, I have restated the question there in such a way that hopefully you will not be able to falsely characterize it this time. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:27, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Q on Humanities desk

NAC: OP blocked for trolling and 5RR. Nothing more to discuss. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:51, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

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

I posted a serious Q on humanities desk about a certain sexual act. It keeps getting reverted for no good reason. CAn anyone tell me why?--86.176.8.227 (talk) 19:38, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Read your talk page. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 08:52, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
Let's set aside any issues of trolling, and WP:AGF. It doesn't matter though. The point is, WP isn't really a good resource for subjective information regarding sexual acts and the nature of participants' pleasure. If you have genuine curiosity about various sex acts, I think you'll have better success on a dedicated forum. Fetlife, reddit.com/r/sex, or even the old alt.sex would be better venues for your questions. SemanticMantis (talk) 14:10, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
The question emanates from LC's neighborhood. However, maybe your information could become a standard response to goofy questions like that. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:33, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Agree totally with that suggestion. I think it would be a major step forward, much better than automatically identifying someone as a troll based on the nature and language of their question. Even if they are trolling, such a response would be an effective form of WP:DENY. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:07, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Please get the bot/who-ever-is-archiving to correct the 7 day cycle

This is always a problem. 7 days aren't showing up on the humanities reference desk, and probably others.96.52.0.249 (talk) 03:44, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

The archiving schedule currently in effect was announced at Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/Archive 105#archiving changes imminent. —Steve Summit (talk) 10:05, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
At one point, everything was consistent: 7 days. I see no decision to make arbitrary decisions for different thread durations for different desks.96.52.0.249 (talk) 23:50, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
Well definitely it hasn't been that way for several years. The primary reason for the different durations is due to the different activity level. Remember some people still have slow connections, and browsers that don't handle large pages well. That said the desks are somewhat less active than they used to be, so it'll probably be fine to increase the duration for most desks. Nil Einne (talk) 14:20, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
I'd say the opposite. 7 days is way to long for any desk. Most threads peter out after 3-4 days, 5 days is probably the max we need at any desk. --Jayron32 14:22, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
I believe the reduction happened after Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/Archive 65#Page length. The practice continued once transclusion was abandoned, as per the thread linked by Steve Summit. The thread linked by Steve Summit itself links to Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/Archive 68#Page length which seems to confirm that it begun after the archive 65 discussion. Nil Einne (talk) 14:32, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Potentially useful resource

Hi, just thought I'd share this new-ish "Map of Life" [2] - it is a large and growing worldwide database/interactive map of animal species, and includes several other features of interest. Full links to data sources are available, and many species are linked to their WP pages. It might be useful for some of the questions we get, and I thought some of us might just like to flip through it. Enjoy! SemanticMantis (talk) 14:37, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Saying sorry after bumping into someone?

Moved from WP:RDL#Saying sorry after bumping into someone? by No such user (talk) 07:36, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Note that No such user moved only the meta-discussion, leaving the question and its answers where it belongs on the reference desk. Looks good to me. -- ToE 13:23, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

The question [3] does not approach one of fact, which is what the Reference Desks are for. Choose ten people randomly and you'll get at least five different answers. See the statement at the top of the page, We don't answer requests for opinions, predictions or debate. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:05, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

We don't are not supposed to answer requests for opinions, predictions or debate. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:51, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
No. "We don't answer requests for opinions, predictions or debate." Try ctrl-f. μηδείς (talk) 22:40, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
Yes, depends how hard you touch them, I guess. Although if it's Katie Hopkins, I'd say use your elbows. (I refuse to answer the question, however). Martinevans123 (talk) 19:59, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
@Mandruss - this is no way a request for an opinion, as in every culture I have lived in, an apology is immediately given in such cases as these. It is also in no way a request for a prediction.... whatever you may mean by that. Also, it is not debate. The OP gave a question, I gave an answer. You, however, did not. I do not know what planet you think you are living on, but if five people have five different standards of when to receive/give an apology, then it's seriously not a world I want to live in. Now, THAT is what I call an opinion. KägeTorä - (影虎) (もしもし！) 20:15, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
What do you suppose would happen if you asked the same question at a real reference desk? They do not deal in questions like this, but rather questions for which there is available reference information, hence the name. Per Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Guidelines#Purposes of the desk, the intent for these refdesks is the same, not to provide a pseudo-legitimate outlet for a small subset of the community to engage in forum-like conversation. Community consensus is embodied in the written guidelines, not in the actions of individuals that are contrary to them, and to call the status quo here a "reference desk" is to apply lipstick to a pig. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:02, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
One essential aspect of language is timing, isn't it? It nearly always happens that apologies are exchanged at exactly the same time - as if this is the optimum psychological aim of the encounter, so that no-one loses face. And what if somebody turned this thread into a language question? And said something like: "is any word other than "sorry" more suitable for this situation?" I'd be interested to see the answers to that. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:18, 7 May 2015 (UTC) (not sure, Mandruss, why you had to make that rather distasteful reference to lipstick, again).
If you asked this question at a real ref desk at an academic library, you would likely get a response similar to the one I just posted below. Social norms are sometimes weird and confusing, always hard to study, and often seemingly arbitrary. But that does not mean they are not the topic of academic inquiry, and there is at least the potential to address such requests within the confines of proper professional reference desk behavior. SemanticMantis (talk) 23:08, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
If you say "sorry" too late after accidentally bumping into someone it may be that they think of you as a nincompoop. Bus stop (talk) 23:39, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

When should I say this, immediately after, or later on, following them down the road? It is a common sense answer to a query. Mandruss, I asked this here, just for you. Stop f**king around. I've got to go to work in 1 hr and 40 mins. I can't be bothered arguing about misconstrued ideas of what consitututes a question or not. KägeTorä - (影虎) (もしもし！) 21:39, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

And do you have a reference for asking ten people will give you five different answers? Why not seven, or three? Pots don't call kettles black, you know. KägeTorä - (影虎) (もしもし！) 21:49, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
For questions like this, they way to treat them as a reference desk, and not as idle chit-chat, is to point to the academic literature on the topic. I'm about to head out to dinner, but we do have an article on apology. Believe it or not, this is an area where people do serious research in the realm of social psychology and sociolinguistics. Here's a few relevant journal articles I found [4] [5] [6] [7]. The last one in particular focuses on timing of the apology. SemanticMantis (talk) 23:04, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, SemanticMantis, that's exactly what I was thinking of. I think that's a very useful answer. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:09, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
You're welcome, I'm copying the relevant links back to the main question for future reference. SemanticMantis (talk) 12:51, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
There are also many published books and other works, that would certainly qualify as reliable sources, on etiquette. —Steve Summit (talk) 12:03, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
Yes, certainly there are what could be called "expert opinions", by writers such as "Miss Manners", Emily Post, etc. So the question is theoretically answerable by sources. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:16, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Deletion of Ref Desk Q's without talk page consensus

[8]

Medeis removed this Q, I restored it, then Jayron removed it. I though we had decided that anyone can hat a Q unilaterally, but that to delete it requires a consensus here. Medeis was a particular problem in this regard, as I recall. StuRat (talk) 01:24, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

  • There's no obligation to discuss this, there were already several objections to the thread on the page itself when I used the approved template, and Stu's already been reverted by an admin. μηδείς (talk) 01:38, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
  • I only saw one objection listed there, and Jayron being an admin doesn't give him any additional influence in these decisions (or at least it isn't supposed to, if they follow the rules). StuRat (talk) 03:00, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Here's one for you Stu. I am not sure if the guy's upset because as he's a well-groomed svelte looker in Liverpool no one realizes he has HIV, or that as a fat, ugly, dirty Liverpuddlian he resents his unattractiveness being blamed on his falsely presumed HIV status. In any case, I second the first responder, and chatting on this topic is out of our purview. μηδείς (talk) 20:50, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
Hey Medeis, I've restored the section you just removed -- WP:RDS#Misconceptions about hiv. While it is not a particularly interesting question, I don't see where it violates any of our guidelines. It seems to have been well dealt with, though if I can dig up the references I'm seeking I will add another response. -- ToE 23:21, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
μηδείς/Medeis Needs to be banned from editing any other user's comments on the refdesks, at which point the job will be taken up by the many refdesk regulars who handle such things without generating an endless string of complaints from other users.[9][10] It looks like this is going to require an arbcom case to accomplish; talking about the problem here has never solved this problem and never will. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:03, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
What user's comments do you allege Medeis to have "edited" in this case? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:43, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
I don't consider it likely that ArbCom will accept a case about the Reference Desk. ArbCom is likely to say that the community has not been asked to handle the issue. In other words, take it to WP:ANI. User:Medeis: Do you realize how many of the other regular editors here think that you are consistently out of line in taking aggressive action on posts that other editors don't think require aggressive action? Have you considered that perhaps your actions are contrary to consensus? Robert McClenon (talk) 02:36, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
Yes, Robert, and I also realize how many other editors actually think our guidelines actually mean something and thank me for my edits or support me after the fact. I brought this edit here because I thought it was possibly controversial, unlike the one Stu earlier unhatted days. after the fact on the sole grounds that it was I, and not Jayron or the other editors who first took the correct step. I brought it here and announced it for your consideration, get it? That's what's called collaboration and respecting the community. And I haven't reverted it or edit warred. So basically, while I have no issue with TOE reversing me (I invited it) I think Guy Macon wanting to target me like a sniper and blow me up is par for the course. μηδείς (talk) 03:04, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
It is true that you have shown extremely poor judgement in hatting questions, but that's not nearly as bad as you now escalating to deleting questions without consensus. StuRat (talk) 00:01, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
It looks like a request for medical advice. I concur that it would have been better to discuss it here first. But the fact that Jayron also zapped it, along with some responders already saying it's a request for medical advice, makes it not that big a deal. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:00, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
RE: "responders"; Again, there was only one responder who said that, so there was no consensus reached when Medeis deleted it. StuRat (talk) 23:57, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
Technically you're right, as it was the user Llaanng who twice stated that it was medical advice. Medeis' removal is also its own statement. So that's 2 to 1. Then Jayron removed it again, so that's 3 to 1. There are further comments here on both sides. What would you say is the overall consensus so far, as to whether it's a request for medical advice or not? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:41, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
I don't think you understand my point. We don't want anyone removing questions (as opposed to hatting them), without developing a consensus to do so FIRST. I thought we had all agreed to that long ago. When she did the removal, there was no such consensus. (Oh, and if you are looking at consensus after the fact, you have me and the OP, at the very least, opposed to the removal.) StuRat (talk) 02:49, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
The OP 54.240.197.233 (talk · contribs) doesn't seem overly concerned about all this. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 06:33, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
Agreements to not remove questions only last until the latest ANI report gets archived. This has been discussed here hundreds of times and reported at ANI multiple times. Nothing will come of this thread, as is our custom. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:36, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
As with the item below, for example. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 06:27, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Chinese commercial real estate question

"Is it easier to sell a commercial property in China with or without a restaurant lessee?"

Hey Medeis, could you please explain the rationale for hatting this question? It strikes me not as a request for financial or legal advice but instead a straight forward question of business statistics. How a preexisting lease for a particular class of business affects the time on the market and eventual selling price as compared to otherwise comparable commercial properties is precisely the sort of comparative market analysis which would be discussed in real estate trade journals. Given Wikipedia's WP:Systemic bias, it is unlikely that the question will receive an answer, but it should be given a fair chance.

This question was hatted only hours after it was asked, so barring objection I plan to repost it tonight when the original question archives. I've notified Imagine Reason (the OP) of this discussion and will do similarly when I repost the question. -- ToE 12:02, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

The first obvious question to the OP would be, "Define 'easier'." ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:23, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
There is a disturbing trend on the reference desks of nitpicking questions in a way that is creating a hostile environment. Sometimes the questioners are asked to justify every premise of their question even when these premises are either easily verified (in which case the question can be answered normally) or clearly false (in which case a referenced explanation of their error suffices). At other times the questioner is asked to explain every term used even when the meaning is reasonably obvious. If you were to ask a realtor how a particular feature would affect the ease of selling a property, they would respond in terms of expected time on the market or the discount or increase in price in comparison with a comparable property lacking that feature in order to achieve the same expected time on the market. If a question is unclear and you truly intent to help answer it, then certainly do go ahead and request more information in a friendly manner, but if you aren't planning on helping in the first place, then just don't edit. Come one everybody, be charitable and don't bite. -- ToE 13:46, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
Maybe you're unaware that there's a rule against giving professional advice. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:57, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
I do not believe that providing a link to a reliable source which discusses one aspect of the commercial real estate market in China (as unlikely as we are to find it) is equivalent to giving professional advice. -- ToE 16:30, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
And I say your argument is not correct. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:22, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
Really? By the same logic, were someone to ask whether women had easier deliveries if they gave birth to their first child in their 20s or in their 30s, and we responded by linking to medical statistics giving the average length of labor and the C-section rates for primigravida women in the two age groups, would you consider that equivalent to giving medical advice and thus in violation of our mandate? -- ToE 19:03, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
It would depend on the actual question. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:23, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
"Do women have easier deliveries if they give birth to their first child in their 20s or in their 30s?" -- ToE 19:35, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
Every woman is different, so a question so stated is unanswerable. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:51, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
Fer real? Man, I wish I could see your face to tell if you are just pulling my leg. So you really don't have it in you to lend a questioner an implied "on average"? -- ToE 20:13, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
Did they ask for an average? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:21, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
ToE, you are correct. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:08, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

rm trolling estrogen question

It was hatted as apparently someone took offense and it wasn't a real question. Editors ignored the hat and continued to feed "the joke." I removed it as a troll magnet since hatting was ignored. Per guidelines, don't restore questions without consensus. --DHeyward (talk) 03:39, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Section in question: WP:RDS#Estrogen talking [last extant version]
Mini-edit-war between DHeyward & StuRat: S D S D S S D
Only after reading the context of Stu's quote do I understand that he was indirectly warning against the use of such misogynous comments (it resulted in a sexual harassment charge in-episode), so DHeyward misunderstanding of his intent is understandable. -- ToE 12:51, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
No, I didn't misunderstand that this was a joke and it was hardly an indirect warning since it was just another joke. Stu described it as a joke, not as an "indirect warning."[11]. It was also a hatted discussion that someone found offensive for whatever reason. I understand both. Continuing with a joke 2 days after it was hatted is not necessary, adds nothing to the reference desk and is non-encyclopedic. It only extends the offense that the hatting editor noted and the last bit added by Stu was a lesson in what not to do. --DHeyward (talk) 14:43, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, I'd linked but not noted that edit summary. For completeness, here is the original hatting by Bus stop. -- ToE 15:28, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
OK, where in the guidelines does it say anyone can delete a Q without consensus, but restoring it requires consensus ? StuRat (talk) 13:36, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
Bottom of the section about removing questions. [12]. --DHeyward (talk) 14:43, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
That refers to "a question that was removed by another editor acting in good faith using a reasonable interpretation of the Wikipedia policies and guidelines". I don't believe there is any policy or guideline saying "any editor can censor Wikipedia of anything they consider to be offensive". In fact the opposite is the case: Wikipedia is not censored. StuRat (talk) 03:49, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
Strawman argument as I didn't censor anything I determined offensive. It does fall into the category of harassment, though. Weighing the encyclopedic value of the question/jokes against other editors expressions of misogyny, it is pretty clear where the line is. I've investigated workplace claims of harassment and there need not be any objective finding of offensiveness to force a party to stop making jokes, unrelated to work, that offend others. It's not the initial joke you made, which was hatted, it was the follow-up, post hatted, post complaint joke made 2 days later - after it was apparent some editors were offended. Like the episode you quoted, it's obvious harassment when, after being asked to stop, it continues. You've made no argument as to how the jokes benefit the project except as an extension of your own sense of humor. "Wikipedia is not censored" applies to material that is otherwise encyclopedic. This isn't your blog or forum or stage. --DHeyward (talk) 05:55, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
The OP's question was a joke, and the responses were jokes also. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:14, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
Except two responses. One editor noted misogyny. A different editor hatted it. Neither of those editors appeared to appreciate the joke and it ceased benefiting the project. --DHeyward (talk) 03:19, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
Hence it was ripe for removal. And the "misogyny" part was essentially a personal attack on the OP. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:06, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
I gave a serious response (with a joke added at the end). StuRat (talk) 03:51, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
  • I am just disappointed the Kim Jong Un wedding vow question was removed:

    Did Kim Jong Un's marriage proposal to Ri Sol Ju end in the words "or else" ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:304:6E44:D3E0:C1A5:F903:6D41:4364 (talk) 9:56 pm, 11 May 2015, last Monday (1 day ago) (UTC−4)

    It was the best trolling we've had in years, worthy of an archive page, and I think it shows some people here have a real problem distinguishing between what's funny and what's a policy issue. Why didn't this go to arbcom? μηδείς (talk) 04:08, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
You mean this trolling question about Kim Jong Un and Ri Sol Ju the two living people? Archive you say? Does my memory fail me, or this suggestion coming from the same person who has complained to WP:BLP/N more than once about serious questions or answers which are often supported by sources or the linked articles and so usually to be rejected, and when it was pointed out at BLP/N they're far from faultless on BLP matters, denied it? What happened to the cries of "defamation per se" that are so common? Nil Einne (talk) 23:55, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

"Should I be worried?"

Notified this user his question about an insect infestation has been removed. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Science&diff=662816791&oldid=662816387 μηδείς (talk) 22:12, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Yup - 'should I be worried' makes it a request for medical advice. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:20, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
Op has now rephrased as "what's the bug?", hopefully more acceptable. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:29, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
Not with the "should I be worried" part it's not; he can repost as an ID question if he wants. μηδείς (talk) 22:49, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
Oh, for Pete's sake, he retracted the offending part. Relax. But I have re-posted the q in the form you require, with my own sig, since I'm actually curious about that bug now. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:57, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
I'd be more concerned that the link he provided could be a malware site. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:32, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Misplaced Edit

A one-time editor placed a question at the top of the Science Desk. I removed it because it was incorrectly placed. I don't know if it was meant to be a test edit or a real question. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:03, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

This is the edit. This is the removal. ---Sluzzelin talk 19:59, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
Good action. The 3 word question "What is matter?" without a section header isn't worth moving to the bottom just so we can link matter. -- ToE 02:47, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
I would have done just that. There could be complications, such as if they meant "matter" as in white matter/grey matter. StuRat (talk) 06:56, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
Wasn't pretty much the same question asked recently? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:15, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Invitation to comment on VP proposal: Establish WT:MoS as the official site for style Q&A on Wikipedia

There is now a proposal at the Village Pump that WT:MoS be established as Wikipedia's official page for style Q&A. This would involve actively guiding editors with style questions to WT:MoS and away from other pages. Participation is welcome, especially from editors who have experience dealing with style questions or editors seeking help in general.

For the purposes of this discussion, "style" refers to things like spelling, organization, punctuation, capitalization and other types of writing mechanics. Darkfrog24 (talk) 19:17, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Awesome IP answer

Recently people have been disparaging the quality of IP answers... we should collect some counter-examples before people start believing them. For example, this one. Wnt (talk) 18:44, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

That particular IP seems to be engaging in a normal way, as do most of them, really. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:37, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
The normal way is both ways. All depends on focuses, and they're mutually exclusive. You'll never see the crooked old hag if your eyes are on the sweet pure maiden.
And likewise, if you concentrate on hags and maidens, you forget the only safe bet on The Invisible Man or The Faceless Men is that he/they is/are male.
The thing to remember about men? "When someone wrestles with a temptation, two miniature versions of himself, an Angel and a Devil, sit on each shoulder and try to pull him in different directions." InedibleHulk (talk) 04:36, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
When I said "normal" I meant "adult / civil / proper" or whatever. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:21, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
I see. Nevermind that, then. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:29, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
You lost me at the bakery. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:02, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
Well, then nevermind the man behind the bakery counter. Not the clerk, but further back. The modern baker, I guess we'd call him. The basic gist of it is that if you didn't mean what I thought you meant, nothing I said made sense. Except for the bit about rarely having to use gender neutral language for IPs. That's still going to apply tomorrow, particularly amongst the troll persons. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:06, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
You're talking in riddles, and I'm not smart enough to figure out what you're trying to say. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:29, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
Nevermind any of it, then. Period.
Anyway, I agree that the IP gave a damn fine answer. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:41, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

early date headers

As @Deor just pointed out to me, the experimental instantiation of the bot I ran this morning added the May 29 headers early. But I'm on a boat with really poor bandwidth (thus the experimental instantiation, which is running back on land as opposed to here on my laptop). Can I ask for someone's help manually removing the premature May 29 headers so they can be reinserted in the proper place later tonight? Thanks. --Steve Summit (talk) 21:15, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm on it. -- ToE 21:18, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
Done. Happy sailing Steve! -- ToE 21:27, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, and thanks! --Steve Summit (talk) 21:29, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

82.28.140.226

This IP does nothing but ask questions at the Reference Desk and post to a few talk pages. That, in itself, is permitted. However, two of the questions at Miscellaneous are either good-faith extreme cluelessness or are racial trolling. Thoughts? Robert McClenon (talk) 18:35, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

See my note on IPs talk page. Have assumed good faith so far and even answered their Block Murderers question (which appeared poorly titled but okay otherwise) but they are stretching AGF. Abecedare (talk) 18:45, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Would someone care to say what they think was wrong with the Black Murderers question? DuncanHill (talk) 18:56, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
I didn't think that there was anything wrong with that question except for the title and that it was asking for an opinion, but the violence question (and the way it was framed) looked like trolling. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:09, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
I think there's something very inconsistent about rejecting (hatting, complaining about) questions that smell remotely like requests for opinion, while sitting around silently while numerous regulars respond with opinions, many times for days, when none was requested. That needs some serious thought and some changes, in my opinion. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:16, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
Or asking for speculation about what a medical diagnosis is. DuncanHill (talk) 19:48, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
Asking what a word means is not a request for a medical diagnosis. If you don't see that, it's another reason you shouldn't be commenting here today. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:15, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
Oh come on Bugs, you really aren't up to your usual standard. DuncanHill (talk) 00:28, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
Asking what a word means is not a request for a medical diagnosis. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:14, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
@Robert McClenon: But what do you think is wrong with the title? DuncanHill (talk) 19:45, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
And for that matter it wasn't asking for an opinion, it was asking for facts. DuncanHill (talk) 19:49, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

How about "Gay Molestation" and "Gay Mental Illness" as section headers? There might be perfectly reasonable questions under those headers, or horrible ones, but we would change them to neutral, informative headers, like "molestation and it's effects on a child's sexual orientation" or "relative rates of mental illness among various genders and orientations". DuncanHill's championing of this, against longstanding policy is bizarre, as are his recent edits supporting/restoring edits screaming at people and using obscenities. It's obvious this IP (who's been around for a week, but knows all about button pushing, the ref desks, and going to ANI) is a sock puppet of some blocked user. In the meantime he's wasting a lot of energy people could be directing elsewhere. I assume you are aware, Robert McClenon that IP 82 started his own ANI thread on this topic? μηδείς (talk) 19:50, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

The question is about murderers who are black, and if and how they are treated differently from murderers who are white. Medeis, you don't need to expend any energy on this - it is (remotely, I admit) possible for you to just ignore something about which you have nothing constructive to say. DuncanHill (talk) 19:56, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
It certainly looks like a troll and a sock, and if you can't see that, then YOU don't need to "expend any energy" on this and it's YOU who has nothing constructive to say. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:09, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
Unlike you I did make an effort to answer the perfectly legitimate, and interesting question. I do think that gives me some entitlement to comment on the extreme bad faith shewn by some here. DuncanHill (talk) 00:27, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Since I'm the subject of this opinion piece, it's now my turn to have my say.

And what I do have to say is that this finger pointing and witch hunting is absurd to the extreme. No worse, a real joke. Me a seasoned pro, recently a banned socket? An alien with a laser rifle? What Next? This is comical. So much 'opinion'...and gossip! I took me the entirety of 45 minutes to learn how this place works. And if you've ever worked in a technical environment, you will know that Wikipedia isn't exactly rocket science. Nor was it meant to be. Ask Jimmy.

Have a wonderful day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.28.140.226 (talk) 22:46, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Anyone who's ever gone fishing will appreciate that baiting involves two entities: the baiter and the baitee, and that the baitee does not always come to the party, because it's entirely their choice as to whether to be caught or not. Well, we here have more of a clue than any damn fish, and if we don't, we should just give up and go swimming.
  • If a question is intended to cause trouble (for any of hundreds of definitions of "cause trouble"), we have options: (a) ignore it, (b) answer it exactly as asked, in a way that does not engage them in whatever sub-agenda they may have, or (c) make an issue out of it, whether here or on the thread itself. We've clearly gone for option (c) here. Problem is, that is giving them exactly the attention they crave, and/or disrupting the desks (which they also crave), so they win. We didn't have to do that (says he, who's incidentally contributing to the problem, but only by way of presenting a solution, albeit hardly a new one). If we choose between options (a) and (b), then (1) we're not allowing ourselves to be the baitee (which matter is always within our control), and (2) we never even have to get into any debates about whether they're a troll or not. If they're not, they never have to defend themselves against baseless accusations; and if they are, they're denied acknowledgment of that very fact, which they hate, because we remain intentionally naively oblivious of their underhandedness and we get to undermine and neutralise it without expending any energy, and maybe not even realising we've done that. Neat. Either way, we win. Resist not evil still makes a lot of sense.
  • Let us abjure and eschew option (c) henceforth. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 23:37, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
  • As long as Medeis and Bugs are around that's not going to happen is it? DuncanHill (talk) 00:29, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Well, I won't be bothering to defend you again when you get into more trouble. Wondering why I ever did. DuncanHill (talk) 12:15, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Medeis/μηδείς in going to do what Medeis/μηδείς wants to do, which is to control the behavior of other editors, and nothing we say or do here will change that. As is our tradition, no admin at ANI is willing to stop μηδείς/Medeis from continuing this behavior, a large number of other editors on the reference desks are unwilling to accept the behavior without asking ANI for help, and a smaller but still significant number of editors are perfectly fine with the behavior. I don't see this changing anytime soon. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:49, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
  • The OP IP is a known sock familiar with ANI and the subject of previous blocks who's been blocked by User talk:JzG for his disruptive behavior. Rather than just close his provocations, I have renamed them neutrally in a way which steps on no ones answers. μηδείς (talk) 04:10, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Known sock? What evidence do you have of that? Any at all? Or is it something you've just made up in the hope of fooling people? DuncanHill (talk) 12:22, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
    • No matter how one feels about the opening q, the previous heading better reflected it. You've made the TOC look less offensive to some, nothing more. Pointless PC and lipstick on a pig. But if it makes you feel like you've contributed something today, there's something to be said for that. No real harm done, aside from the time wasted arguing about it. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:49, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
      • Nanny has to have the final word, we all must defer to her, especially when, as here, she repeatedly fails to actually explain her reasons. DuncanHill (talk) 12:13, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
        • I'm still waiting for you to explain how asking what a word means somehow equates to asking for a medical diagnosis. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:34, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
  • For the record, The above question regarding 82.28.140.226 went to ANI: Result: consensus in favor of neutral non-race baiting titles, complaining IP above blocked 48 hours. When the IP returned, he went back to ANI: Result: IP roundly admonished and blocked for a week. DuncanHill's personal remarks about my actions seem to have started with this dispute 1[14] 2] at the same time and continued when I changed the IP's problematic headers. μηδείς (talk) 02:07, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Date headings not updating

Anyone know why, or able to sort it out? Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:35, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Steve Summit usually takes care of date headers and archives by manually invoking his Scsbot daily, which most recently ran on 5 June in archiving mode and 3 June in date header addition mode. I know that Steve has been traveling for work (see WT:RD#early date headers) and this and limited connectivity has likely disrupted his schedule. Thank you Ghmyrtle for manually adding those date headers. -- ToE 14:06, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanations, T.
I guess it's been a while since I said this, but my position is that date headers are easy for anyone to add, so I don't tend to worry about those so much if life's little logistical complexities prevent me from running the bot to add them. Thanks for being the backup shepherd in this case, G.
Anyway, I'm back on dry land and a catch-up pass to take care of all date headers and to-be-archived days is running now. —Steve Summit (talk) 15:10, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Troll question?

I feel like maybe this should be zapped. It's hard to assume good faith with a question like that. Any other comments? --Viennese Waltz 10:37, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

It seems a perfectly reasonable question to me. Is any question about "private parts" automatically suspect now? -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 11:40, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
Of course not, but the tone of this one suggests trolling to me. --Viennese Waltz 12:13, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
Can you explain what it is about the "tone" that troubles you? -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 19:30, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
There is an unwritten, unchallengeable position that anonymous IP editors are presumed guilty until proven innocent of being trolls. —Steve Summit (talk) 13:54, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
Other than maybe moving the question to the Science desk, I see nothing else that should be done with the question other than answering it. I, for one, would like to know the answer... Dismas|(talk) 12:35, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
Aside from missing apostrophe in the title, I see nothing inflammatory here. Someone might be getting a giggle by talking about testicles, but there's no harm in giggling while you learn. And even if they didn't want to learn, others do. Like Dismas.
Intentions don't matter near as much as results. A troll can troll till the trolls come home, but if nobody gets trolled, no trolling occured. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:42, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
I just reverted a deletion of this labeled WP:DENY with WP:ALLOW. To be clear, I don't know if this an actual shortcut to anything, I just think we should allow it. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:19, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
How about that? Leads nowhere. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:20, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
And how about this? WP:NOTHERE isn't supposed to lead to my talk page, is it? InedibleHulk (talk) 19:32, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
Piped link, I suppose. -- ToE 19:39, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
I re-restored it and in the edit summary invited the Egyptian IP user 197.36.158.85 to discuss it here before removing it again. -- ToE 19:37, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
I sure hope it's not Apep. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:42, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
  • The bottom line is that this is a rather common Bio 101 type question that often comes up when a person hears of it for the first time. I've retitled it to show the question isn't about ingredients for a witch's brew. Given we've got an IP posting, and IP trolling this talk page thread, and an IP reverting, (from Russia, Korea, and Egypt) I think it might be reasonable to assume someone is baiting us. If there's more disruption we can ask for a temporary semi-protect, but at this point the question itself is not troublesome at all. μηδείς (talk) 19:58, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
I'm still morally opposed to changing people's headers, but won't actually oppose it, this time. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:19, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
Thank you. We spent too much time on it to have all our effort just thrown away like nothing. It has been honed to a sharp edge, polished to a sparkling sheen. We shall now all exchange barnstars. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:24, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
That's a weird thing to come from editing assault knife articles to hear. Thank you. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:32, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
As gammer Medeis, I hereby confer the Tireless Contributor Barnstar
The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
This user is a tireless contributor. μηδείς (talk) 23:06, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
on all current non-IP editors of this page, per Mandruss, IP's also being eligible by pinging me iff they register an account mentioning their most recent (as of this post) IP edit history within the last 72 hours within the next 48 hours. μηδείς (talk) 23:06, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
If you act now, and throw in your last month's phone bill and home address (plus a $35 donation to the Wikipedia Foundation and a $35 service fee), I'll enter your name into a raffle for an actual solid gold barnstar! (Subject to availability) InedibleHulk (talk) 23:59, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
I am very thankful that humor has not been completely banished from Wikipedia talk spaces. Yet. This is not a veiled reference to any particular case(s) outside this thread. ―Mandruss ☎ 09:44, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

User:Gyotu a sockpuppet of Bowei Huang

I have reported the 'new' user Gyotu to ANI as a sockpuppet of Bowei Huang 2. (Any Admin reading this is invited to take action.) He currently has a question about The Second Coming on Miscellaneous and one on Humanities about God and the Devil. I suggest we not feed him in the meantime. μηδείς (talk) 18:47, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Jayron has indeffed him, I am deleting the questions. If someone really objects I suppose they could be restored. μηδείς (talk) 04:11, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
Their previous incarnations are in the archives, and that's more than sufficient. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 06:07, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
I wasn't exactly proud of reusing the same song. Made me look forgetful and mainstream. Accidentally spelled "beginning" with three N's, too. Best to pretend it never happened. Next time the subject comes up, I'll use a deeper, fresher Dio reference. InedibleHulk (talk) 11:56, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
The question at this point is, there was thought at the ANI of getting him formally banned, so he could be removed on sight. I have two questions, is that really a necessary precondition for summary removal of such questions, and, if so, do we need to file an RfC or something? What's the procedure? μηδείς (talk) 17:31, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
You ask about an RFC. I assume that you mean an Request for Comments on User. That procedure has been turned off as deprecated. In order to formally ban an indefinitely blocked editor, just make a request at WP:ANI with evidence of his socking as the reason to upgrade the indefinite block (which is a de facto ban if no one will unblock) to a formal ban. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:55, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
I was hoping that would happen while the last ANI was open. I think it will probably not be looked upon as urgent at this point. Probably have to pose it as an RfC there when he shows up next. μηδείς (talk) 19:09, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
No. - You refer to an RFC. I assume that you mean Request for Comments on User. That procedure has been turned off. If you want to ban a user, make the request at WP:ANI. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:53, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
According to WP:CBAN, such requests should be made at WP:AN (not AN/I). However, I'm sure a request on AN/I will reach the attention of the appropriate people. Tevildo (talk) 23:13, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
(ec) I understand your comment, Robert McClenon, that the RfC/U is dead. At this point, my question is; "Should a request for banning a user at ANI have the form of an RfC?" I have no intention of following this up immediately; it might be a year before Huang reurns, or maybe he'll grow up and never return. But unless I hear otherwise, it seems that there should be a proposal with a 'support or oppose' section following. Otherwise I suspect a new ANI complaint might just be closed as (over-)quickly as this one was. μηδείς (talk) 23:19, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
It certainly shouldn't have the form of an RFC/U. Just do it, or don't do it. What else? Robert McClenon (talk) 02:21, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
Just do or don't do what? File an ANI, or summarily remove his comments, Robert McClenon? I'll be happy to do either, but I suspect doing the latter will draw down the wrath of the IP proxies. (Kind of like the latter-day Erinyes. μηδείς (talk) 21:47, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
If you want to have a user banned, just file at ANI to request that the user be banned. The responses to a request to ban a user are Support and Oppose and various positions in between, which are similar to the responses to a "regular" Request for Comments. There is no need for a request to take the form of the deprecated Request for Comment on User, whose complexity was one of the reasons that it was deprecate. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:51, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Weirdness at "The Rain in Spain"

Please see the question I posed @ User talk:DuncanHill#Weirdness at "The Rain in Spain" concerning a strange edit for which I can find no reasonable explanation, and that excludes intentional vandalism on Duncan's part. Was anyone else editing the thread at the same time, and has so far failed to see their edit appear as they intended? It looks like some strange new form of vandalism. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 00:00, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Something happened to me like that, too. I moved Medeis' comment and nothing else, except it wasn't me. You can see User talk:InedibleHulk#socialiist utopia, but there are no answers. InedibleHulk (talk) 12:06, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
I have had an odd thing happen over the last few days where I save an edit, it does not show any error, but the text of my edit is not there. I page back through the browser, cut out the edit from the edit dialog box, reload the page so I can re-edit it, and lo-and-behold the edit is now there. This has not happened before this last week or so but has happened at least four times now. It may not be the same issue, but I expect glitches. μηδείς (talk) 19:25, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
I've seen that too. There may be a lag between the updating of different elements of the database. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:23, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
Moi aussi. See also below, the dates not updating. Are the problems linked? They seem to have started about the same time. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:37, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
The edits not showing up issue is not limited to the ref desk, although it hasn't happened since my last post. μηδείς (talk) 17:05, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
You were my first and only. If it stays that way, maybe I'll write a power ballad about it. But for now, just a simple fact. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:01, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
This one wasn't a relatively simple case of an edit disappearing then magically reappearing. If I label the relevant 7 posts in their original (and now corrected) order as A, B, C, D, E, F, G, what we ended up with for a time was G split into 2 parts (G1 and G2), E was missing entirely, and the rest was re-ordered as A, B, F, G1, C, D, G2. This all happened by Duncan's simple act of adding a post (H) that had nothing to do with and was nowhere near those 7 posts. I've never seen anything like that, which is why I suspected another editor was doing something at the same time and the system's brain broke. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 22:45, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
I just noticed something today. If I click a section, making a #something in the URL, then edit and save, I don't see my changes till I reload the "root" page. Never noticed it before, but it happens on the desks, talk and articles now. This seems different from Jack's problem, but quite like Medeis' recent ones. Does this work (not work) for anyone else? InedibleHulk (talk) 16:30, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
  • I have just had this happen again, when I successfully saved the page my edit on the disclaimer discussion did not appear, but when I backed up, cut it for pasting, then reloaded it it was indeed there. Had I not checked I would at best have ended up with a mangled double post. μηδείς (talk) 03:18, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Discussion of rabies after OP describes possible exposure

I'm anxiously concerned about the possibly misleading effects on the OP about WP:RD/M#Rabies vaccionation after having contact with a bat?. Rabies is a deadly, incurable disease. The responses thus far (many from RD Regulars) are fragmentary, some anecdotal, and offer a smattering of links (internal and external). I would have started off with a flag for NO MEDICAL ADVICE. Is there enough concurrence here? If this were in my RL community (where rabies hasn't been eradicated and is currently active) I'd be all over this with warnings. Please advise - am I being overly cautious? Alarmist? Thank you. -- Deborahjay (talk) 11:21, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

"Should i get a vaccionation?" looks clearly like a request for medical advice to me. Shoulda been nipped in the bud, which it looks like Medeis tried to do (although she could have been more explicit with that). Responders need to be more careful and pay attention to previous responders' comments. Imo, good call, Deborahjay. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:13, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
So if I understand the discussion of this template, identifying a query as a request for medical advice requires its removal. No such thing as "user warning with topic discussion anyway"? What to do now? -- Deborahjay (talk) 14:28, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
As I read it, it's a clear removal of the responses, replacing them with "Sorry, per the instructions at the top of this page, we cannot respond to requests for medical advice." (I feel the subtle RTFM is important.) Whether to stick the template on the user's talk page is a separate question, and not all that important since they can see the rejection at RD. (Btw, {{RD medadvice}} says it's deprecated and replaced by {{RD medremoval}}). However, the existing comments represent a de facto consensus against removal, so in my mind we need consensus here first (Medeis and others may disagree). I'm not going to boldly remove, preferring to wait for more comments. Any damage has largely already been done. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:34, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
I don't see any point in removing the question itself, since it alone does no damage. Leaving it in also educates other readers about what a request for medical advice is, until such time as the thread is archived. Leaving it in also allows other readers to object to the rejection here, without having to hunt the diff down in the page history, and allows that for readers who don't know how to use the page history. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:29, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
Telling someone to see a doctor, ASAP or not, is medical advice. Telling them about disease is medical information. Telling them about your experience with disease is a medical anecdote.
I get the idea behind "See a doctor", but the same gist can be captured with "We don't give medical advice" alone. This less wordy way won't persuade someone to or not to see a doctor. Both are risky without a proper diagnosis. You don't want to tell a person who truly needs professional help to consider technically published garlic, but you don't want to send a fairly healthy person to get wiped with a superbug. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:42, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
There is a fine line between medical advice and medical information as you described it, and we cannot expect responders to correctly navigate that. Yet it sounds like you're saying some of the responses were okay. If so, I disagree. If the question is a request for medical advice, or even includes such a request, we should reject with the one sentence, and leave it there. Other responders should either respect the rejection or take it up here. The only question is how many violations of that have to occur before de facto consensus precludes their own removal. It's a sticky wicket, for any Brits, other cricket players, and possibly croquet players. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:00, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
Actually, I'd support the removal of any number of responses following a first-response rejection, provided it's clear the first response was in fact a rejection. That doesn't apply in this case, however, since the first response was not a clear rejection. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:15, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
I think every answer except "Talk to your doctor ASAP" and "Don't worry too much about lingering spit" was fine, because none of those advised the OP on medical matters. There's no prohibition against asking for advice, only giving, so it seems harsh to punish someone with the silent treatment.
In this case, there was a clear misconception about how prone bats are to rabies and how they transmit it. S/he didn't ask about those, but came away learning something. Since we can't answer whether to get vaccinated, it seems the next best thing. Ignorance isn't as blissful as it's cracked up to be. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:22, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
Again, we cannot expect responders to correctly navigate that. And I know you can't be around at all times to tell them what to do in each particular situation, as you sometimes work on attack knife articles, sleep, and eat not in front of your computer keyboard. A limit on complexity is needed, even it means leaving an OP less than completely informed about the topic they brought to RD. We're not the only information resource available to them, by the way. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:30, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
How was that complex? Few (American) bats have rabies, fewer of those bite people, fewer of those infect people, fewer of those people show symptoms, and very few of those die. Three of the seventeen Americans who died of bat-associated rabies between 1997 and 2006 had no recollection of ever associating with bats.
Guidelines aside, if I was worried I might be ill, I'd rather read that than essentially "There's no time to lose! Gather up however much doctor visits cost where you live, and run, don't walk! The absence of symptoms is rabies' secret weapon!" Paraphrased, of course, and not knocking Medeis. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:56, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
Oh wait, you said "responders". Dur. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:00, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
Or wait, no. I'm technically wrong. By the book, "The first answer in particular should advise the person to seek a qualified professional. Subsequent answers must never bring this advice into question, and should reiterate it if there is any doubt."
Personally, I find the insistence on giving one and only one kind of advice disgusting, while giving advice itself is merely not cool.
I'm still technically right about being allowed to "answer by giving information, such as links to articles", without saying what to do with it. That's in the guideline. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:35, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
Well, criminy, being ADD I had not attempted to wade through the actual instruction-creepy guidelines. I generally assume, apparently incorrectly, that widespread disagreement and months of debate mean that those things aren't adequately covered by written guidance. Thanks for reading. Those words don't preclude objecting to the rejection here, so I think my comments were pretty much in line with existing guideline. My suggested text could be changed to:

Sorry, per the instructions at the top of this page, we cannot respond to requests for medical advice. Please seek advice from consult a qualified professional.

―Mandruss ☎ 17:54, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
I'd never bothered till today, either. I figured "Don't give medical advice" was clear enough. Nothing's ever as it seems, it seems. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:56, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Frankly, I was going to template it, but just couldn't find the damn template. I think it should indeed still be templated, since the anecdotal evidence is simply irresponsible. Many people have died from rabies from bats even when they didn't realize they had been bitten until interviewed after it was too late to save their lives. μηδείς (talk) 21:07, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
Ok, I think we have enough agreement here to remove the responses, and I shall do so. I know nothing of a template for the rejection on the RD page (the templates mentioned above are for the user talk page), so I'll use my text above. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:15, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Actually the instructions at the top of the page say medical diagnosis, not medical advice. That needs fixin' imo. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:25, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

The template that Medeis was looking for appears to be {{RD-deleted}}. But its language requires the question to be removed, which I think is a bad idea for the reasons stated above. It assumes that the removal will always be the right call, and we know that's not true. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:26, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

I was one of the responders giving an anecdote (but one tilting towards seeing a doctor).[15] All the same, I think it was probably appropriate to remove all the answers. A "ban" on "medical diagnosis" is obviously essential but far too narrow. I'm less sure whether we should ban medical advice such as "consult a qualified professional" but I note that the rationale for removal now being displayed is giving exactly that advice (but not a medical diagnosis). I actually think the rationale is perfectly OK if it is in a boilerplate type of manner. Thincat (talk) 11:50, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
It's pretty clear that "see a doc" is not considered medical advice by the existing guideline, or it wouldn't tell us to say that. Even if it's medical advice, it's medical advice that can't do any harm (unless they see a quack, which ain't our fault), and the point of the guideline is to avoid doing harm. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:58, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
OK, "consult a qualified professional" can sometimes be poor advice and my country's health advice website http://www.nhs24.com/ is sometimes willing to say that self-treatment is sufficient after you have answered a long list of questions about symptoms. However, all in all I think it is the best approach for us here if offered in a formulaic way such as you are suggesting. So, I think what you are suggesting is good. Thincat (talk) 15:33, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
Hospitals are where sick people congregate, often leaving their infected fluids. They should only be used when absolutely necessary. If we apply the same "See a doctor" to every medical condition, even hangnails and colds, we're going to ruin some lives. Presuming they think of us as authoritative, and follow our advice, of course. I doubt every person we tell to see a doctor actually does. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:41, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
We can't tell someone like that what he should do. But we most assuredly should provide what resources we can to help him make up his mind. Good sourcing counts more than anything, especially if a question is important. Not "do this ASAP" but "here's a guide about rabies that makes some suggestions..." Wnt (talk) 00:43, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
No, no, no. If someone thinks they might have been exposed to rabies, the only responsible answer is "See a doctor as soon as possible." ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:51, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
So if he thinks he caught rabies after an angry girlfriend scratched him, we tell him to see a doctor? (This case isn't really that far removed from that - the odds of six month delayed rabies after touching a perfectly healthy animal...) Wnt (talk) 04:39, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
Yes, he should see a doctor. No one here is qualified to diagnose his situation. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? [:Contributions/Baseball_Bugs|carrots]]→ 05:09, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
Evasion. Should we tell him to see a doctor ASAP as a matter of policy, because we're bureaucrats rather than people? Wnt (talk) 12:44, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
No, because if he thinks he has rabies, he should see a doctor as soon as possible. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:12, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
If we're not qualified (and/or informed enough) to diagnose a situation, we're in no position to decide it warrants a doctor visit, anymore than we can decide it warrants garlic or morphine. When we're talking to an American, we're not just risking exposing him to new disease and taking hours out of his day, but telling him to pay the doctor he talks to. That's financial advice, too.
And it's not like an unnecessary visit to a doctor always ends in a relatively small payment for a clean bill of health and peace of mind. We may very well be sending him in for unnecessary surgery, which carries the same risks as necessary surgery, but makes people kick themselves.
You people can do what you like, but I'm not giving or reiterating any medical advice. I won't question it on the desk, though. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:04, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
You guys are worried about costs. How about the cost to the OP if he has rabies and concludes that he doesn't need to see a doctor because nobody here thinks it's a big deal? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:12, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
That sucks, too. So we don't advise him to not see a doctor, either. We don't advise him to do anything. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:18, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
The right answer is, "If you think you might have rabies, see a doctor as soon as possible." Posting a bureaucratic template is essentially flipping the bird at the OP. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:22, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
I don't want to template anybody. Just say we can't offer medical advice, in plain text. Then offer what relevant info I can, or step aside to let others offer what they can. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:34, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
The responsible answer is, "We are not allowed to offer medical advice. If you are concerned you might have rabies, see a doctor as soon as possible." Urging someone to see a doctor IS NOT medical advice. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:44, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
If you're breaking out the CAPS, I'm breaking out the dictionary. MEDICAL: of, relating to, or concerned with physicians or the practice of medicine. ADVICE: recommendation regarding a decision or course of conduct. So...MEDICAL ADVICE: recommendation regarding a decision or course of conduct relating to, or concerned with physicians or the practice of medicine. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:57, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
Urging someone to see a doctor does not fit that definition. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:07, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
Why not? InedibleHulk (talk) 18:10, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
Because the purpose of telling someone to see a doctor is to allow a qualified person to make a diagnosis. Telling an OP to get a rabies shot is medical advice. Telling them to see a doctor is not. And what is up with this recurring theme about not "bothering" a doctor or whatever? Is this a consequence of your socialized medicine system? In America, if we think we're sick, we call a doctor. We don't fret about whether it will cost the insurance company. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:21, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
What does the purpose of a recommendation regarding a physician have to do with whether it's a recommendation regarding a physician? And where did I once mention bothering the doctor? The recurring theme is about hospitals being disease-ridden and expensive. Sucks for the patient. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:50, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
And if every American called a doctor when they think they're sick, instead of Wikipedia, we wouldn't be here. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:54, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
But they obviously don't, which is why they need to be steered in the right direction, because no one here can help them. If they think they've got rabies or could have it, quibbling about costs and the alleged condition of hospitals is self-defeating. If we urge them to see a doctor, and they don't, that's their funeral (literally). But to give them a bureaucratic "F.U." is the wrong answer. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:07, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
I'd say telling someone to see a doctor, or consider seeing a doctor, when we know damn well he doesn't is a pretty big bureaucratic "F.U." itself. The fallacy is telling someone what to do. We're not here to tell somebody what to do; we are here to dispense information. So just open the gates and dump facts on him, and let him decide if he wants to diagnose himself or not. Wnt (talk) 19:33, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
Neither you nor anyone else can know whether a questioner is ill, nor with what, so there is no "information" we can dispense, other than if he's concerned, then he should see a doctor. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:11, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
If they need to be steered in the right direction, medical-wise, and nobody here can help them, medical-wise, that means we can't steer them. And "right direction" is just your opinion, which may be prudent, but which you're basing on extremely scant information. If we steer them nowhere, we'll never send them the wrong way. That's the whole point. Maybe they need a doctor, maybe they don't. Maybe they need an easily describable procedure, maybe they don't. Maybe their doctor will misdiagnose them, maybe he won't. Their health, in general, is simply not our concern.
And again, I'm not recommending any sort of bureaucratic F.U. Just your exact responsible answer above, minus the second sentence. Deleting their question and the general answers is an F.U.InedibleHulk (talk) 19:43, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
You seem to share WNT's disdain for the medical profession. We have no way to know whether they need a doctor or not. So the safe thing to do is tell them that if they are concerned, they should see a doctor. Telling someone to consult a doctor rather than wikipedia is not medical advice - it's good, practical, common sense. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:15, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
I don't disdain it at all. I just don't think it's perfect, or always the best course. Sometimes, it absolutely is and sometimes it absolutely isn't. Depends on the things we don't know of each case.
The safe bet is simply not touching life or death matters. Even if your advice saves a man, who's to say that man doesn't later kill a puppy? Or, in veterinary cases, that puppy doesn't later turn into Cujo?
If I wanted to give good, practical, common sense advice on how to diagnose rabies, I could. But I won't, simply because it's medical advice. That's the only checkbox that needs to be checked. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:38, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Discussion (financial/legal/medical)

In my opinion, we should do the following:

  • Immediately change the page headers, from "We don't answer (and may remove) questions that require medical diagnosis or legal advice", to "We don't answer questions that require financial, legal, or medical advice". That is clearly more consistent with the general consensus on the matter. We've been saying "medical advice" in discussions for as long as I can remember, and that appears to be consistent with the applicable guideline. We can't continue to say "per the instructions at the top of this page, we cannot respond to requests for medical advice" when the instructions at the top of the page don't say that.
  • Change existing process to leave the question in and simply follow it with the rejection. Modify {{RD-deleted}}, and the guideline if necessary, to reflect that change. Comments in {{RD-deleted}} include: "Removing inappropriate questions entirely avoids the difficult issue of determining which, if any, answers might be acceptable..." That makes no sense if the rules include respecting the rejection until a consensus against it is reached on this page. That completely removes the "difficult issue", while leaving the question in makes it possible for people besides the OP to challenge a rejection. Checking each other is a Good Thing.
  • Until the above change has been implemented, use standard text like the above as a substitute for {{RD-deleted}}. The only question being where to keep that standard text, where everyone can copy it easily when it's needed. Maybe an internal comment near the top of each page?
    <!-- :Sorry, per the instructions at the top of this page, we cannot respond to your question. You or anyone else may dispute this on [[WT:RD|the Reference Desk talk page]], but no further comments should be made in this thread until a consensus to remove this notice has been reached there. ~~~~ -->
All in favor? ―Mandruss ☎ 12:31, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
I for one am in favour for medical matters and thank you for taking this up. I haven't thought through whether it should apply to all type of "professional advice" but don't let's get hung up over that. Thincat (talk) 14:39, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
  • This policy is based on the disclaimer, which includes professional advice such as medical, legal, or financial, but it is not limited to those. We should be referring people to licensed specialists, not just doctors and lawyers.
The specific problem with this thread was we had someone in effect saying "I have a weird mole on my shoulder, should I see a specialist?" being told, "Most moles are not cancer, don't worry." μηδείς (talk) 15:35, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
I think the problem with the thread wasn't that we said the wrong thing, but that we said anything at all besides a clear, stock rejection, which is one of the main goals of my proposal. I have modified the proposal per your other comments. Actually I'm looking for supports and opposes. I'll kick it off. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:33, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
Saying "Don't worry" is indeed advice, and I'm guilty of that. But there's nothing wrong with saying most moles aren't cancer, with a solid reference. After that, let them decide whether to worry or not. From this discussion, it seems many think giving potentially harmful advice is the problem. I read it as we shouldn't "play God" by trying to giveth or taketh away. Don't refer anyone to any professional, as that appears to be step one of a remedy from Wikipedia. Just the facts. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:31, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Support as proposer. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:33, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose "Professional...including" is too vague. History professors are professionals. If someone asks us a question about old Venice, should we refer them to someone qualified? If they ask about an animal, should we send them to an accredited zoologist? Life, liberty and the pursuit of money seem like the only things important enough to not risk fucking someone over on. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:47, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Support, with proviso. It should say we won't provide professional advice where prohibited by law. This addresses the issue of Wikipedia being sued, yet prevents us from "throwing the baby out with the bathwater" by prohibiting gardening advice, etc., "because only a professional gardener can answer that". We should also explicitly say that "nutritional recommendations are NOT medical advice". StuRat (talk) 19:48, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
So, if someone asks from where this isn't prohibited by law, we can answer? That seems unfair to those from places where the laws exist, and we can't geolocate non-IPs. And how is nutrition not medical? Relates "to maintenance, growth, reproduction, health and disease of an organism." InedibleHulk (talk) 19:53, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
Air keeps us alive too, and we can answer questions about the constituents of air. It's not medical advice because you don't call you doctor to ask which foods have the most carbs (if you do, he might refer you to a psychiatrist). You get that info from many other sources. It sounds like you want to ban all discussion of biology. StuRat (talk) 19:58, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
If he's a decent doctor, he'll refer you to a licensed dietitian. I want to ban as little discussion as possible, that's why I oppose the proposed restrictions. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:01, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
No, that would be more for questions of what the person with specific medical conditions should eat. For carb counts, there are nutritional labels for processed foods, and websites like [16] for unprocessed foods. StuRat (talk) 21:05, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, if they just ask "Which foods have the most carbs?", that's as harmless as "Which drug has the longest shelf life?" But when it's "I want carbs. What sort of foods should I eat?", that's another story. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:09, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
If it's not medical advice narrowly construed, the damn thing will end up reading like the U.S. Federal Income Tax Code. Exercise advice could be considered medical advice if you care to use a general definition. Actually, anything affecting the OP's body or physiology could be medical advice. If someone rejects a request for nutritional advice, someone else will bring it here and the rejection will be rejected by consensus. Help stamp out overthink! ―Mandruss ☎ 19:59, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
You're the one who proposed widening the scope, from medical or legal to professional. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:03, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I did. We can exclude all these other things without stating such, either in this proposal or in the page headers. We're not writing legal documents here. KISS principle usually works best in my experience. But, if someone wants to craft alternate text, go for it. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:09, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
I added "where prohibiited by law" to the language, but that's as far as I'm prepared to go. As I said, others are welcome to go further if they think it's useful and necessary. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:19, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
So I'm clear about nutrition, if somebody complains of an illness, I'm allowed to recommend certain foods, but not certain drugs? InedibleHulk (talk) 20:23, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
Err on the rejection side. When in doubt, reject it and see if anyone challenges here. Or, just leave it alone and see if anyone rejects it. If anyone does, challenge that here if you wish. I think over time the regulars will get a better feel for what's acceptable, but there's no need to try to enshrine that knowledge in writing. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:27, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
Isn't enshrining that knowledge in writing the whole point of this section? I'm going to smoke some herb, eat two bananas and have a music therapy session for an hour or so. Maybe that'll help (but not treat, cure or prevent) my confusion. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:45, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
Dammit. I didn't follow my own medical orders directly enough, and now it's just gotten worse! At least I understand why I'm not a real doctor now. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:53, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
Basically, I'm just trying to lay down a framework that, if it had been in place, would have resulted in an immediate rejection of the bat rabies question. That was a clear-cut medical advice case. We don't have to solve the entire puzzle in this one proposal. I think that's what kills progress, a tendency to oppose a proposal until we can no longer think of any potential chinks or flaws in it. We can't possibly anticipate all of the problems that might pop up in practice, but we can imagine some that won't, a la WP:CRYSTAL. I say one step at a time and this definitely won't be a step backward. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:50, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
People claiming nutritional recommendations are medical advice has been a continuing problem on the Ref Desk, so this does need clarification. StuRat (talk) 21:01, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
This proposal would not make that problem any worse. This cannot be, nor is it intended to be, a complete solution. See my previous comment. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:04, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
Let's say somebody has diabetes and asks what they should eat. We could give them links to diets for diabetics, but no, we could not recommend medications or that they stop taking meds. StuRat (talk) 21:10, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
See my previous two comments. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:11, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
Why do both of our countries regulate and administer Food and Drugs together? It's almost like they're similar. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:56, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose anything about "where prohibited by law" - this is an international forum, and it is not our job to try to figure out in what jurisdiction an OP lives (or is it where the respondent lives?), and what laws pertain there, and if they apply to a question, or to a potential response, before we answer a question. In fact, making claims about that would be legal advice. In this, and other cases, neither we nor Wikimedia are liable for anything we say. That is covered by the general WP disclaimers. Rather, our prohibition on medical advice is about ethics, not legality. We should remove responses that give medical/legal advice, not questions that may be interpreted as seeking it. This last sentence is consistent with our current guidelines at Medical_advice#Dealing_with_questions_asking_for_medical_advice, which says in part
Though as with many of our extant guidelines, few people read them, and fewer follow them. SemanticMantis (talk) 21:14, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
I have removed "where prohibited by law". The proposal proposes leaving the question in, which requires a modification of the template which currently requires removal of the question and, presumably, represents some earlier consensus. So may I assume that the proposal now has your support, with the understanding that it is not the complete answer as I have said above? ―Mandruss ☎ 21:20, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Two comments First, rules don't enforce themselves, so as long as we have editors who want to post whatever they can (unless you can prove the negative, that it is not legal for them to do so) will simply ignore any rule. That's a matter for ANI if it comes down to it.
Second, any new formulation should simply parrot the disclaimer The reference desks do not provide professional advice, and questions requesting such advice may be removed. If you need specific advice (for example, medical, legal, financial or risk management), please seek a professional who is licensed or knowledgeable in that area.
None of us here is a credentialed expert, as WP does not credential its users. Nor is the issue one of expertise, but one of licensing. Given WP is governed by the laws of Florida, none of us should want to provide the advice that one would get from a licensed medical, legal, investment, nutritional, veterinary, insurance or other government-regulated professional. Comments above about gardeners and historians, neither of which are licensed, are just a silly red herring meant to divert us from the very clear meaning of the disclaimer, and long-standing reference desk policy. μηδείς (talk) 21:31, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
I didn't say historians needed certification, but history professors. Like, the ones paid to teach in universities. Everyone with a memory is a historian of sorts. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:06, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
OK, I'm wrong, in many cases. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:09, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
I disagree that the question should be removed, for the reasons I have stated above. Removal gives no provision for review except by those who (1) know how to use the page history and (2) feel like hunting through it for the question. Leaving it in is one of the essential parts of the proposal. As I've said above several times, this is not intended to be a complete solution, but rather one step in that direction. Can you support on the basis of what I've said? ―Mandruss ☎ 21:38, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
There is standing precedent that one should note removals here at the talk page and on the user's page as well. I could might support your proposal if it were broadened to include any sort of licensed professional advice, but would oppose if we limit it only to legal and medical advice, since those have always been examples of the sort that is prohibited, not an exhaustive list. I see you've made some changes along those lines, but I'd like to think on it before opining further. μηδείς (talk) 21:51, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
I'll just reiterate that I think the only question anyone should be asking is: Is this an improvement over the status quo?. If their answer is yes, they should support. The size of the improvement shouldn't matter in my opinion. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:59, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Given we are back to making meta-comments on what is now a talk page issue I have simply templated the entire thread, per above consensus that advising the IP not to worry is advice. Of course looking at the IP's edit history, I suspect we're being had, but let's AGF and send him to a doctor. μηδείς (talk) 22:43, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
That wasn't a meta-comment, it was just explaining where the OP (if they hadn't checked back yet) or someone else (if they read the question) to find the part of the answer that isn't disallowed, and actually rather helpful. It had to be self-referential, but not for the sake of it. I clarified the actual prohibition, and told him to disregard the one bit of advice. It would have been a lot easier to just reword the original ("Don't worry about" to "As for"), but that was no longer possible. So I had to get wordy.
Anyway, I learned something today. Never touch a rabid animal question. Or any angry animal question. Sticking to humans, for the foreseeable future. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:08, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The most any guideline or template should suggest is a gentle chiding that "we are here to provide information, not tell you what to do". If we can't do that, then at least we can stick to the status quo of defending only the biggest lobbies. Those who don't have the juice to prohibit anyone from helping someone to avoid paying, don't get to be named nonspecifically. After all, that's what any restriction is all about, pay for play, the rich get richer, people without money can't expect to get the answers that might help them find a way to avoid spending it. Right now there are people turning to answers.com for medical advice that is far worse than the information we would give, but they have the profit motive to tell themselves what they do is right. Any right you don't pay for, you lose - that's why it's illegal, say, to lie on a Hawaiian beach after midnight, but not to run a big noisy dive compressor to ruin it for everyone else when they're allowed to be there. "People who want answers to anything should expect to pay a copyright authority for them - ass, grass, or cash, nobody rides for free". You want this template then that is how we should word it. Wnt (talk) 00:37, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose. On the first point, "professional" is much too ambiguous a term, and using it will make these interminable debates even worse. "Medical diagnosis" was originally a shortened form of "diagnosis, prognosis, or treatement advice", which were the only types of question prohibited by the now-deprecated Kainaw's criteria. We have de facto extended the prohibition to "medical advice" in general, but a further extension to other "professional" advice should require an explicit discussion, not something that's taken as read for a wording change. I would support "medical, legal, or financial advice", but not "professional". Secondly, I'm neutral on the issue of whether questions should be kept or deleted. Keeping them provides examples of unacceptable requests for medical advice which can be used as a precedent, but it also encourages people to answer them anyway. Deleting them is safer, IMO. Thirdly, we should not be telling anyone that they should see a doctor. Wording such as "For medical/legal/financial advice, you should contact an appropriate professional" would be better, as we're not telling the OP that they need treatment, which the current proposal seems to do. Tevildo (talk) 01:07, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
That "should" is a bit better, but still advice regarding those things. Someone with a legal, financial or medical problem could fare better contacting an inappropriate amateur, depending on countless things we don't know about the particular pros and Joes in his/her neighbourhood. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:41, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment - We should design for the actual reality that the average RD responder will fail to grasp all the complexity and nuance being discussed here. Even if we could get all of it into writing, which is doubtful, it would be so long and complex that many wouldn't read it. If they read it, they might not comprehend all of it; if they did, they might not remember everything they comprehended. It Just Doesn't Work. We can't have a wise (wo)man on duty at all times to provide counsel for each specific case that comes up, and that would obviously be a non-starter from a political standpoint anyway. The only workable solution is to stay out of these areas completely, erring on the side of caution, with the provision for optional talk-page review of any rejection. The average RD responder can understand the sentence, "Do not add further comments to this thread," which could be added to the message text, and any who commented anyway would be guilty of disruption. We can always overturn a rejection, but we can't put an inappropriate response back in the bottle after it has been read by the OP. I don't particularly care whether our message says, essentially, "Sorry, we can't answer your question. Please see a professional." or "Sorry, we can't answer your question." I do care about keeping things simple because I've found that it generally produces far better results. ―Mandruss ☎ 09:55, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
That's all reasonable. I'd support "financial, legal, and medical advice", as good clarification and incremental improvement (we do still have Kainaw's and the guidelines on med advice I linked above), but oppose "professional advice", as there seems to be a lot of confusing and dislike regarding the ambiguity of that term (I'm a professional scientist, and many things I discuss/cite here are also things I get paid to do - are all my science posts professional advice?!). Finally, to my reading, the other "opposes" above also seem to be fine with the clarification text, so you could also consider making WP:BOLD minor change like this when you feel like it. SemanticMantis (talk) 15:05, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
@SemanticMantis: Exactly what minor change are you suggesting? We have both the text in the page headers and the text of the rejection message, both of which are addressed by the proposal and need to be somewhat consistent and coordinated. Please suggest complete text for both. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:18, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
Never mind. I went ahead and made revisions per my best guesses as to what might satisfy most present. The strike-throughs have become unworkable with all the revisions, so I gave up on them. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:35, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
I was speaking of the change to header as minor. I don't think a template that says no other responses are allowed is very workable. Not all information is advice. Posts that give medical/legal advice can be removed. If someone asks "Do I have rabies?", answering that question is giving medical advice, and such answers should be removed. However posting a link to rabies is entirely legal, ethical, and permissible. SemanticMantis (talk) 16:54, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
The point I tried to make in my Comment is that we cannot depend on the average RD responder to correctly evaluate each situation. For every "this is ok" (e.g., a link to Rabies), there would be two "ok, what about this?". Once you start down that path, there's really no end to it. I'm suggesting we don't start down that path. In the bat rabies case, if the changes in this proposal were in place, Medeis would have rejected the question, someone could have brought it here for review, and we probably would have reached an easy consensus for linking to Rabies. This system would take a little longer, and it would require a little more responder time, but it beats the alternative, which is a lot of inappropriate responses to financial, legal, and medical questions. In many cases, no one will challenge the rejection, and, if they really care enough, the OP will look for their information among the many other information resources on the Web. Some of those have actual qualified people, not Wikipedia editors looking for a short break from editing Wikipedia. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:23, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
You're making a Slippery_slope argument, and I'm not buying it. If someone gives medical advice, feel free to remove it. I can assure you it won't be me giving such advice, but I can also assure you that I won't be silenced just because some other user felt a question was inappropriate and slapped a template on it. All these quibbles over validity of questions go away if we just follow our current guidelines to sanction responses, not questions. But I think we've both said our pieces here, just make the changes you've described and let's see how they work. SemanticMantis (talk) 19:53, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment - At this point, the Oppose !votes appear to focus on the word "professional", but that word isn't in the original proposal by User:Mandruss, so that I think that the discussion has gotten off track. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:05, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
  • @Robert McClenon: - I've been making revisions as we went along, trying to respond to people's objections. "Professional" has been in and out once or twice, I've lost track. The original proposal is here. I know it's confusing to arrive a little late, but I didn't know what else to do. Throw out the existing proposal, start a new one with a single change, and make everyone !vote again? These things always seem to be a mishmash of discussion, negotiation, alternative ideas, and !voting, which never seems to work very well. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:27, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
Yes. Throw out the original proposal. Changing the topic while !voting is in progress is never a good idea. If that has happened, all of the discussion is chaotic. If we need to discuss the exact wording before putting the RFC header on it, we can discuss first. We should then use a formal RFC, at which point the wording remains as it is. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:41, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
Ok, this has been demoted from proposal to discussion, and all !votes are hereby voided. But I doubt we'll ever reach a viable RfC proposal, since I'm not seeing enough traction for the concept of One Step In The Right Direction. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:50, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
I've summarized the various proposals below. Tevildo (talk) 21:58, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Proposal (Restated)

The following suggestions are under discussion above.

A: Header Text

"We don't answer (and may remove) questions that require...":

A0: Current text. "medical diagnosis or legal advice."
A1: 14:31 June 10. "legal or medical advice."
A2: 17:51 June 10. "professional advice, including financial, legal, and medical advice."
A3: 20:19 June 10. "professional advice where prohibited by law, including financial, legal, and medical advice."
A4: 15:33 June 11. "financial, legal, or medical advice."
A5: replace all with "We provide information, not advice."

B: Response to unacceptable questions

B0: Current guidelines. Replace question and any answers with template.
B1: Keep question, replace any answers with template.
B2: Post warning template if desired, but continue conversation unimpeded.

C: Template wording

C0: Current template. "For such advice, please see a qualified professional. If you don't believe this is such a request, please explain what you meant to ask, either here or on the Reference Desk's talk page."
C1: 14:31 June 10. "Please consult a qualified professional. You or anyone else may dispute this on the Reference Desk talk page."
C2: 15:33 June 11. "You or anyone else may dispute this on the Reference Desk talk page, but no further comments should be made in this thread until a consensus to remove this notice has been reached there."
C3: "Please do not rely on the amateur and unreviewed responses here as a source of professional advice."

Survey

  • I would Support A0, A1, A4, C0, and C2, Oppose A2, A3, C1, and C2, and am Neutral on the B proposals. Tevildo (talk) 21:58, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
    • Changing to "Oppose" on C2, as I think we should _mention_ professional advice, and I don't think the word "dispute" sends the right message. Tevildo (talk) 22:03, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Support A4 without "(and may remove)", B1, and C2. Oppose everything else. "Discuss" might be an improvement over "dispute", but that can't be changed in this proposal. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:17, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Of the options given A0, B1, C0 are the best, but not good. Therefore in the continuing spirit of moving the goalposts I'll add A5, B2, C3 and ping @Tevildo: and @Mandruss: who voted before I added them. Wnt (talk) 22:30, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Support A0, A1, A5, B0, B2, C0, C1, C3, oppose the complement. Strong Oppose B1,C2. Note that C3 and (C0 or C1) can easily be merged together without contradiction. Likewise A5 can be added to A0 or A1. SemanticMantis (talk) 17:36, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Support A3, B2, C0. Oppose the rest. StuRat (talk) 02:07, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Abstain. Metadiscussion fatigue. —Steve Summit (talk) 12:47, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Support A0 or A1, C0. Oppose others. Neutral on B, because B1 is good unless the question is an answer (see below). Robert McClenon (talk) 16:45, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Comments

  • Another reminder that our current guidelines recommend that we should prefer to sanction inappropriate responses over sanctioning questions (paraphrased from [17]) - so this whole process is seeking to clarify a set of behaviors/templates that our current guidelines recommend against. SemanticMantis (talk) 17:36, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
  • The only change I support is adding "such as" before medical or legal advice to the page guideline, since the full disclaimer refers to licensed professionals of various fields. (A2 would be fine with "such as" instead of "including", since that will be taken to mean "only including".) Adding where prohibited by law is vague and invites wikilawyering. There is no need for any other change, the disclaimer is the basis for this, not some hugely undersampling vote by passers by at this talk page. μηδείς (talk) 03:11, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Comment Viennese Waltz finds offensive

[18] is a witless, offensive comment which Sturat should withdraw unreservedly. I wholly support Deborahjay's response here. The whole exchange will probably be hatted by someone around now, so I wanted to use this space to ensure that the important issues it raises regarding one or two editors' pathetic and unnecessary attempts at "humour" are not overlooked. --Viennese Waltz 12:05, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Disagree, per my comments there. No policy was violated. If we're striking anything that someone finds offensive, I have a list of things to be stricken. Let me know. ―Mandruss ☎ 12:23, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
It's not just that it was offensive, it's that it was unnecessary, since it added nothing to the discussion. --Viennese Waltz 12:24, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
If we're striking anything that's unnecessary and that someone finds offensive, we need to start striking a dozen or so things a day. We cannot, and should not attempt to, sterilize this environment. I stated that I wouldn't have written that, and that I suspect that StuRat wouldn't do it if he had it to do over again. He didn't dispute that statement, and I know he has read it. That should be enough, and striking things is an entirely different matter. ―Mandruss ☎ 12:27, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
I'm not asking him to strike it, I'm asking him to apologize for it. --Viennese Waltz 12:34, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
As far as I'm concerned, that's a personal dispute between you and him which should be handled on his talk page. We are not going to force StuRat to apologize by consensus here, and such an apology wouldn't mean one thing if we did. ―Mandruss ☎ 12:36, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
The comment should not be struck or otherwise hidden from view. If he's willing to write such obnoxiousness, he should have to wear it as a badge, so everyone knows what kind of person he is. Hiding comments would allow people to forget, or mistakenly believe he's not the kind of person who would write such a thing. --Jayron32 13:05, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
That's a clear personal attack, and I think you should be setting a better example as an admin. That, by contrast, does violate policy and should be stricken. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:11, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
How so? --Jayron32 13:35, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
"kind of person", not once but twice for good measure. It goes right at a person's character. How is that not a PA?? ―Mandruss ☎ 13:38, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
He made the comment, if he didn't want to be associated with it, he shouldn't've said it. Either a) the comment he made is not inappropriate, and thus it should not be hidden or b) the comment he made IS inappropriate, and we should not mask the fact that his comment is inappropriate. Which is it? Do we acknowledge it is a good comment, or do we acknowledge it's a comment that shouldn't have been made, and thus we wouldn't want to cover up that fact. Either way, deleting comments is never appropriate, especially where deleting comments masks actions which should be preserved for evidence of a person's behaviors. I'm not in favor of allowing people who behave in inappropriate ways the ability to erase evidence of their inappropriateness. --Jayron32 13:44, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
Jayron, rewriting the comment to eliminate the PA is not the same as striking the PA. We have "the kind of person he is" on the one hand, and "his comment is inappropriate" on the other. I'm sure you can see the difference; one goes to behavior, the other to character. I still request a strike of the PA. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:49, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
I'm an uninvolved observer. In my opinion the comment is sexist and unnecessary, adds nothing useful to the desks and serves only to create a "boys only club" atmosphere. And while it's not exactly flowing with civility, it is a bit of a stretch to call Jayrons comment a personal attack. 158.85.49.234 (talk) 14:05, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
Well good. If I ever slip up and make derogatory remarks about "the kind of person" someone is, and get hauled to ANI about it, I'll have an airtight defense in the WT:RD archives. Same for anyone else who is aware of this. You and Jayron have done the project a great service. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:14, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
I saw this comment 2 days or so ago and was tempted to either just delete it, or point out the problems with the comment but decided the former would just end up being a mess and I probably wouldn't do the later very well. (And I actually rarely check out RDL, I only happened to be there because I was trying to see what the above fuss was about.) I have similar views to 158, Roger, Deborahjay, VW and partially to Jayron32. In terms of the later, while I do agree with the second part of 158's comment namely that it's a stretch to say it's a personal attack, and am sympathetic to Jayron32's POV on keeping the comment, I do think removing it wouldn't be remiss. It would still be in the history and there's the question of whether allowing to see what StuRat says outweighs the negative effect on the RD and wikipedia's atmosphere such comments generate. Nil Einne (talk) 15:39, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
That's why we refute publicly such comments, not hide. It's like what Mandruss did above to my comment: He didn't delete it, though he felt is was inappropriate. He refuted it with a rational, well thought out response. Removing my comment would have removed from the record that I made it, and that would have been wrong. If I made it, whether it was appropriate or not, my comment should stand by my name to be a public reflection on my behavior here at Wikipedia. If my behavior is felt inappropriate, the correct course of action is to refute it in place, and not to remove it. Though I disagree with Mandruss's call to strike or modify or remove any comment ever, I do appreciate their approach in refuting my comment. That is what we should do: if there is a problem, call it out directly, show where it is a problem, and provide a rationale as to why it is a problem. That shows that, as Wikipedians, as a culture, we are not presenting the problem as "our statement", but as "this one person's statement, whom we do not support". Deleting, removing, striking, modifying, redacting, etc. is not the right approach. --Jayron32 15:53, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
Striking does not remove anything from the record; the comment is still there, and you can still read it through the strike. It removes it symbolically and serves as an official retraction, a somewhat stronger statement than simply adding the comment, "I retract that", which could be missed by a reader. At least that's how I read striking, I haven't actually read that in policy and I suppose opinions may vary. Removing statements is a different animal. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:30, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
If a person voluntarily recognizes their own wrongness, and chooses to strike a comment as a matter of good faith and correcting their own prior wrongness, I'm all for that. Demanding that others strike a comment, or striking it for them, is never appropriate. It's why demanding an apology is never right. As soon as you demand an apology, you have rendered the forthcoming apology invalid. Apologies should always be given voluntarily and without provocation, once a person has recognized their own wrongness. As soon as one demands it, you have now made it impossible for the other person to do the right thing. The demand makes the apology worthless. Likewise, demanding that someone else strike their comment (as opposed to explaining what was wrong with it and allowing the person to deal with it as they choose) removes the agency from the person whose behavior you are trying to right. Explain what is wrong, but allow the other person the ability to make amends in their own way. That's how we should handle this. One we define, what in our minds, are "allowable" or "proper" ways to make amends, we remove agency from the other person and render any amends they would have made invalid. That's the difference. That's how to handle this. --Jayron32 16:38, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
To be clear, I would rarely ask for a comment to be struck on a talk page and wasn't suggesting as such here. The talk page is intended to be a place to discuss problems and as such, comments, even wrong ones should normally stand. (There are exceptions though.)

There's a big difference with the RD proper though as that isn't intended to be for general discussion and definitely not a place for rude offensive comments about classes of people.

Calling them out helps, but it doesn't negate the effect such comments have on the atmosphere of the RD. Particularly since as I just said, the RD isn't really the place for general discussion either. Yes it happens on occasion but there's no reason why we should force it (which effectively your policy requires). Plenty of people will see tolerance of such comments such as by allowing them to stand, even if they are called out as a reflection of the atmosphere here and I think they are right too.

Not to mention even with the benefit of calling them out, someone needs to do it. I write on the RD. As I mentioned I did see this comment before anyone had replied. Why the heck should I be effectively required to waste my time calling out a comment which I will probably make a hash of anyway just so people don't think I'm hanging out in places where such things are tolerated? In this case, as I sort of hinted at, I thought this comment was bad but not quite bad enough that I could be arsed at getting involved and I'm also rarely on RDL. But I strongly disagree with the idea I have to waste my time like that, particularly in the case of more serious offensive comments. (Particularly very serious cases such as those which will probably be deleted from even by Twitter or Facebook if someone complains.)

I already do that enough when I feel people statements probably aren't supported by sources, or are misintepreting sources. But I accept that the nature of the way the RD works in practice means there are always going to be times when people say stuff without sources or with poor sources. (Even if some people do it a bit too much for some of our likings.) And that providing sources in response to such comments (or even they have good sourcies), or explaining why an intepretation of a source may be incorrect is part and parcel of the RD. (This obviously doesn't extend to random offensive jokes which could never be sourced, and often can't really be answered with sources or even if they can, is somewhat pointless since it was never intended to be something which could be sourced.)

Ultimately from my POV, people can say whatever crap they want on their own websites and blogs (or on Facebook or on Twitter although even they have limits as I mentioned albeit so do many hosting companies for blogs and websites). Wikipedia is not a personal website nor a blog nor a social network, and we don't have to tolerate offensive crap from people about classes of people, particularly not on a public facing place like the RD.

And no, deleting a comment doesn't remove the "record". It does make it harder to search, but it would still be in the edit history and if it ever comes to arbcom or ANI or whatever, would be perfectly acceptable evidence (not that I'm suggesting this single comment is much in itself).

Or to put it as I said in the beginning, there's no reason why people have to suffer such offensive crap, just so we can make one person suffer more.

P.S. This doesn't mean we should delete every offensive and unwanted comment on the RD. As I hinted at, while I would lean towards deletion of this comment being acceptable, I don't really feel that strongly about it. My statement is more intended more generally at the idea we should always allow such comments to stand. I'm not sure whether you intended that to apply to editors who are at least temporarily blocked for the comment but even if you didn't, there are still likely to be some cases, e.g. where trying for a block would be hit or miss in the sense it depends on the mood at ANI or wherever and at the very least probably a waste of time but deletion perfectly resonable. (I'm not referring to hit and run accounts and IPs which could be considered defacto banned either.)

Nil Einne (talk) 01:04, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

It's a tasteless remark and I'm embarrassed to see that it was posted on a Reference Desk page which is frequently visited by readers or newcomers to Wikipedia. It just reinforces the mixed opinion some editors have of the Reference Desks and how they represent Wikipedia to the public at large. Liz Read! Talk! 17:00, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
Not appropriate for the ref desk. Put it on the talk page, but it is a dumb thing to say on a page intended for public consumption. I wouldn't say it at the reference desk where I work (and would be reprimanded if I did), and it shouldn't be said here. Mingmingla (talk) 17:15, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
Teapot tempest. I don't really get it, but that isn't required. An occasional flippant comment isn't going to kill anybody. That said, I can't picture pursuing VienneseWaltz to ANI either, because deleting genuinely irrelevant material isn't really a loss either. So I advise letting the original comment stand, but in any case letting the matter drop. Wnt (talk) 02:57, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Question giving treatment advice removed

I've actioned a question giving medical treatment advice [19] according to the existing guidelines. I think this is an example of why we should (in some circumstances) delete questions as well as answers. Tevildo (talk) 07:54, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Good removal. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 08:58, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
In this case, the question was not a question but advice. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:26, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
True. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:48, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
The OP asked if there were pages on "medical misuse" similar to his. That was an answerable question. Calling camphor a "medicine", well... it's something of a stretch. A nuisance is more like it, where the poor kids are concerned. Wnt (talk) 02:48, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
Yes, the question itself was fine and StuRat answered it. I believe that the objection was due to the belief that the question was disingenuous with the true purpose of spreading treatment advice. -- ToE 15:24, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
Quite the slippery slope we have here. What new (and completely subjective) criteria for removal will be added next? I am still very much of the opinion that the reference desks should only remove comments that are listed as being OK to remove at WP:TPOC. Giving random Wikipedia editors more power to control others than that is a very bad idea, and has been a major source of conflict on this page over the years. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:17, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
Well, the criteria remain as "Any question that solicits a diagnosis, a prognosis, or a suggested treatment", and I would also be opposed to any extension (specifically, to the unparticularized "professional advice" that some users would like to delete). It's true that the OP's actual question was perfectly legitimate, and that the entire posting didn't _solicit_ a suggested treatement; however, IMO, it did _suggest_ a treatment for "itchy eyelids", and I considered that to be over the line. Would someone else like to make the call on this question, which, read literally, is a request for legal advice? Tevildo (talk) 17:32, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
Keeping in mind, of course, that the entire ref desk deletion policy is not based upon any Wikipedia policy but is rather based on a local consensus that it is OK to do. We could simply post the standard WMF disclaimer and do nothing else if we wanted to. We could collapse instead of deleting, like most other discussion pages on Wikipedia do. Alas, enough of us want the self-appointed power to control the behavior of other people that there is local consensus for deleting other people's comments, and the only real argument is which ones to delete. Nor is the majority willing to try following WP:TPOC even for a limited trial. But, of course, everybody has heard all of this before. :( --Guy Macon (talk) 18:53, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
A literal interpretation of WP:TOPC would seem to me to imply shutting down the ref desks entirely, since it states that talk pages are "to provide space for editors to discuss changes to its associated article or project page". Since that clearly isn't applicable, we can only 'follow WP:TPOC' to the extent that it doesn't conflict with the objectives of the reference desks (objectives which seem to have the consent of the Wikipedia community, even if the exact implementation doesn't), and of necessity act contrary to it when required to do so to keep the desk functioning. Or to put it another way, the ref desks only work by ignoring rules laid down elsewhere. And since it is clear it won't work without rules, it would seem entirely reasonable to create 'rules' of our own - or ask the community as a whole to actually change the rules in a manner which permits functioning policy-compliant ref desks. Asking that we comply to rules which don't actually permit the ref desks to function isn't really very helpful. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:26, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
Your statement, Andy, seems based on the assumption that all of wikipedia is divided into either talk or article space. But obviously we have the help desk proper, the teahouse and so on, and the ref desks themselves do not have "talk" in their project page names, e.g., Wikipedia:Reference desk/Entertainment (strangely, when you get pung, it says mentioned you at the Entertainment Reference Desk Talk Page, which is confusing and inaccurate. In any case, the ref desks are simply a category unto their own, so I don't see how we can argue that they are breaking the rules of categories to which they don't literally belong. μηδείς (talk) 21:31, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
My statement was based on Guy Macon's - it was him that suggested that we follow WP:TPOC, not me. If the ref desks aren't talk pages, WP:TPOC (and talk page guidelines in general) don't apply anyway. Which then leaves us either having to make up our own rules, or asking the community to do so, as I've already suggested. AndyTheGrump (talk)
No problem, my point was to criticize the notion, not the person who made it. Thanks. μηδείς (talk) 02:33, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
The desks (analogous to actual library desks) aren't the books/articles or the board meetings/talk pages. That much is clear.
The distinction between "us" and "the community" is the blurry line. We're all "anyone" and this is the encyclopedia anyone can edit. Also the one anyone can read. Or copy and paste, skim for pictures or whatever. You/I/we/they make a rule, you/I/we/they are bound by it the same. We're all basically the kindly man, but we replace death with information as the one gift a hundred different prayers seek.
We (and I'm half-joking) could adapt the five quotes in that profile to our doctrine here, and it would look rather like the one we've followed all along: Answer questions fully, be civil, don't bite the newbs/trolls, check your ego at the door and, if you must lie, don't lie poorly! InedibleHulk (talk) 02:17, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Trolling?

This question [20] seems to fit the bill. I don't know (and don't have time to learn) how to identify trolls, or what to do if one is identified, but I thought I'd raise the question. Marco polo (talk) 19:19, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

You're already learning. The colourful statements far outweigh the simple questions. This guy's not here to learn anything, and someone wanting to learn about this sort of thing probably doesn't want to read that shit first. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:27, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Of course it's a troll if it's a question from an I.P. Disregard AGF, an IP is an IP. Just like how America was circa Jim Crow. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.146.248.10 (talk) 20:42, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Zapped. If anyone feels that this is a serious question, and would like to enlighten the OP, feel free to reinstall. --82.164.37.199 (talk) 21:12, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
...And reinstalled as user 82.164.37.199's only edit before I had the time to post the diff: [21]--82.164.37.199 (talk) 21:22, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
I see nothing wrong with this Q. Seems to ask valid questions. StuRat (talk) 21:35, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
In case you haven't noticed, we have a flurry of IP's from Romania, Spain and Germany posting and edit warring to keep the question posted. It's obviously meant to shock and provoke. μηδείς (talk) 21:42, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
There are two valid questions. How does physical trauma effect miscarriage and how much blood loss is too much?. The questions aren't the problem. The stuff they're coated in is. IPs aren't exactly the problem, either. If Jimbo Wales made this same posting, he'd just be easier to block. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:50, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
I have given User talk:188.26.184.59 a 3rr warning, but we probably need another semi-protection, I don't know if it was Jayron32 or someone else who placed the last one. μηδείς (talk) 21:36, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

can someone help

I just asked a question and I think I accidently deleted it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.152.12.4 (talk) 22:00, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Wasn't an accident, and wasn't you. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:03, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
See WP:ADMIN. Given your prior question you might also want to take it up with the person you have in mind, since many will not want the honor. μηδείς (talk) 00:26, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
It isn't clear why you, Medeis, are directing the IP to administrators. Checking the page history to see why a question was deleted is a function that any editor, registered or unregistered, can do. The question wasn't redacted, which would be an administrative function. The question was deleted because the person who deleted the question thought that it was inappropriate. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:48, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
It was the answer to the question that was deleted, the OP was asking about how I believe to nominate someone for adminship. The OP could also go to WP:HD I don't know who erased the previous question or why, but I have given him his answer. μηδείς (talk) 04:37, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
Uh you don't know? But the diff where the OP's question was deleted was linked in the first comment by InedibleHulk that you replied to. Why are you replying to a comment if you haven't even read the diff which was clearly a key part of the comment? If you only want to reply to the OP you should do so rather then replying to InedibleHulk which implies your comment has some relation to their comment (like you actually read it). Nil Einne (talk) 22:33, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
I answered the OP's question. I didn't bother to look at who deleted it and don't give a mile-high, since I wasn't interested in yelling at people or assigning blame. Some of you folk seem to like getting meta just for the sake of it. I make no apologies for giving the only answer here that actually addressed the OP. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Medeis (talk • contribs) 02:58, 20 June 2015‎ (UTC)
I believe that Nil Einne's intent here was simply to point out that your indentation made it appear as if your initial response was to InedibleHulk, particularly since it contained "your" and "you". Thank-you, Medeis, for your response to the OP -- that was certainly the right thing to do. It would have been perfect had it started with one fewer ':', but I'm sure the OP got the message and regulars here should be adept at catching indentation errors. From the wording of their comments it is clear that if your indentation did initially confuse Robert McClenon or Nil Einne, it didn't do so for long. To my ears, Nil Einne's comment sounds more provocative than it needed to be (nit-picking on the wording of your response to a response to your initial response), but we are all human here, and mis-indentation can easily put a coder on edge, and strive as we might, our emotions often influence our posts in less than charitable ways. Cheers! -- ToE 12:49, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
Considering how many editors, including many very experienced editors, either aren't aware of indentation as described in WP:THREAD, or disagree with that and therefore choose to ignore it, I try hard not to read much into indentation, giving every benefit of the doubt. I recommend that approach for all. One very experienced editor told me authoritatively that the sole purpose of indentation is to visually offset a comment from the preceding one. When I pointed to the second box in WP:THREAD, they stopped responding and did not change their use of indentation. This attitude seems not uncommon, so indentation is not a reliable tool for its intended purpose. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:35, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
A subset of good faith editing is to have the best of indentions. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:26, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
Keptin, the meta coefficient is exceeding Aleph-null. I canna hold her together if we go mooch further. Ken ya ask Mister Spawk ta put a temporary protection on the page for Gawd's seck. μηδείς (talk) 18:05, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I knew you weren't talking to me. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:34, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
For what it's worth, if I am replying to the sum of the comments above, even if not explicitly and directly to the one immediately above, I indent. μηδείς (talk) 22:02, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
Mandruss, the second box in WP:THREAD is exactly correct. The second, third and fourth posts are all replying directly, and only, to the first one, so they are all indented one space in from the first one. Those three replies are not indented with respect to each other, since none of them is replying to either of the other two. The rule, in my view, is insanely simple: If you're replying to User A, indent one space in from User A's post, at whatever indent level that happens to be. In the Ref Desks, the OP does not indent. The first response should be indented 1 space. All later posts should be indented according to exactly who they're replying to, and this will not always be the OP. For example, in this thread, your post was indented 8 spaces, so my reply to you is indented 9 spaces. The comment about visual offsetting is misbegotten; sure, it has that effect when the reply follows immediately after the post it's replying to, and that's probably the majority of cases. But not all. When successive posts are at the same indent level, as happens when multiple people are replying to the same earlier user, a hard line break is very useful for spacing out the lines on the screen a little, and hard line breaks are always helpful in edit mode. I wish more people would get into that habit. It's not as if it uses up too much paper and contributes to global warming, or anything. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 00:21, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Request for financial advice deleted.

I've deleted a request for legal/financial advice [22]. This was originally hatted (not deleted) by Medeis; the hat was removed in good faith by 112.198.82.19 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). Tevildo (talk) 10:12, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

An obvious request for detailed financial advice. I think hatting would have been preferable, but the OP can find it in the history if he cares to. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 10:14, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
OP was asking for facts. I see no harm in referring the OP to relevant WP articles.--Shantavira|feed me 15:30, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
Had the OP simply asked if wikipedia has any information about tax law or estate planning in the UK, that would be one thing. But we've got a rather elaborate situation, including a desire for as to whether he can sell a property yet avoid tax liability. "If you need specific advice (for example, medical, legal, financial or risk management), please seek a professional who is licensed or knowledgeable in that area."
Given it's a half-million pound estate, this is the sort of thing one gladly shells out a hundred quid or two for to get professional financial planning and tax law advice. It is not the sort of thing for which you create a single-purpose wp account in order to ask the advice random strangers at the ref desk. I thought hatting was the best way to handle this on the principle of least drama, but support Tevildo's removal at this point, especially given the unhatting by an IP who geolocates in the Philippines. Whether or not we are being had, if the OP is genuine, he doesn't want to find himself explaining to Inland Revenue that according to what he read at wp he didn't think there was a problem. μηδείς (talk) 17:11, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

and other interesting questions

There's a guy on the Science Desk who seems very concerned with knowing if putting semen in a man's blood will infallibly sterilize him. Might be worth a hat. Sterilization is a medical procedure with legal and financial consequences (most of them positive, but that's just my opinion). InedibleHulk (talk) 20:38, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
Relax; after all, I am certainly *not* going to do anything without talking to an actual doctor about this first. Futurist110 (talk) 22:35, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
While we know from previous statements that Futurist110 has a personal interest in male sterilization, in this question -- WP:RDS#Is putting sperm directly into a man's bloodstream a guaranteed way to permanently sterilize him? -- he has not asked for any treatment advice and no one has offered any. -- ToE 21:00, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
Yes, this is certainly accurate. Futurist110 (talk) 22:35, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
He's asking for help in finding a foolproof method for treating something (purely theoretical, for the time being). I don't feel too strongly about the guideline, in general, but many here seem to, so just bringing it up. It struck me as unusually tilted that way.
But yeah, so long as nobody fully answers him, we're by the book. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:18, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
Again, please relax--after all, I certainly *don't* intend to do anything without actually talking about this with a doctor first. Futurist110 (talk) 22:35, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
I'm relaxed. And not a doctor, but I bet he says it might be fatal. That's one way to permanently sterilize a dude. Unless he freezes quick. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:44, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
Futurist110's questions seem to be random concatenations intended to draw attention. See his other sperm related threads [23] [24]. There's obviously an incongruent level of knowledge and feigned ignorance that makes AGF hard to apply. We have a few such outlandish regulars. The fact that the embryo in the bloodstream editor was banned as a multiple account abuser makes me wonder what and SPI would show here. But WP:DFTT is probably the best solution to such speculative silliness. μηδείς (talk) 22:00, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
Actually, my questions here are certainly *not* designed to draw attention. Rather, I am genuinely curious about these things. While I myself certainly *don't* intend to do anything without talking about this with a doctor beforehand, I don't see the harm in merely asking about this here. Futurist110 (talk) 22:35, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Also, for what it's worth, I have also asked this question on Reddit and I don't appear to have received anywhere near as much criticism on Reddit for asking this question as I have here on Wikipedia. Futurist110 (talk) 22:37, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Exactly, because chat fora are exactly the kind of place for such random speculative questions. μηδείς (talk) 23:32, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
Futurist110, I've answered with some links including one to a review article which should help further your research. Thank you for asking this interesting question and leading me to the field of immunocontraception of which I was previously unaware. -- ToE 01:48, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
Huh. Maybe the bats literally didn't go anywhere. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:59, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
I don't mean to be thick, but I fail to see how this relates to white nose syndrome. -- ToE 02:20, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
It doesn't. It relates to plummeting bat numbers, like the nose thing. And like the mosquito eradication thing. And the wireless world thing. Never just one reason. I'll coin this "the application to wildlife population control thing". Catchy, eh?
I'm only about 3% into uncovering the truth (man), so I'm whispering. But don't worry, when I'm ready to blow the speculative lid off this thing, I'll do it in the proper forum. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:55, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
  • I think the question is an interesting one. Obviously, sperm has some antigenic variation to it, and sperm allergy does occur. Kicks to the nuts also occur. Can they cause an allergic sort of sterility? Is that why they hurt so much? I didn't look this one up (yet) but I should say that it is quite a fair question, with a wide range of potential implications of interest, even including a whole class of potential liability lawsuits that has at the moment gone completely undiscovered. Wnt (talk) 15:26, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Use of inline cleanup tags at the refdesk?

I'm fairly certain this would have been discussed in the past, but my archive searches are either off the mark or returning too many hits to go through.

So it seems like there is no actionable consensus that answers should not rely on conjecture and anecdote [according to whom?]. What about a consensus on whether or not inline cleanup tags (like these) should or should not be used? My guess is not since the refdesk shares too much in common with WP:TPO, but maybe I'm wrong. Maybe section-level tags instead to avoid tagging a particular user's post or maybe there's a possibility of creating a new template that would be less easily perceived as an affront? — Rhododendrites talk \\ 21:01, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Fine by me. It would be nice if there were some way to indicate who put what tags where. I can just say that I tagged your second sentence, but that's a little clunky. Honestly, it seems more polite to put in a tag than to say things like "Rhodo are you making things up again?!" I know I have done the latter at times and it is a little rude, but on the other hand, our whole operation looks bad and looses respect when low-quality un-sourced "answers" abound. Section-level tags could also work as a warning that things might not all be right in a thread, but they could also cause some confusion. E.g. is it my response or yours or someone else's that was questionable and drew the flag? SemanticMantis (talk) 21:11, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
How dare you! :) I added "actionable" after I initially wrote that sentence because while I think most people would agree it's best to avoid answering based on conjecture and anecdote, it's constant. That is, of course, {{OR}}, though. Section-level is indeed less precise -- just a bit friendlier. First choice: no guesswork; second choice: inline tags; third choice: section-level tags; fourth choice: whinging :) — Rhododendrites talk \\ 21:21, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
No, I don't think inline tags are appropriate here. That's for articles, where each paragraph is a consensus statement, not for a threaded discussion, where each paragraph is one editor's words. In a follow-up thread you can explain exactly what you mean, and sign it. StuRat (talk) 02:02, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
Assuming you agree that answers should not rely on conjecture and anecdote, is there an alternative approach we could take to address it on the refdesks (rather than on the talk page)? — Rhododendrites talk \\ 02:46, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
Something like "Can you provide a source for your 3rd point ? I have this source which appears to contradict it: [ ]." That provides much more info than a "citation needed" tag. StuRat (talk) 02:51, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
Sources are not required merely because someone may find something to contradict your answers. Sources are required because this is the reference desk. It should not be the burden of other users to check up every bullshit notion that enters your head that you feel the need to type out. --Jayron32 02:52, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
You're bringing your own agenda into an unrelated section. This isn't about when references are provided, it's about using inline tags on other people's comments. StuRat (talk) 03:31, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
It's not my agenda. It's the reference desk. I'm unimportant here. If you disagree with providing references, maybe you need to work to change the title and mission of this part of Wikipedia, but until you do, it is still the reference desk. --Jayron32 03:34, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
Do you intend to hijack every unrelated discussion here to continue grinding your axe ? Learn how to move on. StuRat (talk) 03:36, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
Do you intend to actually start providing references? --Jayron32 03:37, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
I'm not going to continue discussing references here. I let you get the last word in that other section, that should be enough for you. You don't need to take over the discussion in every other section too. Let it go. StuRat (talk) 03:41, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

You're bringing your own agenda into an unrelated section. This isn't about when references are provided, it's about using inline tags on other people's comments -- Of course this section is about when references are provided. It's about using inline tags for when references are not provided. Based on your alternative of "Can you provide a source for your 3rd point", it seems you are clearly of the position that the burden is not on the person responding to base their answer on anything in particular -- the burden is instead of everyone else to challenge that unsourced addition? I may be reading it wrong, but it seems like you would prefer a policy that allows you to respond in whatever way you want. If I'm wrong, then short of putting the burden on others, what can we do to ensure responses are based on more than conjecture, anecdote, and educated guesswork? — Rhododendrites talk \\ 04:02, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

There are lots of inline tags, and not all of them relate to references. I was under the impression you were asking about all of them. For example, if you want to add an inline tag that asks if a given date is Julian or Gregorian, I suggest asking that as a separate post in the thread, rather than edit that user's comments. StuRat (talk) 04:11, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
Maybe my wording wasn't as clear as it could've been, but my intention in starting with talk about consensus regarding conjecture/anecdote was to ask about tagging as a direct alternative/response (i.e. since it seems there's no stopping these additions, can we at least tag them like we do unsourced statements in the encyclopedia.) — Rhododendrites talk \\ 04:40, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Reference_desk/Archive_116&oldid=1074644948"