Misplaced Pages talk:Reference desk: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 21:47, 17 May 2017 editCount Iblis (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers12,827 edits →Why has the RD become so quick to hat people's questions?← Previous edit		Revision as of 05:03, 18 May 2017 edit undoGuy Macon (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users, File movers, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers59,290 edits →Why has the RD become so quick to hat people's questions?: Are we all stupid that we cannot see the pattern? How many more of these pointless threads must we endure when they never improve the situation?Next edit →
Line 253:		Line 253:
	:I would appreciate for the section to be 'unhatted'.] (]) 20:28, 17 May 2017 (UTC)		:I would appreciate for the section to be 'unhatted'.] (]) 20:28, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
	:: ] (]) 21:47, 17 May 2017 (UTC)		:: ] (]) 21:47, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

			----
			When has Medeis/μηδείς ''ever'' changed her behavior based on consensus? Long experience has shown that the only thing that will result in a change of behavior is a series of escalating blocks. She (and certain others here -- you know who you are) has shown herself to be completely immune to any sort of social pressure, and yet we keep having this discussion. Why? Are we all stupid that we cannot see the pattern? How many more of these pointless threads must we endure when they never improve the situation?

			Here is the answer to this problem.

			* Get rid of the special rules ("]") that only apply to the refdesks and which the admins refuse to enforce. Turn it into an essay that makes it clear that it is advice, not a policy or guideline.
			* Apply the standard rules that apply to all talk pages here. In particular, apply ] and especially ].
			* Stop complaining about other editors on the refdesk or the refdesk talk pages. Instead, complain on the user's talk page, and if that doesn't work, file a report at ] or try some other form of dispute resolution, starting with ].
			* Let Misplaced Pages's existing mechanisms for dealing with disruptive behavior do their job. This includes full use of ] and ] and includes administrators blocking anyone who violates ] or persists in complaining about other editors on the refdesk or the refdesk talk pages after being warned not to do that again.
			What we are doing is not working. And before anyone asks, no I will ''not'' post an RfC with the above solution. I refuse to post RfCs where I am 100% convinced that the proposal will not pass. Feel free to post it yourself and get shot down if you think I am wrong on this. I suggest ] as an appropriate place to post the RfC. --] (]) 05:02, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Revision as of 05:03, 18 May 2017

Skip to the bottom Shortcut

WT:RD

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

To ask a question, use the relevant section of the Reference deskThis page is for discussion of the Reference desk in general.
Please don't post comments here that don't relate to the Reference desk. Other material may be moved.
The guidelines for the Reference desk are at Misplaced Pages:Reference desk/Guidelines.
For help using Misplaced Pages, please see Misplaced Pages:Help desk.

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

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

"Business advice"

ultimately hatted, no need to beat the dead equine any further
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Medeis has recently hatted a question on the grounds that it is a request for "business advice". I have little interest in whether that particular question is hidden. My personal preference would be not to see it, and I sort of doubt it's in good faith, but an argument could be made that we shouldn't censor the refdesk on those grounds. In any case that's an argument I don't want to get into at this time. My concern is this stated motive about "business advice". It seems to me that the refdesk guideline against giving "medical or legal" advice (which I personally would construe narrowly) is being generalized to any advice at all, which I think is not the intent. There is a later sentence that talks about "uestions that ask for medical, legal or other professional advice...". This does not seem to follow logically from the rest of the guideline, which simply talks about "medical or legal" advice, and I wonder if it is an interpolation. But in any case, "business" is not a profession in the relevant sense. (This distinction between professions and trades is medieval and obnoxious, but seems to be the one at issue. A software engineer is a "professional", but if software engineering ever becomes a "profession" I will seriously have to think about leaving. In any case I trust that no one will object to giving advice on coding practices.) --Trovatore (talk) 22:07, 26 April 2017 (UTC) Read WP:DISCLAIMER. We don't give financial, medical, or legal advice, among other things. Any quibbling over business vs financial would be a distinction without a difference. Answering this question as if it weren't trolling would involve giving all three. If it were trolling (as I agree with Floquenbeam that it was) it shouldn't be answered either. But had I closed it as trolling, the same person would have opened it up again anyway. In any case, it is gone. μηδείς (talk) 20:13, 29 April 2017 (UTC) Agreed. Plus the Q in question (Misplaced Pages:Reference_desk/Miscellaneous#Starting_a_business_selling_my_sperm.3F) isn't actually asking for business advice. It asked how much sperm a man can produce in a day. That certainly is "icky", and possibly trolling, but definitely should not be closed as a request for business advice. Also, Medeis failed to list her reasons or name in the top of the hat box. I reverted her, but she keeps putting it back. As for actual "business advice", I would think some of those Q's would be fine, like "How do I register my business with the Better Business Bureau ?". StuRat (talk) 22:17, 26 April 2017 (UTC) I've modified the hatting rationale; I agree that (a) it's not really business advice, and (b) business advice is not one of the forbidden topics. What it is, is trolling (or, stretching AGF to beyond the breaking point, indistinguishable from trolling), so the hat should stay. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:27, 26 April 2017 (UTC) Works for me. --Trovatore (talk) 22:30, 26 April 2017 (UTC) Agreed. He’s not even asking for business advice, but for advice supposedly related to a business. Setting aside the question of whether he’s serious, the business aspect of the question is completely unnecessary context. It’s a question about human biology, nothing more, though one that I’d say he’d be better off attempting to answer himself on a free day. I just hope he never follows up on the question. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 22:33, 26 April 2017 (UTC) Of course it wasn't asking business advice. It was a breaching experiment designed to test the limits of what amount of trolling is allowable, carefully worded to give the asker plausible deniability when someone called them on it. --Jayron 32 18:28, 28 April 2017 (UTC) It reads like the OP mis-read the date as April 1. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 22:43, 26 April 2017 (UTC) Ha, that seems more likely than any other possible explanation. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 22:45, 26 April 2017 (UTC) Worth noting the question was asked by a French IP belonging to Orange. Later another IP, belong to the Venezuelan Cantv asked a followup. Whether these IPs are related, or the 2nd one is just somehow who decided to join in the "fun" I can't say, but we have been bothered by Venezuelan Cantv IP's before. Nil Einne (talk) 11:36, 28 April 2017 (UTC) Here is some business advice: Don't get into the business of selling crystal meth. Most meth dealers live with their parents because they can't make a living at it. Don't bother asking a financial adviser if selling crystal meth makes sense financially. It doesn't. Here is some legal advice: Don't do crystal meth. It is likely to get you arrested. Don't bother asking a lawyer if crystal meth is illegal. It is. Here is some medical advice: Don't do crystal meth. It will screw up your health. Don't bother asking a doctor if crystal meth is good for you. It isn't. Also, in general, you should usually ignore advice from random Misplaced Pages editors. It is quite often really bad advice (even though my advice above happens to be really good advice). There. I just broke our unenforceable refdesk house rules again, and I did it without being disruptive. Is anyone here brave enough to report me at ANI for breaking the unenforceable house rules again? The not being disruptive part is important. being disruptive isn't allowed, and much of the business/legal/medical advice given here is disruptive. Not mine, though. Mine is just a subtle way of encouraging us to finally decide to get rid if the unenforceable house rules. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:44, 28 April 2017 (UTC) @Guy Macon: Is the "Blue Sky" meth just as problematic? I don't think I have ever seen it written down (it might be, or it might not, I don't recall), but I expect the rationale is that if someone here gives bad legal/medical advice, the next thing you know Saul Goodman is on the case and Walter White blows you up. I.e. it could cause significantly inconvenient things to happen. Murph9000 (talk) 16:58, 28 April 2017 (UTC) Here is a quick answer, but if there are any more questions please ask them on the science refdesk, not refdesk talk. The blue meth from breaking bad is a Hollywood invention (very pure meth is clear) but some producers mix blue die in because they can get a higher price from Breaking Bad fans, and because it makes life a bit harder on the police (some test kits turn blue when meth is detected, and adding blue die makes it harder to tell if the test is positive). --Guy Macon (talk) 17:42, 28 April 2017 (UTC) @Guy Macon and Nil Einne: A discussion including the words and I did it without being disruptive was closed for disrupting Misplaced Pages. The irony. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 03:34, 2 May 2017 (UTC) My 16:44, 28 April 2017 comment was not disruptive. It could be argued that my 17:42, 28 April 2017 comment was, and that I should have replied with "please ask at the reference desk". I have no objection to the close. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:25, 2 May 2017 (UTC) No need to worry about this, no one will ever come here for any advice on legal issues, business matters or anything else that is of any importance. Count Iblis (talk) 20:46, 9 May 2017 (UTC) Then stop wasting your time (and ours) and run away to a happy place where the grass is greener, the sky bluer, tomatoes are tasty, and people are too busy having endless great sex to be bothered asking dumb questions of anonymous jerks on the internet who come up with useless answers. -- Jack of Oz 21:50, 9 May 2017 (UTC) This is a very long and ultimately pointless digression, since floquenbeam hatted the question and it aged off the boards a few months ago. μηδείς (talk) 00:11, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

ultimately hatted, no need to beat the dead equine any further

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Medeis has recently hatted a question on the grounds that it is a request for "business advice".

I have little interest in whether that particular question is hidden. My personal preference would be not to see it, and I sort of doubt it's in good faith, but an argument could be made that we shouldn't censor the refdesk on those grounds. In any case that's an argument I don't want to get into at this time.

My concern is this stated motive about "business advice". It seems to me that the refdesk guideline against giving "medical or legal" advice (which I personally would construe narrowly) is being generalized to any advice at all, which I think is not the intent.

There is a later sentence that talks about "uestions that ask for medical, legal or other professional advice...". This does not seem to follow logically from the rest of the guideline, which simply talks about "medical or legal" advice, and I wonder if it is an interpolation. But in any case, "business" is not a profession in the relevant sense. (This distinction between professions and trades is medieval and obnoxious, but seems to be the one at issue. A software engineer is a "professional", but if software engineering ever becomes a "profession" I will seriously have to think about leaving. In any case I trust that no one will object to giving advice on coding practices.) --Trovatore (talk) 22:07, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Read WP:DISCLAIMER. We don't give financial, medical, or legal advice, among other things. Any quibbling over business vs financial would be a distinction without a difference. Answering this question as if it weren't trolling would involve giving all three. If it were trolling (as I agree with Floquenbeam that it was) it shouldn't be answered either. But had I closed it as trolling, the same person would have opened it up again anyway. In any case, it is gone. μηδείς (talk) 20:13, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. Plus the Q in question (Misplaced Pages:Reference_desk/Miscellaneous#Starting_a_business_selling_my_sperm.3F) isn't actually asking for business advice. It asked how much sperm a man can produce in a day. That certainly is "icky", and possibly trolling, but definitely should not be closed as a request for business advice. Also, Medeis failed to list her reasons or name in the top of the hat box. I reverted her, but she keeps putting it back.

As for actual "business advice", I would think some of those Q's would be fine, like "How do I register my business with the Better Business Bureau ?". StuRat (talk) 22:17, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

I've modified the hatting rationale; I agree that (a) it's not really business advice, and (b) business advice is not one of the forbidden topics. What it is, is trolling (or, stretching AGF to beyond the breaking point, indistinguishable from trolling), so the hat should stay. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:27, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
- Works for me. --Trovatore (talk) 22:30, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. He’s not even asking for business advice, but for advice supposedly related to a business. Setting aside the question of whether he’s serious, the business aspect of the question is completely unnecessary context. It’s a question about human biology, nothing more, though one that I’d say he’d be better off attempting to answer himself on a free day. I just hope he never follows up on the question. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 22:33, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Of course it wasn't asking business advice. It was a breaching experiment designed to test the limits of what amount of trolling is allowable, carefully worded to give the asker plausible deniability when someone called them on it. --Jayron 32 18:28, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

It reads like the OP mis-read the date as April 1. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 22:43, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Ha, that seems more likely than any other possible explanation. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 22:45, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Worth noting the question was asked by a French IP belonging to Orange. Later another IP, belong to the Venezuelan Cantv asked a followup. Whether these IPs are related, or the 2nd one is just somehow who decided to join in the "fun" I can't say, but we have been bothered by Venezuelan Cantv IP's before. Nil Einne (talk) 11:36, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Here is some business advice: Don't get into the business of selling crystal meth. Most meth dealers live with their parents because they can't make a living at it. Don't bother asking a financial adviser if selling crystal meth makes sense financially. It doesn't.

Here is some legal advice: Don't do crystal meth. It is likely to get you arrested. Don't bother asking a lawyer if crystal meth is illegal. It is.

Here is some medical advice: Don't do crystal meth. It will screw up your health. Don't bother asking a doctor if crystal meth is good for you. It isn't.

Also, in general, you should usually ignore advice from random Misplaced Pages editors. It is quite often really bad advice (even though my advice above happens to be really good advice).

There. I just broke our unenforceable refdesk house rules again, and I did it without being disruptive. Is anyone here brave enough to report me at ANI for breaking the unenforceable house rules again?

The not being disruptive part is important. being disruptive isn't allowed, and much of the business/legal/medical advice given here is disruptive. Not mine, though. Mine is just a subtle way of encouraging us to finally decide to get rid if the unenforceable house rules. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:44, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

@Guy Macon: Is the "Blue Sky" meth just as problematic?

I don't think I have ever seen it written down (it might be, or it might not, I don't recall), but I expect the rationale is that if someone here gives bad legal/medical advice, the next thing you know Saul Goodman is on the case and Walter White blows you up. I.e. it could cause significantly inconvenient things to happen.

Murph9000 (talk) 16:58, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Here is a quick answer, but if there are any more questions please ask them on the science refdesk, not refdesk talk. The blue meth from breaking bad is a Hollywood invention (very pure meth is clear) but some producers mix blue die in because they can get a higher price from Breaking Bad fans, and because it makes life a bit harder on the police (some test kits turn blue when meth is detected, and adding blue die makes it harder to tell if the test is positive). --Guy Macon (talk) 17:42, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

@Guy Macon and Nil Einne: A discussion including the words and I did it without being disruptive was closed for disrupting Misplaced Pages. The irony. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 03:34, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

My 16:44, 28 April 2017 comment was not disruptive. It could be argued that my 17:42, 28 April 2017 comment was, and that I should have replied with "please ask at the reference desk". I have no objection to the close. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:25, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

No need to worry about this, no one will ever come here for any advice on legal issues, business matters or anything else that is of any importance. Count Iblis (talk) 20:46, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Then stop wasting your time (and ours) and run away to a happy place where the grass is greener, the sky bluer, tomatoes are tasty, and people are too busy having endless great sex to be bothered asking dumb questions of anonymous jerks on the internet who come up with useless answers. -- Jack of Oz 21:50, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

This is a very long and ultimately pointless digression, since floquenbeam hatted the question and it aged off the boards a few months ago. μηδείς (talk) 00:11, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Sealioning?

There seems to be a problem with a relatively new (month or so) user who insists on sealioning: asking questions as a means to provoke debate, then asking increasingly inane questions to bog down people who try to correct his apparent misconceptions. It is growing wearisome. --Jayron 32 16:07, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

If it's the IP I'm thinking of, they appeared around mid-March. What's unclear is whether they are really trolling or just trying to understand, though my money would be on the former. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 20:24, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

I just got a little short with them on the Humanities desk. Probably I shouldn't have, and I was thinking of raising the matter here anyway, so feel free to revert/hat/whatever that response if you think it was inappropriate. If it is trolling, it's accomplished, because the initial queries are usually reasonable and the responses interesting, and the slides into sealioning have only now started to become more obvious. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.217.249.244 (talk) 21:29, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Telling it like it is. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 22:42, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Some examples, please ? StuRat (talk) 21:31, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Reference desk/Humanities#Is owning a human automatically slavery? clpo13_(talk) 22:58, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Some more of the user's largely inane questions, including the dieting by eating expensive food, and ordering several things at a restaurant come across as the product of a marijuana high.

10:56, 28 April 2017 (diff | hist) . . (+1,108)‎ . . Misplaced Pages:Reference desk/Humanities ‎ (→‎Is owning a human automatically slavery?: new section)
10:12, 28 April 2017 (diff | hist) . . (+564)‎ . . Misplaced Pages:Reference desk/Humanities ‎ (→‎Are people supposed to order several things at a restaurant at different times or at one time?: new section)
07:59, 28 April 2017 (diff | hist) . . (+290)‎ . . Misplaced Pages:Reference desk/Science ‎ (→‎Is "queen ant" or "queen bee" accurate or anthropomorphizing bees and ants?: new section)
09:31, 27 April 2017 (diff | hist) . . (+549)‎ . . Misplaced Pages:Reference desk/Humanities ‎ (→‎Jane Eyre and missionaries to India: new section)
09:07, 27 April 2017 (diff | hist) . . (+1,004)‎ . . Misplaced Pages:Reference desk/Language ‎ (→‎Accent vs dialect: new section)
08:51, 27 April 2017 (diff | hist) . . (+1,152)‎ . . Misplaced Pages:Reference desk/Science ‎ (→‎Portion control, food rationing, and economics: new section)
09:07, 26 April 2017 (diff | hist) . . (+851)‎ . . Misplaced Pages:Reference desk/Entertainment ‎ (→‎British accents in films: new section)
20:30, 24 April 2017 (diff | hist) . . (+859)‎ . . Misplaced Pages:Reference desk/Humanities ‎ (→‎Minimum requirements of Anglicanism?: new section)
11:12, 24 April 2017 (diff | hist) . . (+602)‎ . . Misplaced Pages:Reference desk/Humanities ‎ (→‎Why did some families give daughters an unusually high education?: new section)
18:21, 23 April 2017 (diff | hist) . . (+1,070)‎ . . Misplaced Pages:Reference desk/Science ‎ (→‎The science of making vegetables taste like meat: new section)
14:36, 23 April 2017 (diff | hist) . . (+984)‎ . . Misplaced Pages:Reference desk/Humanities ‎ (→‎Do people still have to "do their taxes" (whatever that means) if they already receive money in a pay card?: new section)
23:56, 22 April 2017 (diff | hist) . . (+983)‎ . . Misplaced Pages:Reference desk/Humanities ‎ (→‎At what point does a person become a gentleman/-woman?: new section)
16:21, 22 April 2017 (diff | hist) . . (+758)‎ . . Misplaced Pages:Reference desk/Humanities ‎ (→‎Why did people make single-sex schools?: new section)
12:43, 22 April 2017 (diff | hist) . . (+725)‎ . . Misplaced Pages:Reference desk/Humanities ‎ (→‎Is the March for Science American or global?: new section)
10:50, 22 April 2017 (diff | hist) . . (+698)‎ . . Misplaced Pages:Reference desk/Humanities ‎ (→‎"preventable illness": new section)
20:42, 21 April 2017 (diff | hist) . . (+373)‎ . . Misplaced Pages:Reference desk/Science ‎ (→‎Making big chicken breasts: new section)
19:16, 21 April 2017 (diff | hist) . . (+742)‎ . . Misplaced Pages:Reference desk/Humanities ‎ (→‎Social class of immigrants: new section)
10:42, 21 April 2017 (diff | hist) . . (+1,935)‎ . . Misplaced Pages:Reference desk/Humanities ‎ (→‎Social class in the Far East vs Europe: new section)
17:17, 20 April 2017 (diff | hist) . . (+696)‎ . . Misplaced Pages:Reference desk/Humanities ‎ (→‎How did apprenticeships work?: new section)
14:17, 20 April 2017 (diff | hist) . . (+320)‎ . . Misplaced Pages:Reference desk/Humanities ‎ (→‎9-day-old pease pudding: new section)
00:12, 20 April 2017 (diff | hist) . . (+339)‎ . . Misplaced Pages:Reference desk/Humanities ‎ (→‎Average age of first funeral)
00:00, 20 April 2017 (diff | hist) . . (+385)‎ . . Misplaced Pages:Reference desk/Humanities ‎ (→‎Chicken giblets: new section)

Besides the plethora of subjective and "why" questions, we have the insistence by certain editors that all questions be answered, when ones like "‎At what point does a person become a gentleman" cannot be answered, and absolutely no evidence the user has looked at a search engine or obvious articles that like apprenticeship which he can find on his own. I figured at some point an admin will admonish him. Limiting the OP to one question a day might be a good start. Notice the user otherwise shows no interest in contributing to the project. μηδείς (talk) 02:27, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

The main problem, assign from his bizarre premises themselves, is that he gets an adequate answer and then continues to argue about it. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 03:35, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

And yet not a single person on the refdesk has bothered to go to User talk:50.4.236.254 and politely ask him to stop. Even though several of us have the time to contribute to yet another pointless thread about trolling on the refdesks. Even though the rules at ANI require that you warn the user on his talk page before reporting him for continued disruptive behavior. Even though it is an established fact that feeding the trolls with attention -- especially negative attention -- attracts more trolls. I say we should just put the following banner at the top of each refdesk and be done with it.

     __    __    __    __    __    __    __    __
    /\ \__/\ \__/\ \__/\ \__/\ \__/\ \__/\ \__/\ \__
    \ \___\ \___\ \___\ \___\ \___\ \___\ \___\ \___\
  __/ / __/ / __/ / __/ / __/ / __/ / __/ / __/ / __/
 /\ \/_/\ \/_/\ \/_/\ \/_/\ \/_/\ \/_/\ \/_/\ \/_/\ \__
 \ \___\ \___\ \___\ \___\ \___\ \___\ \___\ \___\ \___\ 
 / / __/ / __/ / __/ / __/ / __/ / __/ / __/ / __/ / __/ 
 \/_/\ \/_/  \/_/  \/_/  \/_/  \/_/  \/_/  \/_/\ \/_/\ \__
    \ \___\ \___\                             \ \___\ \___\
    / / __/ / __/   TROLLS WELCOME!! COME TO  / / __/ / __/
    \/_/\ \/_/\ \__  THE REFDESKS AND WE WILL \/_/\ \/_/\ \__
       \ \___\ \___\  PAY ATTENTION TO YOU!!!!   \ \___\ \___\
       / / __/ / __/   __    __    __    __    __/ / __/ / __/
       \/_/\ \/_/\ \__/\ \__/\ \__/\ \__/\ \__/\ \/_/\ \/_/\ \__ 
          \ \___\ \___\ \___\ \___\ \___\ \___\ \___\ \___\ \___\
          / / __/ / __/ / __/ / __/ / __/ / __/ / __/ / __/ / __/
          \/_/\ \/_/\ \/_/\ \/_/\ \/_/\ \/_/\ \/_/\ \/_/\ \/_/
             \ \___\ \___\ \___\ \___\ \___\ \___\ \___\ \___\
             / / __/ / __/ / __/ / __/ / __/ / __/ / __/ / __/
             \/_/  \/_/  \/_/  \/_/  \/_/  \/_/  \/_/  \/_/

--Guy Macon (talk) 11:50, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Except that people have already told the editor to cut it out before you posted. E.g. (after this thread but before you posted). You can debate whether or not the RD proper was the right place to issue such warnings (probably by yourself). But one thing is for sure, anyone who complains on ANI about a user not being warned, when they were clearly warned and responded to the warning (i.e. were definitely aware of it), is going to be told to bugger off with their WP:Wikilawyering.

I'd also note it isn't even correct that obvious trolls must always be warned before they are blocked or reverted anyway. Yes you're far more likely to get short shrift if you head to ANI without ever having warned the editor. But plenty of people have been blocked or found their contribs reverted in plenty of places outside the RD, without ever having been formally warned. Often without even touching ANI. Whether this editor's contribs rises to that level I make no comment.

I'd also note that as always when we discuss trolls, we have to be very careful about assuming we know their motives. Yes the classic troll just wants a reaction but there are plenty of people who aren't like that who are called trolls for a lack of better word (I used to try and avoid this and encourage only using trolling to refer to classical trolling, but I've mostly given up on that).

As with others, I initially WP:AGFed on this editors, but as their questions got more and more inane, I too am having trouble believing anyone who can write as coherently and logically as they can at times, can be simultaneously so clueless, naïve confused. Let's not forget the editor's first contribs here on wikipedia via that IP was to debate the definition of vegetables, something they came back over a month later to complain about. IIRC, whoever is behind that IP has claimed in the past that they are from Asia or somewhere in Asia but now apparently living in the US but I'm still having trouble thinking that can account for it.

I mean we did have that editor with lots of weird questions often about religion which could perhaps arise due to someone who is a recent immigrant from a fairly different culture, but here it's getting simply too hard to believe. Of course there are a lot of otherwise intelligent people who seem to think a lot of weird shit (e.g. some flat earthers and conspiracy theorists), and there are a variety of mental disorders/differences which can make the way people think and express themselves seem very odd to those without them; so it's impossible to rule it out. But I'm leaning strongly towards the not sincere direction.

As to what they're actually trying to achieve, I have no idea. IMO ultimately we should consider more how to deal with the situation (blocking, reverting, ignoring, whatever) rather than worrying too much about what they're getting out of it. Yes perhaps we'll give them what they want, perhaps not, what should matter to use is what's best for us not what weird thrill they may get out of it.

Nil Einne (talk) 13:54, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Telling the editor to cut it out on the reference desks is pure troll feeding. As is this discussion. And it doesn't even matter if this one isn't a troll. The other trolls will see the troll food we are laying out and come here to feast. There is a reason the refdesks all have a troll problem but the help desk and village pump do not. Those parts of Misplaced Pages (in different ways) don't feed the trolls. We do.

And how, exactly, is yet another pointless thread on this talk page "what's best for us"? The last 999 times we did this it had zero effect, so why are we doing it again? And why will we do it yet another time in a couple of days?

In my opinion, based upon long experience going back to Fidonet and USENET, what is "best for us" is:

Get rid of the special rules ("reference desk guidelines") that only apply to the refdesks and which the admins refuse to enforce.
Apply the standard rules that apply to all talk pages. In particular, apply WP:DISRUPT and especially WP:TPOC.
Stop complaining about other editors on the refdesk or the refdesk talk pages. Instead, complain on the user's talk page, and if that doesn't work, file a report at WP:ANI or try some other form of dispute resolution, starting with WP:DRR.
Let Misplaced Pages's existing mechanisms for dealing with disruptive behavior do their job. What we are doing is not working.

Can we at least try it my way for 30 days as an experiment? --Guy Macon (talk) 17:01, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

No. I am loathe even to address a user who thinks blowing up other users is a legitimate form of discourse. But it is simply false to say that the Ref Desk rules are special. They follow simply from the disclaimer, WP:NOTHOWTO, WP:CRYSTAL and so forth. That they are somewhat selectively summarized at the top of the page does not make them special. μηδείς (talk) 19:49, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Guy Macon, I don't think raising that in one informal, case-specific thread after another is going to have much effect. Present a separate, formal proposal (possibly at WP:VPR, possibly even an RfC), and let the community !vote it up or down. Then, if it fails, it will be because of real opposition, not because of a lack of attention. And if it fails that way, we could justifiably give it a rest for awhile. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:08, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

There does still seem to be a problem at the Ref Desks with long-term users claiming they know best and hatting or archiving topics which are then subsequently unhatted or unarchived. Again, and again, and again. It seems that it would be better to just let most of these innocuous questions go and promote an more positive ambience at the RDs rather than the current vibe which is certainly an "in-house knows best" approach. I've been contacted several times by individuals who are dissuaded from the RDs by just one or two of the "page monitors" (not my words) and if nothing else, that dissuasion is acting completely contrary to what a Ref Desk should be doing. It's a shame that one or two individual users here are making the Ref Desks such a "challenging" place to visit, it would be helpful if the community here could work to solve that at the root. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:36, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

the XY problem at the computing ref desk

Mention of the XY problem is fairly common on the computing ref desk. I'm wondering if an explanation of it which appears when the user edits the page should be implemented. Thoughts? ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:15, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

It's rather complicated to explain and the info is already too much to read. StuRat (talk) 14:45, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

The XY problem explanation is rather convoluted and obfuscatory. Instead of directing people with the problem to that page, just state "Can you explain why you are seeking this answer? Because there's many possible ways to answer it, and unless I know why you're asking, I can't help you find the correct answer." That should do nicely. --Jayron 32 14:51, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

OH, I wasn't suggesting we use that link. I was suggesting something more along the lines of what you said, phrased as a notice that appears when editing the page. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:13, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
Notices aren't much use. It's well known that no one reads the manuals. They will have no effect on reducing problems, all it would possibly due is allow us to rudely remind people they didn't read the manual, but it won't make our workload in answering such questions any less. Instead, just tell someone in your own words what I just did. Works much better. --Jayron 32 15:37, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

That XY Problem thing is an interesting phenomenon, but I have a feeling it's way more interesting to question answerers than it actually is to question askers.

It's true that people get stuck on Y's when their problem is really X. But for anyone who's stuck in that situation, fixated on Y, just sayng they have "an XY problem" (or pointing them at a general-purpose philosophical essay on it) is not necessarily going to help. What they probably need is a patient, personal explanation of what their particular X is, and why their specific Y may be distracting.

But the bigger problem is that answerers can be rather patronizing when they presume to diagnose the XY problem among questioners. Oftentimes the questioner really does just want an answer to Y, and a insistent lecture on why X is more important can be pretty insulting, and not helpful.

(One example, discussed here several times, is the case where X is "using Microsoft Windows", Y is "how do I avoid blue screens of death", and the "helpful" answer is "You shouldn't be trying to figure out how to avoid crashes, you should be abandoning Windows and using Linux instead." That's an extreme example, but I see less extreme versions of it all the time.) —Steve Summit (talk) 10:32, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

You could make a template that you (or others) could slap on questions that you think are falling in to this trap/pattern. I agree that nobody reads notices, but they do (sometimes) read replies. I agree it is a common problem, as would most anyone with any experience at a brick-and-mortar reference desk. Usually I say something along these lines "Why are you asking X? Are you hoping to do Y by chance? If you can explain better what you are trying to do or why you want to know X, you might get better help." I do try to be polite about it, because I agree with Steve that sometimes the XY problem itself is a misdiagnosis, and sometimes OP knows much more about the problem than would-be helpers. SemanticMantis (talk) 19:36, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

I once asked a question at the Microstation forums. I asked if there was a way to make labels with a text prefix and an incrementing number, specifically "PULL BOX n" where n was the number. I was given a very long winded lecture about how that's a pointless task, so I must be falling victim to the XY problem (the user assumed that I didn't actually need the numbers to increment, because the labels I needed were pretty unusual). So I noped on out of there and wrote a VBA script that did exactly that. And it solved all my problems. I came back a year later to see that three or four other users answered my question and put the first guy on blast for his response. Still, the reason I posted this is because of the number of times I see that an XY problem is confirmed by the OP. "Well, I'm trying to do X and I figured Y would get me to that point..." I like Mantis' idea. I think a very politely worded template might be the best thing to do. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:21, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

I don't know that question-volume is high enough to warrant a labor-saving device like a template. Especially as I worry that it would be perceived as really condescending. ApLundell (talk) 20:30, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

The idea I'm having is a template you can subst into the post which is plain text basically asking what, exactly the OP is trying to accomplish and explaining that knowing that will make it easier to answer the question. It would save plenty of typing time, but not look any different than politely handling it oneself. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:44, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

I'd be happy to help you work on the wording if you like. It is a fine line to not seem rude. I would phrase it all in the form of possibility. "It may be that we are better able to help with your problem if you explain to us what the root of it is, in addition to this thing you asked". Or something. IMO, even if the template is rarely used, or only used by a few of us, that's fine, templates don't rot from lack of frequent use :) SemanticMantis (talk) 13:36, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

That reads really well, except for the "root of it" part. I think maybe It may be that we are better able to help with your problem if you can tell us what you are trying to accomplish by doing this, in addition to your original question. Thoughts?

templates don't rot from lack of frequent use Don't mention that at WP:MFD. You'll get chased off with pitchforks and torches. ;) ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:01, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Sure, sounds good to me. If you make it, I would probably occasionally use it. SemanticMantis (talk) 19:42, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

This is a well-known and common problem at IRL libraries, and it's why we do what's called a reference interview. Kids are particularly bad at this, but everyone does it at one point or another. Mingmingla (talk) 22:46, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

I made the template. Check out {{xyp}} which produces the following:

This question seems to touch upon the XY problem. It may be that we are better able to help with your problem if you can tell us what you are trying to accomplish by doing this. You can also check out this link for more information about why this is. ~~~~

ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:09, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

As an example of where this can go wrong, There's a question on the computing desk right now about flash drive durability in hot and cold weather. A couple of users nitpicked the question for not exactly specifying the weather in question. (As though they might have a source, but were worried that it was 10 degrees off?) Another user played the XY card by telling the question-asker that he shouldn't worry about flash drive durability because he guessed that the question was really about proper backups. (Also, there's me arguing with the XY response, so I'm certainly not helping either.)

The question-asker was understandably not thrilled with these condescending responses.

ApLundell (talk) 14:56, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Guy who keeps posting inane questions about Android phones

Anyone else tired of the guy who keeps using the Desks as Google for questions about his Android phone? I believe it's all the same person; their IP address changes periodically but they all seem to be Bangladeshi addresses. Just today they posted five questions on the Computing desk that should be answerable by brief Web searches. As usual I'm asking here first because I don't want to tell them off if no one else sees a problem with their behavior. --47.138.161.183 (talk) 05:11, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

It is a bit annoying, and it dovetails nicely with the discussion above. Why the heck is he asking for "APKs"?

Does he just want app recommendations and thinks "APK" is slang for "Android app"? Or does he actually want to download the .APK files individually and install them manually? If so, why is he doing it like that?

I suppose he's either got some weirdo phone that can't run an app store, (But he says "sony brand phone") or he's got some strong anti-google paranoia to the point of not wanting to use Google services on an Android device. Which is absurd. It's like buying a Mac and refusing to use Apple products. It can be done, but if you have to ask how, you're headed for a nightmare. ApLundell (talk) 14:15, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

This thread is inappropriate. If he's a troll, deal with his posts and don't feed with threads like this. If he's a good-faith editor, the number of disparaging adjectives above (inane, annoying, weirdo, paranoia, absurd) is just wrong. Engage with him, close his threads, whatever, but this is wrong. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 14:29, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

I used "weirdo" to describe a (hypothetical) strange, off-brand phone. I don't think that's particularly insulting at all. ApLundell (talk) 14:45, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

There are a number of phones which do not come with the Play Store, and instead use a proprietary store for apps. It's perfectly conceivable that Sony makes such a phone for use in SEA. That being said, even if this editor is legit, the constant, repetitive questions are becoming disruptive. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:35, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

It's also very possible it's a non-native English speaker who thinks APK is the right word to use for an app installed off the app store. (I guess the app store does technically install an APK, but it happens behind the scenes in such a way that you never see the .apk file.)

ApLundell (talk) 16:04, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

I have to agree it's possible English limitations are a barrier here. For example, the IP has asked for open source software before. But I'm not certain if they really care about it being open source, or just want something that is free and without too many ads. Or maybe even just free for the features they desire. (Of course open source software doesn't have to be freely priced, and can have ads even if someone else is free to release a freely priced version without ads but I think a lot of people mostly think of free in price and not freemium.)

BTW I've ound as with the OP of this discussion that the IP geolocates to Bangladesh so I'm not sure why SEA came up. However from what I've read, Bangladesh is a target market for a lot of those cheap Chinese phones and it isn't uncommon they don't have the Play Store, so its absence is an easy possibility.

As for engaging with the IP, with a frequently changing IP it's difficult. AFAIK they've never replied to any of the comments, even when these comments expected a reply. For example, I replied to one of their questions about a battery monitoring app, pointing out it wasn't clear what they wanted, but never received a reply. To be fair, this was a typically long reply, or maybe they just didn't like my reply, but I'm fairly sure I've seen others who've asked shorter questions receive no reply. They have asked about battery monitoring apps again, this time with more details so it may be they are reading replies.

However without a 2 way conversation, it's difficult to actually engage. For example, do they really want apps outside the Play Store, perhaps because they don't have access to it? Are they able to use the Amazon Appstore? Etc. Without these basic questions it's very difficult to help them, and in any case their questions are a getting a bit excessive. Since the RDC tends to be dead and their questions aren't the sort of ones likely to unnecessarily waste time I've tended to ignore them but I can understand why people may be frustrated.

Nil Einne (talk) 08:15, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Why has the RD become so quick to hat people's questions?

This is inspired by this question, but it's part of a larger trend that's been going on here for quite some time, pushed largely (it seems to me) by a small number of users, most prominently User:Medeis. I've already briefly presented my reasoning there (as did User:JackofOz, who also opposed hatting). Frankly, I find the arguments presented in favor of hatting here to be borderline incomprehensible - as far as I can tell, Medeis's reasoning boils down to "if we can find a valid justification to close a question, we should." I don't see any logic in closing a question that has any chance of being answered simply because the questioner didn't present it quite right. This was certainly not the practice when I was more active around here 5+ years ago, and I see no justification, either from Misplaced Pages's rules and guidelines or from the philosophical position that the purpose of the Reference Desk is to answer people's questions as well as possible, for this change in general practice. User:Baseball_Bugs's argument for closing makes even less sense to me - the questioner "seemed to have moved on to other things" (I guess because it had been a whopping 18 hours since he'd replied to the question?) so we should close it? Even if he had truly "moved on" why on earth would that ever be a valid reason to hat a question?

It seems to me that this shift has been motivated almost entirely by a few "big personalities" simply doing as they see fit (hatting this question when there was clearly not consensus to do so being one example), so I'd like to get some input from the rest of the contributors here on how everyone feels about this. Perhaps we need to draft up a specific guideline on when it is and isn't appropriate to close someone's question? -Elmer Clark (talk) 02:20, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

I should also point out that it was neither Medeis nor Baseball_Bugs who actually hatted the question, but User:Ian.thomson, with no rationale either in his edit summary or in the discussion besides "hatting the whole damn thing already." -Elmer Clark (talk) 02:25, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

My main problem was the edit war brewing. That seemed the simplest and shortest way to get it to stop, especially since the thread wasn't really going anywhere beyond whether or not the phrasing was legitimate or if the thread should be hatted. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:31, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Gotcha. I missed the edit warring. Seems there's still some minor shenanigans afoot, with this edit coming right after I unhatted it. Still seems kind of not ideal to close someone's question over something like that though, especially when it's still receiving potentially useful responses as well. -Elmer Clark (talk) 02:34, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Looking at this IP range, I see an account that has been trolling here by hatting or not hatting. If you have doubt, this snark removes it. 2600:8806:4807:E700::/64 hardblocked 3 months.
— Berean Hunter (talk) 02:54, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Sheesh. Can't we just get back to a culture of innocence? If an editor's overriding interest is anything other than how best he can answer a question, then what the hell is he doing here on a Reference Desk?

So you think a questioner's motives are suspect? Solution: Neutralise the issue by giving a straight answer if you can, or staying completely out of the thread if you can't. That is, under no circumstances acknowledge or buy into his suspected agenda.

So a questioner has moved on, and has not responded to requests for clarification? Solution: Ignore him, and move on yourself.

So you think a questioner just wants to incite a debate. Solution: Neutralise the issue by telling him we don't permit debates here.

What I know for sure is that these endless back room (and sometimes front of house) discussions on editor and respondent behaviour rarely change anything, improve anything, or contribute to the wellbeing of the Ref Desks. All they achieve is the engendering of a culture I have grown almost to hate. And I hate that. The trolls we seem to fear so much are having a damn good laugh, because they realise we do not seem to have the collective wisdom to deal with them in an effective manner, which means a liberal application of subtlety and innocence. Not naivete. Innocence. -- Jack of Oz 09:07, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. Even when trolling is a problem, ignoring the troll is the way to handle it, not hatting everything which might possibly be trolling. And I agree that Medeis is top of the list in assuming the worst of people, and hatting everything she can possibly find a way to justify, making me think hatting is her real goal, for some reason, not answering Q's. StuRat (talk) 19:08, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

If you people think there are disruptive users here that need to be topic-banned, this isn't the place to achieve that. You'd need to start a thread at WP:AN or similar to ensure it receives wide enough attention. This "thread-closing/Ref desk ownership" issue seems to have been going on for a few years now, along with the "users providing nothing but personal opinions" piece. Both should be addressed at an RFC, I doubt many regular editors are aware of the shenanigans that take place at the so-called "Ref Desks". It's time to make a decision, put up with the disruption and stop complaining about it every month or so, or do something about it. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:13, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Completely wrong. Taking things to administrators only makes matters worse. Many of the worst problem-makers here are Admins, and the Admins there completely ignore anybody who is not an Admin, contrary to what they are supposed to do. Just posting a thread there can end up getting you blocked, unless you are an Admin, that is. They are virtually immune to punishment there. And any mention of the RD there will cause at least one crazy Admin to say "Let's just shut the whole thing down !". StuRat (talk) 19:25, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

I think you're missing the point. The behaviour of a number of Ref Desk regulars is now leaking out to the wider Misplaced Pages. It's time we started working out who is actually contributing encyclopedically and who is just here for the social chat. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:44, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Re: "The behaviour of a number of Ref Desk regulars is now leaking out to the wider Misplaced Pages." What's your evidence ? StuRat (talk) 20:38, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

I don't need any "evidence" of this, there are a number of users at the Ref Desk who either pretend to own the situation by hatting discussions they don't like, or spend their entire time responding to OP questions with unsourced, unverified personal opinions. This is now obvious to those who aren't Ref Desk regulars, and soon it will be discussed in detail at an RFC, initially started from a post at AN which is a much wider forum than the safe island of Ref Desk. I imagine that there will be a real possibility of topic bans and even more stringent sentences handed out once the full depth of the abuse of Misplaced Pages by certain users is revealed to a wider audience. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:44, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

If anyone is ready to post an RfC or a report at AN/ANI/Arbcom, please look at this post and consider seeing if the wide community agrees with my suggested solution. And please drop me a note on my talk page if something comes of this. Thanks! --Guy Macon (talk) 04:05, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

The OP's question was, "what is an antonym for fortnuate (and unfortunate is not a valid answer)?" The OP was politely asked to provide a wider context so that we could understand his intention, but declined to do so. I suggested the thread be hatted, Bugs seconded it, and Ian.thomson did so (after a pointy hatting and refactoring by a single purpose IP user). The only "warring" was over refactoring of my comment, and putting mine and Bug's names in the hat notice, implying that we were responsible for the edit closing the discussion. An admin came along and agreed with the overall hatting, saying that sockpuppetry was involved, for which he gives a dif above. The OP has never been back (unless as a sock) and seems to have no interest in this. For future reference look at this diff. μηδείς (talk) 18:52, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

But what was to be achieved by hatting it, Medeis? What? Couldn't it just have been left as it was? Then, if the OP came back, there'd be something to come back to, and if they didn't, it would just be quickly archived and forgotten about. Over the years I have raised various questions as an OP that have never had a satisfactory resolution, but they've never been hatted. They just remain unresolved to this day, down in the bowels of the archives. That's as it should be. Hatting this thread has achieved NOTHING except this argy-bargy that is wasting all our time and getting us NOWHERE. I'm sure you're a busy lady in RL (we already know you can wipe your own ass), and you must have more things to exercise your mind than these USELESS hattings (not to mention your occasional threats to have the refdesks shut down if others don't abide by your self-imposed rules). Unjustified hattings (and that's most of them) just draw attention to the matter, the complete opposite of what they're supposed to be about - and if you think they don't have that effect, I suggest your knowledge of human nature is lacking. They also draw attention to the (mad) HATTER, but I'll say no more about that except that if one's interest here is in drawing attention to oneself, then one is advised to go and meditate on a mountain top until one has achieved oneness with the universe, and then come refreshed, ready to be of service. -- Jack of Oz 21:14, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Ask someone who cares, Jack, and please get your story straight, since I hatted nothing. I suggested hatting, Bugs agreed, then IP 2600, identified as a sock, started pointy refactoring and edit warring, and finally Ian.thomson hatted the entire thread, not me. The OP has shown no interest in the thread, and an admin has closed it and reverted 2600. Take this up with them. Your defamatory hysteria based on untruths bores me. μηδείς (talk) 22:25, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

You initiated the hatting. You suggested it. You called for support. It was your idea. What was your purpose? Why was this a good idea? -- Jack of Oz 22:38, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Please do respond to this as well, Medeis. I feel like the disconnect between you and the RD community at large on this is the key issue here. Misplaced Pages is not about the indiscriminate application of rules - we even have a rule about it. How did hatting this discussion help the encyclopedia or the reference desk? Keep in mind that neither of the people who "agreed" that it should be hatted did so for reasons that at all resembled yours. -Elmer Clark (talk) 21:40, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

You also hatted it a second time after I unhatted it , despite the fact that there is clearly even less consensus to do so now and there was an ongoing discussion happening here. True, a sockpuppet later reverted your hatting and an admin restored it (I have unhatted it again now), but this was clearly an inappropriate action. Would you mind explaining this action? This seems like flagrant disregard for policy and procedure. -Elmer Clark (talk) 21:19, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

See here. Count Iblis (talk) 23:22, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm trying to understand: Wasn't there a blurb either at the top of all the reference desks, on WP:RD, or somewhere on Help:Contents that said querents should wait a few days for an answer to develop? So why can't respondents wait for the querent to reply/answer?68.151.25.115 (talk) 08:44, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

I would appreciate for the section to be 'unhatted'.68.151.25.115 (talk) 20:28, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Try here. Count Iblis (talk) 21:47, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

When has Medeis/μηδείς ever changed her behavior based on consensus? Long experience has shown that the only thing that will result in a change of behavior is a series of escalating blocks. She (and certain others here -- you know who you are) has shown herself to be completely immune to any sort of social pressure, and yet we keep having this discussion. Why? Are we all stupid that we cannot see the pattern? How many more of these pointless threads must we endure when they never improve the situation?

Here is the answer to this problem.

Get rid of the special rules ("reference desk guidelines") that only apply to the refdesks and which the admins refuse to enforce. Turn it into an essay that makes it clear that it is advice, not a policy or guideline.
Apply the standard rules that apply to all talk pages here. In particular, apply WP:DISRUPT and especially WP:TPOC.
Stop complaining about other editors on the refdesk or the refdesk talk pages. Instead, complain on the user's talk page, and if that doesn't work, file a report at WP:ANI or try some other form of dispute resolution, starting with WP:DRR.
Let Misplaced Pages's existing mechanisms for dealing with disruptive behavior do their job. This includes full use of WP:DRR and WP:ANI and includes administrators blocking anyone who violates WP:TPOC or persists in complaining about other editors on the refdesk or the refdesk talk pages after being warned not to do that again.

What we are doing is not working. And before anyone asks, no I will not post an RfC with the above solution. I refuse to post RfCs where I am 100% convinced that the proposal will not pass. Feel free to post it yourself and get shot down if you think I am wrong on this. I suggest Misplaced Pages:Village pump (policy) as an appropriate place to post the RfC. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:02, 18 May 2017 (UTC)