Wikipedia talk:Reference desk

Skip to the bottom

[edit]

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.

Ref Desk removal (Trump Versus the World)

[1], removed by General Ization.

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

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

Ref Desk removal (Drug mushroom)

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

---

[2], removed by The Rambling Man

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

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

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

I give plenty of refs. See this current Ref Desk page: [3]. But, in any case, this is all quite besides the point, as it has nothing to do with your removal. StuRat (talk) 23:01, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

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

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

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

See Mushroom#Psychoactive mushrooms. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:24, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Actually, it can: [4] Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:41, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

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

Oh, rubbish. You have no power here. Begone, before somebody drops a house on you. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:06, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How do you know it isn't? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:33, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Says who? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:50, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

Purpose of the refdesks / Another discussion at WP:AN/I

The discussion is currently here, should anyone be interested. --Sluzzelin talk 12:54, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

who's in charge here / some advice to refdesk regulars

Whenever I see threads like the one above, they make me cringe. The thread seems to be about whether a certain question was legitimate, and it got repeatedly closed based on the obvious (to some) response to that issue, but as is often the case, there was a deeper subtext, and one of control.

Refdesk regulars used to have a strong tradition of "anything goes". The refdesks, like the rest of Wikipedia, weren't censored. The benefits of being open, and the cost of having to endure the occasional troll post, were held to outweigh the conflict-inducing and openness-chilling costs of routinely removing lots of questionable posts.

So in that light it's quite reasonable for User:ApLundell to ask "why this question-asker was assumed to be a troll", or for User:Gandalf61 to feel that there is an ongoing worthwhile discussion and that this is the correct forum for it. But from where I sit, the answer for ApLundell and Gandalf61 (and me, for that matter) is: tough beans, you lose.

The refdesks are held -- rightly or wrongly, but by enough people to matter -- to be a cesspool in need of cleaning up. Trolls are held -- again rightly or wrongly -- to be a big enough problem that almost any means are justified in fighting them. Finally, in practice admins are often held -- this has been true for as long as I've been on Wikipedia -- to have a lower standard of civility (and incidentally a lower requirement for skin thickness) that mere users.

So the bottom line is that 116.58.205.128 was assumed to be a troll because someone with more power than you thought it was, and we're not going to talk about it here any more because someone with more power than you is tired of it and thinks it's counterproductive. (Sorry to be so cynical; I was more idealistic once.) —Steve Summit (talk) 14:31, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

I agree entirely. The actions by Future Perfect to close the discussion, threaten to block anyone who reopened it, and delete Gandalf's link showing that Future Perfect had violated the guidelines (by closing the discussion within a week) were an absolute abuse of Admin powers. I'd take it to AN/I, but Admins are almost completely immune from being disciplined there, and anyone who complains about an Admin there is likely to be blocked themself. I really don't care all that much if the original Ref Desk post was closed or not, but this form of silencing all discussion on the matter I do care about. StuRat (talk) 22:00, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Well as one of the regular Ref Desk opinionators, you would have that position. You seldom offer anything beyond your own opinion, and hundreds of times without any kind of reference or any real benefit our readers. Silencing some of the regular user trolls would significantly increase the value of the Ref Desks. Right now it's just a complete joke, some desks getting less than 300 hits a day. Worst of all, most of those hits are from the regular opinionators who add nothing but social media-style content. Facebook is a suitable relocation for those individuals. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:06, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

If you don't like it here TRM then you are free to fork off. Stu is right about the poor quality of adminship we see on the Desks, and in addition there are a couple of regular account-holding trolls who are supported and encouraged by certain admins and others. I rarely comment on this talk page because of the appalling behaviour of FP and TRM and others here, and I am a much less regular contributor to the desks for the same reason. DuncanHill (talk) 22:26, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

It's nothing to do with whether I personally "like it" or not, and it's apparent from your post that you've completely missed the point of both the discussion and the problem in general. The desks are regularly trolled by regular users who add nothing but personal opinion. I have no opinion on if you, Duncan, were one such offender, but if you were, it's a good thing that you're no longer contributing in that regard. You need to get a reality check. This "project" is dead, not dying, dead. It's self-sustained by virtue of the drama and the social media aspects of the so-called contributors. I'm appalled by the behaviour of several such users, and I'm much less inclined to encourage anyone to use Wikipedia's ref desks than ever before because they're full of opinion, in-jokes, drama, and other completely inappropriate nonsense. Your continual enabling of such trolls is a real problem, so the less you do that, the better. By the way, if you really believe in your assertion, quote: "the appalling behaviour of FP and TRM and others here", at least have the balls to post diffs, take it to ANI or something constructive, rather than just sit on the fence please. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:36, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Calling me a troll enabler is a direct lie TRM. Like Stu I have very little confidence in the value of trying to do anything about it, having tried time and again in the past. DuncanHill (talk) 22:40, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Allowing the continued abuse of the ref desks by the so-called regulars who just offer opinion and nothing more, e.g. Stu, you are enabling trolls. Simple as that. This tacit acceptance of lower-than-medicore behaviour at the Ref Desks combined with continual railing against people who are looking for an encyclopedic approach added to the accusations of " appalling behaviour" makes you an enabler of the kind of people this project should be working tooth-and-nail to remove. So well done you. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:49, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

You're playing true to form TRM, repeatedly goading anyone who disagrees with you. Exactly what you used to do as an admin. DuncanHill (talk) 22:53, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm playing true to myself, telling you that you enable poor behaviour here with your acceptance of such shoddy behaviour. What that has to do with "goading" is uncertain, but take a closer at look at your own behaviour before casting aspersions my way. You have plenty to apologise for here. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:57, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

That's a common misuse of the word troll, so I suggest you ignore it and focus on the word enabler. One either supports or opposes the use of the desks as forums, and either supports or opposes topic bans for users who have shown that they can't help themselves in that area and will not stop without beiing forced to do so by the community. I oppose the former and support the latter. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:47, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

The desks are inevitably fora, as discussion helps clarify both questions and answers. The occasional joke harms nobody, and can help foster a collegiate atmosphere. If you don't like jokes then don't interact with human beings. DuncanHill (talk) 22:54, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

It's not the jokes, it's the in-house, self-protecting, unreferenced opinionatied bullshit that goes on. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:57, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

The desks are inevitably fora - No. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:59, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

So there should be no discussion to clarify questions and answers? DuncanHill (talk) 23:03, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

So there should be be references to reliable sources with answers, not just opinion and jokes and socialising. This is really important: you get that, right? The Rambling Man (talk) 23:07, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

I've never suggested there shouldn't be references, and I've never suggested it should be "just opinion and jokes and socialising". Please try harder. DuncanHill (talk) 23:11, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Who said you did? You just accept the fact that users abuse the Ref Desk every day and do nothing to stop the social media wannabes, and worse, you rail against those who object to it. You're an enabler of the worst kind of Ref Desk abusers. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:13, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry, you appear not to have read your post above mine. DuncanHill (talk) 23:14, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry, you appear to be blissfully ignorant that your behaviour (whether you see it or not) continues to enable the social media wannabes and the decline of the RDs to dust. I'd say "carry on" because in not too many months, we'll have enough backing to close this omnishambles for good and relieve Wikipedia of a number of embarrassing individuals. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:19, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

You've moved a hell of a long way from your comment above when you said you had no opinion about my contributions. DuncanHill (talk) 23:24, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

It's more about your "lack" of contributions. You stated my behaviour was "appalling" yet your behaviour in enabling the trolls, the Ref Desk social media wannabes, the whole shooting match, by your abject refusal to accept that something is required is your downfall. It's a real shame when someone with your experience can't quite see that we're not serving our readers properly. How can pageviews in the hundreds (and most of those from the regulars) be indicative of a successful ref desk environment? How can your allowance of users to just chat away and talk shit and not actually answer questions with references be right? How can your acceptance of in-house humour and thus rejection of passers-by be right? You're an enabler, and it's embarrassing to see how low the Ref Desks can go. Per Mandruss, you're operating somewhere in a world I don't quite understand. I believe in respecting and serving our readers. You and your compadres seem to believe in something quite different. I won't be conversing with you on this any more, but I will certainly not be giving up the fight against the RD in-house trolls, the enablers and their buddies. This isn't about us, it's about creating an encyclopedic reference that can be replied upon. The Ref Desks are pretty far from that, and if you can't/don't/won't see that, it's a pointless debate to be had with you. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:33, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

I've put up with far more than my share of abuse for trying to get rid of trolls like Medeis And BB, that I have given up on them is, I think, to be understood. Again, I have never said that I don't think things could be improved, or that we couldn't serve our readers better, in fact the truth is quite the opposite. Sadly you seem to think that anyone who disagrees with you in anyway, or anyone who ever agrees with Stu, is to be driven out with flaming pitchforks from your personal playground. I am delighted to read that you won't be replying to me ever again anywhere. DuncanHill (talk) 23:54, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

The "discussion" too often (usually?) goes far beyond said clarification and the connection to the question is soon forgotten. The desks are here to serve the needs of the questioner, not as a place to engage in stimulating conversation with fellow Wikipedians. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:12, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

So let questioners say so if they feel a thread has strayed too far from the point. We don't need, or want, nannies telling us what is good for us. DuncanHill (talk) 23:13, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Do you ever wonder why so frequently the "questioner" never returns? Probably not, you just let the social media troll enablers play out their pathetic game. For a website whose main page gets 20 million plus hits a day, to see ref desks down in the sub-500 range (most of those from the "regulars" talking shit to each other), there's little hope here. Your ongoing defence of your own position is understandable, but the project as a whole is actually meaningless and a drain on resource. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:17, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Oh right. No, the questioner is going to just leave, having gotten what they needed (or not). Now you're indulging in pure fantasy, which is when I get off. Best of luck. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:16, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

The desks have become fora because of the tacit acceptance of users who just use it as a social media replacement, and who render it hapless and ridiculous in the eyes of the readership. That a ref desk gets fewer than 300 hits a day, and most of them are from the regular ref desk users talking shit to each other should tell you something. And you enable it by claiming that those who dislike it and try to work against it are somehow "appalling"? Seriously. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:02, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

It's clear that the culture has changed a lot since the last time I was a regular on the RefDesk. (Edit: Oh! I just remembered, my user name has changed since those days. Hello, all! I used to be APL, but had to change it when the unified logins were introduced.) So far as I can see, it's far more conducive to infighting between regs, but much less welcoming to new editors who might have earnest, but slightly off-color questions.

When I asked the question you refer to, it was boxed with the edit summary "You aren't going to be given an answer. Get used to disappointment.", which very much supports what Steve is saying.

Another involved editor recently expressed the hope that the reference desks would be dissolved [5], so perhaps there's no longer enthusiasm for providing an open reference desk. It's true enough that the Internet landscape has changed greatly since it started, many other places exist that provide similar, perhaps better, service. (The Stack Exchange network, for instance. Including, but not limited to, Stack Overflow.)

Still sad, though.

ApLundell (talk) 15:49, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

I think you all need to look closer to home. There are several users who troll this project with unproductive, unreferenced, subjective, anecdotal, attempted humorous commentary. The ref desk is not a ref desk at all, it's an excuse for a alternate social media club. There are several decent contributors but there are several users whose sole aim is to "give opinion" which is exactly NOT WHAT THIS IS ABOUT. Start rooting those lot out, then worry about the troll questions. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:01, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

You were right to remove that section which requested advice on illegal activities. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:34, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

And you were -- and are -- wrong to keep repeating the above opinion while refusing my requests to cite the Wikipedia policy or guideline that says that we cannot offer advice on illegal activities. BTW, here is some more advice on illegal activities: if anyone reading this is thinking of cooking up some methamphetamine, be aware that doing so releases some really nasty gasses (See Rolling meth lab). Also be aware that the police go after production more aggressively than possession and that rival drug gangs can be particularly violent. The icing on the cake is what meth does to you (See Methamphetamine#Side effects). --Guy Macon (talk) 03:13, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

FWIW, another fine example is lock picking. —Steve Summit (talk) 13:33, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

I asked Wales about it, and he didn't respond, so the issue remains open. And I was not involved in that revert war, so you should direct your complaints to the participants. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:25, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

I don't contribute here anymore because of all of this nonsense from all sides of the argument. It's almost comforting to see that absolutely nothing has changed over the past few years, except that it isn't and that this is all pretty petty nonsense that will never stop. Good job in driving away otherwise interested contributors. Mingmingla (talk) 02:21, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Medeis is not a troll. She's an intelligent, articulate contributor. 81.147.142.155 (talk) 14:10, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

User:Mingmingla Please consider coming back more often! It's much nicer if you largely ignore the talk page, as well as any user who you know acts badly. I struggle with these issues myself, but I'm working on it. Good folk leaving just means the... less good folks make the desks dumber and dumber, and I for one don't like that, and will tolerate some annoyances in order to help the balance of good vs. bad responses. SemanticMantis (talk) 18:17, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

I find Medeis to sometimes have useful things to offer in terms of answers, so I don't personally consider her a troll. I just wish I could somehow stop her habit of putting on hats a little too enthusiastically. Enough to start a hat shop. And I gather others agree. Eliyohub (talk) 02:45, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

WP:BLP and WP:NPOV in regard to controversial figures

The ref desks are not the place for open-ended discussion of BLP's, especially in ways that might to seen to disparge them or their critics. We provide facts, links to actual quotes. Not statements such as "Any politician who lies as often and as badly as XXXXX does will get attacked". This is a personal opinion, and cannot be countenanced. Had the OP said, is it true that X has announced she will boycott the Prime Minister's Roast, we could link to such articles, although the simple use of a search engine would do as good. When we get to the point where people are debating according to their POV we are breaking every rule in the book. The next stop for this is the admin boards and an RfC on the scope of the ref desks. None of us want that. μηδείς (talk) 04:18, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Fine, but I want to salvage the part about the monkey. It's good to know. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:54, February 26, 2017 (UTC)

The question began with a provocative question from a one-shot IP, probably the same guy as the multiple v6 IP's that keep trying to box up a part of it. Maybe the best thing would be to box the entire thing up... which I have just done. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:16, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Medeis, I agree with you in principle, but your interpretation of WP:BLP is, may I suggest, sometimes controversial such as this case. There was no commentry, negative or otherwise, by the OP or any responders about the individual, his actions, or his guilt or innocence, and the facts were well-verified (including an entire wikipedia article devoted to them). You were alone in considering it BLP, I gather? And your simple view as to why was, "it's not necessary to mention his name". (Your claim as to the "staying" of charges sounds irrelevant, a normal part of the to-and-fro of the criminal justice procedure). Is there anything in WP:BLP which refers to necessity of mentioning a name as a criteria of the policy? Eliyohub (talk) 08:41, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Horse question troll?

Isn't there someone who has been trolling the Ref Desks for a long time with asinine horse-related questions? If so, I think they just showed up again on the Computing and Misc desks. --47.138.163.230 (talk) 07:01, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

I assume you mean this question. Call me an enabler if you like, but I would put that one in the "daft but harmless" bucket. However I expect someone will get very cross about it ... Gandalf61 (talk) 09:34, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

The biggest issue is that they almost definitely are not the original author of these questions, therefore copying them here is likely WP:Copyvio. The questions are always copied from other forums with multiple different authors and indications (e.g. writing style) suggesting they are different people. If people want to answer questions from other places posted where the poster here almost definitely isn't interested in the answer, that's up to them, but the questions themselves should not be preserved here. People are free to read the original questions on the original forums if they want. Maybe they can consider posting their answers there too so someone will actually find them useful.... Nil Einne (talk) 12:17, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

I boxed up the one on the computing desk because I thought it was a malformed computing question (ironically, I couldn't make heads nor tails of it - har har!), but I support what Nil has done. The motive for stuff like this eludes me. Matt Deres (talk) 14:38, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

BTW, I would add unlike with another? poster who IIRC was posting new questions from StackExchange, these questions seem to sometimes (or often?) posted after a few days, so there tends to be decent discussion on the forum before the questions even appear here. Often far better than here. Not a criticism of the RD but to be expected considering it's specialised forum and as Matt Deres's response indicates, many of us barely understand the questions; plus the questions are generally asking for personal advice that isn't easy to reference. So even ignoring the copyvios, linking to the original questions makes sense. Nil Einne (talk) 10:54, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Libertarians

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Humanities#Libertarians

What is the relevant guideline being violated here? Benjamin (talk) 17:55, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

explanations (and examples of!) WP:POINTY, WP:SOAP, WP:NOTAFORUM SemanticMantis (talk) 00:45, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

That post looks like a text book case of WP:POINTY violation. However, I am a keen advocate of WP:AGF, so I will not stop there, and try to help with elaboration and further references on your question. To other editors, the post may be construed as a WP:SOAP violation. Also see WP:NOTAFORUM, Loaded question, etc. It's just not something suitable for a reference desk. If you doubt this, try asking the same thing at a real reference desk. At best you'll be directed to sources on Libertarian_Party_(United_States), Libertarianism_in_the_United_States, Violence, Aggression#Culture. Depending on the librarian, you may be directed to bitch slap, public humiliation, schadenfreude, or perhaps social tolerance, etc. I have now done that, attempting to AGF and help you find further information. The simple fact is such a poll likely does not exist, and I'm pretty sure if you can manage to post a question here, you probably already know that, and that itself does not speak well for you motivations. SemanticMantis (talk) 18:31, 27 February 2017 (UTC) If you have a genuine question which someone could help you research, start a new thread that doesn't attempt to make a political point. That thread is already beyond being rescued. Just let that one go, and show us you really do mean well. Because you're straining credibility to the breaking point so far. If you genuinely seek references to help you research something, step back from the brink, start a better thread, and go from there. --Jayron32 18:48, 27 February 2017 (UTC) OP may like to read up on"sea lioning"[6], and think about why it is generally frowned upon. If he can phrase the question in a way that is not clear political posturing, he will get better results here, I guarantee. AGF is a two way street, and if you want an honest answer, you have to ask an honest question, in good faith. SemanticMantis (talk) 18:51, 27 February 2017 (UTC) Thank you for helping me. What would have been a better way to word the question? Benjamin (talk) 21:09, 27 February 2017 (UTC) You could ask whether there is information on the rate of violence approved by various political ideologies. And the heading could be "Political ideologies and violence". As for punching libertarians, did you have any specific cases in mind? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:25, 27 February 2017 (UTC) Yes, I saw a rather popular tweet saying it's okay to punch nazis and male libertarians, and I was wondering how widespread that belief is. Benjamin (talk) 23:27, 27 February 2017 (UTC) As compared to punching commies and liberals and anyone who's not a white male? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:31, 27 February 2017 (UTC) What do you mean? Benjamin (talk) 23:33, 27 February 2017 (UTC) I assume the tweet was in response to Richard B. Spencer getting punched in the face. Someguy1221 (talk) 23:36, 27 February 2017 (UTC) Yes, I presume so. Your point? Benjamin (talk) 23:37, 27 February 2017 (UTC) Because he's not a libertarian, he's a neo-Nazi. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:39, 27 February 2017 (UTC) Yes; your point? Benjamin (talk) 23:41, 27 February 2017 (UTC) Your original question was about libertarians. He's not a libertarian. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:42, 27 February 2017 (UTC) How widespread is the belief that it's OK to punch commies, liberals or anyone who's not a white male? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:37, 27 February 2017 (UTC) That's what I'm asking. Benjamin (talk) 23:39, 27 February 2017 (UTC) Then your question should be about violence within ideologies - not about whether it's OK to punch out a neo-Nazi. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:41, 27 February 2017 (UTC) Thank you. You already said that. Benjamin (talk) 23:42, 27 February 2017 (UTC) In addition to sea lioning, we may also learn from reading about the concept of a concern troll. OP, please see WP:NOTAFORUM again. I think you may be confused: this is not a page to discuss politics. We don't care what you think or who you want to punch or why. Reddit has several forums where these contributions may be more welcome. Consider /r/politics [7] or /r/libertarian [8]. If you continue to talk about USA politics on this talk page, many of us will see that as a sign of bad faith. You are welcome to ask new questions on the reference desk. It is not that hard to make good faith questions. The main ingredient is good faith :) SemanticMantis (talk) 00:43, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Drop. The. Stick.--WaltCip (talk) 14:02, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

I can ask for sources about political topics, right? That's what I was trying to do, not start a discussion. Benjamin (talk) 00:47, 28 February 2017 (UTC) Nobody has yet referred to Loaded question? Something best avoided, in any refdesk question, if you want us to assume good faith, and give proper answers. Reading that article may be a start in giving some insight into question phrasing? Eliyohub (talk) 01:19, 28 February 2017 (UTC) What assumption was in my question? Benjamin (talk) 01:24, 28 February 2017 (UTC) That libertarians are being unduly picked on. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:28, 28 February 2017 (UTC) That was pretty much what I was asking. Benjamin (talk) 01:29, 28 February 2017 (UTC) Based on one tweet about a guy who isn't even a libertarian? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:36, 28 February 2017 (UTC) I'm not making a claim, I'm asking a question. Benjamin (talk) 01:37, 28 February 2017 (UTC) Your question cannot be answered. There appear to be no scientific studies on how many people think it's appropriate to punch libertarians. There might be a study out there on the public perception of whether it's OK to use violence against people who spread hate speech, but it's hard to find in the sea of studies on whether hate speech encourages violence against the target. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:40, 28 February 2017 (UTC) I bolded your whole response for all to see clearly; didn't think you'd mind. OP needs to ask a new question or stop testing our AGF. SemanticMantis (talk) 04:10, 28 February 2017 (UTC) I unbolded per WP:SHOUT, I didn't think you'd mind. :D ―Mandruss ☎ 04:12, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

"Dropping the stick" reminds me of what happened to Admire Rakti in the Melbourne Cup. A spectre which caught the whole nation's attention, as the favorite horse died from a heart attack during the biggest race of the year. What was needed was a horse-scale defibrillator, not a whip! Unfortunately, those don't currently exist. What would be the equivalent in a Wikipedia debate to revive the horse? Eliyohub (talk) 08:55, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Request of "hatters" - what do others think?

I understand "hatting" things here which are deemed to violate the rules or whatever, but my request is, please sign the "hatting statement" (the one which is visible, to explain the reason for the hat), like Jayron32 did to Benjamin's humanities question, and SemanticMantis did in the post just above this one, so we can know whom has decided that the question(s) and/or comments are to be hatted? Many editors already do this, I'm just asking the rest to do it too. Possibly even include it (that "hatting statements" should be signed) in Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Guidelines, if there's consensus. It makes things easier in cases where others dispute that it should have been hatted (and such disputes are not at all uncommon, in my experience) and, in general, adds transparency. We can always look through the edit history if we really want to know (so you're not revealing anything we couldn't figure out anyways), but I prefer transparency and accountability to be as easy as possible. Not referring to any specific editor, just what I see as desirable practice. How do others feel? I'm no expert, is this a good suggestion, or am I missing something? Eliyohub (talk) 01:13, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

I forgot to sign mine the last time. I agree they should be signed. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:27, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

In my opinion editors should sign any hat, archive, or collapse on any page for any reason. If they fail to do so, any other editor can find the edit in the page history and add the appropriate {{unsigned}} template. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:28, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes, everyone should sign, and also explain reasons, in hats and edit comments. Also when something is deleted. And "Enough of this", etc., is NOT a reason. StuRat (talk) 03:03, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Yep, agreed. "include it (that "hatting statements" should be signed) in Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Guidelines, if there's consensus. " I'll support this. If you or someone else doesn't add it this week I most likely will myself. The fact that you and I and Bugs and Mandruss and Stu already all agree is a strong indicator this is reasonable and has wide approval. Thanks for suggesting! SemanticMantis (talk) 03:37, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Somewhere within the dark, dank depths of the archives there should be at least one other discussion in which consensus (or maybe even unanimity) was that hatting should be signed. I don't recall if formally encoding it in the guidelines was discussed. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:47, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

As to better explanations, that's a little harder to define. Anyone following a discussion can pretty well see why, "Gentlemen! Enough of this!" would be invoked. But maybe it's unfair to expect a viewer to read all the sordid details. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:49, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

What's blindingly obvious to the hatter is often not so obvious to others, so an explanation is definitely in order. Writing the explanation might also cause the hatter to stop and think for a minute, is this hat really justifiable? If one can't make a better case than "enough of this", it probably is not. But that's a different and far more complicated issue than the one being addressed in this thread, best kept separate. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:54, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Side comment: Hatting is not just for rule breakers and violations. See below if you're interested :) SemanticMantis (talk) 04:02, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

further discussion on hatting, not central to the signing of collapsed sections SemanticMantis (talk) 04:02, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

"HAT" stands for "hidden archive top". There's also the {{cot|explanation & sig}} ... {{cob}} syntax that leaves a "this is closed, do not edit" explanatory text. Some reasons to "hat" are to avoid cluttering the page with long tables, code, or side discussions that are off-topic with respect to OP. Hatting is more gentle and WP:AGF, because it doesn't tell people they can't type there. I "hat" my own stuff some times when I think someone might be interested but the conversation has drifted a bit. I'll also hat things that I think are in violation of our guidelines where admins or other users might "close" the thread. This is because I only edit subject to WP:BRD, as I know many of us do follow. SemanticMantis (talk) 04:02, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

A reason should refer to a policy which has been violated. And if a claim is made that the OP is a troll, which troll ? The Nazi troll ? The skidmarks troll ? Etc. You can't just call anyone who asks a Q you don't like a troll, any more than we should call any news we don't like "fake news". StuRat (talk) 05:13, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Sometimes stuff is just off-topic, or a spot of confusion, unrelated to the question? No policy violation, just clogs up the goal of giving answers to the question asked. Sidetracking serves no purpose. That's not to say that some users don't abuse hats. I don't want to name names. Eliyohub (talk) 15:16, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

If you think a specific hat or closure was made erroneously, feel free to revert/remove it and discuss it with the hatting user, or perhaps discuss here. That would be standard WP good conduct, supported by WP:BRD. SemanticMantis (talk) 17:49, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

I agree it's a good idea; I hadn't really considered it. My apologies for not doing so when I hatted the horse question (above); it honestly never crossed my mind to do so, but I will try to remember henceforth. Matt Deres (talk) 15:27, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Hatting reins it in. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:44, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Okay, so it sounds like we have consensus? No dissent has been voiced. I have zero experience editing wikipedia guidelines, but I think it's OK for someone to add this to the refdesk guidelines page I linked to above. Be my guest... Eliyohub (talk) 08:59, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Textbook example of a bad hat reason

See [9], where Jayron's "reason" was "Closing this before the OP embarrasses themselves more than they already have". To make matters worse, he then deleted a reply I added, along with the OP's reply. My reply was designed to get the discussion back on track to something we can actually find sources for. I reinstated my reply, as Jayron greatly exceeded his authority. StuRat (talk) 05:08, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

I agree it was not a great explanation. The closure was proper though, as per WP:POINTY, WP:SOAP, loaded question, WP:NOTAFORUM, and the above section. I understand your post was trying to get things back on track, however by the time Jayron removed it, it was clear to me that OP was interested mostly in pushing buttons, not getting actual references. If I'm mistaken, it doesn't matter, OP I think learned a bit about our policies, and we've told him he is welcome to ask further questions in good faith. The fact that he has not may or may not be informative to your assessment of the situation. SemanticMantis (talk) 21:15, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

That is false. I wanted references. Benjamin (talk) 01:06, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm impressed that others have agreed with me when I invoked an unwritten "loaded question doctrine" in earlier discussion. There may be no formal ban on loaded questions, but they are still problematic, and any OP asking them needs to be told to re-phrase, if we are to be able to give a sensible answer. Or we can perhaps re-phrase for them, but they may not like the outcome. Eliyohub (talk) 08:46, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

I realize my wording may be problematic and I welcome help with rephrasing. Benjamin (talk) 08:48, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Violence

To what degree is violence accepted by various political ideologies, and how is this changing in recent years? Also, how effective is violence at effecting political change?

Is that a good way to word it?

I am not trolling.

Thank you for your help. Benjamin (talk) 05:51, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

"Violence is justified in the service of mankind." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:59, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

I personally see nothing wrong with the question as worded here. I suggest you wait at least 24 hours for more opinions; then, if there is no objection, copy the question to the appropriate reference desk. ―Mandruss ☎ 08:04, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Hatted materialism question

I hatted this [10]. I'm not going to fight over it if someone, including the OP, disagrees. Nil Einne (talk) 09:02, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

The question assumes a particular premise, which is typically not a good sign. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:39, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Looking over the OP's contributions, I'm starting to get a sense of WP:NOTHERE. Anyone else? Ian.thomson (talk) 09:53, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Money is tight (talk · contribs) has been here for 8 years and never blocked, but that might change. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:59, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Wow you're suggesting to ban me when I call out the fact that wikipedia is biased? Go ahead, do it, so I can appeal and have your admin priviledge revoked. Money is tight (talk) 10:31, 1 March 2017 (UTC)