Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:57, 17 June 2015

• WT:RD

• Misplaced Pages Reference desks
  • Computing
  • Entertainment
  • Humanities
  • Language
  • Mathematics
  • Science
  • Miscellaneous
  • All
  • Archives

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130 131, 132, 133

RD Guidelines 1 2 3 4 5

This page has archives. Sections older than 10 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

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 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 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 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 Misplaced Pages 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 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)

• I see you're up to your usual standard. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 02:15, 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)

• Note the small print on that comment. :) ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 14:34, 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)

• ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 22:58, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

• The IP's essay above is a classic "non-denial denial". ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 23:46, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
  • And just FYI, the complainant has been blocked. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 02:17, 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 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 2] at the same time and continued when I changed the IP's problematic headers. μηδείς (talk) 02:07, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Comment Viennese Waltz finds offensive

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 Misplaced Pages. 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). Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages. It just reinforces the mixed opinion some editors have of the Reference Desks and how they represent Misplaced Pages to the public at large. Liz 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)

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 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, June 5, 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 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, June 6, 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 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, June 8, 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)

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 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, June 5, 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)

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 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 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| 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, June 8, 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, June 8, 2015 (UTC)

How about that? Leads nowhere. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:20, June 8, 2015 (UTC)

And how about this? WP:NOTHERE isn't supposed to lead to my talk page, is it? InedibleHulk (talk) 19:32, June 8, 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, June 8, 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, June 8, 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, June 8, 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 Misplaced Pages 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, June 8, 2015 (UTC)

I am very thankful that humor has not been completely banished from Misplaced Pages talk spaces. Yet. This is not a veiled reference to any particular case(s) outside this thread. ―Mandruss ☎ 09:44, 9 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, June 9, 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, June 9, 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, June 9, 2015 (UTC)

Oh wait, you said "responders". Dur. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:00, June 9, 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, June 9, 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, June 9, 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). 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, June 10, 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 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 ]→ 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 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, June 11, 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 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, June 11, 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 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, June 11, 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 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, June 11, 2015 (UTC)

Urging someone to see a doctor does not fit that definition. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 18:07, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Why not? InedibleHulk (talk) 18:10, June 11, 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 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, June 11, 2015 (UTC)

And if every American called a doctor when they think they're sick, instead of Misplaced Pages, we wouldn't be here. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:54, June 11, 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 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 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, June 11, 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 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, June 11, 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 ], 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 Misplaced Pages. Just the facts. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:31, June 10, 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, June 10, 2015 (UTC)
• Support, with proviso. It should say we won't provide professional advice where prohibited by law. This addresses the issue of Misplaced Pages 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, June 10, 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, June 10, 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 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, June 11, 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, June 10, 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, June 10, 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, June 10, 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, June 10, 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, June 10, 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, June 10, 2015 (UTC)

OK, I'm wrong, in many cases. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:09, June 10, 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, June 10, 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, June 17, 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 Misplaced Pages editors looking for a short break from editing Misplaced Pages. ―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 ) - 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)

Question giving treatment advice removed

I've actioned a question giving medical treatment advice 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 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 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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., Misplaced Pages: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, June 17, 2015 (UTC)

Trolling?

This question 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, June 17, 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: --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, June 17, 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)

• We can add Special:Contributions/58.231.145.235 of Korea to the list, but Dmacks has semi-protected the page. μηδείς (talk) 21:55, 17 June 2015 (UTC)