::And then we've solved the problem without this goofy (and potentially confusing) list of images and licenses on every Ref Desk header. Anybody in favor? Any admin want to implement this? Alternatively, we could just make the copyright status link go to a subsection of the talk page, or something like that. Or just post the copyright info at the top of this talk page. But anything's better than the existing way, which is very ugly and much too verbose for the header. --[[User:Mr.98|Mr.98]] ([[User talk:Mr.98|talk]]) 17:22, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
::And then we've solved the problem without this goofy (and potentially confusing) list of images and licenses on every Ref Desk header. Anybody in favor? Any admin want to implement this? Alternatively, we could just make the copyright status link go to a subsection of the talk page, or something like that. Or just post the copyright info at the top of this talk page. But anything's better than the existing way, which is very ugly and much too verbose for the header. --[[User:Mr.98|Mr.98]] ([[User talk:Mr.98|talk]]) 17:22, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
::: It's only on the main [[WP:RD]] page that the excess verbiage appears, I think - but '''yes, good idea'''. [[User:Card_Zero|<span style=" background-color:#fffff0; border:1px #995; border-style:dotted solid solid dotted;"> Card Zero </span>]] [[User_talk:Card_Zero|(talk)]] 12:36, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
::: It's only on the main [[WP:RD]] page that the excess verbiage appears, I think - but '''yes, good idea'''. [[User:Card_Zero|<span style=" background-color:#fffff0; border:1px #995; border-style:dotted solid solid dotted;"> Card Zero </span>]] [[User_talk:Card_Zero|(talk)]] 12:36, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
== Incivility at the RD ==
What happens to this kind of thing? [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Computing#Difference_between_computers_and_humans]] Its a clear ad hominem attack.
To ask a question, use the relevant section of the Reference desk
This page is for discussion of the Reference desk in general. Please don't post comments here that don't relate to the Reference desk. Other material may be moved. The guidelines for the Reference desk are at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines. For help using Wikipedia, please see Wikipedia:Help desk.
This page has archives. Sections older than 10 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.
De-personalised question
A legitimate question was asked at the Science Desk. Unfortunately the question unnecessarily named a living person. I edited the question to erase the identity of the person and replace it with a link to the disease. Diff. Wikipedia has understandably strict criteria related to anything biographical about a living person. Dolphin(t)00:55, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The question had nothing to do with BLP criteria, which are aimed at preventing libel, gossip, privacy violations and poor sourcing. The person meant "Does someone with Stephen Hawking's disease" etc. I don't think the questioner expects anyone to know about Stephen Hawking's personal habits, and anyway, if Hawking did talk about them openly in a reliable source, it would neither be a privacy violation nor libelous to repeat it. I think you could have addressed this without altering the question. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 01:58, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This question[1] is similarly speculative about Hawking's private life, although the IP seems to be from a different part of the country. But if you're going to "censor" the one, you should probably do likewise with the other. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 02:11, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Mwalcoff. No BLP criterion warrants the removal of Dr. Hawking's name. It is especially egregious to change a post, making it look like what you wrote is actually what 76.27 wrote. Buddy431 (talk) 03:51, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Dolphin51. I think the original question was in violation of our BLP policies. But even if it was not, it was a poor wording. Asking the question in the way it was made it unnecessarily personal and also made it unclear. It could as well be interpreted as "Can a person of extraordinary genius usually detect......" Wanderer57 (talk) 04:58, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Still not OK to modify someone else's post. If it really did violate BLP (which I don't think it did), it would be best to either delete the question entirely (with a note to the poster), or else put a big [redacted] in the statement, with a clear signature of who did the redacting (and also notifying the person whose statement you redacted). Poorly worded, perhaps, but we don't remove poorly worded questions, and we certainly shouldn't be so presumptuous to try to correct what the speaker said. Buddy431 (talk) 05:08, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia’s policy on information about living persons can be found at WP:BLP. It includes the following injunctions:
Editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page. Such material requires a high degree of sensitivity, ... ...
Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion
... the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment. This policy applies to BLPs, ... ... and to material about living persons on other pages.
The italicizing and bolding in the above quotations has not been added by me. That is the emphasis given in WP:BLP.
There is nothing here to suggest adherence to this policy is optional, or that Users are granted discretion as to when considerations of BLP apply or not. It is clear that the Reference Desks are part of Wikipedia – they are not part of some other website – and so BLP is just as relevant to the Reference Desks as to any other Wikipedia page. It is also clear that it is not a defence to say “But this isn’t actually a biography, and so BLP doesn’t apply.”
It is also clear that if material about a living person is contentious, and is unsourced or poorly sourced, or is likely to attract additional material that is unsourced or poorly sourced, it should be removed immediately without waiting for discussion. If in doubt, remove the material and then ask for advice. There appears to be little defence for a User saying “It looked like it might contravene BLP but I wasn’t sure so I left it where it was.”
If Wikipedia has another policy that contradicts WP:BLP, particularly a policy that is relevant to the Reference Desks, I would be very interested to read it. I would be grateful if someone could use this space to post a link to that alternative policy. Dolphin(t)08:32, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The difference here is that in an article you can just zap it, but in a ref desk, where there's dialogue, you would clobber someone's answer to what is (presumably) not a trolling question. I'm inclined to agree with Buddy that the better approach is to replace the name with [redacted], so that it's clear the editor's original comment was edited. That's already done frequently, when someone posts his personal e-mail, for example. If someone wants to know what was redacted, they can look in the history. If it were an extreme BLP violation, such as "is so-and-so still beating his wife?" it could be revdel'd if necessary, or then the entire dialogue could be zapped as it's likely a trolling question. Revdel doesn't seem to be needed here. But at least the name won't be visible on the active talk page. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 11:13, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks BB, your suggestion about using redacted is a sound one. I will bear it in mind.
In the case we are considering at present, I disagree that zapping the person's name, as I did, was likely to clobber someone's answer - there was no answer at the time. In any case, re-wording a question won't clobber any of the answers unless it actually transforms the question - something I was careful to avoid. Dolphin(t)12:31, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Talking about a living person's personal life, even if sourced to a reliable source is generally ill-advised per BLP. If that info doesn't belong in the article, then it's questionable if it belongs here. Notably this is the sort of stuff liable to be deleted from an articles talk page and that's noindexed. It's a common misconception that if something is supported by an RS then there's no possible BLP violation but this isn't true. Also while I agree it should have been made clear the question was modified, deleting the question is almost as bad as leaving it be and can easily lead to unnecessary debates, edit wars, and screams of censorship. Instead as I said last time we had the major blow up over modifying posts, we should do what the rest of wikipedia does which means redacting the unwanted info while leaving the rest intact. A policy which is practiced at a diverse range of pages from article talks pages to WP:ANI for a diverse range of things from BLP violations to outing and egregious personal attacks. Something of course which we also do here, e.g. when removing email addresses. Nil Einne (talk) 23:35, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My own feeling on this is that we shouldn't be bringing living peoples' names into these personal-matters discussions unless that person him/herself has commented on it. I'm thinking of Christopher Reeve as an example of someone who was very much out in the open as to the kinds of issues he was dealing with. Hawking has said "I am a normal man with normal needs", and I expect he's not really interested in elaborating further on the details. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 23:44, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
For clarification, my view is that even if there is some random RS someone digs up from somewhere that few have ever read where some LP has said something about his/her personal habits it's still best if we don't discuss them. It may be acceptable to link to said RS. If the person regularly discusses their habits then some discussion in the RD is probably acceptable. However from personal experience, I wouldn't trust everyone on the RD to be able to make such a distinction and judgement. Therefore it's best to discourage it. If we actually had a question concerning someone's personal habits then there may be some discussion worth having about how far to go. But in this particular case, since it doesn't appear the OP really cared about any particular LPs habits then simply redacting the name to discourage discussion is a simple solution. This also goes for other things like has celebrity X ever date celebrity Y. Of course if the info is in the article, e.g. like the Paris Hilton question then there's no reason it can't be repeated on the RD. Nil Einne (talk) 23:58, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(Edit conflict) A couple of things need to be made clear here. First, if I recall correctly, the question did not ask about Stephen Hawking's personal habits. It asked what someone like Stephen Hawking does -- presumably, a paraplegic or person with ALS. The proper thing to do here would have been to say, "If by 'someone like Stephen Hawking' you mean a person with ALS, such a person would...". Secondly, as Baseball Bugs gets at, we should draw a distinction between private matters that someone is open about and those that someone is not. For example, I don't think it's right to name the accuser in the DSK case, even if she's mentioned in French newspapers. But there's nothing wrong with relating what Elizabeth Smart has shared publicly about her trauma provided that it's done in a responsible manner. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 00:00, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
BB asked for the original question to be restored to the Science Desk. I did so as a postscript, as follows:
Can people like name redacted usually detect a #1 or #2 coming on and, if so, do anything to hold it in?
If you are suggesting that Can people like Joe Smith does not contravene BLP, whereas Can Joe Smith does contravene, then I must say you are being unreasonably pedantic in attempting to defend the wording of the original question. WP:BLP is as clear and emphatic as it is possible to be. There is nothing in WP:BLP to indicate a statement that contravenes BLP can be defended by legalistic sophistry such as saying the question included the word "like" and therefore it does not contravene. A living person was named in the original question, and given the nature of the question, no amount of legalistic sophistry can detract from the observation that the original question contravened the following injunctions from WP:BLP:
Editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page. Such material requires a high degree of sensitivity,
... the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered
If you know of some policy that exempts the Reference Desks from WP:BLP, or you know of some policy that a de-graded version of WP:BLP applies to the Reference Desks, please let us know where that policy can be found. Dolphin(t)03:42, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh for cryin' out loud this is ridiculous. If we say that people with ALS can or can't control their bladders, then people will know that [certain people] the whole planet knows have ALS will be described this way. We aren't touching BLP unless we actually get information about the named person. It's ridiculous to change the question, but it's also nearly pointless to object to it, since it's still asked and answered. Come on, the people here aren't idiots - quit treating them like they can't add two and two together. Wnt (talk) 23:20, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
@Wnt: If you genuinely believe you have a point of principle, or you genuinely believe this is ridiculous, raise the matter at WT:BLP. Lot's of Users read that Talk page, and you have the opportunity to persuade all those Users of the merit of your point of view, and get some changes made. By comparison, hardly anyone is reading this thread. Dolphin(t)02:28, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This debate has certainly stretched on a lot but I wouldn't call it ridiculous. The root problem as I see it, and the reason people discuss this particular matter at such length, is that there is a long history in Wikipedia of controversy between two types of editor. One, those who have an "overriding concern for" the rights of people famous enough to be included in Wikipedia, and two, those who have an "overriding concern for" the right of Wikipedia editors to have the truth published regardless of any other considerations. (Many editors are not strongly in one or the other group.)
(Rather than me writing "as I see it" again, please take it to apply to the rest of this note.) The present BLP policy puts the concern for people's rights ahead of the rights of editors, when they conflict. Editors of type two, being somewhat unhappy with the BLP policy, will argue in favour of restricting the scope of the policy, in effect saying, in one case or another, "it doesn't apply here." Type one editors resist such restrictions due to concern that they pare away at the policy..
Unfortunately, this is a strong and probably irreconcilable difference. It is the reason why an issue that you see as ridiculous is discussed at such length. IMO. Wanderer57 (talk) 00:09, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
While this specific question works perfectly well without the example, It would be ridiculous if the take-away from this discussion was that "always remove celebrity examples from the ref desk" became understood to be the consensus interpretation. Not only is that interpretation clearly not a consensus (See above debate), but it's absolutist and dogmatic and would interfere with the RD's purpose quite regularly.
If this absolutely has to be debated and decided right now, could the point we're settling on be closer to "Remove gratuitous celebrity examples when it doesn't change the meaning or clearness of the question." or words to the effect, please? APL (talk) 05:59, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would also like to point out that editing people's posts as if they'd done something wrong or otherwise badgering them to ask their question in the "right way", is not only uncivil but is simply a bad idea in an area of the encyclopedia specifically designed for 'outsiders' to use.
In cases that are not ridiculous slander, it might make more sense to let it slide while it's on the ephemeral front page, and then edit the permanent archive. That way the question asker is helped without confusion, perceived incivility, or time-wasting debate like this one, but the BLP problem is fixed, and frankly, fixed faster than it usually is in article space. In this way, all the rules may be followed, but at no loss to usefulness. APL (talk) 06:13, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is actually very simple and very clear. If a question or an answer names a living person but without contravening WP:BLP it should be left untouched. But if it contravenes WP:BLP, the offending text should be removed promptly, and then discussed. Anyone who disagrees with this approach should raise the matter at WT:BLP, explain that Wikipedia's policy on BLP is inappropriate to the Reference Desks, nominate a better alternative and get WP:BLP changed. Simple. Dolphin(t)00:20, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes,yes,yes, but interpretation of the policy is typically not a science and will cause endless debates and wasted man-hours that could easily be avoided by waiting a couple of days and then censoring to your heart's content. Surely you've noticed that tendency around here. At the end of the debate one side or the other would get a wonderful self-righteous thrill, but that hardly helps answer questions, make the encyclopedia better, or make any lasting difference at all.
For example, I'm unclear on which particular line-item in the BLP policy you made this edit under.(The part you quoted above clearly doesn't work. It's not contentious that Prof Hawking has a degenerative nerve disease, he freely admits as much and it's well sourced in his article.) I may be wrong, but As far as I can tell after reading the BLP policy start-to-finish it was an inappropriate removal, and if you had made a question or confusing or unanswerable I would have reverted your edit on sight.
I suspect you may be conflating importance with scope and assuming that BLP should be interpreted far more broadly than its literal text because of its great importance. This is false.
However, there's no point debating that now. The point is that because you wanted to strictly enforce a policy in a way that you knew would be controversial, several editor's time was wasted, we were uncivil to a question-asker, and nothing was gained. The ref-desks are entirely ephemeral.
Censoring and harassing good-faith question-askers will ALWAYS be counter-productive. Please think before you act and only intentionally cause an edit war for things that are really important. APL (talk) 03:20, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
APL asks I'm unclear on which particular line-item in the BLP policy you made this edit under. My response on this thread at 08:32, 7 June 2011 says it all. (See above.)
In your reply immediately above, APL says if you had made a question or confusing or unanswerable I would have reverted your edit on sight. There must be a word or two missing because that means nothing to me. Dolphin(t)06:23, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the previous two comments. Much of our discussion occurred because some editors think the question contravened the BLP policy and other editors did not. To say "It is actually very simple ....." suggests that there will be a consensus on whether the BLP policy is contravened. Clearly that is not the case.
Quote: "The ref-desks are entirely ephemeral." This is news to me. If so, why do the ref desks have a search engine and why are visitors asked to use it? Or is it APL's opinion that all Wikipedia is "entirely ephemeral"? Cuddlyable3 (talk) 11:08, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, it was an exaggeration. The first time I mentioned that phrase it was to say that the front page is ephemeral, and that no one would be confused by editing the archive. APL (talk) 18:55, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The reference desks still occasionally appear to be protected, and the purge button provided above only works for the science ref desk -- not any of the others. Why not place a link on each one of the ref desks that allows users to purge the cache? That will let every user correct the problem for themselves. 67.169.177.176 (talk) 05:43, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have found that just refreshing the page (specifically by holding shift while clicking the refresh button, which does a complete refresh on most browsers) is sufficient to get the edit links back, although sometimes it does take two or three times (YYMV). -- 174.31.219.218 (talk) 18:11, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
When the tab says "view source", clicking it should still take you to the normal edit page. From there just replace &action=edit with &action=purge to make a purge link for any page. AvrillirvA (talk) 17:15, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Investment advice and the criminal and civil legal implications
A few days ago I was surprised to see a request for investment advice and that someone had answered it. I deleted it as improper. At least in the US there are strict regulations (Sarbanes Oxley Act) regarding giving such advice and possible conflicts of interest, and legal requirements of full disclosure.
Given not only the moral but possibly quite serious legal ramifications for wikipedia it would seem quite wise to adopt a similar policy to the one regarding people asking for legal advice and medical opinions. I see today that the question has been restored. It had no header, so I created one, see this diff.
Agreed. Advice on investments could have drastic consequences, comparable to those possible with medical or legal advice.
Thinking about this more generally, there are other areas about which advice should not be given. Advice about how to build a treehouse somehow came to mind as an example. Wanderer57 (talk) 03:04, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Why ? Does one need a license to give tree-house advice ? For that matter, does one need a license to legally give investment advice ? StuRat (talk)
One also doesn't need a license to say "I prefer ibuprofen over aspirin for my headaches", but that would still fall in the Refdesk-proscribed category. My understanding is that the prohibition on medical/legal advice is not that people would fall afoul of licensing laws, but more so that it is likely in those cases that advice given by random yahoos on the internet is likely to (inadvertently) cause the recipient harm. So I think it's with that standard the other types of advice should be metered. Inadvertently poor investment advice from random yahoos on the internet is highly likely to cause the recipient financial harm, and so should not be given. For construction of a tree house, aspects dealing with safety (e.g. timber sizing, weight capacity, etc.) could be wrong or ill advised for the person's conditions, and such recommendations should not be given. By the way, most jurisdictions I'm aware of require permits and inspections for new construction, and often this would include things such as tree houses. And while I'm not aware of jurisdictions where the homeowner themselves needs licensing (although they may exist), I believe there are a number of places where third-party contractors are required to be licensed and bonded. And while a third-party on the Refdesk might not fall afoul of the laws as they're not actually raising a hammer, "two-by-fours should be sufficient" is as much practicing construction as "extra strength aspirin should be good enough for most headaches" is practicing medicine. -- 174.31.219.218 (talk) 18:12, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"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."
That puts financial advice on the same taboo level as medical and legal, and that's how it should be. And like those other areas, it's valid to direct general questions to articles that generally discuss the subject. Like if someone asks, "What is the stock market?" we could send him to stock market. If he asks "What's a good stock to buy?" then the safest advice might be that someone who would actually trust the opinions of anonymous internet users probably ought not even be thinking about buying stock.
The only other good financial advice I can think of is something Will Rogers said, impersonating Calvin Coolidge: "Buy only good stock. Wait till it goes up, and then sell it. If it don't go up... don't buy it!" ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 06:31, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The reference desk headers are based on a template. If we are going to add financial and risk management to legal and medical the template will need editing. I have no clue as to hot to go about doing this. Can someone either edit the template or advise me how to do it or whom to ask for help? μηδείς (talk) 16:45, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The UK also has laws restricting who can give investment advice. As with medicine, providing general information should be fine, but we should be careful about providing customised investment advice based on an individual's circumstances. The particular question that prompted this discussion looks ok to me, though. I interpret it as asking for information on the practicalities of how to invest in a particular instrument, rather than a request for advice on what to invest in. --Tango (talk) 18:24, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, the problem is not necessarily who can give advice, but the full diclosure requirements, conflict of interest, and the liabilities and fines imposed by Sarbanes Oxley in the US. Having anonymous people say you should or should not consider investing in X is a problemμηδείς (talk) 22:17, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I thought policy was that we weren't supposed to worry about Wikipedia's liability except for avoiding things specifically forbidden by the foundation lawyer?
Am I wrong? Granted, I can't seem to lay my finger on the policy I'm thinking of, so I may be imagining it. APL (talk) 22:01, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There's not a formal policy I'm aware of. However, we also refuse to give medical and legal advice because we cannot act in that capacity. As anonymous voices on the Internet, we don't know the editor's situation beyond what they've written. Giving advice in that regard is reckless and could lead to serious harm. That is the main motivating factor in refusing to give advice on such subjects. We can provide facts, but not lead someone to a course of action. I'd say financial advice falls into the same category; I don't want to ruin someone by making a mistake in telling them what to do with their money. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite22:17, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the general disclaimer does include financial and risk managament on the same terms as medical and legal - my concern at this moment is getting the Reference Desk template to reflect this (1) to discourage posters and responders and (2) to empower editors to delete inappropriate matters. Can anybody help editting the template? μηδείς (talk) 22:12, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have {{subst:HD/fin}} amd {{subst:HD/risk}} created, tell me if they looks OK, and if they do, I'll update the documentation to include it. Avicennasis @ 05:55, 19 Sivan 5771 / 21 June 2011 (UTC)
Those templates look fine, but I don't see how they could ever possibly be applied to the original post in question[2]. It's not a request for financial advice, which would be "are Guaranteed Mexican Securities a good investment?"; nor for risk management advice, which would be "are GMS more or less risky than US Treasury Bonds?". It was a request for information, which may or may not be satisfiable. The first step would be figuring out what the heck a GMS is, and if there was an actual cite or site, going from the contents. I'm all for not answering requests that could carry unforeseen risks and I've stood up myself and shouted on at least two occasions (distilling heroin at the wholly unlikely behest of a prof asking students to isolate the active ingredient from their own prescription, which just happened to be OxyCodone; and asking for the correct cable size to hang an actual metal sign above an actual street with actual people walking under it), so I'm right there when it comes to avoiding real-world harm. But this is not the test case for the same principle when it comes to financial advicx. It doesn't even come close IMO, and I can't really recall any cases in the past of people asking screw-up-able financial questions. Franamax (talk) 01:45, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This topic (sorry to be posting about it 5 days after the last poster) is always a little troubling to me. There are fields where the querent should clearly seek professional advice instead of asking here. Medical and legal advice are areas where it's easy to screw yourself by taking advice from non-experts, obviously. Financial advice? Sure; you could go broke. What about advice on building a house? Yeah, you could easily build something that's not to code, and your roof could fall down on you; so that, too. What about that guy Franamax mentions from a year ago or so who was trying to find out from us how to suspend a heavy sign over a road? Yeah, that guy should have gotten professional advice.
On the other hand, financial "advice" like "In the US, the S&P 500 has typically traded at about 16 times earnings over the last 50 years, so an S&P 500 index fund would seem like a good value if its P/E is at 12" is commonly seen at DIY-ish sites like fool.com. Is it so bad to post such a thing here? Personally I would hedge on even this timid of a statement, with disclaimers about past results not being a great indication of future results, especially in this economy; but that's just me.
Maybe the best route is to not expand our list of categories in which answers are forbidden, but to just note that there are many questions that demand a professional's response, or none; and editors who answer questions are expected to not answer — and even redact answers — that put people's well-being at risk. OTOH, that last phrase is very wishy washy and I'm too tired to think of the right phrasing. No direct help for people trying to hang heavy signs over a road. No direct help for people trying to decide how to invest their savings. Comet Tuttle (talk) 06:43, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A banned user is a banned user. We have gone through this before, so starting this discussion all over again is not constructive. --Saddhiyama (talk) 21:59, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
According to his/her page the user was User:Epimetheusgoodbye. From a quick glance it looks like that account was made to complain about the blocking of their other account User:Thisuser2isblocked for an inappropriate user name. (You don't even need to read our username policy to guess such a username is likely to be seen as inappropriate.) From what I saw the user was never actually blocked before then, they were using IPs which were blocked I guess for vandalism or whatever. I don't see any evidence for a ban. I suggest therefore 5BYv8cUJ familiarise themselves with the difference between a ban and a block as well as the various reasons for blocks and what these mean for any user who may have been affected. In this particular case if my reading is correct 5BYv8cUJ was fully entitled to make a new account such as they did (without an inappropriate user name) without even disclosing the previous account. This is of course not at all comparable to a persistent troll who has been banned for several years but won't stay away and any attempt to compare the 2 is highly flawed. Nil Einne (talk) 06:38, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Red Act should have informed the posters that he has removed their answers. I have done so [3], [4], [5]. When you remove people's comments (especially the good faith answers such as those of Jayron32 and StuRat) it is appropriate to inform them of this. Buddy431 (talk) 04:01, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Concur with the removal. I didn't check the IP address when I commented on the thread, but a quick WHOIS check confirms that this is clearly Light Current. Red Act was right in removing the thread, and my comments within it. Goodonia... --Jayron3204:11, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Is it just me (on Firefox 5 - not beta anymore, but full of bugs) or is the Computing Desk acting a bit weird? It seems to be repeating itself over and over. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK)01:58, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like a problem, possibly Scsbot has gotten logged out and confused. I have a huge revert trying to decide whether it will commit or not, I'll clean up if it goes through. Franamax (talk) 02:19, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, cheers - I replied to a reply to one of my own questions, only to see it unreplied further down - a number of times. I'll put the reply back in tomorrow if you haven't done it. Time for bed for me. Good luck! --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK)02:27, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well I - think - we've got it all back on track. Looks like the IP editor was having browser problems, and likely not Ummit's bot at all. One of the hazards of collaborative editing is that other people try to fix the same thing you are working on and e/c hilarity results. As best I can tell, two other editors have successfully restored the working state of the page following my blanket revert and attempted rollforward. Looks OK & thanks all others! Franamax (talk) 02:34, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah. I was pulling my hair out trying to figure out what was going on, because the bot (contrary to someone's scurrilous speculation :-) ) had gotten badly confused by (had not itself caused) the multiple sections. And then while I was trying to figure out where the multiple sections had come from, they disappeared -- because of course y'all were working on it at the same time. —Steve Summit (talk) 03:09, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
When in doubt, blame the closest bot. If we don't have an essay on that, we need one. :) Seems to have worked out and thanks for the human look-in... Franamax (talk) 04:12, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Property rights, etc.
Someone has apparently hijacked Michael Hardy's account, as a user by that name has posed a nonsensical analogy and refuses to state what his actual question is. It's trolling, worse than anything Light Current has posted (LC at least asks discernible questions), so I've boxed it up. If someone wants to un-box it, knock yourself out. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 14:39, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think there's necessarily any account hijack (some respondents indicated familiarity with an ongoing point of discussion), but I think boxing is probably for the best. — Lomn18:18, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I can't. It looks like it could have been a mistake. I see you've asked him on his talk page - I suggest you wait for a response from him. We would only be guessing. --Tango (talk) 19:58, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Discussing banned, blocked or current users in good standing on the Ref Desk.
I feel that this sets a very bad precedent. I would like to have seen a message put on the QP's page directing him/her to ask the block admin or group (with a link to that admin or group). Then the question should then be removed from the Ref Desk with no links. The answers that have been given in this case are not a problem, although there is a certain coyness to them. (I am also a little concerned about the timing given the ArbCom leaks and all that entails.) The principle of discussing users (past or present) is is one that I feel should have a bright line drawn before anyone gets to the Desk. Bielle (talk) 19:38, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
¶ Wherever (and whether) this should have been posted, it clearly didn't belong on the Ref. Desk's main pages, so I'm moving it below. —— Shakescene (talk) 20:06, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not just blocked, but banned. There was a lot of discussion during the first half of March on WP:ANI. He had been blocked several times for personal attacks and harassment, and I guess he laid down several final straws, which I noticed have been rev-del'd from the last page he was editing. FYI, I think this is more the kind of question you should ask a trusted admin rather than here. :) ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 05:41, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you look at his user page and the block log he was blocked by arbcom. There is a case here Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Rodhullandemu which concerned his administratorship but it was closed without a result because Rodhullandemu was blocked for reasons mostly unrelated to the case (as explained in the motion closing the case). I would guess as part of the case arbcom became further aware of something which made the prospect of Rodhullandemu remaining an editor at the time untenable, I think it's happened before. For privacy reasons, they are unlikely to say what the information is. If you read the discussion concerning the desysopping by arbcom which lead up to the case and Jimbo Wales's comments on the appeal (shown by the arbcom case), it's easy to guess what sort of information lead up to this decision but it would be inappropriate for us to discuss it here. Nil Einne (talk) 07:10, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to me they're trying to preserve Rod's dignity as much as possible, which is standard procedure. I've read enough of your links to convince me that Rod was, or had become, a pretty bad role model as admins go. At one time I had thought he was OK as an admin. But editors and admins alike can get burned out, and then can go off the deep end. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 09:10, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
He? may very well have been a bad admin or even a bad editor. My point is the reason for his block appears however to have only been loosely because of this but more because arbcom had reason to believe there were issues which make him being an editor untenable both in terms of his ability to conduct himself in the manner expected of an editor and in whether it was a good idea for his personal wellbeing to be an editor. Nil Einne (talk) 17:07, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you can't ask the question except as a brand-new IP, I suggest the answer is yes, it still does, but the link on the OP's page could be to the article. Bielle (talk) 20:40, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I don't have an account, didn't think it was mandatory; indeed my editing right now proves it isn't. I had a question about the topic you brought up and I posted it. I don't see how having or not having an extensive edit count is pertains to your topic or my question. 109.210.251.230 (talk) 20:46, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't mandatory. It is, however, unusual (a)that the first edit of a new IP would be to this talk page -which is generally difficult to find unless you know the site really well and (b) about an internal controversy. No doubt you have your reasons. Bielle (talk) 21:26, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Does that mean that anonymous users are expected to lose their knowledge of Wikipedia when their IP address changes (or when they create an account)? Peter E. James (talk) 22:08, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In what way did I pretend to be new? My post was well formatted and signed, I conveyed my familiarity with Wikipedia clearly by using phrases such as "notable editor", and showed knowledge of past Wikipedia internal incidents. The picture you are trying to paint of me is a false one. 109.210.251.230 (talk) 22:43, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Incidents for which there are only reliable references within Wikipedia, or for which the answers can only be found in Wikipedia (such as the one that was removed), are probably not suitable topics for discussion on the reference desks, but I don't think there is a reason to exclude notable topics just because they are related to Wikipedia (with the possible exception of current events, as there may be more suitable places to discuss them). Peter E. James (talk) 22:08, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I almost said in that discussion, "is this really the right place for this?" but I couldn't think of an alternative. Given the posting the OP put on my page this morning, I don't have a lot of confidence in the OP's sincerity in raising the question. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 22:13, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia doesn't have a noticeboard for general discussion of editors. The obvious suggestion is to follow the links, and maybe ask the relevant administrator (or the Arbitration Committee) - but on this occasion the information was not published (apparently intentionally) so it's possible that no more information will be provided. Peter E. James (talk) 23:19, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you post any answer and leave the question, it will become a discussion, guaranteed. I am strongly in favour of removing the temptation to discuss people on the project at any of the Ref Desks. There may also be BLP considerations. 03:35, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
My first reaction to all this was: Of course people should be able to ask Wikipedia-related questions like this on the Reference Desk. I think the main objection people have to it would be that it turns the Reference Desk into an inappropriate forum for discussion of blocked users? Comet Tuttle (talk) 06:29, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The ref desk, as I understand it, was kind of a spinoff from the help desk. I don't see any harm, in general, with asking questions about wikipedia here, although some questions might be better directed elsewhere, and sometimes have been in fact. Questions about other users, however, should activate your radar. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 05:02, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Two posters put the answer there anyway, after the dyoh template was added. Is there any reason not to redact such answers ? StuRat (talk) 04:51, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Did you even read the page that your template cites (which, by the way, is neither policy nor guideline). I'll help you out:
Volunteers will guide you to a relevant article or online resource, or help you work out the answer.
If we look at what the actual editing guideline has to say, we see that
It should be made clear to questioners that we will give assistance in interpreting questions, help with ideas and concepts, and attempt to point them to resources that might help them to complete their tasks, but that in the end they should do the actual work themselves
I did not provide an answer with no explanation. I provided a reliable source (a "resource that might help them to complete their tasks") that, yes, did contain the answer to this question, but also contained additional information about this topic, exactly like StuRat's non-policy, non-guideline page suggests we do, and exactly as the actual editing guidelines suggest I do. I did exactly what the reference desk is for: I provided a reliable source about the topic at hand. Buddy431 (talk) 05:05, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, I don't see anything wrong with Buddy's response. He specifically didn't answer the question, but did provide a link where the student could find the answer themselves. I don't see where that is against the DYOH practice. Also, DYOH isn't a directive we can enforce against other Wikipedia users to our own standards. Most ref desk regulars don't answer obvious homework questions with simple, direct answers, but forcing this standard on everyone, to the point of redacting good-faith answers, seems a bit rude. --Jayron3205:35, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
All the student had to do was pick Buddy's link and read the title to get the answer. How is that "doing your own homework" ? They learn nothing from that, including how to do web searches. StuRat (talk) 12:38, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I always assumed that the interpretation of the "We don't do your homework" dictum was "you shouldn't ask", not, "volunteers are prohibited from answering". —Steve Summit (talk) 13:43, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wow pretty big double standard here: It is not ok to violate DYOH, yet it's perfectly acceptable to breach the "Don't edit others' questions or answers" part of the editing guideline. Royor (talk) 17:54, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redacting is not editing. The concern with editing is that you may change what somebody said to mean something else. StuRat (talk) 18:28, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think your missing the point. For starters that link has nothing to do with wikipedia policy or guidelines. More importantly editing someone's post in such a way that you may change the meaning is generally veborten (and there have been nasty disputes over this in the past) since posts are signed so you risk putting words into someone's mouth. If you completely remove the post that's not the same thing and not the primary purpose of the guidelines (which are wikipedia wide). Similar to when you redact specific parts making it clear the info was redact. As I say repeatedly whenever this comes up, we in fact do it all the time on the RD with things varying from medical/legal advice questions and answers to email address often without any dispute or discussion. Note this doesn't mean I think it was a good idea, I'm not getting involved in that part of the dispute in this instance. Nil Einne (talk) 09:25, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Your (sic) still missing the point about it not being the form of editing that is intended to be covered by the prohibition on editing someone elses (sic) comments so whether true or not it's not germane to the discussion (which explains why you're linking to an article an note a policy page or guideline). Technically the bots (sic) archiving can also be considered a form of editing someone elses (sic) comments but again, not germane to the discussion. And to be blunt, Il'l (sic) do what I want. I do normally make an effort to prevent errors but they happen. And if your'e (sic) going to continue to be annoying about it, Im' (sic) going to reduce my efforts. Not because of WP:POINT but because you make me feel I should'nt (sic) bother. Since why waste my time when all its' (sic) doing is making people like you more pleased!? (sic) Which in case its' (sic) not clear, comments like that reduce the chance I will want to do so. And I was one of the few who has generally opposed any attempts to ban or sanction you for this sort of thing..!. (sic) Nil Einne (talk) 12:50, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
¶ Just because it's in a multiple-choice form doesn't necessarily mean it's homework or (worse) an academic test or quiz. It could also be a recreational quiz, or perhaps one from a site discussing the rights of women around the world. (And the answers that were edited out might be of general interest to many other readers and editors, as might any answers to the more-obviously homework question on War poets, where I told the enquirer to read the articles he or she had so carefully wiki-linked.) —— Shakescene (talk) 21:51, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think (as you might have guessed) that it's goofy to try to over-enforce this guideline as if it were some liability issue like medical advice or legal advice. Certainly not worth repeatedly deleting a reference provided by an established contributor!
I think Buddy's answer was within the spirit of the guideline , even if the multiple choice question made it difficult.
As Demiurge1000 pointed out, a moment's Google search could have provided the same answer, so even if you believed supplying the reference broke the guideline (because of the multiple choice nature of the question) the "danger" to the OP's education by buddy's answer is extraordinarily low. Not worth censoring another contributor.
APL (talk) 02:41, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't been involved in this dispute. But I will note from a quick look the IP is in the range (same geolocation and everything) commonly used by the well known persistent German troll who likes to ask stupid questions about why X can't be a word in language A as well as other questions that are either unanswerable or very difficult to answer (and also vandalise the encyclopaedia proper). Perhaps asking very easy to answer homework questions is their latest modus operandi. Nil Einne (talk) 09:21, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I do not support redacting answers to supposed homework questions. For me, it's fine to decide not to answer a home work question. It's fine to post a DYOH. And it's fine to post an answer if you so choose. It is not fine for answers to be removed by third parties merely because they have particular views on answering homework questions. No policy exists that I'm aware of to support a ban on answering supposed homework questions. In general, posters to the RDs are better off respecting the answers that other give than setting themselves up as the grand Panjandrum of the RDs. --Tagishsimon(talk)12:24, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. The wording, "It should be made clear to questioners...in the end they should do the actual work themselves" is a guideline for what editors *should* do, not what they should not do. A redaction is a correction for something that should not have been done and is therefore inappropriate. Wikiant (talk) 13:15, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am happy to do people's homework for them, so far as pedagogical principles go. I fear only the effect on the ref desks, which, if we routinely did homework for students, would become clogged with homework questions, which are execrably boring things, which is why I disapprove of the whole institution of homework in the first place. It would be nice if the template didn't extol on my behalf a philosophy I don't agree with - the statements may be true as far as they go, but I think you will learn most of all if you get somebody else to do your homework, while you go and do something that interests you - and it would be nice if it didn't claim it was a policy, or even a rule, or implicitly a thing done by all right-thinking persons and violated only by naughty renegades. I'd like a template which says something more pragmatic, like "homework sucks - don't dump it on us", phrased somehow nicelier. Card Zero (talk)16:16, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've been royally pissed off a few times when an obvious homework question has been asked, I've posted a DYOH, and then another editor has come along and given the answer anyway; the very answer that I've told the OP we would not be giving. That shows a colossal disrespect of one's fellow editors (it's OK, though, if another editor disagrees with my assessment that the question is actually homework, and says so before giving their answer). But I think I'd be even more annoyed if I had given an answer and then another editor removed it. -- Jack of Oz[your turn]16:31, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I get the opposite: it pisses me off that, once the template is used, if I go ahead and answer the questions anyway (out of a spirit of solidarity with those stuck with nasty homework), I will look bad, like I'm opposed to learning and possibly a troll. I don't think I should answer them anyway, though, for the purely practical reason that it would turn the fascinating ref desks into a tedious homework-doing service. It's not actually disrespecting one's fellow editors to have a philosophical disagreement with them about the worth of being didactic - though I can see how it might come off that way, in the absence of explanation for one's actions. Card Zero (talk)16:34, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's my point exactly, Card Zero. Often, a whole pile of trouble can be avoided if people take a little extra effort to communicate why they're doing what they're doing, where the absence of such an explanation could reasonably cause offence. There can still be disagreement about whether or not the action is justified, but that's a different ball game and is played on a completely different emotional level, than the issue of people's noses being put out of joint by being apparently ignored. -- Jack of Oz[your turn]16:55, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Communication high five. I suddenly find the issue seems substantially less important, somehow. I would love to do some radical pruning of the template, though. Card Zero (talk)17:18, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think Jack of Oz raises a very good issue, and it brings up the actual problem, which has nothing to do with whether it is just and proper to answer homework questions. The real issue at debate here is whether it is just and proper to contradict, redact, remove, edit, or otherwise countermand the actions of another editor without also having a good reason to do so and to explain the reason for doing so. Therefore BOTH of the following actions are wrong:
It is wrong to answer a question someone else has declined answering with the DYOH template (or a self-written response saying "please don't ask homework questions, we won't answer them) without a qualifying statement such as "Sorry, Jack, I don't see this as a homework question, so I hope you understand if I answer it" or "I understand this is a homework question, so I am not going to answer it directly, however it may be informative for the OP if they read articles X, Y, and Z and get the answer themselves." In other words, acknowledge that someon else has assessed the question as a homework question before you got there, have some common decency and at least acknowledge that they have left a response, don't just directly ignore or countermand their response as though they don't matter, or as though the DYOH "practice" isn't worth dealing with.
It is also wrong to remove the good-faith answers of other users except in VERY narrowly defined areas, medical advice, legal advice, clear BLP vios, etc. These specific and narrowly defined areas have clear justifications for removal of comments, and the fact that sometimes it is clearly appropriate to remove a person's comment doesn't mean that it is open season on removing comments simply because we don't like the response. That means that if Jack leaves a DYOH template, and Bugs goes ahead and answer the question anyways, even if Bugs was rude in ignoring Jack's DYOH template, and this is very important, it does not justify compounding the rudeness by removing Bugs's answert. Rudeness does not itself justify more rudeness, it only makes everyone else feel worse. The better way to handle this is either at the personal user talk page of the person who commited the act of rudeness, or if we must, perhaps here at the RD talk pages. It isn't ever acceptable for parents to have the fights in front of the kids, if you catch my drift, and question askers who show up here looking for honest help in answering their questions deserve better than to see us fighting about who is more wrong in answering or not answering or removing or not removing answers to questions.
In conclusion, my belief is this: It is wrong to ignore when somebody has denied a question as being a possible homework question, and it is just as wrong to remove answers which are given in defiance of the DYOH policy. What should be done is to reduce the overall tension at the ref desks, and instead go back to being helpful, whatever each of us decides being helpful means, without also imposing our own personal views of helpfulness on people who have different opinions than us. --Jayron3218:10, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I largely agree with Jayron32 here. In particular while I didn't want to get in to this yesterday removing homework answers just for being homework answers seem a rather bad idea. Nil Einne (talk) 12:50, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Suggested template change
How does this grab you, my didactic friends?
Welcome to Wikipedia. Your question appears to be a homework question. I apologize if that is a misinterpretation. Most editors here will not do people's homework for them, but will merely aid them in doing it themselves, reasoning that letting someone else do your homework does not help you learn nearly as much as doing it yourself.
The rest of the template would continue as before. The point of my changes:
It no longer claims to be a policy, so that's a source of contention out the window for starters.
It acknowledges that there is some dissent, so an editor such as Jack won't feel slapped in the face by some contrary editor such as, maybe, me, defying the rule in the same thread. Though I would tend not to, for reasons I've already given.
I see that there was a debate last month at Wikipedia_talk:Do_your_own_homework about whether the template should include the word "policy" or not, and the conclusion was clear that it shouldn't, although nobody actually rewrote the template, and it still says "policy". (I arrived at this thread from there, rather than the other way round, and I don't mean to derail the discussion about deleting other people's edits: hence, this new section.)
But do we even use these colors anymore? If we did, should we still? Would people reaching us from search results appreciate not seeing nonsense that we aren't even using?
Every reference desk category page has the exact same header except for the following:
the "Welcome to the…" text
which item in the right-side nav is bolded
the shortcut
the "ask a new question" button
Do we really need more than TEN templates to accomplish this? I'm thinking not.
The following images are being used under the GNU FDL and/or the CC-BY-SA license:
P computing.svg, P physics.svg, P mathematics.svg, P question.svg, P art.png, P literature.svg, P music.svg, P archive.svg
I agree it is very silly. I imagine it is done because you can't click through to the images themselves? But it is still very silly. --Mr.98 (talk) 00:18, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the comments in the discussion linked above. Annoying it may be but necessary. The obvious solution would be either to find some images with less conditions e.g. without an attribution requirement at a minimum or ask the original contributor if they are willing to relicence their images as such Nil Einne (talk) 12:36, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Surely we can do something a little more elegant, like something that just says: "Icon copyright status"? I don't see why we have to have all of that information linked to on every instance of the header, when our only "requirement" (if indeed it is a real one) is to make that information easily accessible. We can make it accessible without it being ugly. (Of course, I cannot do that, because the template in question is totally locked.) --Mr.98 (talk) 15:14, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This page exists in order to comply with the licensing requirements of these images. As they are displayed on the header template, it is difficult to figure out their copyright status. If you have any questions about this page, please ask them at Wikipedia talk:Reference desk.
And then we've solved the problem without this goofy (and potentially confusing) list of images and licenses on every Ref Desk header. Anybody in favor? Any admin want to implement this? Alternatively, we could just make the copyright status link go to a subsection of the talk page, or something like that. Or just post the copyright info at the top of this talk page. But anything's better than the existing way, which is very ugly and much too verbose for the header. --Mr.98 (talk) 17:22, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
P computing.svg, 
P physics.svg, 
P mathematics.svg, 
P question.svg, 
P art.png, 
P literature.svg, 
P music.svg, 
P archive.svg.
