Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 15:48, 22 February 2017

• 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.

Joke etiquette

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

I agree that jokes should be reserved until the question has been answered. Unless the joke is like, really amazingly funny. Someguy1221 (talk) 23:18, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I have seen questions that deserve a joke answer as the first response. Also all too often questions asked violate the guidelines noted at the top of each ref desk as well as the Misplaced Pages:Reference desk/Guidelines. The problem is what are you asking to be done to those who respond with a joke. If you want a block that is going to be a non-starter. Remember that the ref desks goals are different from those of the rest of the encyclopedia MarnetteD|Talk 00:10, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Might those questions not just deserve being ignored or removed instead? From my experience with SemanticMantis I doubt he is asking for sanctions against editors who respond with a joke before anyone has addressed the question. I read it more as a reminder. Something that has been raised here before. When asking in a library, I enjoy receiving a joking comment from the librarian most when it comes with the answer or service I'm looking for. I don't think the rest of the encyclopedia's goals include landing a good punch line either. ---Sluzzelin talk 00:18, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

I would like people to stick to answering the question to begin with as well. There are lots of reminders on the ref desks. What good are they when they are so often ignored. For example, I and others have removed inappropriate questions in the past. Others have restored them. As you say the question has been raised before. In my nearly twelve years here I have yet to see things change on the ref desk. I could find at least a dozen current threads that violate at least one of the bullet points at Misplaced Pages:Reference desk/Guidelines#What the reference desk is not and a dozen more that are not going to lead to any article improvement. My apologies for how negative you will find this. By all means discuss making things more civil and more power to you. I just don't want the frustrations for any of you to build when things don't change. MarnetteD|Talk 01:06, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

To clarify: I propose no actions to be taken against any editor, I only seek loose consensus for including a new sentence in our guidelines. Something along the lines of "The first response to a question should not be a joke, and such responses may be removed or collapsed." In general, I'd also encourage us to start following our guidelines that suggest Generally speaking, answers are more likely to be sanctioned than questions..

In case anyone missed it, the joke that prompted my inquiry was a HILARIOUS joke about CHILD ABUSE, and it's still there on the science page . SemanticMantis (talk) 15:19, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Not any more. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:02, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

That kind of joke is like shooting fish in a barrel - never mind that nothing was ever proven. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 16:47, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

• As a point of fact, our guidelines already ask us to refrain from joking, period. I have added some words . The text now reads

And fair warning, I will now remove, without comment, any joke-as-first response that I see, as well as any joke that relates to abuse, sexism, racism, etc. SemanticMantis (talk) 20:25, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Fair enough. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 20:50, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

I support that. Matt Deres (talk) 14:20, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

I often remove jokes I see without comment, regardless of whether or not they are the first response or are racist or sexist. --Viennese Waltz 08:35, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Now that I would object to - can we stick to SemanticMantis' proposal? No humour at all would make the desks a far less pleasant place. I think jokes are certainly fair when attached to a legitimate answer. And perhaps even when they aren't, as long as they don't get in the way of the question getting answered, or involve racism, sexism, etc etc.

Also, SemanticMantis, "removing without comment" is fair, but please still include something to the effect as to your reasons for removal in the edit summary. Otherwise, I fear confusion may result. Eliyohub (talk) 14:14, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

• How about if we all made pages like this and used them when appropriate? ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:28, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
• STRONG SUPPORT I think SemanticMantis has an excellent point. We had one question, in which the first response was not only a joke, but one that would have triggered WP:BLP objections had the joke's subject been alive, and still managed to be off-topic and make light of alleged incidents of pedophilia at once. It was followed by a post by another editor who felt the need to plumb the depths of scatology in his second response, apparently because he didn't bother to read the reference he was citing and made an embarrassing mistake in his first answer.

I like jokes as much as the next editor, but on that one question, the whole informative value of the question and any on-topic answers was pretty much lost in the welter of pedophilia and butt jokes, and Apollo 11 conspiracy theory explained away as a humor attempt. Those of us who actually come here to ask and answer science questions have to fight for the reader's attention with - and SemanticMantis put it best - "humor attempts". I'd be willing to forgo jokes at all here in responses, it'd make serious answers more available to the eye of the reader. loupgarous (talk) 21:26, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

User:Vfrickey Thanks for your support. I have a confession to make. In the weeks since I made this post, I have made not one but two jokes, a rate of say 1/11 days, or 1/100 edits to the ref desk. In both cases, the question had already been well answered in my estimation, and in one case I was "thanked" for my contribution by another long-term editor, and also had another user jump in on the fun . Really, what happened there is that I was writing up a response very similar to Jayron's but he beat me to it, and while I didn't see the need to post a highly redundant answer. Like Jayron, I had made an assumption of which Raphael was meant, but when I considered other possibilities, I made myself chuckle, and caught up in the moment, I decided to share. I agree that we should keep joking to a minimum, and only after good refs have been posted. But if even an anti-humorist like me occasionally succumbs to temptation on occasion, I think a total ban on jokes would not get much traction. SemanticMantis (talk) 22:04, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

I like to crack the occasional joke, too, but I'm just no good at it, usually. That probably colors my attitude toward jocularity on the RefDesk. However, at some point we have to decide whether or not we're going to enforce the more substantive guideline that answers be encyclopedic in nature. It's confusing to me when someone cracks the whip on that guideline, then we all go back to treating RefDesk as the project's office water cooler.

That said, I think your suggestion's the best start toward making RefDesk a better resource for the people who come here for advice, and the rest of us who find the questions interesting. I personally try to restrict my activity here to what a reference desk librarian actually does - refer original posters to sources of information, with brief summaries of what information to look for when they're needed. When we get the occasional OP who wants his homework done or other reasoning done for free, I try to courteously point the OP to more specific sources of information, then drop the stick when it's clear the questioner isn't reading the material I suggested. That's hard enough without actually having to be amusing. But I do enjoy the humor here - you do it in the right proportions and at the right times. loupgarous (talk) 22:24, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Joining this rather late I am afraid. Like most other editors it seems, I would not be asking for a blanket ban on jokes, but, when they become disruptive to answering the question being asked, something needs to be done. There is a current example relating to the terminology of animals that eat meat. When I first read the post, I AGF and thought it was a joke. I now actually don't know whether it is a joke, or is simply wrong and misguiding readers. Perhaps we should develop a tag which states something like "This post is intended for humorous purposes and is not intended as a serious attempt to answer the OP question". (I think I have seen something like this, but I can't find it) The tag could be self-imposed by the joking editor, or placed by another editor and if there was disagreement this could go to the Talk page. DrChrissy 00:28, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Futurist110's "fears of fatherhood questions" getting worse

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

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

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

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

Yes; correct! After all, if I only consent to sex with a woman on the ?condition that she will not hunt me down for child support afterwards, then hunting me down for child support anyway would certainly be a case of her swindling me and absolutely nothing more than that! :( Frankly, government-sanctioned swindling certainly pisses me off like crazy! :( Futurist110 (talk) 20:15, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Of course not; after all, even vasectomy doctors themselves certainly don't have full confidence in their own shitty surgeries! :

https://np.reddit.com/r/legaladvice/comments/3x86il/would_a_written_promise_by_a_doctor_to_pay_all_of/ Futurist110 (talk) 20:15, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

If it's an unwanted child, then Yes, absolutely! :( Futurist110 (talk) 20:15, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

So, you want to topic-block me? :( Futurist110 (talk) 20:15, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Exactly the issue, he's attracted to "fertile/pre-menopausal" women, yet dreads even the remotest chance that he'll get one pregnant, and need to support the child. Eliyohub (talk) 13:12, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

There is one ancient and widely read account of post-menopausal pregnancy. (You may choose to view it, along with the rest of the book, as myth.) Robert McClenon (talk) 21:06, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

I am inclined to recommend a topic-ban. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:06, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Would I still be able to talk about this topic on other users' talk pages, though? Futurist110 (talk) 22:09, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

I would think not. Please see WP:NOTSOCIALNETWORK and WP:NOTTHERAPY. There are 100s to 1000s of places on the web where you can post whatever your want. Please avail yourself of them. MarnetteD|Talk 22:37, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

@Nil Einne: and @Jayron32:, both of you are experienced Wikipedians, I gather, and have answered such questions - what do you think we should do? I'm inexperienced in policy matters of this sort. I don't think answering the sorts of questions dealing with sending your testicles to a judge, or self harming in front of your child, will in any way deal with the underlying issue causing Futurist110 to ask such questions. So what action should we take? He seems to do a lot of other valuable work on Misplaced Pages, but his fixation with this fear is never-ending. Will we have to deal with such questions for years to come? What do you two think? Does Misplaced Pages have any mechanism for "community imposed topic bans", and if yes, what does policy say about imposing one in this sort of situation? Eliyohub (talk) 00:48, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose topic ban The questions seem to fall within Reference desk guidelines. 94.12 was a teenager back in the 60s, so what works for him might not necessarily work for Futurist110. 80.5.88.48 (talk) 06:55, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Abstinence works, no matter what era it's in. And how would you know an IP's age? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 10:55, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Probably by 80.5 remembering one or more of the times, due to relevance to a query and answer, that I've indicated my approximate age, which is currently 60. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.12.94.189 (talk) 21:17, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

• • Problem is, I think nothing we suggest or answer is going to help the slightest, this is not a normal problem, he needs professional help with this issue, not Misplaced Pages refdesk answers. Eliyohub (talk) 13:16, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
• Support topic ban on Futurist110 on reproductive questions (be they biological, legal, or social) on the Reference Desks, per the medical and legal disclaimers and WP:NOTTHERAPY. If the user is here for other purposes, this is fine. If any user's primary purpose is to be paranoid over having reproductive organs, they should be encouraged to find another site to do so on. Ian.thomson (talk) 07:06, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

• As the original proposer, I Support topic ban as per the terms suggested by Ian.thomson ("reproductive questions, be they biological, legal, or social"). These are specifically limited to the issue at hand, and should not affect Futurist110's ability to continue his work on Misplaced Pages, or even to ask questions about other unrelated topics on the refdesks. This issue of his around fatherhood fears is simply not one for us to deal with (it will never end, as it's not logical), and I'm surprised nobody seems to have suggested something be done about it before. Others have replied to past questions around fatherhood fears of Futurist110 by suggesting he should be seeing a therapist, but nobody seems to have suggested taking action to stop such questions. The latest batch, which, as I've mentioned, involve self-harming in the presence of one's child, or cutting off one's testicles and sending them to the judge who orders him to pay child support, have clearly crossed the line for me. We need to put a stop to this, he needs to take it elsewhere. (Personally, perhaps Psychforums would have members who would understand him, and be able to help?) The rest of his Misplaced Pages work does not seem problematic to my knowledge, just this one issue of his, which clearly requires skills we don't have, and things we don't do, in order to deal with. "Get professional help" seems to be the consensus answer when he asks these types of questions. @Robert McClenon: can you submit a formal vote a well, as per your earlier stated intentions to support this proposal? And @MarnetteD:, I suspect you'll vote "support" too, but whichever way, would appreciate your view. Also, both of you that I've pinged, are Ian's proposed terms of the topic-ban appropriate to deal with the issue? Personally, I think they're perfect, just asking if you have any input. Eliyohub (talk) 13:03, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
• Also, as a comment, my ideal outcome would be for Futurist110 himself to voluntarily agree to take questions of this nature ("reproductive questions, be they biological, legal, or social") elsewhere in the future (as in, not Misplaced Pages), so we can mark this "resolved", and move on. I don't like drama. Futurist110, any chance of you indulging us on this? Honestly, we can't help, and this isn't the place. I'm sure you can find other corners of the web to migrate your questions on these issues instead. Eliyohub (talk) 15:22, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

• Is sending one's deceased testicles (as a gift) to someone illegal?

...What the actual fuck? This is either intentional trolling or bald faced idiocy and neither is a valuable use of our time. Support topic ban. This should not require a lengthy debate, where the user patently ignores the issues being raised by other editors and repeatedly hijacks the thread so he can talk about his cock. Letting this thread continue only feeds the obvious troll. TimothyJosephWood 16:52, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Don't think it's either trolling or idiocy, more like insanity ("mental health issues" would be the modern politically correct way of putting it). Still, we need to put a stop to it. As per Misplaced Pages convention, how many more "support" votes do we need before I can ask WP:AN/I to accept that there is "consensus" here, and notify the user of their intent to enforce the topic ban? Eliyohub (talk) 17:49, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

I have posted a link to this discussion on ANI to solicit input from uninvolved editors. For future reference, if a discussion is explicitly about user misconduct and/or is seeking community sanctions, it should probably take place on ANI in its entirety, that or a related noticeboard like WP:ANEW, WP:COIN, etc. TimothyJosephWood 18:38, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

The basic problem is this. The reference desks have decided to create their own set of rules, and the administrators have decided to ignore them, thus leaving us toothless. Contrast this with the help desk, which follows Misplaced Pages's rules and gets all the help they need from the admins at ANI. Until we address this basic error and give up our custom rules, we will never solve our troll problem. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:35, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

True. One of the biggest issues was that a number of the "regulars" here don't actually contribute to the Ref Desk in the manner for which it was intended, instead offering anecdotal evidence or plain opinion. This has become endemic and now the Ref Desks are a place "not to go" to get the answers, hence they are regularly trolled by both vandals and regular users alike. It's a bit like the wild west, and it's not getting better, nor will it until some of the pointless responses and responders are excised. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:48, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Agreed, but it's clear that one or two TBANs would be required, and I don't see that happening. No matter how many times it's said, no matter in how many different ways, no matter by how many editors, those users are never going to get that the desks are not a place to hang out and engage in forum-like discussions. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:34, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Well it's up to people like you (who still appear to have an iota of faith in the ref desks) to kick this behaviour out. Or else consign them to history, mark them as "historic". Call out the disruptive users, hold them to task. Save the project. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:00, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

To be clear, I'm speaking of one or two regulars, who have been "called out" countless times to no effect. If regulars won't use the desks appropriately I certainly don't expect anyone else to. I don't think this Futurist is a regular, unless there has been a username change. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:18, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

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

And I'm pretty sure you've entirely missed my point. The question is not whether ANI is an appropriate venue for disruptive editing that takes place here. I stipulated that in the very first sentence of my post. The question is whether the TBAN (or any other sanction proposed here) is likely to be validated by the community at ANI. In part because of the issues raised by Guy and TRM above, I suspect it will not. The issue is that we can't just enforce idiosyncratic standards about who is going "too far off topic", when the fact of the matter is, as TRM correctly points out, that's a daily order of business here, as certain regulars routinely flout WP:NOTAFORUM to provide unsourced (and often unsourceable) opinion and wild speculation in answer to questions, or just veer off into random attenuated discussions about whatever. This desk was meant to provide references (the hint is in the name) to help people resolve their inquiries themselves, not an open forum to discuss any topic casually and scratch the ego-building itch of those who want to position themselves as AnswerMan/Woman, no matter how ill-prepared they are to respond to most of the inquiries they do, mostly without a single ref to back up their wandering commentary.

Now I differ from Guy on one small detail (while agreeing with his broader point): the no legal/medical advice provision is just plain good practice. It insulates the project from liability and helps protect people who ask questions here from those who leap to answer with very limited capacity to do so safely. That danger is not so great on other project spaces, where WP:NOTAFORUM is enforced more strictly, but it is absolutely vital here where people are encouraged to ask open-ended questions and some of our regulars are more than willing to venture speculative answers when they should know better. And you can bet that some of those contributors would eagerly do so on medical/legal questions where they could cause someone harm, if not for that rule. And many project spaces do create their own rules guiding contributions for that specific page, so I don't see the harm in doing so here, provided said rule aligns with Misplaced Pages and WMF policy. That said, taking this matter to ANI and asking that this user be topic banned from a certain line of inquiry because he is being supposedly "disruptive" is going to invite a very obvious question from ANI regulars and the broader community: "What makes it so disruptive? It looks like people are asking random, bizarre questions there every day, and it looks like the RefDesk contributors routinely engage over these questions with long-winded speculation without a single reference being mentioned. What is the Misplaced Pages behavioural or content policy that you wish to invoke here today that demonstrates Futurist's behaviour is disruptive?" Snow 20:54, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

And I'm pretty sure you've entirely missed my point. You assume that I even bothered to read you whole comment. I didn't. I came across a part of it that was obviously wrong and I commented on that.

What is the Misplaced Pages behavioural or content policy that you wish to invoke... Could you go back and quote to me where I said this guy should face sanctions? I seem to have completely forgotten saying anything to that effect... Oh wait, stop! I just remembered: I don't care. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:22, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

You implied that I said WP:Disruptive editing doesn't apply to RefDesks. I corrected you by pointing out that I didn't say or imply that in any way, shape or form. End of story. Snow 21:59, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Except that's exactly what you did: Which is a problem if you want to take this to ANI, because there are no community-wide behavioural policies that I can think of which prohibit Futurist's questions (at least none that would not prevent most other good-faith questions which would be disallowed on Misplaced Pages in general but are considered appropriate because of the unique role of this space), only our own local policies--the advisories at the top of the page. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:33, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Absolutely none of which is equivalent to saying "WP:Disruptive editing doesn't apply to RefDesks." Saying "be sure to have your ducks in a row when you do X" is not the same as saying "don't do X". You seem to have completely misinterpreted (in fact, reversed) my argument. Perhaps you should read an entire post before you leap to criticize it in broad terms? I'm not saying WP:Disruptive doesn't apply to the RefDesks or that ANI isn't the place to discuss sch disruption. In fact, my arguments hinge on saying the exact opposite of that. You read part of my comments (by your own admission), got an incomplete/flawed understanding of what I was advocating for and then went gung-ho on a terse reply. Slow your roll, please; you are deeply misunderstanding my stance. Snow 02:48, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Oh, I understand exactly what your stance is. I've just strongly implied that it doesn't match your words, and I think it's pretty obvious that some of those words were just plain wrong. I was literally trying to help, because you seemed to be looking for an answer to your question ("what policy vio can this guy be accused of that applies here?") and I happened to have that answer off the top of my head. When I did go back and thoroughly read your entire comment, nothing in it changed the meat of that point, which was that you asserted that this guy hasn't done anything which could be construed as a violation of policy, since the helpdesk is handled differently than other wikispaces. I understand how that contributed to your large point of advocating for broader reforms to the way this space is managed. But the way you phrased it left it resting upon a false assumption, and by providing an answer to that assumption I thought I could help you make a better case for advocating for broader reforms. Instead, you seemed to take it as an attack, as if I were specifically disagreeing with your main point, and proceeded to go on the attack, arguing against a position which I never stated. Let me offer you a tip: In the future, the phrase "Okay, I could have phrased that better," or "Sorry, I was trying to say..." or even "Well, yeah, but that doesn't change my point which is..." would go over a lot better than reacting argumentatively to a comment like mine. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:33, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Please, I'm not going to go in circles with you anymore on the question of whether my post was vague on whether you completely misinterpreted what I was advocating for because you rushed to a conclusion or I was vague in how I phrased things (though I will say it's pretty damn bold of you to take a hardline on that question when you made a point of saying that you didn't even both to read the whole post before you responded). And don't try to posture me as someone who made an incongruent statement and then couldn't handle a request for clarification. You made no such request; you used a passive aggressive "I'm pretty sure that..." comment to put words in my mouth that any casual observer would see was not even remotely close to what I actually said--had they bothered to read the full post. Which you didn't. Indeed, even if you had read the first sentence without pre-assumed assumption, you would have seen I was saying the opposite of what you claim I said. And I was perfectly civil in responding thereafter too, but you seem to have to keep revisiting this in such a way that you succeed in promoting the notion that you were in no way responsible for misunderstanding my comments, despite going out of your way to make a dismissive comment about having read only a small portion of my post... I leave my fellow editors to draw their own conclusions on who actually lost the plot here, if any of them care. But unless you have an actual substantive question about my position here, this line of discussion has ceased to be useful to the matter at hand, so respectfully, let's be done with it. Snow 03:19, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

I general give a lot of leeway on the refdesks, but isn't there a point where persistent questions of this sort cross the line, as Ian.thomson said, into WP:NOTHERE territory, or one those characteristics listed thereunder? Besides, we shouldn't be answering questions driven by mental issues, which require professional help. Eliyohub (talk) 21:06, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm skeptical of using WP:NOTHERE as a guide in these circumstances. Because the truth is that the vast, vast majority of inquiries made here are never used to improve the encyclopedia (which is what NOTHERE concerns); almost all of the inquiries come from a place of curiosity or other personal interest, and while the questions do sometimes lead regulars here to spot errors or shortcomings in our articles which they then correct, that is certainly the case only with a very small minority of RefDesk threads. So, the problem with invoking that provision against any one editor is that most of the RefDesk activity could be fairly classified as WP:NOTHERE. Now I'd reluctantly support a rule that said that all inquiries must be at least tangentially related to editorial work (I hate that it's come to that, but the lack of self-restraint in some of our fellow contributors here make it an attractive option at this point). Or, perhaps more pragmatic, a condition that all assertions made in RefDesk responses require sourcing (same as would occur in article space). But until such rules exist, I don't see the NOTHERE argument going over well at ANI, given it would seem we are picking and choosing when it applies based on idiosyncratic standards, not community policy. Snow 21:19, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure this requires a thesis or an opinion on the grand scheme of the ref desks. We have a user who is asking about very possibly illegal behavior, appears to be in the habit of soliciting medical and legal advice, and doesn't seem to care that others have taken issue with that as inappropriate. If you want to affect the grand scheme of the ref desks, you do it by addressing individual trolls and telling them to WP:SODOFF. TimothyJosephWood 21:24, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Two big and interconnected problems with that. First, there will always be another troll/genuinely deranged person to come along and exhibit these behaviours. Second, admins are not going to help us enforce our topic bans if we can't supply them with reasons which comport with general policy as vetted by the broader community. As Guy pointed out, our idiosyncratic rules are generally not going to be seen as legitimate community-sanctioned reasons to block someone, especially given how inconsistently they are applied. We may get lucky on this one, maybe not, but why not address the underlying issues instead and position the desks to avoid these matters altogether, while streamlining the process for blocking legitimate trolls by bringing it line with the broader policies of this project? Snow 21:34, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

I agree that most stuff on the refdesks is unrelated to article improvement. What I meant is, go read NOTHERE, it lists specific problematic behaviours and attitudes. No mention of "article improvement", just generally problematic behaviours and agendas. Do none of those apply here to what Futurist is doing with these sorts of persistent questions? Eliyohub (talk) 21:26, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Maybe, but you'd have to tell me which provisions you think would, because none of them stands out as a smoking gun to me (or distinguish how Futurist's inquiries are disruptive, where other personal inquiries are not). And whether the exact phrase "content improvement" is used or not, the full title of WP:NOTHERE is "Clearly not being here to build an encyclopedia", so I'd say it is very much focused on the issue of whether an editor is ultimately here for that purpose. WP:NOTNOTHERE provides some further guidance. Again, just for clarity, I'm not making the argument for whether Futurist is or is not NOTHERE; I'm just pointing out that, if we invoke NOTHERE in this instance, non-RefDesk regulars at ANI or other community spaces are going to ask the very pointed question of why we want to designate Futurist as NOTHERE, when there is so much other random discussion and participation in is not so-classified, despite also never going towards improving the article. Snow 21:45, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

I don't think NOTHERE is applicable, since a NOTHERE ban should probably never result in anything less that an indefinite block. If there is a systemic issue, you address it like you do everything else. There will always be vandals, and you deal with them by blocking them as they arise, not by deferring action until some messianic policy proposal is formulated that will end vandalism forever. TimothyJosephWood 22:10, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

We're more in agreement there than you seem to assume. NOTHERE doesn't apply to this case really (or if it does, it applies to a great portion of other RefDesk activity and that issue must be addressed, rather than calling out just one editor because his posts happen to be a little creepy in addition to being NOTHERE to the same degree as those of many other contributors). But you're very vague when you say "If there is a systemic issue, you address it like you do everything else.". I'm not waiting for any kind of "messianic" new policy; I'm happy to accept an existing Misplaced Pages policy which clearly explains why Futirist's actions are disruptive, under established community consensus (not just "he creeps us out"). And to the extent that any such policy explanation is likely to impute a large number of contributions made by others in this space as well, it needs to be made consistent and applied equally to all users. My point is that we have two options here: create a new broad standard, or apply the old broad standards equally. I have not seen any policy argument anywhere in this thread which shows me that there is community consensus for treating Futurist differently from other editors where they exhibit the same behaviours, simply because we are unsettled by his apparent obsession. Snow 22:35, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

The applicable guideline is WP:DISRUPT. The argument you are making is that because the ref desk is poorly enforced, it is de facto safe from enforcement, and it only serves to prop up the problem you yourself raise. TimothyJosephWood 00:01, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

WP:Disrupt is an umbrella principle. You still need to specify what behaviour the user engaged in and which specific behavioural or content policies it violates; if you doubt that, go to the ANI archives and see just how many successful calls for action there have been based on the assertion "This user has been disruptive!" with no further context or description of how they violated policy. You keep posturing your perspective as the "pragmatic" one, and seemingly suggesting the rest of us are just bureaucratic wikilayers who are overcomplicating what (to your mind) is a straightforward call. But there's nothing pragmatic about trying to get an editor sanctioned without a specific policy argument about specific behavioural violations, because no admin is going to block on a vague assertion of "disruptive", nor is the community going to apply a TBAN under those circumstances. That's not blind devotion to process, that's simply reality--if you want to talk about pragmatics. If you want to suggest specific policies that Futurist has supposedly violated as a means of proving he has been disruptive, and you want to apply them equally to all contributors, I'm all eyes. But I haven't seen those arguments yet anywhere in this discussion. Snow 02:09, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose topic ban until such a time that similarly disruptive and non-productive and non-encyclopedic edits from some regular ref desk "contributors" are addressed. Treat the causes, not the symptoms. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:35, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

We still need to decide about hatting such questions. Should we allow questions clearly driven by mental disturbance to stand? Eliyohub (talk) 21:41, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, just to clarify, are accusing an editor of having a "mental disturbance"? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:42, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Oh, sorry, should have phrased things better. Sorry for the policy violat. I'll cop my first ever block if need be. But yes, when someone talks about chopping off their testicles and sending them to the judge who ordered them to pay child support, perhaps I did make that assumption. How do I atone for this? I am sorry. Eliyohub (talk) 21:49, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

No, it's fine, whatever someone else has said is all very well, but you are accusing another editor of having a "mental disturbance", yes? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:59, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Mea Culpa, sorry, though note others expressing similar sentiments on this editor, I should have been more sensitive in my choice of words. Eliyohub (talk) 22:10, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

If those questions involve even the shade of a request for legal or medical advice, they should be hatted immediately, in my opinion, as inconsistent with the conditions clearly set out in the guidelines for this page. If they are merely questions which one finds indicative of a "disturbed" mind, editors should feel encouraged to ignore them, but they should not be removed unless they violate prohibitions found in our rules or in broader community consensus/policy. Again, I'd love it if we had rules that explicitly say that questions have to be tied to editorial work, since WP:NOTAFORUM is regularly abused here, but the fact of the matter is, we don't have those rules at present. Snow 21:54, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

It does feel that I unwittingly unleashed a can of worms with my original post. If Futurist posts any more "fatherhood fears" questions (assuming no medical or legal advice is requested), may I civilly reply by explaining to other contributors the history here, and why answering is pointless? Eliyohub (talk) 22:02, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Well, context is everything, right? In most cases, I wouldn't call you out for it, but take that with a grain of salt--perspectives are likely to vary on this matter, as TRM's responses above suggests. It might be better to just ignore. Everyone is volunteering their time here and can choose which questions they think are worth answering, based on the merits of the question itself and what they know about the matter/what sources they can supply. Provided that there is no violation of the legal/medical advice proscription (even a small one) and Misplaced Pages policy broadly, I'm not sure the motivation matters all too much. Snow 22:10, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Tu quoque does not appear to be a policy based argument against community sanctions. I don't really hang out at the ref desk, but it occurs to me that this argument doesn't appeal to a reform of the area at all, but rather reinforces it as a safe space for users to engage in behavior not at all connected with building an encyclopedia. TimothyJosephWood 22:04, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Tu non quoque also seems to be an easy way to get out of a difficult situation. Deal with the problems, stop picking the low-hanging fruit. Your tacit acceptance of the ongoing issues with regulars at the Ref Desk is very much removed from how to build an encyclopedia, absolutely in conflict with how to manage a Ref Desk, completely at odds with creating and engendering a community. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:11, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

I happen to think that low hanging fruit is exactly the right place to start addressing a large problem. As an enlisted man, I have a bias toward solutions that are practical. TimothyJosephWood 00:36, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Are you really certain that your approach is more practical? Is it really more pragmatic to play "whack-a-troll" and open an ANI thread every time someone displays an obsession here? Or does it make more sense to establish a standard wherein disruptive threads are immediately closed (per WP:DENY) when they violate policy or the RefDesk guidelines? Bearing in mind, of course, that this is not necessarily an either/or situation. Snow 02:36, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

I understand what you are getting at here, but remember that we have to work within the framework of broader Misplaced Pages policy, and apply said policy equally to all contributors. Can you clearly describe to me the behavioural/content policy argument under which Futurist should be topic banned for disruption, in a way that does not apply equally to any number of other activities that take place here for which contributors are not topic banned? If so, I can endorse; if not, I'll wait for broader rules which apply to everyone and solve the issue at its source. Snow 22:16, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

I do understand, from both a fairness and policy perspective, the need to apply rules consistently And yet... I suspect if we could remove the 10% of contributors who consistently cause the most issues, the problems would drop by 70% or more? Eliyohub (talk) 22:47, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Sure, I agree. I'm just not sure that making a distinction between those two classes of editors is all that easy, given the current (and longstanding) state of affairs at the RefDesk. If you want an admin to block an editor or if you want to apply a TBAN, you need to prove that said editor has been WP:Disruptive. If you want to prove that an editor has been disruptive, you have to appeal to violations of other behavioural or content policies. I just haven't seen those arguments here. And to the extent that I can imagine said arguments taking this or that form, they very clearly apply just as equally to much of what goes on here as they do to Futurist. Myself, I'm happy to see our restriction on legal/medical requests/opinions strictly applied here. But it seems to me that the most efficient way to make sure that rule is applied is to make sure they regulars who routinely answer these questions (when they know the rule) begin to tow the line on an important principle. Because someone else will be along to do exactly what Futurist is doing in asking these questions, and admins will be skeptical of blocking those users too, while we allow regulars to continue to engage on the same matters.

In short, maybe your proposed solution of shutting down people who ask these questions will improve the situation. But enforcing our rule against medical/legal inquiries by closing threads that make them on sight will accomplish that same end much more absolutely, and will have the added benefit of making our calls for administrative action consistent with policy and with themselves, meaning admins will actually act to support us. But it will mean holding to account those regulars who don't want to follow that rule. Still, there are far less of them than there are trolls/vandals/those who just don't get out rules out there. Snow 23:05, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

I think it's a bit WP:pointed editing to resist all consensus until a comprehensive solution to all problems is devised and implemented.

But, I also don't think formal administrator-enforced bans are necessarily needed. If there was a consensus here that these posts are inappropriate, and should be stopped, likely the user would stop making them. (If he didn't, then that would be strong evidence of disruptive intent when it did eventually go to ANI, which is important, because involved admins tend to have difficulty seeing what is and is not disruptive in this strange little enclave of Misplaced Pages.) ApLundell (talk) 23:08, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose any sanction. Futurist seems to have an abnormal fixation on something, and I think he should get over it. But there are other Misplaced Pages editors who have fixations on other things ... there are a remarkable number of people who know more about railroading than I know about everything, and I like to think I know a lot. I would like to tell the pro wrestling editors no, just stop.... I'd rather have Futurist asking awkward questions than people starting awkward admin processes. Maybe one day he will invent a great new male contraceptive and show us all we were the puny minds. Wnt (talk) 23:38, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

And since this comment makes basically no sense, and even less of a point, it should probably be ignored. If this is emblematic of how the ref desk works, then it's even more reason to start fixing that with the task that is in front of us. TimothyJosephWood 23:52, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

There are people who come here to answer science questions, and there are people who come here to harangue us with strange reasons why some or all participants should be made afraid to speak. It is the latter who need to be ignored. Wnt (talk) 01:38, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Excuse me if I'm wrong, but neither are the purpose of Misplaced Pages unless they relate to the improvement of the project. TimothyJosephWood 01:45, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

If the questions had been strictly what-if questions without the (too much) personal information, would they still be considered disruptive? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 01:48, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Would it be any less a thinly veiled attempt at asking advice on committing the definitely illegal act of harassment against a government official?..not to mention the definitely illegal act of transporting an unmarked biohazard through the USPS? TimothyJosephWood 01:57, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

I would say that those particular items you cite are not appropriate ref desk questions. I'm talking more in general terms. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 02:24, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Which is exactly why we need editors to take the restriction on asking for legal/medical advice more seriously here, and WP:DENY any discussion about such matters by closing the thread immediately. Snow 02:40, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

To be clear here, we're talking about an editor asking advice about cutting off his testicles and sending them in a package to a judge. If there is conceivably a less nuanced situation, I would love to be enlightened. TimothyJosephWood

• Oppose any formal sanction at this time, because this is so thoroughly not the venue to be deciding such action. —Steve Summit (talk) 03:48, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

OK guys enough - I'm sorry I started this mess, I withdraw my request for any topic banning of Futurist (though I hope that of his own understanding of our concerns, he voluntarily take questions driven by this problem of his elsewhere). It's clear that as things stand, we can do no more than enforce bans on discussion of legal or medical questions. Developing rules and policies to deal with questions of this sort in the future (from any editor) will take work - hard work. I accept Wnt's view about "awkward admin processes", and will look for other ways to deal with this instead. A discussion as to developing policy in this area is vital, IMHO, but I accept that as it stands, no policy exists. Sorry for starting a discussion which ended in such messy drama. At some point in the future, we need to discuss the general policy issues this matter has raised. Eliyohub (talk) 04:17, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

You may wish to share your decision to change approach at the ANI thread so that they know the party that first proposed the ban has rescinded their support for it for the time. Given discussion has only barely been touched upon there, the thread will likely be closed with no action if you do so, but no guarantee; ANI contributors may have already taken enough interest to keep the matter open. I tend to doubt it, though. Mostly the community doesn't push unless someone is really advocating for an action. Snow 06:54, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

• I'm pretty disappointed in the tone of this entire discussion, and I'll simply say that if we make it our policy in practice to entertain and defend users who post about doing things that are illegal and potentially harmful, when we have even the slightest reason to take them seriously, then we are setting ourselves up to find diffs on a court transcript, because someone, at some point, is going to act on their impulses. The same goes for tolerating editors who actively solicit for medical and legal advice. That the subject may be bizarre just makes it a better story for the media.

The only correct response in such a situation is to advice editors to seek independent professional counseling from someone who is licensed or qualified in the applicable area in lieu of acting on any information, opinion, or advice contained in one of the Project websites, and to ensure that that is the end of the discussion, period. Any other course of action is wrong, and if we are wrong we need to fix ourselves. TimothyJosephWood 13:15, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Can I clarify, are Misplaced Pages:Reference_desk/Guidelines and Misplaced Pages:Talk page guidelines (the first of these explicitly says the second applies too) the relevant rules here? Should we discuss of either needs updating or expanding to deal with these sorts of issues? Besides for the rules against legal and medical advice, they seem to be the only sources of guidance for "refdesk-specific" expectations. I know they're only guidelines, not policies, but it seems like they're all that we have to guide us as to this? The refdesk is quite a different place to the rest of Misplaced Pages, and yes, we need some clear minimum expectations. I know there is a lot of debate as to the exact boundaries of what is acceptable on the refdesk, but the guidelines should be a starting point, shouldn't they? As far as refdesk-specific guidance, they're all we've got, correct?, And nothing in the way of refdesk-specific policy (besides the legal and medical advice bans, which presumably apply to all of Misplaced Pages, it's just that the refdesk is where they become most practically pertinent)? Is this an issue that needs addressing? I, personally, do not want to see this kind of thing go on in the future. I'd like any questions of the sort which reasonably suggest the OP needs serious professional help (even if it's not "medical" or "legal" - though I consider mental health issues of this sort to fall under "medical") hatted immediately. Note the answers given to the questions, namely "you need help". We should hat such questions on that basis (with that given as the stated reason for the hatting), would you agree? Can guidelines be changed to allow this? Note this does not apply to Futurist alone, but also all others like him, both current and future. Hopefully, that would stop this kind of thing, without the need to take action against individual editors. Might this work as a "solution" to the general issue? Eliyohub (talk) 13:32, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Procedural notice: IBAN discussion needs to take place at ANI

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

Misplaced Pages is not a bureaucracy. ANI has been notified of this discussion, and notified that the continuation of this discussion here rather than there, is an invocation of WP:IAR. TimothyJosephWood 03:01, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you are citing WP:BURO at me over an action you initiated, but I am only placing this note here as a consequence of the discussion you started at ANI (which no one objects to). Per the discussion there and WP:CBAN, this is not an appropriate place for a TBAN discussion, and I assumed that was why you opened the discussion at ANI in the first place. That's not to say that anyone should feel compelled to repeat their perspective there, unless they choose to, but letting everyone know the state of affairs is appropriate... Snow 06:49, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

• Prior to this discussion, had anyone politely asked Futurist to stop asking these types of questions? --Jayron32 17:26, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Note my comment above, where I aspired to exactly this outcome from this discussion - that Futurist voluntarily agree to cease and desist, and we could mark this matter "resolved". As it happens, I said the same on your talk page, when asking for your input. I don't know if anyone explicitly said "please stop asking these kinds of questions" before, but many pointed out that there was something wrong with his obsessions, quite a while back. Perhaps I should have explicitly put the request on his talk page to stop any such questions, though I don't know if it would have worked. I did point out on his talk page (before beginning this discussion) the pathological nature of his fears, as have others in responses to his questions. Perhaps I should have been more specific. It's just that his latest batch are a lot worse than the previous ones (see his edit history), so perhaps I was too hasty in raising the issue here, rather than asking him directly to cease and desist. But yes, if he agrees to take it elsewhere, the issue with him can be deemed "resolved". This discussion has progressed to other problematic refdesk contributors, but this is a separate issue. Eliyohub (talk) 19:03, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

• I think this discussion ought to be viewed as Futurist110's warning that he's going to be discussed on ANI, and actual deliberation regarding bans or other sanctions be pursued there. We all need to drop the stick and decide as more experienced editors not to respond further to his questions on this topic. We're not allowed to advise him medically, and family planning is medical advice. There are other objections to indulging Futurist110 in discussions on this topic, and others have covered them, so I don't have to. Ignoring his further questions on this topic's the best course, because it deprives him of what he so obviously craves - attention of other editors. loupgarous (talk) 21:41, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Putting him aside, there's the much tougher question discussed here of drawing up some sort of refdesk policy, so in future issues of this nature (involving other editors), steps can be taken. At the moment we have none, resulting in the desks being somewhat chaotic. AN/I admin says, none of the usual rules cover the desks, so they can't really do anything, we need to deal with it ourselves. (I got the perception that the admin thought the refdesks were an odd part of Misplaced Pages, and he may well be right). Note the mention above of to additional problematic contributors (long-term ones) who Mandrass feels need topic-banning. The lack of policy leaves us toothless, and admins can't enforce non-existent rules. Do we have anyone here who's willing to take the lead in policy development? I have absolutely zero experience in the area. I would prefer we start relatively minimalist, and we can build from there. Is this a possibility? Eliyohub (talk) 21:56, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm afraid the Ref Desks are too engrossed in navel gazing, they do seem keen to protect their own, despite some of them offering very little other than personal opinion (oftentimes wrong), and that's resulted in the project being held in relative ridicule. You don't have to look far to find regular users who feel obliged to answer almost every question posed despite having no idea how to do so encyclopedically. Until this is corrected, there's no point in singling out the odd extreme user, you have a defunct project on your hands until you can create a genuine Reference Desk atmosphere. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:01, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

The Rambling Man, I broadly agree with your analysis (even though I myself am not infrequently guilty of being less than purely encyclopedic). However, somewhere in the extended discussion above, and not for the first time, the idea has been expressed that the RefDesks' primary purpose is to "improve the Project", i.e. the quality of articles on Misplaced Pages, and that queries and answer that do not contribute to this should not be here – WP:NOTHERE has been invoked.

Near the head of the RefDesk Project Page is this advice to users:

"The Misplaced Pages reference desk works like a library reference desk. Ask a question here and Misplaced Pages volunteers will try to answer it".

Neither this nor anything else on the page implies a purpose of "improving Misplaced Pages", and while improvements to articles do sometimes arise as a result of RefDesk exchanges, which is of course a good thing, it is scarcely surprising that most users take the advice at face value to ask factual (or sometimes not) questions, and most regular or occasional respondents usually (though perhaps not usually enough) attempt to answer them with the aid of reference to material in or sources beyond Misplaced Pages.

If in fact the community feel that "improving the Project", and not answering users' factual queries, is the purpose of the RefDesks, then the advice sited and the overall presentation of the RefDesks need to be extensively amended. If however the latter purpose seems valuable, perhaps we need to set up a new and different "Improve the Project" function, more explicitly labelled and designed as such: if done well (and I don't claim to have the expertise to do so) it might encourage and facilitate more focussed activity on Article improvement than currently takes place. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.12.94.189 (talk) 23:17, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Eliyohub, I think we have the rudiments of a policy evolving in this discussion:

• Warn problematic users when their questions are abusing the RefDesk (whether it's attention-seeking, ranting on various topics, or good old-fashioned trolling) that if they persist in a specific problem behavior, that will become a discussion topic in AN/I (and I see your point that Admins are reluctant to get into our issues, but that's actually a 'feature' to prevent us taking every little thing to them).
• Initiate an AN/I discussion if such abuse becomes well-defined and problematic enough to merit sanctions. Again, this ought to be behavior that's (a) repeated despite courteous warnings and (b) where every instance has a common feature - either an unacceptable category of question or offensive behavior of another sort which is disruptive to the users and editors in RefDesk.
• We ought to have a template that asks editors to ignore repeated problematic behavior by a user, and whether the admins act or not, use that template. We can't enforce a consensus to ignore this kind of behavior, but if the admins can't or won't act, that's as good as it gets.

Please note that I'm focusing on the behavior, not the user. I've noticed that on Administrator Notice Board that even conscientious editors can have bad days, or in some cases, whole bad weeks.

My first introduction to another editor who most people agree has done very good work for many years was her characterization of my edits as "shit" that needed to be "cleaned up", followed by a template on my user page alleging edit-warring (when such was not my intent). Stung, I went on ANI about what at worst was a WP:CIVIL issue and got schooled, big-time. I adjusted my attitude after a few weeks off the project, and I've even defended this same editor in ANI and other fora when I thought she was right. The moral: focus on the behavior, not the user. Not only does that steer us away from drama of all sorts, it's a good way to make sure we keep editors in the project and don't reward bad behavior with more attention. Dissecting users publicly with personal remarks and even unqualified assessments of their psychiatric status is counterproductive - but if we focus on their behavior, there's a decent chance we can get the editor to stop the behavior we don't like before anyone has to bother the admins. loupgarous (talk) 23:07, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. I think I'm going to give up on accomplishing any significant change here. Did you notice how much I've backed off in this discussion, even though I (stupidly) initiated it, even explicitly dropping my topic-ban request. The admin at AN/I fairly said that he himself had tried to effect change here before, to no avail. He said "it's notoriously difficult to effect change in walled gardens". So I'm mostly backing off. I will simply take your advice to ignore inappropriate questions in the future. But yes, a template of some sort may be handy. I was the idiot who unleashed a can of worms here, I hope some good can come out of all this drama. Others please take up the torch, I think Vfrickey is on the right track. Minimalist. Eliyohub (talk) 23:56, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

You got me re-directed away from one user's abuse of RefDesk to the more important issue of our lack of a policy toward the generic problem. That was very useful. So I wouldn't beat myself up too badly, you definitely got discussion started and may ultimately be have supplied the seed around which a consensus grows, if it does. I sure wouldn't, if I were you, grow despondent because we don't have immediate consensus on this. I like minimalist solutions, but policies have their place, too.

It's not often we have a user who comes back again and again with a "question" or line of "questions" which really constitute bids for attention (on in the case of one user I won't name, some unsubtle exposition of the person's sexual activity, gender identity and desire to make complex psychotropic organic chemicals at home beyond the ambit of "asking questions at the reference desk"). After a while, they get bored with us here at the RefDesk and open a redlightcenter.com account or something. loupgarous (talk) 01:09, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

I have never watched Game of Thrones (or followed Harry Potter) but I wonder if Futurist110's question was inspired by this. 80.5.88.48 (talk) 10:00, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

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

Questions about rapid transit

On which desk should I ask general questions about the history and/or operating characteristics of various rapid transit systems (by "general" I mean questions other than ones like "What's the best way to get from Station A to Station B?" or "Would I get a good view of Building X from elevated line Y?")? 2601:646:8E01:7E0B:F88D:DE34:7772:8E5B (talk) 10:19, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

If uncertain, post it on "Miscellaneous". ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 18:36, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

If you're interested in the engineering features of rail links might I suggest the Science desk? 86.151.49.189 (talk) 06:13, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Sure, and if it's about, say, how government funding and social support affects transit, humanities may be more appropriate. SemanticMantis (talk) 19:57, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Ref Desk removal (Trump Versus the World)

, removed by General Ization.

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

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

Ref Desk removal (Drug mushroom)

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

, removed by The Rambling Man

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

Should be summarily removed and denied. We're not in the business of telling people how to go about risking their lives for a high. Recognise such threads and deny them. Also, lack of understanding of WP:3RR means this "user" needs to get more of a clue before continuing in this style. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:29, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

I remember you now StuRat, you're the one who answers just about every single thread on every single Ref Desk without giving any citations or references, and in most cases without any knowledge of the subject matter. Why do you do that? The Rambling Man (talk) 22:48, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

I give plenty of refs. See this current Ref Desk page: . But, in any case, this is all quite besides the point, as it has nothing to do with your removal. StuRat (talk) 23:01, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

I don't agree with this removal; Jayron answered it well. Medeis' comments should be reverted/flagged as vandalism, etc. Matt Deres (talk) 22:54, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Medeis' responses were sarcastic, aimed at an OP who's asking how to do something that's likely illegal. Jayron's answer was factual, but anyone can look for mushrooms here. All in all, removing the whole shebang is probably the best option. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 23:54, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

You can't look for them directly without knowing the name, which seems to have been the case for the OP. StuRat (talk) 01:14, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

See Mushroom#Psychoactive mushrooms. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 01:24, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Wow, that must have been way beyond our OP to look at the "mushroom" article. The thread encouraged trolling and was basically pointless. Perhaps one day the RD regulars will do something about their trolls and make the RDs a useful place. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:59, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Jayron's response was factual with references and should not have been deleted. Medeis's response was inappropriate. Gandalf61 (talk) 09:24, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Well considering several editors have thanked me for removing the thread, himself included, I think this debate is a complete waste of time. Focus on getting the trolls off the project. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:32, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

So that we can all see the whole picture, can you give a link to where Jayron has thanked you for removing that thread ? Or was this in a private communication ? Thanks. Gandalf61 (talk) 10:24, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

They probably clicked the thank button, which I don't think can be replicated by way of a link. --Viennese Waltz 10:37, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Actually, it can: Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:41, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Bingo. Now move on to other stuff, stop wasting time here, and stop feeding the trolls. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:03, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Oh, rubbish. You have no power here. Begone, before somebody drops a house on you. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 15:06, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

No-one has "power" here, but at least one or two of us work to improve the place while others just use it as an alternative to social media. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:09, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Where the ref desk is concerned, you're not on that list. You're merely a nattering nabob of negativism. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 15:11, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

I also don't agree with the removal. It was a legitimate question. The RefDesk has never had a policy of forbidding questions that are about activities that are illegal in some regions. In fact, if you ask about something exciting and interesting, like hiding a body, you'll get an enthusiastic response, even though that would be decidedly illegal in all regions.

Moreover I especially don't agree with the automatic assumption of people who ask questions we don't like as trolls. Are you seriously denying that this is information many people want? Of course not. Then why assume that the person who asked the question isn't one of the people who want the information? ApLundell (talk) 15:03, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

There was more than one troll at work. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:04, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

I very much doubt the WMF would approve of ref desk users giving questioners how-to advice on illegal activities, especially activities illegal within its region. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 15:43, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

How do you know it's illegal in the OP's jurisdiction? --Viennese Waltz 16:18, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

How do you know it isn't? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 16:33, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

In any case, they are generally illegal in the English-speaking world, according to Legal status of psilocybin mushrooms. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 16:36, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

The point, as Jayron correctly pointed out, is that we don't know whether they are legal in the OP's jurisdiction (which may be Bangladesh). Given that we don't know, we should not be deleting it for being illegal. --Viennese Waltz 16:45, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

It's illegal in the US, which is where the WMF is based, last I heard. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 16:46, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Irrelevant. What matters is whether it's legal in the OP's jurisdiction. --Viennese Waltz 16:48, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Says who? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 16:50, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

It's simple common sense. --Viennese Waltz 16:52, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Common sense is that the WMF doesn't want to approve anything which could get it in legal trouble in its own jurisdiction. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 16:54, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

I have asked Jimbo Wales for his opinion on the matter, since he is likely to be closer to these matters than you or I. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 16:57, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

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

Note that I am only referring to removing information on things because they are illegal in the US. Removing material because it is obvious trolling is another matter entirely. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:09, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Further clarification: It is proper to remove material from Misplaced Pages that is itself illegal (child porn and copyright violations, for example). Giving how-to advice on illegal activities is not illegal in the United States. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:12, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

If I was certain of my take on it, I wouldn't be asking Wales about it. But until we know for sure, I'm on TRM's side on this matter. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 17:42, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

That's why I asked Wales for his opinion. He's likely to better know where the legal boundaries are than you or I do. In fact, there's already an article on psychedelic mushrooms, which I linked to earlier. As regards the appropriateness of the original question and its responses, you can slug that out with TRM. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 17:04, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Here is your answer: There exists no US law that makes providing how-to information about illegal activities illegal. There exists no Misplaced Pages or WMF policy that prohibits providing how-to information about illegal activities. You won't get a different answer from Jimbo. I predict that he will ignore your question, as he has ignored countless similar questions from editors who clearly will only accept certain answers. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:53, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

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

I've not yet had an answer to my question on why this question-asker was assumed to be a troll. A troll, in this context, is someone who asks a question he's not interested in the answer. It's a well known fact that many people want this information, and many people would unashamedly ask for it, so how was it determined that this person was not one of them?

As assuming good faith is one of the pillars, I don't think my question about good faith is an inappropriate. (Especially when asked by a known long-term contributor to the ref-desk.) ApLundell (talk) 20:03, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

The original question was posted by 116.58.205.128 (talk · contribs), who has just the one entry asking for help in an activity that's illegal in most of the English speaking world. The IP geolocates to Bangladesh, where it's not illegal, but there's no way to know for sure where the IP user really is. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 20:37, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

I don't think one question makes the OP a troll. So I don't understand who TRM is referring to when he shouts about trolls above. Gandalf61 (talk) 06:16, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

My post above was deleted by TRM. I have restored my post and reopened the thread, because there is an ongoing discussion here and this is the correct forum for that discussion. TRM - I understand you have strong views on this subject but that is really no excuse for your frequent rudeness and incivility. Gandalf61 (talk) 09:16, 22 February 2017 (UTC)xxx

This discussion has been closed multiple times. There's really no excuse at all for you to keep edit warring to keep it open. It's not helping anything or anyone, least of all you. Oh, and while you're in the mood to criticise me and accuse me of being "incivil", why not apply some consistency and discuss the personal attacks on me, e.g. "a nattering nabob of negativism"? Because you cherry-pick who you want to have a go at, right? The Rambling Man (talk) 09:21, 22 February 2017 (UTC)