Misplaced Pages

talk:Reference desk: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 02:25, 16 May 2017 editElmer Clark (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users7,443 editsm →Why has the RD become so quick to hat people's questions?: word← Previous edit Revision as of 02:31, 16 May 2017 edit undoIan.thomson (talk | contribs)58,562 edits →Why has the RD become so quick to hat people's questions?Next edit →
Line 276: Line 276:
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? -] (]) 02:20, 16 May 2017 (UTC) 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? -] (]) 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 ], with no rationale either in his edit summary or in the discussion besides "hatting the whole damn thing already." -] (]) 02:25, 16 May 2017 (UTC) :I should also point out that it was neither Medeis nor Baseball_Bugs who actually hatted the question, but ], with no rationale either in his edit summary or in the discussion besides "hatting the whole damn thing already." -] (]) 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. ] (]) 02:31, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Revision as of 02:31, 16 May 2017

Skip to the bottom Shortcut

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.
Archiving icon
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.


Requests for Legal Advice

There seems to be a lot of uncertainty as to what constitutes a request for legal advice. Right now I see that the question WP:RD/H#Can you successfully sue an insurance company for breach of contract if they sell you an insurance contract which is contrary to public policy and then refuse to pay up? has been twice hatted, although it clearly is not a request for legal advice (this is clear from the text of the question, not the heading; the requestor wants to discuss insurable interest). Meanwhile, WP:RD/H#Visas eligibility to USA remains unhatted, although it's a clear request for legal advice. And this issue comes up frequently.

"Fundamentally, legal advice involves the interpretation and application of legal principles to guide future conduct or to assess past conduct." In re County of Erie, 473 F.3d 413, 419 (2d Cir. 2007). In other words, a request for legal advice is a question about past or future legal consequences that apply to the requestor, or to someone close to the requestor. Questions about laws, regulations, contracts, or government forms typically would be requests for legal advice, if the question has application to the requesting poster, or to a friend, family member, or controlled company of the requesting poster. On the other hand, general questions about legal principles are not requests for legal advice.

Currently we include the following in the Reference Desk Guidelines: "The reference desk is not a place to seek professional advice on medical or legal matters, nor analyses, diagnoses or solutions to questioners' health or legal problems, and responses that could be construed as such must not be given. However, general medical and legal questions ("What treatments are used for diabetes?", "Which countries recognize common law marriages?") are fine. Questions that ask for medical, legal or other professional advice may be removed and replaced with a message (such as {{RD-deleted}}) pointing to these guidelines. For further information, see Misplaced Pages:Reference desk/Guidelines/Medical advice." I would suggest revising this as follows:

  • "The reference desk is not a place to seek professional advice on medical or legal matters, and responses that could be construed as such must not be given. Any question that solicits a diagnosis, a prognosis, or a suggested treatment, is a request for medical advice. Any question that solicits guidance on the application of legal principles, laws, regulations, or contracts to the requestor, or to a person or entity with whom the requestor has a personal relationship, is a request for legal advice. However, general medical and legal questions ("What is sleep apnea?", "What is the role of the U.S. President in making laws?") are fine. Questions that ask for medical, legal or other professional advice may be removed and replaced with a message (such as {{RD-deleted}}) pointing to these guidelines. For further information, see Misplaced Pages:Reference desk/Guidelines/Medical advice." John M Baker (talk) 17:22, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
The best way to handle requests for legal advice is:
  • Get rid of all of the special rules 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.
  • Let the administrators do their job.
Note that those reference desk guidelines are exactly what I am talking about when I say "Get rid of all of the special rules that only apply to the refdesks and which the admins refuse to enforce". What we are doing is not working. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:18, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
While there is much I agree with in Guy's comment, the implication is that we should not have guidelines for the Reference Desk and, I assume, should not refuse nondisruptive requests for medical and legal advice. My proposal instead is based on the assumption that we will continue to have guidelines and will continue to refuse requests for medical and legal advice. John M Baker (talk) 22:15, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
My comment is a bit more subtle than that. If indeed a comment (question or answer) is disruptive and you are confident that the community of administrators at WP:ANI will agree that it is disruptive, then ask the person -- on his or her talk page -- not to make such comments. If they do it again, report them at ANI where they will be blocked until they stop. What I am saying is that the "we" in your above comment was a basic error. You personally have the right to refuse requests for medical and legal advice, just as you have the right to not answer any other question, but you have zero ability to block a user or in any other way interfere with them posting whatever they choose to post, with the sole exception being if you can convince an administrator that they are being disruptive and have persisted after being warned. And the administrators have shown on multiple occasions that they have no interest in blocking anyone for not following the reference desk guidelines. I say we get rid of them or reword tham to make it clear that they are advice which anyone is free to ignore. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:55, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
To me, the only reason to say that the current approach isn't working is if Misplaced Pages is getting sued over Ref Desk answers that provide legal advice. StuRat (talk) 01:19, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
There is obvious editor uncertainty over what is or is not legal advice, and it results in some questions being hatted or otherwise shut down even though they are not requests for legal advice. I would say that is a reason for change. Guy Macon, of course, supports more extensive changes. John M Baker (talk) 01:28, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
I don't really understand why you dispute the hatting of Futurist110's question if you agree that "request for legal advice is a question about past or future legal consequences that apply to the requestor, or to someone close to the requestor" and "Questions about laws, regulations, contracts, or government forms typically would be requests for legal advice, if the question has application to the requesting poster, or to a friend, family member, or controlled company of the requesting poster". Futurist110 has asked time and time again about how they can get out of paying for any kids they may have if they somehow impregnate a woman probably after having a vasectomy and cutting their balls off. Looking at various legal avenues including the possibility of seeking insurance against being required to pay for their kids, and whether a court may reject such a policy as being contrary to public interest. It's clear that this is what they're referring to, I'm not even sure this is the first time they've asked whether they can sue if their insurance is rejected. It's possible that Futurist110 isn't actually going to have a vasectomy, cut their balls off, get an insurance policy or even have sex with a woman but I think most of us have given up on these borderline questions from Futurist110. Personally I mostly did so once they started talking about cutting their balls off. It seems clear Futurist110 isn't taking much on board since they're still worried about wacky possibilities even after several of us have pointed out there are plenty of things more likely to happen, including stuff which may be a significant financial expense than some of their extreme scenarios. Nil Einne (talk) 09:12, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
The OP may be unaware of the history. If so, he should look at the archive of a recent discussion about it. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 09:18, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
P.S. An example of some of Futurist110's borderline legal advice questions which seem to relate back to their issues with having a child, or at least paying for it
This list is probably incomplete since 1) Futurist110 doesn't use the new section option so their questions don't have subject headings when first asked but compiled this by looking through their contrib history for relevant subject headings; 2) I stopped after 1000 results. To be fair some of these seem to be more complaints about how unfair everything is rather than a serious request for legal advice but whatever. Note I didn't include the plenty of examples of borderline requests for medical advice.
Nil Einne (talk) 09:45, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
Admittedly I was unfamiliar with Futurist110's posts. Four points:
  • With regard to the particular question I referenced, my point was simply that the question, taken by itself, is not a request for legal advice, because it is a broad question about general principles and does not apply them to a particular individual's facts. This conclusion does not change simply because the requestor has initiated other topics that were requests for legal advice.
  • It may be that Futurist110 has been abusing the Reference Desk. If so, that may be a separate basis for deleting or hatting questions. My post was not intended to address such situations.
  • My point that further guidance is needed is not dependent on whatever confusion may come from this particular editor's posts. I think that there is widespread confusion and lack of understanding with respect to the ban on legal advice.
  • Some of the posts above raise the question whether we should have a comprehensive ban on legal advice. Certainly the Reference Desk's ban is more comprehensive than most other message boards. I'm prepared to discuss that, but my original post was only directed to clarifying the meaning of "legal advice." John M Baker (talk) 15:43, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
  • "We" cannot have a comprehensive ban on anything. The "Reference Desk's ban" does not exist. Only administrators can do that. Some of us fantasize that non-admins can somehow control the behavior of other users, but it is only a fantasy. The only way to control the behavior of another user on Misplaced Pages is to politely ask them to stop or get an admin to block them. I really wish that I didn't have to keep repeating this, but as long as I see posts that falsely claim that "we" can have a comprehensive ban on legal advice. I will have to reply that no, "we" can't.
As to the question you want an answer to (the meaning of "legal advice"), that is an unsolvable problem. There will always be some who identify things that are not requests for legal advice as being requests for legal advice. There will always be some who identify things that are requests for legal advice as not being requests for legal advice. That's a big part of why what we are doing isn't working. Why not try it my way as a limited-time experiment?
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. There. I just broke our unenforceable house rules again, and I did it without being disruptive. Is anyone here brave enough to attempt to enforce a "comprehensive ban on legal advice" against me? I didn't think so. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:13, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
<Runs to ANI and starts typing furiously> "==Guy Macon giving highly dubious legal/medical advice at Refdesk== Dear admins, user Guy Macon is slandering the good name of crystal meth with..." ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:20, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
To be fair, John Baker, you are a properly qualified lawyer, so I do rack my brains as to how far we should restrict you from providing answers which would otherwise be "legal advice". But as I myself raised, most of us have specifically given up on answering these sorts of questions from this particular user. The discussion on how to deal with him was very heated, but left us not very enlightened. So much so that I regretted raising the issue. Had it been a general information type question, I would probably not have cried "legal advice!". If you must see the full sordid details, it's in the refdesk talk archive 126 (the most recent one as I write this), but I'm guessing you've read it already. Eliyohub (talk) 17:32, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
Using one's real name along with dispensing professional advice could be an invitation to trouble. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 18:49, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
I went through and dug out a late version of this question and from what I see it never went beyond "Kainaw's criterion" - it is a general question about law, which would presumably be responded to properly with generally sourced answers about such things. It should be obvious that as a hypothetical question you could tag on any number of circumstances about what the "public policy" is and how they "failed to pay up" to make the case go either way - it's just not a specific legal opinion in any meaningful sense! I mean, putting aside any feelings people may have toward Futurist, if someone asked "can you be liable for failing to clear snow off your steps?" I think people would answer it. I mean, there are lots of news stories about that kind of thing, and the reporters have not been taken before a star chamber for trying to compete with lawyers. Wnt (talk) 00:40, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
No-one is ever going to come here for serious legal advice. Count Iblis (talk) 03:48, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Help to edit an answer-template

I came up with a template a few months ago, to acknowledge querents whose reasonable questions had attracted no response. It ended up being titled "refdesk-sorry" (with {{}}, obviously). I've just had cause to deploy it, for the first time in a while, and I notice that it doesn't look right. It consists of several short paragraphs, but, if I put a single : before the template, only the first sentence will indent. Can anyone play around with the template and improve its layout? I think the wording is fine as is. Thanks. Carbon Caryatid (talk) 12:30, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

It's unchanged since Semantic Mantis created it in November. Maybe what's really needed is some kind of box around it, so it doesn't look like it's newly written. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 13:42, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
That would be great. Could someone do that, please? Carbon Caryatid (talk) 16:20, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
I'm still thinking kill it with fire. I mean, with or without indent, this is not what people want to hear. If we're going to start a new practice, I'd suggest a new page Reference desk/Stumpers where good questions from every refdesk that went unanswered can be relisted, and then you can give them a template about that. Wnt (talk) 23:04, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
Carbon Caryatid, I do appreciate what you are trying to do with this, but I agree with Wnt that it should be killed. I know that I'd rather receive no answer at all than three paragraphs of boiler plate, as the latter will seem even more impersonal if it appears with any regularity. It also has the disadvantage of making the question appear to be answered to those quickly scanning the desk or its archive. I strongly support individualized "sorry" responses from those who can provide question-specific advice to an OP for further resources, but the template is as reassuring as the recorded voice that periodically brakes into the hold music telling me how important my call is.
If we do feel the need to proceed with a template like this, perhaps {{cot}}ting it would keep the question from appearing answered. -- ToE 14:24, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
The idea was that this invites them to ask again and also points to other resources. It should only be deployed for questions that have gone several days without any good answers. We almost never post new good answers to 6-day-old questions. I generally see eye-to-eye with Wnt and TOE, but I fail to see how this template is worse than no response. SemanticMantis (talk) 16:10, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

"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)
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. --Jayron32 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)

Listing questions asked by a user

Is it possible to list new questions asked on the RDs by a particular user? Under a user's contributions page it is possible to filter for the Misplaced Pages namespace, which would bring up all their contributions to the ref desks, but I can't see a way of filtering out further so that only new questions are shown. The edit summary would normally say "new section", so I'm wondering if that can be used in some way to only show new questions asked. Thanks, --Viennese Waltz 11:50, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes, the flag "New Section" would indicate a new question being asked on the ref desks. --Jayron32 11:53, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
Where is the flag "new section"? I can only see an option to show new pages, not new sections. --Viennese Waltz 12:11, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
Never mind, I figured it out. tools.wmflabs.org has an edit summary search feature which does the job fine. --Viennese Waltz 12:16, 28 April 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. --Jayron32 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.

  1. 10:56, 28 April 2017 (diff | hist) . . (+1,108)‎ . . Misplaced Pages:Reference desk/Humanities ‎ (→‎Is owning a human automatically slavery?: new section)
  2. 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)
  3. 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)
  4. 09:31, 27 April 2017 (diff | hist) . . (+549)‎ . . Misplaced Pages:Reference desk/Humanities ‎ (→‎Jane Eyre and missionaries to India: new section)
  5. 09:07, 27 April 2017 (diff | hist) . . (+1,004)‎ . . Misplaced Pages:Reference desk/Language ‎ (→‎Accent vs dialect: new section)
  6. 08:51, 27 April 2017 (diff | hist) . . (+1,152)‎ . . Misplaced Pages:Reference desk/Science ‎ (→‎Portion control, food rationing, and economics: new section)
  7. 09:07, 26 April 2017 (diff | hist) . . (+851)‎ . . Misplaced Pages:Reference desk/Entertainment ‎ (→‎British accents in films: new section)
  8. 20:30, 24 April 2017 (diff | hist) . . (+859)‎ . . Misplaced Pages:Reference desk/Humanities ‎ (→‎Minimum requirements of Anglicanism?: new section)
  9. 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)
  10. 18:21, 23 April 2017 (diff | hist) . . (+1,070)‎ . . Misplaced Pages:Reference desk/Science ‎ (→‎The science of making vegetables taste like meat: new section)
  11. 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)
  12. 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)
  13. 16:21, 22 April 2017 (diff | hist) . . (+758)‎ . . Misplaced Pages:Reference desk/Humanities ‎ (→‎Why did people make single-sex schools?: new section)
  14. 12:43, 22 April 2017 (diff | hist) . . (+725)‎ . . Misplaced Pages:Reference desk/Humanities ‎ (→‎Is the March for Science American or global?: new section)
  15. 10:50, 22 April 2017 (diff | hist) . . (+698)‎ . . Misplaced Pages:Reference desk/Humanities ‎ (→‎"preventable illness": new section)
  16. 20:42, 21 April 2017 (diff | hist) . . (+373)‎ . . Misplaced Pages:Reference desk/Science ‎ (→‎Making big chicken breasts: new section)
  17. 19:16, 21 April 2017 (diff | hist) . . (+742)‎ . . Misplaced Pages:Reference desk/Humanities ‎ (→‎Social class of immigrants: new section)
  18. 10:42, 21 April 2017 (diff | hist) . . (+1,935)‎ . . Misplaced Pages:Reference desk/Humanities ‎ (→‎Social class in the Far East vs Europe: new section)
  19. 17:17, 20 April 2017 (diff | hist) . . (+696)‎ . . Misplaced Pages:Reference desk/Humanities ‎ (→‎How did apprenticeships work?: new section)
  20. 14:17, 20 April 2017 (diff | hist) . . (+320)‎ . . Misplaced Pages:Reference desk/Humanities ‎ (→‎9-day-old pease pudding: new section)
  21. 00:12, 20 April 2017 (diff | hist) . . (+339)‎ . . Misplaced Pages:Reference desk/Humanities ‎ (→‎Average age of first funeral)
  22. 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. --Jayron32 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. --Jayron32 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)

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)

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)