Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/Archive 130

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 125

←

Archive 128

Request for medical advice removed:

A user recently asked us to diagnose his medical condition. I have removed the question and left the standard boilerplate response. --Jayron 32 20:59, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

You know what, fuck it. @Trovatore: Have fun playing amateur doctor. --Jayron 32 21:10, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Jayron, that's an utter misrepresentation of the question. The user did no such thing. --Trovatore (talk) 21:15, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

The user asked us to diagnose their nausea after getting hit in the stomach. Like I said, I await the results of your thorough medical examination on the patient to tell them what is causing it. --Jayron 32 21:25, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

No, the user did not ask that. --Trovatore (talk) 21:26, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Asserting that it didn't happen doesn't make it go away. Everyone else can read it as well. As I said, fuck it, I'm out. I won't be involved in your insistance on diagnosing his medical condition anymore. You do what you want. --Jayron 32 21:28, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes, everyone else can read it as well. And anyone who understands the plain meaning of "request for medical advice" will be able to see that there was no request for medical advice in that question. --Trovatore (talk) 21:29, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

To be explicit about this, here is the question in its entirety:

Why does being winded or blunt trauma to the stomach often result in nausea straight after? I don’t mean shock which may set in later if severe enough. I mean nausea which is often immediate and goes away quickly. Is it just to do with the muscles in that area going into spasm? 82.132.216.104 (talk) 20:40, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Now, point by point:

There is no "request for advice", medical or otherwise. Advice is prescriptive. The user has asked only for a description.
It is not even "medical", because there is no pathology involved. This is the normal functioning of the healthy human body.
Most relevantly to the established practice on the refdesks, the user has not indicated that the question is about himself/herself (or any other particular person). It is a general question about human physiology. Those are allowed.

Hope this clarifies how I see it.

Note that I personally have no interest in answering this question. I do have an interest in keeping the "advice" criteria from being stretched all out of their natural meaning in the English language. --Trovatore (talk) 21:40, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

If you're going to fool around with others' edits, at least try to spell things correctly. "Medial???" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:02, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

So long as this is presented as a general question about all humanity's typical reaction to being hit in the stomach, it is not medical advice. Wnt (talk) 23:38, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Alright, as explained at the Science desk, I was the one who fooled around and made the Freudian typo. Diffs: Sluzzelin typoing, while trying to make a caveat a bit less shrill ... correction of MY typo ... reinsertion of typo based on MY mistake ... attempt at explaining what happened ... correction of MY propagated typo, lest anyone look stupid ... this edit I just made now and hopefully THE END. ---Sluzzelin talk 23:47, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

The font size is the same as on the disclaimer. If you don't like it, get the disclaimer changed. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:35, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

You also separated the body of the disclaimer from the heading. I have remedied that problem. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:41, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Is there still a medical information vs. advice distinction?

This discussion makes me wonder: do we still have a meaningful distinction between medical information versus medical advice?

I would have thought, based on everything in our specific RD guidelines for medical advice, that the, er, question in question was clearly one requesting medical information. But Jayron thought otherwise, and others have, too, because this is not the first time this sort of debate has come up here.

So are people interpreting the guideline differently than I do? Are there still questions that ask for medical information that is not advice (and are therefore allowable) but that this latest question somehow wasn't an example of?

Or is the distinction no longer valid? Are people not interested in trying to decide whether questions ask for information or advice? Would they rather just disallow all questions having to do with medical topics, period? —Steve Summit (talk) 03:53, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

The distinction is most certainly valid and the question about winding definitely falls into the category of information rather than advice. I have long pointed out that it is easy to game the system by depersonalizing medical advice questions so that they become medical information questions. Since the OP is not saying anything about whether or not the question relates to him personally, the question should be allowed to stand. --Viennese Waltz 07:50, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Along with the disclaimer, as only the OP knows for sure. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:31, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

The distinction is: Does the question ask for diagnosis (what is causing this to happen), prognosis (what will happen to me if), or treatment (how should one deal with this). The question under discussion asked people at the reference desk to diagnose a medical sympto. The use or non-use of personal pronouns should not enter into our analysis of what constitutes a request for advice ("asking for a friend" type questions shouldn't be a "get out of jail free card", neither should the careful avoidance of first person pronouns). Disallowed advice constitutes requests for diagnosis, prognosis, or treatment. This question asked "What causes this symptom". That's a diagnosis request. --Jayron32 12:34, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
- "How does this body function work" is not a request for diagnosis. Diagnosis refers to a specific occurrence in a specific person. No specific person has been mentioned. This is really really simple, Jayron. You can tie yourself up in knots imagining what people's intent was, but for our purposes their intent doesn't matter. They did not request a diagnosis, or medical advice, or indeed advice of any sort. --Trovatore (talk) 20:24, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
It didn't ask about a body function, it asked about a symptom resulting from an injury. In this case a symptom (nausea) resulting from an injury (getting hit in the stomach). I'm not sure why that is so confusing to you. Diagnosis literally means "identify the cause of a symptom". --Jayron 32 17:37, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
"Diagnosis" is of a specific person in a specific case. No specific person was mentioned; no specific event was mentioned. The question was why in general nausea results from being "winded" (which I took to mean from intense exertion; not sure if I was right about that but it doesn't matter much) or from blunt trauma. Now, the question includes a presuppositon that may or may not be true (does nausea result in general from this circumstance?) but in any case there is no specific person or event in question, and therefore no possibility of diagnosis.

--Trovatore (talk) 21:01, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Even if he were referring to himself, "Why does this happen?" is a very different question from "What should I do about it?". I once lost my breakfast after a 3-mile run (I'm a dedicated non-runner), and I've wondered from time to time why that happened. I'll make a point not to seek that answer at our Reference Desks, as a few overly aggressive regulars can't tell the difference between curiosity about physiology and request for medical advice. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:59, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
What you've just described is a request for diagnosis. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:13, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for your personal opinion. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:21, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
You're extremely welcome. "Everyone is entitled to my opinion." :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:38, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Is Kainaw's Criterion not still in use? ApLundell (talk) 14:58, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Um, Kainaw's criterion is what was being cited by Jayron in his post above yours. --Viennese Waltz 15:39, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Thing is that people go to the doctor for medical advice and the Ref Desk doesn't change that even if we were to lift all restrictions on what we call "medical advice". So, the medical advice policy is a solution to a problem that doesn't exist in the real world. Solutions to non-existing problems don't do any good, all you get are the side effects (e.g. the disputes we get here, or trolls that pretend to suffer from some terrible symptoms to play games with us). Now, it is true that we cannot diagnose a problem over the internet, so we can close questions on the grounds that the question is unanswerable in principle because it asks for diagnosis, we don't need to invoke the flawed idea that any harm will be done. The question at hand does not center around any diagnosis, it asks for why typically you get certain symptoms due to some action, and that's a answerable question. It is also unrealistic to think that the OP himself has been the victim of an attack and instead of getting the medical attention he needs, he is posting here on the Ref Desk. Count Iblis (talk) 19:19, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

The question is fine, the current responses are fine. It's really very simple. All we have to do is not give medical advice. I do strongly encourage any and all readers to remove responses that constitute medical advice. That is, if the response says "what a specific individual should or should not do to restore or preserve health", it should be removed. Otherwise, it's fine. If we did that instead of deleting posts that at least on person thinks might maybe be seeking advice, we'd have a lot less debate over the issue here. (also attempted to fix indents above, please to not post at top level when responding to questions WP:THREAD)SemanticMantis (talk) 19:21, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Right. Even that goes a tiny bit far for me (talking about how to maintain existing good health is not "medical" in my estimation) but I can live with it. The question at hand simply, plainly, on its face, contained no request for medical advice. Period. Jayron is 100% wrong to claim that it did. --Trovatore (talk) 20:19, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your personal opinion. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:28, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

It's just the plain meaning of the term, accessible to any competent user of the English language. --Trovatore (talk) 20:35, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Not, it's just your personal opinion. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:28, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

No, it's the plain meaning of the term. There is no valid argument whatsoever for the contrary proposition. --Trovatore (talk) 22:05, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

That, too, is just your personal opinion. I trust Jayron's judgment above nearly everyone else's here. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:09, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

It's not a judgment call. There was no request for medical advice. Black and white, no room for argument. It's just not there. --Trovatore (talk) 22:11, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Strictly your opinion. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:16, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

(Ha ha ha, I actually edict-conflicted with this post above, so quick are his fingers) No, it isn't, but do you think that will stop Baseball Bugs from posting "that's just your personal opinion" yet again? Bugs, if you try to use your own brain rather than deferring to whomever's judgment "you'd trust above nearly everyone else's here", you'd probably be taken more seriously here. ---Sluzzelin talk 22:18, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Who do you recommend I trust ahead of Jayron? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Baseball Bugs (talk • contribs) 22:43, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Yourself. ---Sluzzelin talk 23:03, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Which I do. So all is well. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:20, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes, so if I have colon cancer then this forum is not the right place to ask about medical advice about my personal medical situation, but it's not a problem for anyone to ask about colon cancer treatment in general. The latter thing is treated in detail in our Wiki-articles on the subject, so references appropriate for addressing the question can be given. If the OP is suspected to have circumvented the ban on medical advice by framing the question in an a-personal way, then that would not be a problem as the answer we would be giving isn't going to address his personal medical situation anyway. Count Iblis (talk) 20:46, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Posting the disclaimer addresses it either way. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:28, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Posting the disclaimer and keeping questions open is fine in my book. Let people post relevant references if they want, especially when there is a clear statement that references provided are not advice. Perhaps this is something many of us can agree on? SemanticMantis (talk) 22:55, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

If adding the disclaimer helps people be at ease with their consciences, I can live with it. I don't think it's very useful, and I do think it's slightly obnoxious, but it's tolerable, and I suppose it could in principle do some good in some very unusual case. --Trovatore (talk) 00:04, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Right, the disclaimer does no harm imo, and is far preferable to closing questions. Our guidelines explicitly state that "removal of questions is discouraged". Although I believe our general site disclaimers make it impossible for us to give medical advice, some people disagree, and if posting the disclaimer on a question enables them to tolerate it being left open for non-advice responses, then I'm all for it. It's very easy to avoid giving medical advice, as I describe in my comment below. SemanticMantis (talk) 15:00, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

(ecs) The guideline as it exists could be violated by a certain succession of questions and answers, without giving specific advice. For example, I ask "how long ago were you hit in the stomach?" and the OP replies and I say "Well, obviously you have what Harry Houdini had", it's going to be inappropriate by that standard. The first relevant thing is that we can't predict a future conversation (geee, there's even a Wikipedia policy that could be taken to be against it, WP:CRYSTALBALL, lol). I should add that personally I don't think that standard is useful even in that case because anything that ridiculous would have an equal chance of getting denounced without it as it has with it, so what's the difference?

But last and not least I should add that from what I've seen this whole myth of competent doctors waiting to hear your call is absolute bullshit from some other planet than third-world America. I mean, I know a woman who spends many thousands of dollars on Medicare supplements, and was just left to sit in a waiting room for more than two hours to get a spinal steroid shot to have someone tell her some form wasn't received by her insurer (because they never sent it); the doctor wouldn't hear her questions and ran out of the room. Of course, she could call ... a phone tree. Messages on the phone tree may be played on Judgment Day, I can't tell you about that, but I can make a pretty solid guarantee they won't be played before. They asked her if her pain medication was enough, then gave her instructions that cut it, her husband called and left multiple messages, and she's still "waiting for a callback", except they know there won't be any. I suppose when she gets back, if she admits taking more than prescribed, they might put her on some kind of a banned list as a junkie drug-seeker, but aside from that I don't expect them to listen to anything she says any more than I expect them to be able to find where the nerve is actually damaged. And that's a direct telling; the hearsay I get involves more interesting things like nursing students who shadow at hospitals where a Parkinson's patient has gone all stiff because they don't carry his medication because it costs too much, so getting hospitalized means getting paralyzed.

Now I'm sure the usual suspect will say I have an axe to grind, but I gotta ask, why is it that every time I talk about doctors I have a new axe to grind? I think we should take our cue from Aeropagitica and let all the winds of doctrine blow, and quit pretending we can successfully even identify medical advice, when there is such bad faith involved, let alone defer it to a genuinely better authority. The only place we're sending these people on to is something like Ask.com that has even lower reliability than we do.

In case anyone didn't understand -- I'm saying your interpretation of the guidelines is bullshit and the guidelines are bullshit. Wnt (talk) 20:46, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

While I would some day like to participate in revision of the guidelines, I think for now we should stick to interpretation of them. They clearly state that we should prioritize removal of medical advice, rather than removal of questions that may be interpreted as soliciting advice.

So, when someone asks "What is an inexpensive headache remedy?", we can remove a comment that says "you should take aspirin", but we should allow "Here are our articles on analgesics and headaches, here [1] is a list of prices from a prominent retailer". It is important to note in this case that it is utterly inconsequential if OP has an actual headache, and it is clear that no medical advice is being given. SemanticMantis (talk) 15:00, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Comment: If we accept the premise that a high proportion of Reference desk participants are "regulars" then we can formulate a guideline which says that editors fielding questions that might be interpreted as seeking medical advice should build into their response a disclosure saying that the Reference desks cannot give medical advice and that any response given here is merely of a general nature. The boilerplate disclaimer concerning medical advice may be obnoxious but it should be a cinch to incorporate into our response(s) the cautionary language about medical advice. This can also be added by others if a "non-regular" fields a questionable question. Normal language can be used, with recourse to policies and guidelines only when needed. Bus stop (talk) 00:34, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Completely reasonable, strong support. It can be as short as appending "(I am not your doctor, this is not medical advice)". But even a respondent posts references/information without incorporating that kind of language, it should be easy and unobjectionable for any other respondent to link the disclaimer as a response. E.g.

Here is my example question about a disease. --Alice

Here is an example response, giving some some links to further information. --Bob

And please note our Wikipedia:Medical disclaimer. --Carol

I think this is a great way to handle things, and prevents the understandable problems associated with one user removing a question as a request for advice and others disagreeing. That way, nobody gets pushed away or silenced, OP may (or may not) be satisfied but at least is not treated rudel, and we (hopefully) avoid the WP:PERENNIAL arguments.SemanticMantis (talk) 15:13, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

That at least puts it in front of the OP. The links elsewhere don't really jump out at you. You could use wording that's very much to the point: "Wikipedia does not give professional advice. Any information here that may look like professional advice is not actually professional advice." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:51, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

The cautionary wording could be conversationally incorporated into the response with an internal link, either piped or not, to Medical disclaimer or Legal disclaimer. We should be exercising caution on behalf of the project. If someone unfamiliar with this recommended practice provides a response that is potentially problematic it should be acceptable to alter their comment in order to preface it with cautionary language. I think we place too bright a line on altering another editor's comments. Talk page guidelines should make an exception for the altering of another editor's post on the Reference desks for the purpose of inserting one of these two disclaimers. Bus stop (talk) 00:41, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

For instance section WP:TPO might allow for editing another editor's Reference desk post to insert these sorts of disclaimers. Bus stop (talk) 00:58, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Is this a proposal to let people give medical advice provided there is a disclaimer, or a proposal to require disclaimers on questions you've already deigned not to delete because they are not requesting medical advice? Whichever it is an RFC is necessary - I'm not even clear you're clear on what you're agreeing to. Also note WP:NODISCLAIMER. Wnt (talk) 17:13, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Of course not—we should not give medical advice. But like so many other things, such as trolling, there is a grey area. More precisely—we just don't know. A conversation proceeds. It evolves. More people weigh in. The person posting the question eventually reveals their true colors. Or the nature of the question eventually becomes clear. At the outset, when there seems to be the possibility that the question may be asking for medical or legal advice, we should endeavor to convey to the person posting the question that nothing we say in this endeavor should be construed as medical or legal advice. Wikipedia:No disclaimers in articles#What are disclaimers? explicitly allows for the "disclaimers" that we are discussing, namely "Medical disclaimer" and "Legal disclaimer". Bus stop (talk) 17:54, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

I don't think there's any need for any RfC or any need to make changes to anybody's comments. What I was trying to convey in my example above is thatanyone is 100% always allowed to say "the above is not medical advice, and should not be taken as such", link to disclaimers, hell put it in bold to make sure it gets noticed for all I care. Honestly, while we see many, many threads shut down because they might be seeking advice, I have never once in my seven years of serious activity here seen anyone give anything close to medical advice. I think the issue people giving medical advice here (as opposed to seeking, or appearing to seek) is non-issue. Nobody posts "take two aspirin for that" or "you have X disease". It just doesn't happen. And if we start seeing it, I will happily participate in removing it. The problem, imo, is censoring of questions, being rude to askers, and the perennial debates that such behavior perpetuates. Why I like the idea of censoring responses and posting disclaimers on borderline questions is that, provided those disposed to close questions opt in, it will prevent a large amount of argument and hostility here. My stance is ultimately to keep an open and welcoming atmosphere, and to allow ourselves to post informational references, even if a question may appear (to some) to be seeking advice.

It comes down to this: nobody is told to leave a real library for appearing to ask for legal advice. Nor does anyone receive legal advice from an ethical and professional reference librarian. Instead, the asker is shown to informational materials that may be helpful. SemanticMantis (talk) 19:06, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

@Bus stop: Read WP:NODISCLAIMER again. It specifically lists the medical and legal disclaimers as things not to be repeated. It explains later in that giving disclaimers in specific places could weaken their effect Wikipedia-wide. The thing mentioned above is something called a "disclaimer template" that is routinely deleted, per the guideline: Additional disclaimers in encyclopedia articles should generally be removed, and disclaimer templates should be removed and deleted. Exceptions are given, but definitely not these. Wnt (talk) 19:23, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

@Wnt: I see a distinction between article space and the Reference desks. Impermanence is greater at the Reference desks and permanence is greater in article space. The guideline to which you link only seems to address article space. That guideline notes a few exceptions. (Please see "There are a few notable exceptions...".) If others agree, we could add yet another exception—that of the Reference desks. Judgement is being exercised and deployed more dynamically at the Reference desks than in article space. The crux of the matter is the making of split-second decisions (figuratively speaking) at the Reference desks versus deliberative thinking accompanied by ample discussion in article space and their associated Talk pages. Bus stop (talk) 01:51, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Well, what I'm saying is that the proposal requires changing a sitewide guideline, which is why I mentioned an RFC is necessary. I'm not saying I couldn't be talked into it, if the purpose of the silly disclaimer duplicate is to let us be free to go ahead and suggest potential diagnoses and potentially useful treatments while saying "but hey, we're not doctors". But if is just rigamorale that doesn't actually increase our freedom to answer questions, that's another matter. Wnt (talk) 02:13, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

It's merely to take care of "borderline" cases at the ref desks, where someone thinks something is a request for medical advice and someone else doesn't. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:20, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

In other words, an alternate means of harassing people and making pointless drama, not out of any legitimate fear of any harmful effect. Why? I think simply because some people believe that every moment of every peasant's life should be spent in constant chanted thoughts and prayers emphasizing that whatever they do is about the Corporations and Betters, licensed people and machines that rank so far above them. They should not speak a word without first praying about their social credit rating and how it affects it, nor buy a product before they think how it looks on their record, not stop to speak to a person without thinking how it affects their employment, nor walk or not walk without thinking of how they can track those steps on their corporate position/activity monitor to appear to be a better human resource, nor whistle a tune without stopping, aghast, for they do not "own" the work of their lips, nor certainly in any case broach any topicry from racial humor to medical concepts that is reserved to a licensed caste to whom they should empty out all their meager resources to be told that no there is nothing to be done. There should not be one moment of thought or joy for them, only endless sacrifice to their overweening lords. And yet, even so, I do not believe. Wnt (talk) 03:57, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm in complete argument. Bus stop (talk) 05:36, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Wnt—it is spelled rigmarole but whether it is rigmarole or not requires a separate RfC. Bus stop (talk) 15:03, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

@Bus stop: It is indeed spelled rigamorale. Apparently nobody is too sure if it was originally "ragman" or "Rageman" or whatever (see Ragman Rolls if you want to say it "right" ?); it's rigamorale all the way down as far as I'm concerned. Wnt (talk) 17:52, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

break

This discussion is long and convoluted but I saw the title and thought I would respond. According to ProjectMedicine, WP should not give medical advice. As a medical editor I even spend time removing the word 'should' from medical and health articles because WP can't tell people what they should do. Medical topics are descriptions of medical things. Often, though part of the information in the article includes recommendations from respectable organizations like the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and since their content is often in the public domain, it is easily cut and pasted into a medical article (with attribution, of course). If anyone sees something that they think is medical advice, just leave a message on the talk page of WikiProject Medicine. Best Regards, Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉ 00:43, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi Barbara (WVS)—one question that editors are trying to address in this admittedly meandering thread is just what constitutes a request for medical advice, as well as what would qualify as the giving of medical advice. For instance is it a request for medical advice if someone asks why a bodily experience follows a given event? Or is that a request for information drawing upon human biology? In an example given above it is asked "Why does being winded or blunt trauma to the stomach often result in nausea straight after? I don’t mean shock which may set in later if severe enough. I mean nausea which is often immediate and goes away quickly. Is it just to do with the muscles in that area going into spasm?" Also, leaving a message at WikiProject Medicine may be impractical because of the inevitable time delay before someone from that WikiProject can respond. Bus stop (talk) 03:33, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Excellent question. There is a useful list article, List of medical symptoms that may be helpful. We have found in Project Medicine that these types of articles are often read by medical students/doctors so that they don't miss a potential diagnosis. It is not a comprehensive list and probably not well maintained. Best Regards, Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉ 17:10, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for that. I, for one, was not aware of that list. Bus stop (talk) 18:50, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

RfC regarding closure of ref desks is closed: No Action

WP:Village pump (policy)/RfC: Should the Reference Desks be closed has been closed with:

NO ACTION: No consensus currently exists for closing the Reference Desks. However, there is clearly a consensus that something must change in how they are run -- which is properly the subject of a new RfC.

Based on WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure#Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/RfC: Should the Reference Desks be closed^(Archived) I expected a mutli-admin closure with a more extensive discussion summary, but I guess the solo closer thought that after more than a week the closing team had stalled out. -- ToE 12:34, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

That's a fine closure. There's nothing in that discussion which would have made that closure contentious. I know someone was trying to organize a multi-admin team to close it, but there wasn't any need for that. It was a simple up/down result and there was not a consensus to change the status quo. The second question (what changes should be made and how to make them) may well be a messier close, but on a binary question with a fairly clear consensus, there isn't a need for an admin team to be organized. The close is fine, and I would challenge any admin who disputes it to indicate why they think anyone else (including a team of closers) could have reached a different conclusion. It's fine. --Jayron 32 15:28, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Well, with a 2-to-1 ratio of support for the Refdesks, it would seem fairer to call it a Keep. I mean, next time it is nominated the opponents will be running around saying "it was no consensus last time and it's only gotten worse!" and we'll have to follow around saying "but it was 108 to 55" and then they'll bury us in text to derail the parent discussion or just start a new section and say the same bogus thing again. Such is politics in the Age of Iscariot. Wnt (talk) 16:22, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

There are only two results possible: A proposal is enacted, or it is not. This proposal to close the ref desks was not enacted. The rest of your hair splitting doesn't make a bit of difference here, or anywhere. --Jayron 32 16:45, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Claiming that a 2-to-1 "ratio of support" was automatically a "consensus" would not appropriate anyway. Consensus is not determined by vote-counting. (even if decisions do sometimes have to be made that way.)

There was a significant number of well thought out, intelligent arguments made on all sides, and no compromise was reached. That is almost the definition of "no consensus". The closer described the situation correctly. ApLundell (talk) 16:50, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

The Ref Desks are unclosable because nothing could stop, say, Wnt from hosting one on his talk page. It would not violate talk page guidelines for people to ask questions about some random topic to Wnt and for Wnt to answer those questions. Count Iblis (talk) 14:25, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Even if your premise that anyone could simply fork the RefDesks to their talk page (without getting into any trouble, especially if there was previous consensus to close the RefDesks) was true (I seriously doubt it), the current iteration of the RefDesks is located in the Wikipedia: namespace (without any "this is an essay" or such disclaimer) and linked from multiple places, which makes it "official". Pushing the RefDesks to userspace would not close them, but it would send a clear message of "the community doesn't support this". Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 17:12, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

There's a huge difference between posting a question on someone's talk page and the RefDesks. For one thing, wnt's talk page is not proudly linked from the Main Page. ApLundell (talk) 17:00, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

I see, so I guess we'll have to emigrate to Scotland. Count Iblis (talk) 17:43, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

In addition to Tigraan and APL's points, the premise is simply false anyway. The talk page guidelines are clear the purpose of user talk pages is to draw the attention or discuss the edits of a user. Wikipedia is not a social networking site, and all discussion should ultimately be directed solely toward the improvement of the encyclopedia. If the community has decided to close the RD, they've likely decided it does not serve towards improvement of the encyclopaedia. People are generally allowed some degree of latitude to stuff that isn't really related to improving wikipedia, the community have made it clear many times that there are limits. If someone simply answers the occasional RD type question that someone asks of them it's likely this will be tolerated but if someone starts using their talk page to host a reference desk after it's closed, it's likely they will be asked to stop, and blocked if it continues. There's also WP:Point etc to consider. Nil Einne (talk) 11:37, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Riiiight. So Wikipedia is a place with no tolerance for asking/answering questions about anything anywhere? That's the sum of all human knowledge? This all is soulless, obstructionistic, bureaucratic, lobbying, and one day, when they have won, and Wikipedia is no more, I think the paymasters behind it will get so overweening proud of their shoestring budget of triumphant vandalism that they are careless where they brag ... thinking no one who cares will be listening. And all the knowledge and wit and thought and community we could have shared with all the world on a billion topics, we will have to concentrate and twist and pervert and put into an audience of one, single time, single place, to stand as a mighty wonder unto the ages. But such a wonder it might be! Wnt (talk) 23:04, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Village pump acting as a Ref Desk. Count Iblis (talk) 15:08, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

archiving note

So as some of you noticed, the archiver goobered up the Science desk pretty badly. It turns out it's not something I'm likely to be able to fix in the code, so I'll let y'all know what to look out for.

When you hat a thread, as Matt Deres did in this edit, it turns out it's much better not to hat the section header. The archiver archives threads based on the assumption that they start with the header, so in this case, it left the hat top tag unarchived. But it did archive the hat bottom tag, meaning that the hat top tag remained alone on the page, effectively hatting the entire page.
If the archiver screws up and you have to fix things in a hurry, as Medeis did in this edit, please let me know! Yes, it needed fixing, but I didn't notice anything was wrong until the archiver re-archived the unarchived content for a second time, a day later. (And while I was trying to fix it, Keenan Pepper was scrambling to try to fix it, too.)

Thanks, your humble archiving botherd, Steve Summit (talk) 03:22, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

If the section title is offensive in some way, what would be the best solution? Change the title and anchor the original? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:20, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Me, I'd point at WP:NOTCENSORED, and move on with my life. But, as long as it's an infrequent occurrence, it's perfectly appropriate to archive an outside-the-header tag manually, as Keenan Pepper and I did in more or less of a tag team here. —Steve Summit (talk) 18:05, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

I don't think it comes up very often. Something really offensive is likely to have been reverted before the archiver can even get to it. It's not totally clear why the user included the header inside the hat-hab wrapper in this case, even though the header was a bit snippy. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:14, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Well, I didn't really think about it, to be honest. I didn't realize hatting the header would mess up archiving in that way, so in the future, I'll make sure to hat below it. NBD - and thanks, as always, to Steve for keeping the machinery running in the background. Matt Deres (talk) 19:15, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Three integers optic equation producing an integer - question for RD/Math

In what condition does the sum of multiplicative inverses of three integers gives also an integer as an extension of optic equation with 2 integer variables? (I post here the question originally intended for RD/math whcih I see that is protected.)--5.2.200.163 (talk) 16:12, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Can do. (Though semi-protection is set to expire in a few hours.) For clarity, you said, "sum of multiplicative inverses of three integers gives also an integer", but did you want to say, "... gives also the inverse of an integer"? (Or "reciprocal", term used in our article.) -- ToE 16:30, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

My mistake, indeed I wanted to say the missing words! I was in a hurry!--5.2.200.163 (talk) 16:33, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Done -- ToE 16:39, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks!--5.2.200.163 (talk) 16:46, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

And the desk is unlocked. We'll see how long it lasts. -- ToE 16:42, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

I am rather surprised by the delay of unlocking, delay from the specified time of 16:26--5.2.200.163 (talk) 16:46, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

According to the history it was unlocked 12 minutes before I added your question, but I hadn't noticed. I wouldn't have thought it necessary, but if you were still seeing it locked after Jayron's protection level edit, then perhaps it would have responded to a WP:PURGE. -- ToE 17:04, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

It's a feature of the system that the "protected" template hangs around until someone edits the desk following the expiry of the protection. During protections I frequently see two identical protection templates, one above the other. Is there a technical reason for this? 195.147.104.148 (talk) 20:19, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

If you see two of them, it means that someone added one, which is redundant, because there's an "IF" statement at the top of a given desk which is supposed to handle it automatically. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:02, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Is the problem that the "IF" statement is present both in WP:RDMA and in WP:Reference desk/header which it transcludes? It is present in C, E, L, MA, & M but not in H & S. -- ToE 14:15, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Dr. Google Will See You Now

Dr. Google is doing the job we don't want to do. Count Iblis (talk) 21:16, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

<sarcasm> Oh, well, that's OK, then. The people have spoken. Let's all become armchair diagnosticians, since everybody's doing it. </sarcasm> -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:21, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

I wonder if you're also a supporter of the War on Drugs. I get the same sense there that, well, as long as we're trying to do something to oppose a Bad Thing, it doesn't matter if by doing so we only make it worse, or what kind of disruption it causes or how unfair it is. I mean, wishes really are horses, right, and so as long as you wish everyone had access to a doctor who doesn't say "I only get 15 minutes with you" in person and refer you to a /dev/null phone tree otherwise, that's all that matters. You just have to wish really hard, and prove the depth of your devotion with a lot of bureaucratic processes. Wnt (talk) 22:16, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

I should add that in my opinion medical questions are nowhere near the scariest things we have answers for here. For example, consider [2] where a respondent consults Electrician Google for the amperage of a circuit breaker. I mean, yeah, in theory if the posting, or Google, gives the wrong amperage, and the questioner replaces a low-amp breaker with a high-amp breaker, his house could burn down and half a dozen people could die. However, well, ultimately, we live in an unsafe world full of death and the people at the far end of the line have less responsibility I think than the guy who goes out and buys a new circuit breaker and plays home electrician. But there's nothing special about medicine either way you take this. Wnt (talk) 19:44, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

The coding on a circuit breaker would seem to be safely factual. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:58, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Wnt, the point, as I've always seen it, isn't that we're trying to fight anything, it's more that we don't wish to be drawn into anything that doesn't really have anything to do with building an encyclopedia while, at the same time, having possible (and potentially grave) unintended negative consequences. In my opinion, again, the same should apply to other types of question-answer situations with similar potential consequences (physical, psychological, financial, even sentimental harm). Personally, I just stay away from these questions, and that's what I recommend everyone else do. ---Sluzzelin talk 23:04, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

"Sentimental harm"? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:20, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

I dunno ... why would we want to give amateur advice on how to unintentionally make things worse with your ailing fire lilies or peonies, why should we give you bad advice on how to restore a painting by your (non-notable) grandmother or a cherished photograph (without negative) of your grandparents, after an accident with sticky liquids ... basically, as with medical no-nos etc., why would we want to make someone's life more miserable in general? Maybe sentimental wasn't the right word. ---Sluzzelin talk 23:30, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Maybe "heirloom harm"? Any problem that a professional should be able to fix or at least provide sound advice. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:25, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Exactly. A professional with expertise, training, the ability to view the situation and ask further questions face to face, accountability, a name, etc. ---Sluzzelin talk 00:27, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Maybe more generally as "property damage". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:32, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

The disclaimer is not an exclusive list. It says: Not professional advice: If you need specific advice (for example, medical, legal, financial or risk management), please seek a professional who is licensed or knowledgeable in that area. [Emphasis Medeis's]

The for example means our not giving advice is not limited to just these fields, but that they are examples of licensed, bonded, or indemnified professionals whose work we do not do. I find the comments of certain individuals above basically declaring our policy void tellingly confessional. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of your 'superiors'. μηδείς (talk) 16:05, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

There are licensed, bonded, or indemnified professionals for just about anything you can imagine, even for grooming your cat. Count Iblis (talk) 17:37, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Be sure to only use the ones who can reach through your network cable and do the grooming. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:34, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Count Iblis's disingenuous trolling (he fully understands my point that for example means not limited to) is not what matters, and he has his own disclaimer declaring his true colors. What matters is that the Wikimedia foundation doesn't want us opening it up to lawsuits. The use of a disclaimer is of value, but not if it is taken as license. It's like pretending that one can print scurrilous libels as long as one sprinkles them with "alleged"s. It doesn't work that way, and entities are still subject to suit if their actions belie their words. μηδείς (talk) 20:07, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

No one is going to sue Wikimedia for anything we do here, not even if a cat were to die as a result of bad grooming advice given here. Count Iblis (talk) 22:14, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Has that theory ever been put to the test? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:21, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Craigslist was the subject of legal action because of the erotic services they offer, but that site still exists and they still allow prostitutes to advertise their services. Count Iblis (talk) 02:06, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Interesting comparison. Has the Wikimedia Foundation ever been sued? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:37, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

See: Litigation involving the Wikimedia Foundation. Count Iblis (talk) 15:22, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

No complaints there about bad medical advice. (Although that would require surviving it.) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:41, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Not that I'm saying we should, or shouldn't, give medical advice; but wouldn't, by the nature of what a disclaimer is, entail that the disclaimer you are citing isn't a prohibition about what we can say, but about the nature of how the reader interprets what is said? In other words, the disclaimer is not a rule, it is telling the reader, "Wikipedia doesn't consider anything here to be sound medical advice, or even medical advice of any nature", in short, if the reader takes something here as medical advice that is on them, not on Wikipedia. Indeed, I would say that the disclaimer doesn't have any relation to what people say on the reference desk (I'm sure there are other, real rules covering that), but it is more meant for situations where someone reads an article on a type of medication, takes less than what the article says should be a lethal dose, then dies; the disclaimer protects Wikipedia because it makes clear that articles are not intended to give medical advice, thus, an article cannot be responsible for your dosing with medication, since that would entail medical advice. Long story short, without getting into my opinion of your point, the disclaimer, almost surely, does not serve the function you are citing it for - if it does, then it is not functioning like a disclaimer usually does and it is very weird that that is not pointed out in it (because, again, such a disclaimer is about explicitly limiting the context of what is, and has been, actually said on Wikipedia, rather than a limitation on what may, or may not, be said). So, it's not, "This looks like medical advice, disclaimer says you can't say that, it has to go, shouldn't be here", but, to the reader, "If you interpret this as medical advice, you are not interpreting it correctly".

But, yes, you are right, that doesn't mean that because of the disclaimer anyone can say anything and Wikipedia is invulnerable to a lawsuit - nonetheless, while that is true, and while such a fact might be a good reason to have policies against medical advice, citing such a disclaimer doesn't really have any bearing on anything. It's a bit of a red herring - indeed, it actually weakens the point: if the basis for not giving such advice is that there is such a disclaimer, and that's it, it's pretty weak since that isn't what disclaimers do (they cover what has been said, you don't give a disclaimer that what you say isn't legal advice since you aren't a lawyer if you haven't said anything relating to the law, you tell your friend that to emphasize that you aren't taking responsibility for how they might construe what you've said); on the other hand, if there is a better case to be made, then why make it using a weak piece of support that has to be contorted from its actual purpose? Again, I'm not saying you're wrong, or right, only that you are making a weak case, which begs the question of why not make a strong one if you can?Phoenixia1177 (talk) 11:39, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

A quick addendum: part of what made Craigslist vulnerable is that they made a point of having policies that forbid posting certain types of ads and made an effort to provide some moderation - in short, they made themselves responsible for what their users posted, specifically relating to prostitution, etc. I'm not saying such a suit might not still have been viable otherwise, but, to be clear, the reference desk is statements made by users, not Wikimedia, as hosters, they might be less culpable by not pushing policing of medical advice, or policing it as little as possible (leaving that all up to users to do). In other words, if your point is primarily about lawsuits, citing official statements by Wikimedia as backing up removals and, acting in that capacity, might increase vulnerability as much as it might diminish it.

Of course, a better argument, as always, would be that we shouldn't be giving advice and diagnoses since we can't examine the person. Thus, for the same reason, "What circuit breaker should I use?" isn't really answerable, we can't examine the situation, whereas, "I'm replacing a breaker, I need one that is <X>, what breakers are <X> and why is that important?", we can answer that, it is a general question that will be applied to a specific case, but it is not about the specific case. In the same vein, "I have a cough and a fever, is it the flu?", there is no way to answer that without an examination, but, "Are a cough and a fever symptoms of the flu? What percentage of people with both symptoms have the flu as opposed to something else?", that is quite answerable, even if the person intends to conclude they have the flu from those facts (indeed, that is what the disclaimer is actually about, by the way, that our reply to that general question would not entail the specific implication that the asker does, indeed, have the flu, drawing that conclusion would be on them - in other words, you can reply to the general question without implying an answer to the specific because the disclaimer is already covering the intent and scope of the answer; not prohibiting the general answer for being discussed.)Phoenixia1177 (talk) 11:50, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Can you summarize the above in 25 words or less? :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:13, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

What's the fun in that? But, short version: disclaimers don't operate that way, the issue isn't legal or harm, but the impossibility of answering specific to the person questions. The disclaimer protects Wikipedia by contextualizing, it isn't a limitation on speech, but the implied context of the content.24.3.61.185 (talk) 04:56, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Are you Phoenixia? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:24, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Take three steps before visiting GP, public urged: "People should take three steps to try to solve a health problem before seeing their GP, a doctors' leader has urged. Patients should see if they can sort it themselves, see a pharmacist or use a reputable online source of information, the Royal College of GPs says." Count Iblis (talk) 18:45, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Which Wikipedia ain't. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:43, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Hmm, so the government-run BBC is telling the patrons of the government-run NHS that the Royally-warranted College of GP's is telling HM's subjects to rely on Fleet Street before getting on the waiting list for a probing at public expense? μηδείς (talk) 00:07, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

The BBC is not government-run. Though partly funded by taxes, its terms of incorporation are specifically designed to maintain its independence from government direction. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.199.208.241 (talk) 12:19, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Though, as broadcaster/governor/frogman/alarmist/millionaire Jesse Ventura notes, "It's only cheating if you get caught." And if the government is caught, is it really cheating? Hidden stuff aside (if it exists), ruling figures still clearly influence the political coverage by simply often appearing on television and choosing what the audience hears at those times. It's so mundane today, many people forget that even counts as a tremendous power, but it does. Technically. InedibleHulk (talk) 13:39, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

That's not equivalent to "government-run", though, and is also available to non-governmental figures if they're good enough at eliciting coverage by the media – hence the successful Presidential campaign by one D. Trump, who received arguably rather more coverage than he merited by being so fascinatingly outrageous. I fear however that we might be deviating from the topic. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.200.41.3 (talk) 13:46, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

As the Earl of Halifax said, true merit is like a river. We have nothing to fear but fear itself. Make the topic great again! InedibleHulk (talk) 14:14, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

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. 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 professional advice: Don't do crystal meth. It will use up all of your money and is likely to get you fired. Don't bother asking a certified financial planner if becoming a meth addict is good for your finances. It isn't. (general disclaimer, medical disclaimer. legal disclaimer, risk disclaimer.)

There. I just provided medical, legal, and professional advice, and while I did make a point, I did so without being disruptive. There are some who believe that Wikipedia has a policy against giving medical, legal, and business advice, but no such policy or guideline exists. (If you are about to cite the reference desk guidelines, please read WP:LOCALCON and then show me where the Wikipedia community approved them).

Feel free to report my behavior at WP:ANI if you believe that I have violated any Wikipedia policy or guideline. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:01, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Advising someone to not willfully break any laws does not constitute legal advice. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:12, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Nonsense. Telling the reader whether something is or is not illegal is definitely legal advice. Just because I happen to be right doesn't make it any less legal advice. I could have said "don't drive your car without wearing shoes. It is against the law" which would be telling the reader whether something is or is not illegal and being wrong. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:08, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Telling someone (without references) that something is legal or not, could be legal advice. Telling someone to obey the law is not legal advice, it's merely good citizenship. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:40, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

And you are pretending to be confused as to which category "Don't bother asking a lawyer if crystal meth is illegal. It is" belongs in. I am done responding to you. I have seen your song and dance act several times and find it to be rather boring. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:40, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

If you don't want to talk, I can't stop you. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:18, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Can someone block 82.43.223.98?

going nowhere in a hurry --Jayron 32 18:59, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

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

Vote X for Change. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 22:10, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

It's better to have the same system used by Twitter where you can invisibly block people, i.e. their comments are only visible to the posters, so they don't see that they are blocked. Count Iblis (talk) 20:14, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Pointless now. As of my writing this, it is 21:09, 29 January. She isn't using that IP address anymore. Thanks for the heads up. In the future, if you see them active, and I am also active at the same time (within a few minutes before hand) try leaving a note on my talk page, and I'll try to solve the problem. She bails on IP addresses within a few minutes to a few hours anyways, so if you want her blocked, we've got to handle it right away. --Jayron 32 21:11, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

I simply don't understand where the ostracized have their contributions immortalized and heighlighted by striking when their comments could just be deleted. Summary deletion is much worse than having a line through your text bring it even more attention. μηδείς (talk) 05:50, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

VXFC's posts nearly always are deleted. --Viennese Waltz 08:03, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

I don't know if they are the same people but the West London troll is often the last poster to comment on a thread. He gets blocked, but his comment remains as the last word, when it could easily be removed without disruption. I'll just assume the take away here is it's alright to remove such posts when doing so does not actually disrupt a thread, and others, including the blocking admins should do so as well. My user preferences have the names of blocked users marked as pale, stricken, and italic; so I often notice that the last poster in a thread is a blocked disruptor, but his material is still sitting there for posterity. DAMNATIO MEMORIÆ μηδείς (talk) 18:15, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

If you find a comment by VxFC which someone has missed removing, then feel free to remove it without comment. If you are unsure, ask an admin familiar with her behavior to remove it, and we can do so. --Jayron 32 18:32, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

If you click on the stricken name of a blocked user it gives the block reason (long term abuse, VXFC, etc., and a block period) so it's usually pretty obvious as long as the admin doesn't just block without explanation for a short period, in which case I wouldn't act. Sometimes such contributions are actually helpful, and you have to wonder whether it would even make sense to remove a truly helpful answer. It's a shame we don't have lampas cryptids that could do this for us. μηδείς (talk) 18:49, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Look, either remove her comments or don't. Either ask an admin for help or don't. It doesn't make any difference, and this discussion is not productive or useful. If you do want them removed, remove them or ask for them to be removed. If you don't want them removed, keep silent. If you sometimes want them removed, and sometimes not, then remove them when you want (or ask for help removing them) in cases where you do want them removed, and leave them alone otherwise. I'm not sure why that process is confusing to you or requires further discussion or elaboration! Honestly, we've got this under control. If we miss something, just drop a note on our talk pages (we being those admins who deal with this regularly). I'm shutting this down because continuing it has zero chance of leading to anything useful. --Jayron 32 18:59, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Actually, I think https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Computing#Brussels_Sprouts_Seeds posted by a user who turned out to be a proxy that got blocked was what some users would call an "interesting" question. The IP was unable to post on the semiprotected science page, but in AGF I answered them there. The question and answer are good. The IP and loc are problematic. What to do? Move? Leave sit? Delete entirely? Given it's a proxy, that's abuse; my feeling is delete. Given it's not trolling, my gut feeling is leave it be. Anyone have a suggestion over the cognitive dissonace other than mindfullness and an extra Valium? μηδείς (talk) 03:50, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
- Assuming it's a banned editor, and hence not allowed to edit: (1) make sure the info from your response is in the article already; and then (2) delete the ref desk section begun by the banned user. If it's not a banned user, you could leave it as is. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:29, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
- My answer is to do what I do: Whatever you want to do, do that, and if someone wants to do something different, don't try to stop them. That is, if you don't want to remove the question, leave it alone. If someone else does remove it, don't revert them. --Jayron 32 12:56, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

- - But the "do whatever you want to do" notion is precisely what I am stumbling over in this case. It's why I mentioned cognitive dissonance. Normally either there's a clear policy issue, WP:BLP, WP:DISCLAIMER, or some clear-cut issue like a question posted from a Vancouver IP asking for a bus route to a gay-themed anime convention traceable to a known banned user. In those cases, there's not much of a conflict. But here there is a perfectly reasonable question, and a user who has been blocked for being an alleged proxy user, but w/no identification of the user being otherwise sanctioned.

I both want to leave the question in place as reasonable, and don't want to encourage evasion by users who have already been blocked for other reasons. But the 30-day ban given for use of a proxy is both harsh enough to seem serious, but vague enough that I don't see why the user should be blocked. For example, we don't have bans on IP posters. and this user obviously wasn't trying to impersonate anyone or act as a sockpuppet.

So what would happen if, for some odd reason, I wanted to post a perfectly valid question with no nefarious intentions but hide my tracks. Would I be subject to blocking for use of a proxy? μηδείς (talk) 16:49, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Your over my head there on your last question; I don't work in that field of Wikipedia administration, proxy policy is outside of my bailiwick. For the rest of it, WP:AGF is usually a pretty good policy to follow. If someone (to you) appears to be acting in good faith, feel free to treat them with respect. You can't get in trouble for that. The only caveat I may have is that if you do see someone removing what you think is a good-faith post, they may be doing so because of legitimate reasons; which is to say that admins (and especially checkusers) often have access to knowledge they are not going to share (per WP:BEANS or WP:DNFT and the like) but which absolutely justifies their actions. All I can say is to trust that admins are working in good faith as well, and when we remove posts we have just cause, even if we can't openly litigate our rationales with everyone that has a question. --Jayron 32 17:27, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Take the Jiminy Cricket approach: Let your conscience be your guide. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:24, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

JC's a phony, through and through. Only got to where he did riding next to the most obvious liar ever assembled. Real boys need real advice, and there ain't no realer boy than your boy J.C. Ice. He says "I wouldn't change nothing." Does he mean he would change something or doesn't he? You never know. That's the thing. Nobody knows. Just choose to do things and when they're over, live a good life. If you wind up nowhere, so be it, at least you won't be disappointed. And if you are, it is what it is: you didn't change nothing.

Even if you're in a Disney movie (and you're not), you should always disobey whatever ungodly creature is assigned as your conscience, at least the first time. Not listening gets you into the sort of trouble that teaches the sort of lessons that empower you to destroy a hapless villain and live happily ever after. No kid stays plopped in front of a TV for 90 minutes of rich people getting older, unless they're made of wood. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:41, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

I brought this thread to the block admin's attention, and asked for comment. μηδείς (talk) 02:23, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

I suspect you're tired of getting yelled at for doing the "wrong" thing. In this particular case, there is definitely some ambiguity. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:42, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Speaking as the blocking admin in question, I blocked the IP as a fairly obvious proxy. Checking the range, I can see some other disruption, FWIW. That being said, I would not object to an unblock if another admin feels so inclined. GAB^gab 20:26, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

What I was looking for is "Ref Desk standards". Proxy seems okay if innocent, but disruption by proxy seems like a cut case for deletion. The problem is that the question at the RD was not obviously disruption. μηδείς (talk) 23:35, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Well, sort of. Proxies need to be checked and individually blocked. No one checks unless someone is disrupting using the IP address. I'm sure there are thousands of people editing Wikipedia using banned open proxies right now. No one actually checks and blocks them until something suspicious happens. --Jayron 32 13:12, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

LoveVanPersie's transcriptions

Split from About Spanish pronunciations posted on 9 February on the Language reference desk - Mr KEBAB

Well, this should probably go to talk, but we had a self-identified Chinese national who claimed to live in Montreal who was always asking incessant pronunciation questions, especially regarding the 'e' vowel. This guy seems a bit more sophisticated, but the time frame and the overlap of interest in how one pronounces French words strikes me as striking. I won't hat his questions, he can ask what he likes. But if you find you have to correct someone so eager to make edits where he has no expertise are you not yourself also so stricken? That brings up the second question, does anyone remember the username of the previous and now banned "How do they say in Quebec" user? That user was eventually blocked for disruption, and I had nothing to do with it, not being an admin myself. μηδείς (talk) 00:18, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

That was User:Fête, who has been blocked from all of Wikimedia. Adam Bishop (talk) 01:10, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

@Medeis: It does strike me as WP:INCOMPETENT (and I've already told him that), but he's also doing a good job with Serbo-Croatian transcriptions. At the same time though, having to correct him so often is frustrating and I don't want to have to do it anymore. Here's a list of all the corrections I had to make: [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16] (this one was discussed on my talk page), [17], [18] (EDIT: Here's another one: [19]).

It's clear to me that he cares about quantity much more than quality. After I asked him to not transcribe Slovak words nor edit existing transcriptions, he just waited a few days and started doing that again, completely ignoring what I said: [20], [21]. I'm pretty sure that they're correct, but still...

He could be Fete, yes. The way he spammed my talk page with pronunciation requests (which I didn't mind answering until he started ignoring what I said and being dishonest about having read WP articles he'd barely glance at) surely does remind me of Fete.

Can someone check his French, Portuguese and Spanish transcriptions from the last 2-3 months? I'm sure some of them are wrong. I realize that's an outrageous request to make, but I can't really do more than what I've already done. Mr KEBAB (talk) 12:43, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

@Mr KEBAB I am so sorry to make so much trouble to you. As for articles about Slovak, I did read them conscientiously. I misunderstood the "followed by", which I thought means "next to", "next syllable" or something like that. LoveVanPersie (talk) 12:58, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

@LoveVanPersie Not understanding such basic expressions is also an issue of competence, a pretty big one I'd say. Mr KEBAB (talk) 13:13, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

@LoveVanPersie I'm sorry, but are you finally going to stop guessing the transcriptions? This is wrong. Mr KEBAB (talk) 15:39, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

@Mr KEBAB I know it's a Catalan name. But on YouTube, some people pronounce it [x], some people pronounce [ʝ]. I wasn't "guessing" the IPA. [22], [23] LoveVanPersie (talk) 17:13, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

@LoveVanPersie Fair enough, but can you give me some examples? Remember that we're talking about Georgina García Pérez from Spain. What matters is how she pronounces the name. Mr KEBAB (talk) 17:31, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

@Mr KEBAB [24], [25] I can't find the pronunciation by herself. LoveVanPersie (talk) 17:41, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

@LoveVanPersie I'm talking about the pronunciation of Georgina in the context of Georgina García Pérez, not other people. I'm not saying that it has to be her that pronounces that name. In my video, it isn't. Mr KEBAB (talk) 17:44, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

@Mr KEBAB I can't find it on YouTube so I just searched the name's pronunciation... In your video, the person is Anabel Medina Garrigues. LoveVanPersie (talk) 17:50, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

So what do you think of all this? I'd like to hear from others before I report him, which I'm very close to doing. Today, he added two incorrect English pronunciations: [26], [27]. Mr KEBAB (talk) 10:31, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

The user identifies as Chinese and a Yue speaker, shows apparently poor command of English, has 10 (TEN!) live questions at the ref desk as of this post; although I've hatted the last and warned the user on his talk page. And his obsession with nonstandard French pronunciations and /ɛ/ strike me as overwhelming proof that if this is not User:Fête he wants us to think he is. All that's merited if this continues is a quick complaint to a checkuser and/or arbcom. BTW, I have uncollapsed the section above, as it is now entirely relevant here on talk. μηδείς (talk) 16:51, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Pinging LVP in case he's unaware of the move: @LoveVanPersie: Mr KEBAB (talk) 19:39, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

This case is in the hand of higher authorities now, a long statement by the user was oversighted and an explanation regarding that redaction placed on the user's talk page. We can safely leave this to the experts barring further necessity. μηδείς (talk) 20:13, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Requested edit to semi-protected Language Refdesk thread

Could someone please add the following direct reply to the last entry by IP 2601:1C1 etc. in the Language Reference Desk section headed "Misuse of etc."?

No, as a native BrE speaker in his 7th decade (and a former textbook editor FWIW) I agree it sounds slightly informal, but not markedly so: if I was editing a piece containing this sentence, I'd suggest changing it or not if the piece was otherwise highly formal or academic in style, but not otherwise. "Et omnia" would indeed be technically better, but it's simply not in common use in English: I'd personally be fine with it, having studied Latin, but many readers would not. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.220.212.253 (talk) 02:46, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks in advance {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.220.212.253 (talk) 02:46, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

OK, I've done it myself now that the protection has expired and no-one else had got round to it. Thanks, me! {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.220.212.253 (talk) 23:11, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

For that matter, could the person who protected the language desk please unprotect it? I'm in the process of writing a usertalk message about it. Thanks. 173.228.123.121 (talk) 04:06, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

The above user has since talked a gullible admin into un-protecting the page. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:02, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

I don't see what the problem is. Neither of the above editors appears to be problem editors. In fact both appear to be long term editors who have not been blocked either at all or in a long time. The LTA editor who resulted in the blocking will come back eventually since they always do. When they do, the page may need to be protected again. Nil Einne (talk) 05:14, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

The OP told the gullible admin that there had been no recent trolling on the lang desk, which was a lie. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:40, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

No it appears to be true. 10 hours is not recent when it comes to the RD or the editors concerned. Especially when it was only a few edits rather than a revert war, and the editor had not edited again in all those 10 hours. Also no one said there had been no recent trolling anyway. 173 said there had been no recent vandalism, which is even more true. The banned editor of concerned here sometimes crosses into a realm that could be called WP:vandalism, but doesn't seem to have done so here. (At most you could call it WP:gaming, but that normally implies doing something more than trying to leave your comments on the RD.) Their edits are unwelcome per WP:DENY but that doesn't automatically make them vandalism. Especially when they weren't engaged in a long revert war to keep them in. You hang out enough at the various ANs that you should know by now that we have a specific definition of vandalism and not all problem edits are classed as vandalism, and it is important you only call stuff vandalism when it actually is. 173 also said they themselves did not make any trolling edits. This also appears to be true. They did make some jokes, but frankly whatever people think of them, their jokes were far tamer then the crap you pull sometimes more than once a week on the RD. In other words, if you are going to say 173's jokes were trolling, you probably should head off to ANI and ask for an indef block as an irredeemable troll yourself. So whether or not you want to call the LTA's edit trolling and whatever your definition of 'recent', the IP's statements appear to have been true since no one said there had been no recent trolling instead simply no recent vandalism and that they themselves did not troll. Nil Einne (talk) 06:22, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

BTW, I partly agree with what CBW said on their talk page. It's a bit silly BB for you to make a big deal over this when you yourself in either this discussion or the one on CBW's talk page have. 1) Suggested CBW should talk to themselves. I presume you did so because you failed to notice that CBW is the one who protected the page, not the admin who reverted the LTA who did not do so. 2) Claimed someone said there had been "no recent trolling" which you called a lie despite the fact as I explained no one even said there had been no recent trolling. I don't entirely agree with CBW since I don't think 173 even made a mistake, but it is rich for someone like you to be making a big deal over mistakes when you've made two doozies in these discussions. Nil Einne (talk) 06:33, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Actually looking a bit more I made a mistake too. There were more reverts and there was a revert war before hand. However this ended with the IP being blocked ~ 10 hours before protection. I still question calling these edits vandalism even though they were clearly unwelcome per DENY. The LTA concerned does sometimes return to revert war with multiple IPs and in that case protection is necessary, but it didn't happen yet here. I don't fault CBW for protecting the page although I'm not sure it was necessary, nor BB for asking. But I do stick by my main point namely that what 173 said was basically true, there was no recent vandalism even if it's probably fair to call it trolling (but no one said there was no recent trolling except for BB). And 173 themselves did not troll. And BB's responses to 173 have been unnecessarily harsh considering 173 appears to have no fault in this recent kerfuffle. While it was good for BB to deal with the LTA, their responses after they dealt with the LTA were unnecessary since they pit a bunch of editors all acting in good faith against each other. I apologise if I have contributed to that atmosphere but I do feel that BB has a tendency to be way too harsh with IPs even those who have little fault. Nil Einne (talk) 08:03, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

At present, it appears my assessment of 173 was incorrect. Appy polly loggies. As for the banner user, I stopped reverting him when I realized AIV was not being attended promptly. Once the banned-user's latest IP was finally blocked, I finished the job. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:54, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Side discussion from Bolivar/Humboldt thread

No need for the biting, DuncanHill. If the passage was in one of their bios, it would not be out of place, but this is in our article on natural history and scientific biology, where Bolivar is hardly a leading light. Unless he contributed something to the concept that "an organism and not as a mechanism", his name should probably be removed as not being relevant to the discussion at hand. Matt Deres (talk) 14:35, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

No Matt, Nyttend made series of snide comments here which had he bothered to read either the article on Bolivar or Humboldt he would have realised were completely unnecessary. He questioned the comprehension of the person who added the reference, he questioned the competence of the author. What he never did was say "Is Bolivar relevant to that article?". Stop defending nasty behaviour. DuncanHill (talk) 14:40, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

In Matt Deres's defense, nasty behavior does not itself justify nasty behavior. You don't get a free pass to be nasty merely because you witnessed someone else doing it. He's quite right, if Nyttend's tone was an issue for you, then you do not improve the tone of the discussion by mirroring it back to him. --Jayron 32 14:42, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

So when someone is snide I shouldn't mention it? When someone has obviously completely failed to do any research before calling others incompetent I shouldn't mention it? DuncanHill (talk) 14:48, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Mentioning it is different than mirroring it. One can note the snideness of others without oneself being snide. --Jayron 32 14:50, 9 March 2018 (UTC) (edit: fixed name) --Jayron 32 14:50, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

It's in the eye of the beholder, but I just don't see what was in Nyttend's question that seemed snide. S/he was puzzled by something and asked a question here that, to me, seems perfectly politic, particularly if you take the context of the question into play. S/He was right to question Bolivar's inclusion in a biology article. The "fault" (if you even want to take it that far) was in the WP editor who added it to the article without considering that it made sense to include there. What I assume you perceive as Nyttend beating a dead horse, I see as them trying to figure out what they weren't getting - especially given the spelling error. We castigate questioners who don't do their research, so we should not at all be surprised when a regular goes to lengths to prove that they've given it a go on their own. Also, I feel it only fair to point out that, until I mentioned it, nobody else seems to have bothered with the location of the questioned phrase and instead answered a question that wasn't asked ("How could these two dudes know one another?") so stepping off of high horses is the more appropriate action. Matt Deres (talk) 15:58, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Duncan attacked / lectured the OP for asking the question. Hard to figure. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:15, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Telling someone to "Google it" is not an answer

Perhaps this is a mere pet peeve, but stuff like this annoys me. There are a fair number of reasons why a questioner might not "just google it" -- the topic may not bring up results, or (especially with Google) may not actually be mentioned in most if not all of the results it brings up. Or different people might get different results ... especially if one is in France, or China. Or the questioner may not know which results to trust, especially if they conflict. Or they may just not know the right words to type in to get their answer. Whatever the reason, the bare minimum I want from a "Google" response is that the answerer has actually typed it in, says what phrase to type, and is prepared to say "the top results are all good" or clarify how to spot the good ones. Ultimately though, we want people to share a good source rather than a good search, and to break down what it says and give the punchline as part of our own database of answers. Wnt (talk) 03:33, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

A user searching from China is not going to get any results on Google. ...But that's often still better than the results they'd get on the local search engines.

As for different people might get different results, yes I've been pretty certain they've been customizing results for years (which is why many extremists-who-don't-know-it will say "you just need to google [topic] and you'll get [fringe batshit]"). Ian.thomson (talk) 03:52, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Google certainly has regard to the geolocation of the questioner. There's usually a link to an anniversary - today it's "Mother's Day 2018". Out of curiosity, what link are they showing in other countries? 86.155.146.232 (talk) 11:19, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

I had already googled it, so I wasn't telling the OP to "just google it". And the user came back saying he didn't find the google results useful. So I also linked to one of our articles. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:32, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

In responses where I found my information via Google, I usually include something to that effect, including the key words I used. Sometimes the addition or omission of a single word can make all the difference in the quality of results. However, I agree that the response you linked above was less than helpful. The problem with just putting stuff into Google is that, unless you're pretty sophisticated at interpreting the results, you have little to go on in terms of knowing what's reliable or not. A Google result will list the good, the bad, and the ugly, but it doesn't label them all. I consider that part of the job we do here. Matt Deres (talk) 02:43, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

I told the OP the exact search term I used. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:14, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

I see that, but that post did nothing to help them figure out what results, if any, were good or detailed or easily accessible to the layperson. Look, I'm hardly the poster-child for the way the RefDesk should work, but my $.02 is that a formula like "I Googled XYZ and found A, that seems pretty good and B, which was more technical. There is also Wikipedia article C, but it's only indirectly related." is one that's helpful, referenced, and, well, defensible. I don't always practice what I preach, but when I post replies like that, I almost never get contrary or argumentative replies. Matt Deres (talk) 13:10, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

You're assuming we know for sure what the OP was really asking about. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:23, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

I don't really understand your point. Often, we can't be sure that we know what the OP is asking about. I'm sure nearly everyone who has answered enough questions here has given answers that don't address the OP's actual question. Some of these are entirely our own fault, we didn't read the question properly. Other times the question was ambigious or failed to specify something. Sometimes we notice this, other times we don't. If we feel that that the question is too ambigious, we may ask the OP for clarification. But sometimes we just give an answer hoping it is what the OP wants to know and if we are wrong, going on from there. Ultimately even if we were wrong, just telling the OP to search for whatever term, isn't likely to significantly increase the chances the answer will be useful if we were wrong. And it's not like they can't do that if we gave a recommended search term and some of the apparently relevant results. Nil Einne (talk) 02:42, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Let's answer every question with "Try googling [thing you just said].".

That'd be a useful service!

ApLundell (talk) 23:06, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

In a sense, we already do that, with our instructions up the top. Only if they've had a conscientious search themselves and come up empty-handed are they supposed to come here for help in the first place. We sometimes ask OPs whether they've already searched. But that's a different thing from just barking "Google it" at them. In the time it takes to type that, one could google it oneself, copy the link, and paste it here for the OP's benefit. That would be the minimally courteous thing to do, if one were minded to get involved in the answer at all. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:13, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

I think part of the problem is that every single one of us, no matter how altruistic we imagine we are in donating our time and expertise to selflessly help the question-askers out there, is also secretly a part-time closet control freak. We've all got our own version of the Internet Help Social Contract, which goes sometime like this: "If you have done A and B but are still having trouble with C, you are a worthy striver and are deserving of my assistance, but on the other hand, if you are one of those irresponsible rascals who hasn't done A or B, or if you've gone and done D, or if you actually believe E, well, the buck stops here, you are absolutely going to have to straighten those out before you have any hope of getting help here, and don't you dare complain about the hard time you're getting from me just now, because always remember, you are the supplicant who's asking for help for free, while I am the virtuous altruistic donator of my time but who grants it willingly, but only on my terms."

And on the one hand, up to a point this is fine: we've got to have some standards in terms of what is expected ("please try A and B first") and acceptable ("please don't ask about E"), so we're always going to have to -- hopefully gently -- remind the worthy strivers about our guidelines. But on the other hand, if we spend more time lecturing people on how to solve problems (or how to properly ask questions) than we do answering them, at some point we stop being a free help service after all.

(Not trying to pick on Bugs here, or anything -- like I say, I think in our own way we all do this from time to time.) --Steve Summit (talk) 00:54, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Without disagreeing with the main thrust of your comments (that we can be idiosyncratic in what we think is due diligence, which is certainly true), ultimately this comes down to the nature of the request made by the OP, and I would submit that for a strong majority of inquiries, such a response is inappropriate. "Did you google it?" may very well be a reasonable sentiment where the initial question is so basic that minimal effort on the part of the OP using either a conventional search engine or our own article search would have been almost certain to return quick results. Even then, beware the curse of knowledge.

But when someone asks a question where they clearly articulate the phenomena that they want to know more about, but it's clear they lack sufficient familiarity with the relevant clinical literature and related nomenclature (i.e. the vast majority of questions on our desks, and almost all on the science desk), then clearly telling them to Google it is a thoughtlessly impulsive comment which is only needlessly rude and dismissive, but indeed would probably only waste the OP's time even if they did follow it. Typing "leg jiggling" into Google without further understanding to refine the search was never going to take the OP to the physiological term they sought, nor expedite their effort to understand the phenomenon more broadly--and it was perfectly reasonable for the OP to turn the desks to look for someone with superior knowledge in the relevant fields to point them in the right direction. Indeed, because the OP's question seemed to impute an ambiguous class of phenomena, its a complicated question to answer even for those with some knowledge of the relevant motor neurology. There were three appropriate responses for any contributor reading that request: 1) provide the term, if the question could be answered that plainly, 2) Explain why the question might not be answerable with a single, established empirical term, and provide context (hopefully with sources, and free of speculation) that might nevertheless go to the heart of the OP's inquiry and thus in a sense still answer their question, and 3) Just be quiet. Not everyone needs to respond to every thread and one should probably not be answering any inquiry where they are not making an effort to substantially engage with the OP's question.

Like you, I don't single out Bugs in particular (he is hardly the first to do this), but I'm glad Wnt broached the subject, because I think in a majority of cases, this kind of response is (if not outright flippant) at least a counterproductive use of time for the purposes of our OPs and volunteers--including under the circumstance that we apply a particularly rigorous standard of the effort the OP could reasonably be expected to make beforehand, given the constraint that they may not even know how to approach research or even isolate relevant terminology for a particular field. Snow ^{let's rap} 00:11, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Ban evasion

What to do in a case like this where Vote X for Change asked a question and a number of replies were made in good faith before someone realized that it was VXFC? I see that the most recent VXFC post in the thread has been nuked but the rest of the thread remains. Should the rest be deleted, hatted or allowed to stand? --Viennese Waltz 10:22, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

If the question was asked by a banned user, then it and its followup answers (if any) should all be deleted. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:23, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

So go ahead and do it, then. It seems a shame to me that good-faith follow-up answers are lost along with all the dross. --Viennese Waltz 10:24, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Done. And it is kind of a shame, but the shame all belongs to the banned user. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:32, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Could I float a suggestion? If a question posted by a banned user is in itself not problematic, and sound answers are given that may be of legitimate interest to other good-faith users, could we perhaps expunge all of the banned user's post and further comments, and replace them where necessary with acceptable wording written and signed by one of our trusted regulars/admins? (It might be appropriate to apply a short, standard label for such substitutions.)

That way the banned user is shown no credit or presence, any borderline wording can be made more acceptable, and the results of effort by good-faith responders can be retained.

I'm sure others will have counter arguments. As I myself prefer to continue my long-standing practice of editing as an IP user, I will leave it to any account holder who thinks this suggestion has merit to take it further, should they choose. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.218.14.51 (talk) 21:58, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

As a way of preventing disruption, I don't think this will help, since it will either be obviously correct (and therefore why not remove the whole thread) or it will be either mysterious or questionable, and cause the same disruption that overzealous deletions cause.

As a was of preserving interesting content ... I guess that raises the question of what the point of the RefDesk is. Are we helping individuals with their problems? Or are we creating corpus of interesting random factoids? (Or are we just playing a hunt-the-reference game for the amusement of regulars?)

If we're helping individuals, there's not much point retaining questions from banned users, or other bad faith threads.

If we're doing one of those other things ... well, that opens other questions.

ApLundell (talk) 19:23, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

While I myself agree that the primary purpose of the RefDesks is to answer the specific questions of the OPs, I think there are other secondary benefits:

queries which may arise from deficiencies in articles may lead to responders improving those specific deficiencies (which I believe some consider to be the RefDesks' primary purpose);
articles which receive attention from responders as a result of queries not arising from deficiencies may also prompt general improvements by now-interested responders;
RefDesk browsers may not respond to a given query, but may still find interest in the answers and the general subject, going on to read relevant articles.

Others may be able to suggest further secondary benefits. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.218.14.51 (talk) 16:22, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

As always, there is neither a) a perfect formula to follow, so that we never need to do anything except blindly follow it or b) only one clear reason to follow one clear path forward every time, so we don't have any conflict between competing rationales to do, or not do any reaction. Yes, there are reasons to delete, and reasons to keep, some posts. The issue with Vote (X) for Change is that, in the her case (not a universal rule, JUST HER), experience has taught us that the best response is WP:RBI every time. She is encouraged by people who respond to her, or who allow here material to stand. If someone accidentally responds to her, yes, you have reasons why you want to keep her question. We're still not going to do that, even though you have reasons. Reasons are nice, but we're still going to remove her questions, and any responses that get made nonsensical by them. The reasons to delete her posts, in her case, outweigh the reasons to keep them. I have no other statement on any other person or any other posts by any other blocked or banned users. Just for VXFC, the appropriate response is to totally deny recognition, even if it makes you feel bad that someone deleted your answer to her question. --Jayron 32 16:32, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

No argument, Jayron32. In fact, I don't even remember responding to this, now excised, VXFC post (or even what it was), and wouldn't be upset if I had. I was responding to Viennese Waltz's "What to do in a case like [this one] . . . ." (my italics) as a general point. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.218.14.51 (talk) 17:17, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

There is no "like" this one, if we're restricting our selves to a set of principles that prevents us from responding appropriately. In general, I don't know. Sometimes, maybe, we might leave it up. Sometimes, maybe, we might not. But as soon as we commit to a set of ideas like "If this happens, here's how we respond" we preclude ourselves from responding properly to situations that may need different responses. --Jayron 32 20:23, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Question removed

I removed a question that was a request for debate over ethics. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:58, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

It's a justifiable removal. The OP could have easily used Google to find various opinions on it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:07, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

That's a pretty remarkable statement coming from an RD regular. Your first response to pretty much every question we get is "what have you found via Google so far?" Now you're saying we should go even further and delete any questions for which the answer can be found via Google. That would lead to a pretty empty ref desk page. As for the question itself, it was badly worded but certainly not worthy of deletion or even hatting. A better form of wording would have been "what ethical debates have occurred in the scientific community around the cloning of pets?" --Viennese Waltz 14:38, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

I agree the question was inappropriate, though I thought we generally boxed those up rather than removed them? Since the user was blocked (for block evasion), I guess it's just semantics. Matt Deres (talk) 01:00, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

That was a couple of years ago. Hard to know for sure if it's the same actual guy. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:41, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Boxing up has proven undesirable, since it reminds resident trolls who have a compulsion to violate accepted norms that a question was inappropriate, and they now MUST ANSWER THAT QUESTION, and start long, pointless fights here on the talk page to DEMAND THAT WE STOP CENSORING PEOPLE and the like. If we just delete the question, there's much less chance of encouraging such disruption. The problem usually just goes away then. --Jayron 32 14:27, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Removal is better, except you run afoul of users who hate to have their precious gems deleted, even if it's a response to a banned user. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:59, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

I personally do not recommend Google. Google is too broad. Instead of Google, try Opposing Viewpoints in Context. This service is provided by US libraries and lists various social issues with for and against positions. Very handy. If you just google it, then research becomes very tedious. If the issue is highly controversial, then a random website that pops up in the first-page search results will just point you or persuade you to that side. I also recommend EbscoHost, but mainly for peer-reviewed journals and articles. In other words, Google sucks. Google Scholar is better, but that's mainly good for searching for references. Actual databases require you to do a database search, preferably EbscoHost or WorldCat. Of course, a library membership grants you access to the actual articles, or if not, you can request the article through Interlibrary Loan (ILL). I also recommend Kanopy, another library-supported service, because it provides informative videos on various topics. For example, there are videos that persuade you in the pro-choice side, and there are videos that persuade you in the pro-life side, giving more balanced coverage. SSS (talk) 15:36, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

What sources recommended to you that we should prohibit people consuming caffeine? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:41, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

I think my tone of voice in that paragraph led you believe that "we" should prohibit people consuming caffeine. A whiny voice is always going to perceived as being argumentative. Can you just leave it alone? SSS (talk) 19:27, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

That would be the same tone of voice implying that people don't have the right to call themselves by whatever name they want to. You did well by removing your caffeine section. You could also do well by removing your names question. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:47, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Done. SSS (talk) 20:02, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Attempt to police sensitivity at the RD vs the accepted principle that an edit can only be modified or deleted by its author

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

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

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.

Anna Frodesiak removed a contribution of mine for "insensitivity". I'd like to know if you think she was entitled to do that or not, and why? Here's what happened:

Anna Frodesiak starts a section about the accident on Southwest Airlines Flight 1380 and asks (among other things): "... would breaking another window, thereby decompressing the plane, have made it easier to pull her back in?" (11:22, 19 April 2018 diff)
I answer (somewhat aghast that anyone could even consider this dangerous course of action a possibility): "Nah, just open one of the plane's doors " (12:39, 19 April 2018 diff)
Anna Frodesiak deletes my comment (21:49, 19 April 2018 diff)
Since it seems to be an accepted principle at the RD that only the author of a contribution can modify or delete their contribution (with exceptions, see below) and that she has not sufficiently justified her action I revert her (23:15, 19 April 2018 diff)
Anna Frodesiak deletes my comment again, noting in her edit summary (among other things): "a big smiley face and a joke connected to a recent woman's death is offensive" (01:19, 20 April 2018 diff)

Before I get to my main questions let me note that:

The joke was of course not "connected" to that woman's death. It was not about the death. In fact it was not about the incident at all. It was irony directed at Anna Frodesiak's suggestion to break a window. I believe that much is obvious.
No one in 10 hours and 30 minutes between when I posted my comment and when Anna Frodesiak deleted it seemed to find the joke was offensive or in fact had absolutely anything to do with the actual Southwest Airlines incident at all. Between my reverting Anna Frodesiak and her second deletion Baseball Bugs even posted a reaction to it (a contribution he deleted later). From his reaction to it it didn't look to me like he thought that joke was anything offensive. In fact Anna Frodesiak herself posted between my post and her deletion of it a long contribution (21:24, 19 April 2018 diff). It seems to have taken Anna Frodesiak some time to realize that my joke was offensive. I am at least a little bit inclined to believe that what really offended Anna Frodesiak was sarcasm directed her way. Be that as it may, I think the main question here is one of principle.

I am hoping to get some useful answers to the following questions:

Was my contribution one of those that people usually consider can be deleted out of hand by anyone (banned users, etc.) against the accepted standard I've already mentioned several times?
What's the new standard for "sensitivity"? That any time a question at the RD has to do with a situation that involved deaths, etc. jokes and smileys are not allowed?
Is Anna Frodesiak now entitled to enforce this sort of standard without having sought discussion and consensus?

I'm not gonna revert her this time. That is I'll wait for your reactions before doing so (assuming it doesn't turn out a majority of your reactions disagree with my view of this). But I do believe strongly that in fact it was Anna Frodesiak who should have sought consensus before deleting my joke, as it was she who was going against an accepted standard here at the RD.

Looking forward to your comments. Thanks. Basemetal 19:31, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

I've seen my own comments deleted sometimes, and I've learned that it's best not to make too big a thing of it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:41, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

We don’t alter, deface or erase another User’s edit except in extraordinary circumstances. Basemetal’s quip did not constitute extraordinary circumstances. I also acknowledge that Basemetal should have stated directly the reason breaking a second window is not a good idea, rather than implying it with sarcasm. Dolphin (t) 21:54, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

As with the medical advice issue, you're asserting that your opinion is the only truth. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:12, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Okay, 3,318 keystrokes and probably ten minutes to prepare the diffs and type it. Now, dozens of users will spend time reading this and responding. This will add up to hours of wasted time that could be spend in the mainspace. Let's see if we can get this settled and move on.

So, what do you want from this? An apology? Sure, I'm terribly sorry for removing the post. Do you want post back? Okay, please go put it back. As an editor, I thought it best. If it were me, this would be simple water off a duck's back. It's obviously been stuck in your craw for 3 days. What do you want to have satisfaction and see this post closed? Anything you want, just say. Best wishes, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:26, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Basemetal, you don't need to compose an essay for this page to seek a consensus to enforce talk page guidelines. Clearly, WP:TPO does not list "comments you feel are insensitive" as one of the things you can remove. Trout for Anna, restore your comment as she suggested, and close this thread as a complete waste of space. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:40, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Good plan! Trout me back to the stone age, close this thing, and head back to the mainspace. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:45, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

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

Are all questions about the human body requests for medical advice?

On 11 April a User posted the following question on the Science Reference Desk: I wonder if taking a multivitamin with peanut butter will inhibit absorption of the vitamins since it is so thick and will get stuck in it, is this accurate? I chew up the multivitamin. See the diff

At least one very sound answer was given in reply. See the diff. Sadly, User Baseball Bugs considered the question was a request for medical advice. BB terminated the discussion and hid the question and its answers from the view of other readers of the Science Desk. See the diff.

BB’s action raises a question: Are all questions about the human body requests for medical advice? Or is it possible use the Science Desk to post a question about the human body without that question being construed as a request for medical advice? I think the answer is "Yes, it is possible to ask a question about the human body without it being a request for medical advice."

If I am wrong and if questions about the human body are requests for medical advice, Wikipedia’s advice at WP:MEDICAL should be significantly altered to make this advice more open and more honest. Dolphin (t) 13:35, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Nope, just those that ask about a proper course of action regarding one's medical condition. Saying "By what mechanism does this medicine work in the body" is probably fine, saying "should I eat this food with this medicine and what will happen to me if I do" is not. Note that requests for advice do not need to be phrased in the first person. Questions about "asking for a friend" or "just curious" rationales, or using words like "someone" in place of "I" do not obviate requests for advice, and such breaching experiments are frowned upon. --Jayron 32 13:48, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

A medical student asking for references for a research paper on whether or not different foods affects absorption of vitamins (chewed or swallowed) is using the refdesk for exactly what it was intended for. However, we really have no idea why anyone asks any question, but assuming good faith, we can make cautious guesses from their phrasing. If someone phrases the question "should I chew my vitamins? is it OK to take them with peanut butter?" then we're not really in any position to imagine it's a medical student looking for a reference. If someone phrases it "is there any information on whether taking a vitamin with food (such as peanut butter) will inhibit absorption, especially if the vitamin is chewed?" -- then it's a hypothetical and "not" medical advice.

If we were to update WP:MEDICAL to be more "honest," we'd have it say "phrase your requests for medical advice as requests for references because we legally cannot give out medical advice." But that presents a bit of a legal contradiction, so we don't do that just like we don't ask where/how editors get copies of their sources. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:07, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

There is a perennial two-fold problem with enforcing RD guidelines (unlikely to change after a disingenuous talk page thread with a strawman title).

Part of the problem is that some rules are a fairly thin line. For example, here, I would speculate that had the sentence I chew up the multivitamin been dropped from the original request, it would not have been considered a request for medical advice (at least without a follow-up question asking why the question was asked). Short of radically changing the RD guidelines (which I do not see happening, either because of the political feasibility or because of the lack of obvious alternatives), this will never be fully solved.

There is another part to the problem, though, which I believe to be solvable. It is the culture of enforcers and counter-enforcers and the associated bickering (the current thread, of course, is an example of that; the problem is not that some people see the rules as more comprehensive than others, but that either side will aggressively push their interpretation). That is purely negative, because it does not even produce a sound jurisprudence about what should or should not be closed and what is debatable. Exhibit A is the recent "god" thread which I closed almost three days after it was opened and where seven regular contributors had left their opinions (the problem is not that said opinions were meritless, but that the thread clearly and obviously failed the RD guidelines and should have been closed much sooner; I venture the toxicity of rule enforcement discouraged others from doing so). Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 14:15, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

It's weird, however, that an innocent general interest question about how digestion works is fine, but if you happen to mention what inspired you to ask the question (as one does), then it's strictly forbidden.

It makes things into an unfriendly minefield of rules that newcomers can't be expected to know.

The currently enforced rules are the results of awkward compromises between the regulars, and not really any self-evident truth about what is or is not medical advice.

(However, I'll admit I don't have a suggestion on a way forward that doesn't result in either bitter disputes, or more absurd compromises.) ApLundell (talk) 22:22, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

If the user Matt Deres wants to unbox that question, I would certainly not object. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:50, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

LOL, I certainly don't, but that's hardly a fair standard :-). The way I interpret these things is like this: we shouldn't give advice of any kind, ever. This isn't the advice desk. However, being a hardcase about that would just be stultifying and there'd be all kinds of grey areas anyway. Where I try to draw the line is broadly in accordance with the RD's guideline that we do not offer advice that is regulated, like medical and legal advice. (And, to be fair, I don't think our guidelines go far enough; I've seen some advice regarding chemical and electrical interactions that made my hair stand on end, but I knew they were technically "okay" per the guidelines (just terribly risky) and so I kept silent). With this specific item, asking about the interaction between foods and drugs is perfectly fine (and full of interesting stuff), but asking about whether something is healthful to that person is clearly a request for advice regarding treatment, which is forbidden by our guidelines here. Matt Deres (talk) 23:58, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

I boxed it up on your implicit recommendation, which I agree with. Anytime someone asks whether it's OK to do this, that or the other thing regarding their own bodily well-being, the only proper advice we can ethically give is, "If you're concerned, see your doctor." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:24, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

There are two overriding and unbreachable principles to take into account, which are a) the medical marketplace has a powerful lobby, and b) lobbyists always win. Any attempt to stand for some kind of academic common sense will only lead to yet another tedious and massive effort to have the Refdesk banned; indeed, it can only be a matter of time before Wikipedia as a whole is banned for failing to fit into the appropriate character of the corporate marketplace of ideas. Inherently, they come with price tags. It doesn't matter at all that there isn't actually a market in questions about vitamins; nor that even, say, a certain woman I know who spent $8000 a year on insurance and cancer can expect to be hustled out of a doctor's office with barely 15 minutes of total consultation so that she never seems to know what medicines she is supposed to take when, let alone gets a chance to ask about anything interesting. The point is, the tawdry reality of corporate doctors-for-hire needs to be covered up with a Hollywood veil of the Responsible Physician to whom one turns for every little thing, even though you will never really have the chance to. It's our duty, to fit into the capitalist order, to ensure people do not get advice here, there, or anywhere, and do what everyone else does, and guesses at random. Wnt (talk) 03:01, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

No one here is qualified to give medical advice. As to your complaints about the medical profession, Wikipedia is not the place to "right great wrongs". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:42, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

My thanks to all who have posted a reply on this thread. Your replies have helped me gain a better view of the situation.

My current thoughts are along these lines. Wikipedia understandably cannot condone medical advice being posted on the Reference Desks. Wikipedia’s position on the matter is given at WP:MEDICAL where it says WIKIPEDIA DOES NOT GIVE MEDICAL ADVICE.

Wikipedia may object to answers given on the Reference Desks if those answers constitute medical advice. However, Wikipedia does not object to the question. If a thread is to be hidden it must be because at least one of the answers constitutes medical advice. A thread should not be hidden simply because someone objects to the question.

By the time BB boxed the thread, several answers to the question had been given. BB could have attempted to justify his action by reference to those answers, explaining how they constituted medical advice. Instead, he justified boxing the thread by pointing to Matt Deres’s objection to the question. (Wikipedia cannot object to the question, especially as it is innocent and asked in good faith.)

Unless someone can point to one of the answers and persuasively argue that it constitutes medical advice, the thread should be unboxed. Wikipedia has no objection to the question so should not use the question as grounds for censorship. Dolphin (t) 11:56, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

The question was a request for medical advice. As such, it was potentially subject to deletion. Would you have preferred that I deleted it? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:13, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

So your idea of persuasive argument is: "X is true because...I say it's true." Very impressive. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:20, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

No, Matt Deres said it was true, and I agreed. He can unbox it if he wants to. But he's already said no. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:28, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

@Dolphin51: We have a note at the top of each refdesk that says "We don't answer (and may remove) questions that require medical diagnosis or legal advice." Wikipedia does object to the question if it is asking for medical (or legal) advice. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:50, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Ian.thomson is paraphrasing what is stated at the top of each refdesk when he says “... if it is asking for medical ... advice ...” It actually says “... questions that require medical diagnosis ...” On this thread, no-one has suggested that the original question requires medical diagnosis; and none of the answers looks anything like a medical diagnosis.

There have been a couple of suggestions that the question is asking for medical advice but I don’t see anything to substantiate the notion that a question will be removed if it is “asking for medical advice.”

My earlier post can now be interpreted that if a question clearly and uncontroversially requires medical diagnosis it can be removed. If a question does not clearly require medical diagnosis, or the nature of the question is controversial, people should wait and see what sort of answer is being supplied. If the answers don’t constitute medical advice, the question shouldn’t be removed, at least not until medical advice comes on the scene. Similarly, if a mature thread is to be hidden, the person taking action must be able to point at the answers and argue persuasively that one or more of these answers constitute medical advice. BB has not offered any substantive explanation as to why he boxed the thread. He hasn’t made any attempt to point to an answer that constitutes medical advice; nor has he made any attempt to argue that the question requires medical diagnosis.

If I am wrong, someone will be able to point at one of the answers and argue persuasively that it is medical advice, or is based on a medical diagnosis.

I think some of us are making useful observations and gaining valuable insights by analysing the issues raised in this thread. Dolphin (t) 12:13, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

User:Dolphin51, I am assuming good faith with both hands at this point. I am certain that it was mere carelessness that caused you to set up a ridiculous straw man argument as the title for this section and to forget to ping Bugs or myself or anyone else who took part in that thread and to now cause your vision to blur after reading half of the relevant sentence from our guidelines. I'll quote it directly here: "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." (emphases in original). The key word there in this regard is treatment; providing advice regarding treatment is considered medical advice. Matt Deres (talk) 14:49, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

I don't think you're assuming good faith at all. ApLundell (talk) 23:38, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Dolphin may well be acting in good faith. He's simply got it wrong. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:08, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Well if you say so, it must be true. Thanks for clearing that up! ApLundell (talk) 02:04, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

I and several others say it's true. And you're welcome. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:10, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Nonetheless, a multivitamin is not a drug but a nutritional supplement. It is not prescribed for a disease but purchased at whim by a consumer. Failure to take it will not cause harm, failure to take it correctly will not usually do harm, unless you shove the pill somewhere very creative. This argument will be won the way that all arguments everywhere in the world are won, based on blustering warnings and the fact that might is right, but it has nothing to do with the meaningless text of Wikipedia policies. Wnt (talk) 14:50, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi Matt Deres. Thanks for assuming good faith, and for providing the quote. I hadn’t seen those words before but I went looking and found them at WP:RD/G/M. The brief sentence I quoted is the full extent of what is written at the top of the Science Ref Desk.

On 13 April I pinged Baseball Bugs because he is the User who actually boxed (censored) the thread. I concede that, on that occasion, I didn’t ping anyone else.

I also concede that the title I gave the section is a straw man. Whether it is ridiculous or attention-getting is in the eye of the beholder. However, be careful not to say too much on the subject of the straw man because I and others are likely to say to ourselves “Despite the many hundreds of words Dolphin has written on this thread, the criticism coming from Matt Deres is primarily about the title Dolphin gave to the thread at the time he started it.”

A view I have expressed a couple of times is that if a question is clearly or uncontroversially in breach of the guidelines WP provides to people thinking of posting a question, someone should take action against that question. But if the unreasonableness of the question is unclear, or the view that it is unreasonable is likely to be controversial, no action should be taken against the question. Instead, we should wait and see what sort of answer comes along. Taking action against this question about multivitamins and peanut butter was bound to prove controversial - take a look at the length of this thread after only four days! That proves it is controversial.

Baseball Bugs has struggled to explain why he boxed the thread but it appears to have been based on your view of the question. I don’t recall either you or BB attempting to take account of the actual answers provided up to the time of censorship, even though multiple answers are available. If none of the answers constitutes medical advice, what is the risk in leaving the thread unboxed?

The guidelines say much against answers that constitute medical advice, and they advise how to take action against an answer that constitutes such advice; but the guidelines say almost nothing about censoring a question that might, arguably, bring forth medical advice. So can you quote what part of the guidelines you are relying upon when you advocate boxing (censoring) the whole thread, including multiple answers, because of your objection to the original question? Dolphin (t) 15:42, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

I haven't struggled at all. Matt Deres said it's a request for medical advice, and I agreed and immediately boxed it. Boxing it is not censorship. Deleting and rev-del'ing it would be censorship. If Matt or Ian want to revert my boxing of it, that's fine. And if multivitamins are not a "drug", then why do they appear on my doctor's list of medications that I take? Wnt's hatred of the medical profession is well-known. And I take the supplement because a doctor told me to. I'll take my doctor's word over Wnt's anytime. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:54, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi Baseball Bugs. Thanks for your prompt reply.

Matt Deres led me to some comprehensive and useful guidance material at WP:RD/G/M. This guidance material includes (in bold text):

All reference desk editors are volunteer contributors who are subject to existing Wikipedia guidelines, …

Comment: Those of us who edit on the reference desks are subject to existing Wikipedia guidelines.

These guidelines also contain very detailed guidance regarding questions that may be asking for medical advice:

Dealing with questions asking for medical advice: Generally speaking, answers are more likely to be sanctioned than questions.

The purpose is to minimise disruption: editors disagree over whether a question is seeking medical advice, and removing the whole question is discouraging for new contributors.

Therefore, most of the time, the responsibility lies with responders not to give medical advice, regardless of the question.

When answering a question that appears to be soliciting medical advice, outright removal of the question is discouraged.

Although removal of questions is discouraged, …

I have looked carefully at all these guidelines and come to the conclusion that Wikipedia’s action in boxing the thread called “Peanut butter” is inconsistent with the guidelines.

I notice that on 14th April you wrote that you would not object to the thread being unboxed, provided the user Matt Deres agrees. You boxed the thread and you alone are responsible for your actions. Agreement by Matt Deres or anyone else cannot be made a pre-requisite for Wikipedia to act consistently with its own guidelines.

People posting questions on the Reference Desks, and Users answering those questions, are entitled to assume that Wikipedia will respect its own guidelines and act consistently with them. It is my opinion that boxing of the thread called “Peanut butter” was not consistent with Wikipedia’s own guidelines so I will remove the boxing. Dolphin (t) 13:06, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

I have unboxed the thread. See the diff. Dolphin (t) 13:16, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Why is your opinion superior to everyone else's? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:26, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Nowhere did I say my opinion was superior to everyone else's. It is my opinion that action needed to be taken to right a wrong that was an embarrassment to Wikipedia. WP:BOLD encourages me to do so. Dolphin (t) 13:31, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

How is enforcement of the "no medical advice" rule an "embarrassment" to Wikipedia? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:47, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia publishes guidelines about editing the Reference Desks in general, and in particular on the subject of medical advice. Wikipedia gives an undertaking to act at all times in accordance with its guidelines, and expects all Users who edit on the Reference Desks to respect those guidelines. If boxing of the thread titled “Peanut butter” was not done in accordance with Wikipedia’s published guidelines, that would be an embarrassment to Wikipedia.

Wikipedia is readily able to create new guidelines and amend existing ones. If the Reference Desk community finds that a set of guidelines is inadequate or unreasonable, that community can discuss the matter, find consensus and amend the guidelines. It isn’t appropriate for Users to work around the guidelines or ignore them.

If you find the guidelines at WP:RD/G/M don’t match your vision of how the “no medical advice rule” should operate, I encourage you to raise the matter on Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/Guidelines/Medical advice and present your case for the guidelines to be amended. Dolphin (t) 04:14, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm on the same page as at least three editors here. Maybe it's you that needs to take that advice. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:16, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

The question is not a medical question as it refers to multivitamins and not to some disease or a set of symptoms of the OP for which treatment or diagnosis is asked. Many people use multivitamins, and while they may be prescribed in case of certain diseases, it's not regarded as a medicine. Also the official medical advice that doctors are instructed to give is that multivitamins are a waste of money. So, if we would give medical advice here, we would say that the OP should not worry about absorption, because he/she is going to excrete whatever is absorbed anyway. Count Iblis (talk) 01:17, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

My doctor considers multivitamins to be a type of medication. And I'll take his word over any random, uninformed opinion here. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:13, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

But it's not typically used as medication. Anything besides prescription drugs can be a type of medication for certain patients. Diet, exercise, mental relaxation exercises, taking a vacation, it can all play a role in some healing process. Should we then close down a question on the Ref Desk about hotel bookings just because in theory it could be related to the OP having medical issues for which rest in the form of vacation has been prescribed and if that were the case the OP should consult his/her doctor? Count Iblis (talk) 02:36, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

It's "not regarded as medicine" because special interest groups have spent a lot of money and effort making it so. Between selling shark cartilage and very expensive urine to suckers, the last thing vitamin companies want is to be held to their claims of efficacy, purity, or safety. Your bizarre conflation of holiday trips to medical advice is a complete non sequitur. When someone comes on here asking if a trip to the Caymans is healthful, then sure, go ahead and shut the conversation down; I'll back you 100%. But until that occurs, why even bring it up? The world is a complicated enough place as it is without conjuring up these convoluted hypotheticals in the hopes that it will excuse us from abiding by our good-faith guidelines. If the questioner asks a question that impacts their own health by way of diagnosis, prognosis or treatment, we politely shut it down. It's really not that hard. Matt Deres (talk) 13:27, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

But experience here shows that the way we go about things here (as opposed to other very reputable websites like StackExchange) does make things quite hard for us. The real world is more complex than what can be captured well in a few rules, attempting to do so can cause problems. In this case, an OP may casually mention their health while its not an essential part of the question. Whether diagnosis is an essential part of the question or not is a judgment call that itself can't be captured well in a set of a few rules. Most other websites go about this by letting the posters make their own judgment. Experience shows that this leads to far less friction among a far larger group of posters than what we see here. What I see on those other sites is that if a question is closed on the grounds that answering the question would constitute giving medical advice, then it's always the case that the OP deciding to get an appointment with the doctor to discuss that question, would sound like a very appropriate thing to do.

In contrast, what I see here quite often is that it closed questions are typically not things you can get a doctors appointment on. Where I live, you have to explain why you want to get a doctors appointment, discussing vitamin absorption is not a valid reason in itself. There has to be a physical complaint or an ongoing medical problem (e.g. malabsorption for which you are treated) and it's in the context of such a medical problem that your request to see a doctor may be approved. Otherwise, you may actually get referred to Dr. Google.

So, the way we go about dealing with these sorts of questions is inconsistent with the way society on these issues actually works and that's where all the trouble is coming from. Count Iblis (talk) 20:55, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Matt Deres: You say “.. if it impacts their own health .. we shut it down.” That is not what is stated in the relevant guideline, and you know it. The guidelines discourage removal of questions (except perhaps in extreme circumstances.) It is clear that the guidelines fall well short of your expectations in this area. The legitimate way to deal with that is for you to raise the matter in the appropriate forum and argue your case for some changes to the guidelines. When you do what you are presently doing, you aren’t implementing Wikipedia’s published guidelines, you are implementing your own secret rule.

In one of my previous edits I asked if you can quote the part of the guidelines that you are relying upon when you advocate censorship or blocking of a question and all its answers on the grounds that you object to the question. No-one has attempted to supply such a quote from the guidelines. Dolphin (t) 21:51, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Dolphin51 And that is also not what I am saying. When you ellipse the important part of someone's post, it's easier to argue with them, though, isn't it? "Diagnosis, prognosis, and treatment" are all there listed in our list of enumerated guidelines. You know, the ones people keep linking for you, but you seemingly haven't read? Again: "Any question that solicits a diagnosis, a prognosis, or a suggested treatment is a request for medical advice..." And in that very same bullet point, it tells us "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 Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines/Medical advice." As a matter of courtesy it has become habit to box ("hat") the questions up rather than removing them immediately. Should the people objecting to the removal succeed in proving their point, it's easier to unbox ("unhat") the question than to restore it from scratch because it helps preserve internal links (such as from your list of contributions). However, if you feel outright removal is better, I'm prepared to discuss that. Matt Deres (talk) 22:29, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Matt. This is just a brief, interim response. When BB blocked the thread titled “ peanut butter”, did he notify the User who posted the original question? Did he notify the Users who had posted answers to the question? Did he leave a note of his action on the Reference Desk Talk page? As far as I can see, he did none of these things. These are just three examples of how this blocking process has evolved - outside of the guidelines and paying little respect to the guidelines. More later. Dolphin (t) 22:48, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Matt Deres: I see the problem. Unfortunately, the word “may” has more than one meaning. In some applications, the word “may” is stating a likelihood: “Stroll without an umbrella and you may get wet.” In other applications, the word “may” is granting a permission: “You may now kiss the bride.” Whenever we see the word “may” we need to ask ourselves whether it is being used to state a likelihood, or to grant a permission. These two applications can be confused with hilarious results: “Valuables left unattended may be stolen” – this is NOT granting a permission!

You have quoted from a general guidance document, WP:RD/G, What the reference desk is not: “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.” This sentence uses the word “may”. We need to be very careful when deciding whether this is granting a permission or stating a likelihood.

WP:RD/G/M is less of a general guidance document. It more closely focuses on the problem of medical advice. Its lede para says “Questions that appear to be soliciting medical, legal or other professional advice, or answers that give the impression of providing such, should be dealt with as described below.” When we look below to see how we should deal with these things, we find a comprehensive section titled Dealing with questions asking for medical advice. This section comprehensively provides the operating instructions, the rules of engagement, by which Users should deal with questions asking for medical advice. This section grants all the permissions necessary for Users to deal with these questions. In these guidelines, no permissions are granted other than in this section. The unmistakeable theme of this section is that removal of questions is discouraged. It includes two vitally important pieces of advice:

“Note the removal of the question by posting the diff on the Talk page of the Reference desk.”
“Consider leaving a note on the user Talk page of the person who posted the question, explaining that we cannot offer medical advice.”

Now, let’s leave the section titled Dealing with questions asking for medical advice and return to the more general guidelines WP:RD/G to the section titled What the reference desk is not. This section does indeed use the expression “may be removed” but it says nothing about:

Noting the removal by posting the diff on the Talk page of the Reference desk, or
Considering leaving a note on the Talk page of the person who posted the question.

What the reference desk is not says nothing about "removal of questions is discouraged".

Considering the granting of permissions necessary for dealing with questions asking for medical advice, these are all bundled together in one section (titled Dealing with questions asking for medical advice.) Would the wise folks who constructed these guidelines have granted one extra permission but placed it in a separate document (a more general document) in a section titled What the reference desk is not? Would these wise folk grant a separate permission that is remote from important information such as "removal of questions is discouraged", and "make a note on the Ref desk Talk page"? That would be a most unprofessional and unacceptable thing to do! All permissions should be bundled together in one place.

There is only one reasonable interpretation of all this, namely that where the section titled What the reference desk is not says “may be removed” it is stating a likelihood, not granting a permission. Your interpretation is legally naïve. All actions to be taken against questions and answers that look like medical advice must be done in accordance with the permissions granted in WP:RD/G/M in the section titled Dealing with questions asking for medical advice.

There is another observation that reinforces my view. At the top of every Reference desk there are four bulleted pieces of advice aimed at would-be posters of questions. The first says “We don't answer (and may remove) questions that require medical diagnosis or legal advice.” Here again we see the expression “and may remove”. The word “may” is used to state a likelihood, not to grant a permission to would-be posters of questions. Permission to remove a question is only granted at WP:RD/G/M in the section titled Dealing with questions asking for medical advice. Dolphin (t) 13:02, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

The problem isn't with the word "may". The problem is with the attitude that we're operating on a system of permissions and laws here; that there's some authority that has the power to punish, and that we must cow-tow to that authority by seeking permission to do something. That's not how we work. What we have is a system of agreed-upon best practices, that we're all responsible for abiding by. There is no authority at Wikipedia. There is only the community, it's standards, and the encyclopedia it is building. --Jayron 32 14:02, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Jayron32: Your summary is legally naïve. See the excellent advice and recommendation on this subject by Mark Worthen - diff. Dolphin (t) 12:22, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Right. When those medical advice cops bash down your door and arrest you, let me know. --Jayron 32 12:54, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

My objective in starting this thread on 13 April has now been achieved. I have a much better understanding of the background to the process of removing questions and answers from view on the Science Reference Desk. I am now able to propose some changes to WP:RD/G to improve the way Wikipedia deals with questions that require a medical diagnosis. I will do so on a new thread that I will start on this Ref desk Talk page.

I am grateful to all Users who participated in the discussions on this page, and I sincerely thank all of you.

I have now finished on this thread and, as far as I am concerned, it can be marked "Done". However, I see Count Iblis has made a recent posting so he may wish to keep the thread open. If there are no new postings in the next day or two I will mark it "Done". Dolphin (t) 13:51, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Done

By the way, the answer to the question "Are all questions about the human body requests for medical advice?" is obviously NO. If someone asks, "What is the tibia?" the answer is "read the Tibia article." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:21, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Topic ban proposal for Baseball Bugs at ANI

Notification of a topic ban proposal for Baseball Bugs from Wikipedia space. As made explicit in the proposal, this will cover the RD, which is in Wikipedia space, if passed as worded. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Topic ban on Baseball Bugs from Wikipedia Space Nil Einne (talk) 12:47, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Proposed change to Reference desk Guidelines

The guidelines at WP:RD/G contain a section titled What the reference desk is not. It contains five bulleted topics of explanation. The third bulleted topic is much larger than the other four and contains the following sentence:

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.

I see two problems with this sentence so I am proposing that it be deleted. These problems are:

The section is titled What the reference desk is not but this sentence doesn’t contain the word “reference” or the word “desk”. It contains procedural information, not explanation about what the reference desk is not. It says questions that ask for medical, legal or other professional advice are likely to be removed and replaced with a message, but this statement has nothing to do with what the reference desk is not. The necessary procedural information is comprehensively covered at WP:RD/G/M. Deletion of the sentence will not diminish the extent to which this bulleted topic explains what the reference desk is not.
In recent discussions on this Talk page I have discovered that the sentence is misleading Users. Use of the expression "may be removed" has the appearance of granting a permission but, in fact, it is only stating a likelihood. All the permissions required for dealing with questions asking for medical advice are provided at WP:RD/G/M in the section titled Dealing with questions asking for medical advice. What is more important, several other considerations related to removing a question, such as notifying the person who posted the question; and "Also, note the removal of the question by posting the diff on the talk page of the Reference desk" are only found in the section titled Dealing with questions asking for medical advice. Some Users have been removing questions and answers without notifying anyone, and without noting the removal of the question on the Talk page of the Reference desk, believing this sentence in What the reference desk is not gives them permission to remove questions without regard for the considerations and procedural information published in Dealing with questions asking for medical advice.

I am interested to see if other Users have views on the above proposal. If not, I will make the deletion in a few days. Dolphin (t) 14:27, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

hmm. I would like to add a section called "what the reference desk IS". Anyone want to suggest content for that section? 86.8.201.80 (talk) 15:25, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Oppose the above changes. Its fine, it is telling people that if they ask questions that violate our guidelines, they could be removed. "Permissions" misses the point entirely. We're all adults here, we're not asking for "permissions" as though we were little kids seeking to stay up an hour late. This is not a game, there are not rules we follow or need permission to do. We do what is best, we follow established guidelines, and we fix problems when they come up. There is no "permission" to remove a thread, there is just threads that need to be removed if they are against our guidelines, and anyone may simply do so. --Jayron 32 12:24, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Jayron32: You say "we follow established guidelines". I say "Some Users have been removing questions and answers without notifying anyone, and without noting the removal of the question on the Talk page of the Reference desk, ..." I can supply diffs if you wish. We like to think we all follow established guidelines at all times, but the truth is that it isn't happening at all times. I can supply diffs.

I'm not doubting that you and I and most of us follow established guidelines; but I am trying to fix the problem that causes some of us to violate those guidelines.

I say again in case you missed it - some of us are violating those guidelines. Does this concern you? I can supply diffs if you wish. Dolphin (t) 13:47, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

If we aren't notifying anyone or posting notice on T:RD, then we should be doing that. If you find that someone has forgotten to do so, you can just remind them. It's no big deal. You don't need to hunt diffs to shame people who may have forgotten. Just a little note when you see it happen. If its been months ago, well, that ship has sailed. If it was today, then either start the discussion yourself, or kindly remind them to leave the notice. --Jayron 32 13:57, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Jayron32: I'm pleased you acknowledge that we should be posting notice on T:RD and notifying people whose posts are being censored. I'm talking about people who appear to be defiant that they do not need to observe Dealing with questions asking for medical advice, found in WP:RD/G/M. This happened about two weeks ago and when I found what was happening I started the thread titled "Are all questions about the human body requests for medical advice?" You contributed. You can still see the thread at the top of this Talk page. I finally got to the bottom of it and found that at least one User genuinely and innocently believes he doesn't have to pay any attention to Dealing with questions asking for medical advice because he is relying on a sentence he has found in What the reference desk is not. His interpretation is clearly opportunistic, and it is legally naïve. The guidelines that you say "we follow" were seriously violated in this case. It appears to be a systemic problem, albeit sporadic. Dolphin (t) 14:29, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Please note that there are editors like this one who do not require notification when their posts are removed. MarnetteD|Talk 14:02, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks MarnetteD. I agree with you! Dolphin (t) 14:31, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

I interpret "may be deleted" as "it's possible it will be deleted". Clearly, it's not always deleted. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:05, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Bugs. That’s great news. So do I. I call this interpretation of the word “may” - stating a likelihood. I have looked carefully all over the Ref desks and the Guidelines, and I am convinced that, on the Ref desks, “may” is always stating a likelihood.

But the word “may” has another meaning that I call granting a permission: for example when the wedding celebrant says to the bridegroom “You may now kiss the bride”. This sentence is not about “it’s possible” or “it’s likely” - it’s granting a permission. Other examples of granting a permission are “You may leave the room” and “You may have another piece of cake.”

I have found one User who looks at the section titled “What the reference desk is not”, sees the sentence saying “Questions that ask for medical ... advice may be removed and replaced with a message ...”, and interprets this sentence as granting a permission, (an authorisation, encouragement etc.) and relies upon it for removing questions from the Ref desk without respecting the advice given at “Dealing with questions asking for medical advice” which is in another guidance document. That appears to be the root cause of this problem. Dolphin (t) 21:43, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Oppose removing this sentence: "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" from WP:RD/G. However, I agree that the auxiliary verb "may" can denote permission or possibility. Therefore, I ...
Support rewriting the question. If our intention is to denote possibility, the sentence should be rewritten to something like this: "Questions that ask for medical, legal or other professional advice might be removed ...." If our intention is to denote permission, the sentence should be rewritten to something like this: "Editors may remove questions that ask for medical, legal or other professional advice and replace such questions with a message (such as {{RD-deleted}}) pointing to these guidelines." - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) 03:04, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Our intention is to denote possibility. Dolphin (t) 14:15, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

- Very few users here oppose boxing up or deleting blatantly obvious medical advice questions. For example, "I think I have cancer. What should I do?" And obviously the answer is, "See your doctor." The core issue is just what constitutes a medical advice question. Some want a narrower interpretation, some want a broader interpretation. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:10, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Hopefully, everyone wants the two Guideline documents to provide accurate, adequate information. At present, that isn’t the case. I see some evidence of Users thinking “the Guidelines don’t say what I want them to say so I will have to work around them.” Dolphin (t) 07:57, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Baseball Bugs wrote: "The core issue is just what constitutes a medical advice question." I don't disagree, and clear, comprehensible prose is important throughout. - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) 08:57, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

My position is exactly the same as Markworthen's: Oppose removing the sentence; Support amending it for clarity. Cheers. Basemetal 11:17, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Markworthen opposed removing the sentence from WP:RD/G. Instead he supported rewriting the sentence. Basemetal's position is the same as Mark's. Baseball Bugs appears to be of the same view. To implement Mark's suggestions I am proposing the changes shown in this diff. If you wish to comment, you can do so on this Talk page, or on User talk:Dolphin51/Sandbox. Dolphin (t) 12:02, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

In order to harmonize "the RD community might agree to remove the question..." and "removal of a question from an RD is discouraged" you may wanna make it clearer that what is discouraged is unilateral removal by an editor without first seeking consensus from the RD, by notifying on this talk page that the offending question has been removed or is about to be removed and explaining the rationale for the removal. On the other hand I do favor summary removal of any answers to offending questions because then time may be of the essence.

Incidentally, you may also wanna include a link to the Wikipedia:General disclaimer. For example questions such as: "Should I invest my life savings in Company X's stock?" or "My goldfish is behaving bizarrely these days; should I add some vinegar to his water?" or "I'd like to experiment with the fuel/air mixture on the carburetor of my vintage Cessna C 165; could that lead to any problem?" that do not fall under the specific medical and legal disclaimers do fall under the general disclaimer, and answering any such question at the RD is also to be strongly discouraged.

Basemetal 12:38, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Basemetal. I have tweaked my proposed version to make it clear that answers that constitute professional advice will be removed, but removal of questions is discouraged. Seriously inappropriate questions might be removed by the Reference desk community acting in accordance with WP:RD/G/M#Dealing with questions asking for medical advice - see my diff.

At this stage I'm not willing to fine-tune the guidelines to make it clearer that what is discouraged is "unilateral removal by an editor" whereas removal by the Reference desk community is not similarly discouraged. This sentiment is not found at WP:RD/G/M#Dealing with questions asking for medical advice which simply says "removal of questions is discouraged". I expect the Reference desk community will take account of the risk that exists while the question remains visible, and if the risk is not substantial they will resist the temptation to remove the question. My current objective is just to clarify one minor point in a manner consistent with the existing guidelines, not to incorporate new considerations that don't presently exist. There will be opportunities in the future for refining the guidelines, and incorporating new considerations. Dolphin (t) 13:42, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

I have made the changes - see my diff. Dolphin (t) 11:30, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Done

Anyone's heard from Medeis?

This isn't helping anyone achieve anything. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:24, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

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

On May 4 2010 Medeis made his first ever edit to WP (at least as a registered user) and it's been exactly 2 months since he last made a WP edit. Checking his contributions there does seem to be some years ago a gap of about a month but generally speaking he's been pretty much addicted to this place since May 2010 and specifically to the RD since he discovered it about a year later. All this to say I am kind of worried, especially since this seems so abrupt, without any warning (the days before seemed pretty much business as usual), and since he had at times mentioned some serious health issues. Has anyone been in contact with him by email all these years? If you have, have you heard from him after March 4? Basemetal 16:25, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

It's a mystery. I've had occasional emails with Medeis. The last one was February 23. As you note, the last Medeis edit was on March 4 - nothing significant, just routine edits. I've sent an email or two since then, with no response. Checking up on Medeis through other means could be difficult, as I don't think anyone has real-life information on Medeis, nor an email other than the one connected with the account. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:05, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Same sort of thing happened with Epeefleche a few years ago. We had exchanged a few emails in the years prior to 2015 when he stopped editing, and my emails to him after 2015 have gone unanswered. Bus stop (talk) 03:36, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

It happens. I used to enjoy chatting with User:Julia Rossi who was a positive presence on the ref desk. One day her contributions just stopped, with no indication that she was leaving the project or anything. I've often wondered what happened to her. --Viennese Waltz 09:38, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

It's amazing. The freaking rotational barn-stars keep turning long after the editor has ceased editing. It seems like a metaphor for something. Count Iblis might be right. Bus stop (talk) 11:26, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

I think it's a metaphor for the fact that it's hard to get a good night's sleep—otherwise why would there be so many mattress stores? Bus stop (talk) 11:32, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

It's all hinting at the cyclical nature of generation and regeneration. Some people spend eight hours at work, eight hours sleeping and eight hours doing the other thing. Some people put in eight years for their business, hibernate for eight more and wake up to strange new worlds that keep them busy for another eight. Like my legal and medical qualifications, my police and astrological instinct has often and rightly enough been questioned at these desks (JackofOz told me I was an underachiever instead of a real-life Batman on my first day here), but nonetheless I'll predict a Medeis return for March 20, 2034. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:47, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

I resile from nothing. :) -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 00:19, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

What was the exact quote and when was that?

Basemetal 09:00, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

2012 sometime, something like "Typical overemulating underachiever" or "Classic underemulating overachiever". It was terse, however it went. Jack (or someone) also wanted the whole thing deleted as trolling, which may explain why I can't find it in the archives. I wasn't trolling, of course; just wanted to know how much a functional batsuit might cost, ballpark. Bit of an "odd" question, perhaps, but dead f**ging serious. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:33, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

"Risk-averse under-achiever.". The someone who hatted the question was not Jack, by the way, but someone else. (And the person who removed it entirely is vigorously robust and green, yet not fit to eat :-) ---Sluzzelin talk 16:51, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

That was it! "Risk-averse". Worst thing anyone's ever called me online; made my pants rip but my shirt stay on. If I recall correctly, anyway, which I clearly don't (thanks, Sluzz!). My edit summary jogged my memory insofar as deleting myself goes, but I can't explain why Medeis disappeared (then or now). "Prickly Old World birdshit"? InedibleHulk (talk) 17:39, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Well, now that my mind has been refreshed, I see that you were wanting to save the world but needed the Wikipedia Reference Desk's imprimatur to ensure you were doing it right. So tell us, how did your world-saving exercise go? :) -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 23:36, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Still turning, ain't it? InedibleHulk (talk) 16:42, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Stimulating debate about Medeis's gender

If an editor is rather consistent about some facet of their identity, and they're not disruptive about it, it rather goes against WP:AGF and even WP:OUTING to speculate to the contrary. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:31, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

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

Medeis is female. 82.43.223.98 (talk) 15:25, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Really? How do you know? Medeis's edits've always sounded to me very much like they'd been written by a man. Basemetal 15:30, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

This is the "smoking gun", although Medeis has not (to my knowledge) expressed a preference for any particular form of pronoun. Tevildo (talk) 17:41, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

I am not altogether clear on Medeis' gender, which is why I just say "Medeis". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:46, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Hmm. Ok. Thanks. Had no idea there was this clue. But my instinct tells me different. Medeis might have been joking and seemed to like riddles. Incidentally Μηδείς (signature) in (Ancient) Greek is masculine. The feminine would be Μηδὲ μία. I'll just do what Bugs does. I'll forgo the pronoun and say "Medeis". Basemetal 18:23, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Medeis is male. No woman writes like he does. He's just being mischievous. --Viennese Waltz 20:57, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Medeis has multiple times used female forms for herself, as noted above using "waitress". Your own personal opinions over who she should be based on how you think she writes is irrelevent. It is beyond rude and insulting to assign genders to people they don't themselves use. --Jayron 32 12:28, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

If it was any other editor we were talking about, I would agree with you. But Medeis is not like any other editor. He is prone to mischief-making and obfuscation, and likes nothing more than to sow the seeds of confusion in the minds of other editors who he believes to be lesser than himself. He is a troll who uses the ref desks for his own personal entertainment and should have been blocked years ago. Whenever he's used the female gender, it's not been a statement of gender identity. He's just doing it for the lolz. --Viennese Waltz 13:44, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Right. When people make self-referencing statements about their own gender, it's trolling. Thank you for letting the world know the exact kind of person you are. It will allow us to be informed on how to understand the context of everything you say in the future. --Jayron 32 14:14, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

You're missing my entire point. I'm not talking about people in general, I'm talking about one person in particular, whose long history of trolling on the ref desks leaves me in no doubt as to his true intentions. You need to stop talking in general terms and start focusing on the known peculiarities of this one editor. --Viennese Waltz 14:25, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

No one here knows Medeis' gender. And if Medeis' self-references as female are consistent, then it's the best evidence we have. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:41, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

No, the point is, you think you can identify a person's gender based on their "writing style", in contravention of the fact that every gendered self-reference they have ever made is 'female'. That is, you're willing to assume that your presumptions about how females write trumps their own self-expressed gender identity. THAT is the kind of person you are, and that you are willing to state that without reservation tells me that you are not worthy of listening to on this or any other matter. --Jayron 32 14:57, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

What we don't know isn't determined in the multiverse. With only a finite amount of information in our brains, we are a set of identical copies in the vast multiverse living on slightly different Earths where the exact state of other people can be radically different. If I know something about Medeis that no one else here knows, then that still doesn't fix that piece of information to you here, because there are then sectors of the multiverse where you have an exact copy where the facts about Medeis I'm aware of are different. So, I've then split away from my previously identical copy there while you remain the same until that time I disclose that piece of information to you. Count Iblis (talk) 22:49, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

There might even be branes where you may make sense. Not this one obviously, but the ones where you soak your head in a bucket of ice water. Basemetal 23:01, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

I forked this to a separate subsection, as it obviously needs thorough investigation. It's really, really important that we establish Medeis's gender. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:54, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

I don't think Count Iblis's edit (and my response

) have anything to do with this important matter. In fact if someone can tell me what Count Iblis was talking about I'd be grateful (and amazed). As far as I'm concerned we can hat the discussion about Medeis's gender. It's unlikely to ever get more productive than it's already been, and we've been stimulated enough. We can hopefully go back to trying to find out what happened to our friend and fellow editor, even though unfortunately that too is very unlikely to yield any firm result. Basemetal 00:48, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

For the record:
- On 28 September 2011, Medeis wrote "Having been a waitress, I think I have a leg to stand on". (This is the smoking gun Tevildo referred to above)
- Later, she denied that "waitress" implies any particular gender: see her comment at 6:15 on 11 October 2011 @ Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/Archive 87.
- I cannot find the diffs now, but she has nevertheless made it very clear to me in later communications that she is a female.
- I post this solely in order to stop this speculation. We should not be speculating - and I never have - but when an editor uses a term ("waitress") about themself, that is prima facie an invitation for the world to believe they are female. No amount of "I neither confirm nor deny"-type statements made later can alter this. Medeis is female, because she has told us she is. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 23:13, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Let's please try to remember...

It's contrary to policy and proper courtesy to our fellow editors to speculate upon or attempt to research the offline circumstances of contributors. I know this is a difficult situation, and that the discussion here so far has been based in well-intentioned concern, but even a casual investigatory effort quickly takes us far too close to unintentional WP:DOXING--which is (for great cause) expressly forbidden by policy. Many of our editors have very compelling reasons for keeping a firewall between their editorial handles and their other public and private identities. I don't think there is harm in having asked about emails, but going much farther would almost certainly be a step too far in my opinion. I hope we hear from Medeis soon, but I think we need to respect their privacy until they or someone speaking for them from off-project can tell us what is up. Snow ^{let's rap} 07:01, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

You're right, and I'm sure Medeis would say the same thing about questions being raised about anyone. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:40, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Baseball Bugs says "It's a mystery" why Medeis no longer contributes here. He's lucky he didn't get a response when he emailed. Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned. 80.47.1.63 (talk) 15:44, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

It's a bit unsettling that that item appeared one day before Medeis' last entry. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:54, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Not really. The story relates to a previous year. --Viennese Waltz 08:41, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm referring to Medeis' post, talking about past medical issues and posted one day before their last entry here. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:00, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

I understand that. But it's not unsettling, because the issues were in the past. It would only be unsettling if the issues happened a day before his/her/its last post. --Viennese Waltz 08:13, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

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

"WP:DENY" should not be used on contributors currently in good standing

The user Sahansdal has been indef'd. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:04, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

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

The "WP:DENY" thing is already a disease, but the example currently on the Humanities desk is even further off base than usual. Here User:WaltCip closed down a thread about the content of the Christianity article that was started by User:Sahansdal. I don't think it is appropriate to shut down a thread on that basis because the poster has a clean block record, and indeed, was not even given a complaint on his talk page.

To be clear, I don't deny that the thread sounds like an invitation for opinions and debate, which is against the infamous WP:Reference desk/Guidelines. It is also a discussion about article content, which belongs on some other kind of noticeboard about disputes or third opinions. It could, indeed should, be shut down, yes. But not without an edit summary, and above all, not with a reason that implies that the user is simply here to troll us rather than, for example, being a new user unfamiliar with the rules. That discussion may also be taken up at WP:AN or the like, but I don't mean to encourage or suggest that outcome. I mean to use this case as an example that WP:DENY is being overused, nothing more. Wnt (talk) 20:56, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Deleting it outright would have been better. Whether the user is generally a troll or not, it's not an appropriate entry for the ref desk - it's just spouting anti-religious propaganda. And by the way, tha "new user" has been here for over 10 years, and his very first entries were debating details about Christianity. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:01, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Wnt never claimed that Sahansdal was a new user. He was merely giving an example of what would be an appropriate reason to hat any thread, not this one in particular. --Viennese Waltz 11:13, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

I stand by my decision. Deletion would have scrubbed this from the archive, which seemed a bridge too far considering that responses had already been made to the question. Regardless of that, the entry served no other purpose than to provoke and to grandstand.--WaltCip (talk) 11:02, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

WP:DENY says it is about "True vandals and trolls...", not grandstanding editors. I'm not saying the section shouldn't be hatted, just that a real editor deserves a real mention of actual policy rather than the implication that he's totally illegitimate as an editor. Wnt (talk) 11:12, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

So, what policy would you cite in support of it being hatted? --Viennese Waltz 11:15, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

The actual guidelines are clear as mud, as usual, but they say something about "not being a place to debate controversial subjects". There is some standard message I've seen people put up that the refdesk can't answer requests for opinions, debate, and open-ended conversation or something, but that isn't in those guidelines. I mean, my own notion for a criterion would be much simpler -- if something's not given as a question we can answer (or try), there's nothing we can do here. Wnt (talk) 13:57, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Even editors with long editing histories are capable of trolling. --Jayron 32 11:34, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Geez, ya'll. I was just asking a question. Sorry if I have the wrong site. Maybe someone could redirect for further discussion? Wiki is a maze for the novice. Sahansdal (talk) 22:47, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

You started 10 1/2 years ago. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:59, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

During which he made a grand total of 222 edits. It's clear that his perspective hasn't really meshed with the usual focus here, but this is as much our fault as theirs. And (as I said above) my focus isn't so much to defend him as to reject using "WP:DENY" as a rationale, because in this case the snide essay calling him a troll does absolutely nothing to get across the point of what the refdesk is or isn't for. There are a lot of people like this who we can either teach to work with us or drive away as we choose -- unfortunately, most editors choose to drive them away and "mark their territory". Wnt (talk) 14:33, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Why don't you do something then? I don't mean start a pointless thread here. I mean visit the editor's talk page and help them. Heck while it's often frowned upon to unhat threads, in this instance if you are willing to provide a useful answer to it, I'm fine with it. While meta and conduct discussions including ones about how to better improve the way we handle stuff are sometimes useful this one seems particularly useless to me coming as it is on the RD and with someone who's willingness or ability to ever make useful contribs to the encylopaedia proper is highly in doubt. We are all volunteers here and if all of us feel that trying to help that editor is a useless waste of our time that's our choice. Chiding us on how evil we are because we don't want to waste our time isn't likely to change our minds. (Especially since plenty of us do spend a lot of time helping people with questionable backgrounds both here and in other parts of the encyclopaedia. E.g. I'm sure I'm not the only one here who has tried to help someone who they strongly suspected was a sock or troll at ANI or elsewhere and later been shown to have unfortunately been right. And then there are all those editors who don't seem to be learning much e.g. SSS.) If you're so sure that there is a better way, why don't you prove it? Nil Einne (talk) 16:31, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

People people tend use WP:DENY as a code-word to imply that their troll-judgment should not be questioned or discussed.

It's worth remembering that this usage is not any sort of policy. You're just citing an essay. Contrasting essays exist. (ex : WP:YMFTT)

That aside, even the WP:DENY essay clarifies that it only applies to "true trolls", that is chronic abusers, and not "users who dabble in minor vandalism".

I agree with Wnt.

ApLundell (talk) 01:42, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Since the question was begging for debate, it could have been deleted on those grounds. WP:Deny assumes facts not totally in evidence. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:33, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

If you look at the reason why the user Sahandal was indef'd, you'll see that WaltCip was actually on the mark. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:04, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

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