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.

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)

Other questions

Someone, probably the same editor, now posted a question that was posted to 2 Christian forums over 19 months ago. The poster there seems to clearly be the same person (not that it concerns us) but considering the time etc, there's good reason to think it's not the same editor posting here. I've given this the same treatment [1] Nil Einne (talk) 12:26, 6 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. (BTW, all trolls say they are not trolling, so it's somewhat pointless to say it. To some editors around these parts, saying it is evidence of trolling since all trolls say it. Ask reasonable, intelligent, and answerable questions, refrain from endless arguing, pushing an agenda, and flooding the desks with your comments, and you're not trolling in my book, even if you have done so before.) ―Mandruss ☎ 08:04, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Have I? Benjamin (talk) 11:03, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

I haven't been around for all of that, so I have no opinion about that. What matters is what you do from here on out, not what you have done before. Given that you have managed to become the center of some controversy, you would be wise to tread softly and not test the limits of tolerance. I've been an active defender of late, but my opinion of you could change. ―Mandruss ☎ 11:08, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

If I have violated policy in the past, I would like to know, in order to change. Thank you. Benjamin (talk) 11:10, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

There is a behavioral guideline, Wikipedia:Disruptive editing. The spirit of the guideline is that no user should disrupt the development of the encyclopedia or, in this case, the operation of the reference desks. It is impossible to define every possible thing that would be considered disruptive, so violations are often a matter of opinion among a local majority. Repeated demands to "show me the policy I'm violating", in the face of a widely-held view that you are being disruptive, are fairly good evidence of trolling. You are free to take such issues to Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) and, if you refuse to accept what you hear there, you will be seen as disruptive and may be blocked temporarily or permanently. That's how it works, take it or leave it. ―Mandruss ☎ 11:24, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

What steps should I take to ensure I don't violate policy in the future? Benjamin (talk) 11:37, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Again, it's not about not violating policy, it's about not wearing out your welcome at the reference desks. "Ask reasonable, intelligent, and answerable questions, refrain from endless arguing, pushing an agenda, and flooding the desks with your comments." Don't make a hobby out of asking reference desk questions. The web is teeming with other information resources and places to engage in discussions. ―Mandruss ☎ 11:43, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

See also sealioning which Benjamin is approaching here as well. Don't ask questions whose purpose is to provoke confrontation. If you don't know what kinds of questions provoke confrontation, pay attention to what people do in response to the questions to ask. And if you can't tell the difference, then perhaps this isn't the place for you. --Jayron32 00:20, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

This is a neutral phrasing, and a question that we can address with references. I think you can see the difference between this and your earlier question that was closed! It is very broad though. While we can try to help with broad questions, our abilities are limited. I'm sure there are entire books written on this topic, so it's not something someone here can summarize for you in an afternoon. However, many of us may know just the kind of books you'd like to read! And that is what we're here to do: give references where people can find more information. So: please feel free to ask this question. We will help as we can. You may consider narrowing the scope to your area of interest, so that we can provide more directed references, and not "waste time" talking about things that you're not interested in (e.g. are you interested in the Middle East, Asia, North America, Europe, or maybe the whole world? How recent is "recent"? A decade? Do you care about e.g. political violence in ancient Rome? None of these are necessary, just things to consider. A "good" question does take some time to formulate, but good questions help the asker a lot more than impulsive ones :) SemanticMantis (talk) 15:18, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

I am specifically interested in the effect of Richard Spencer getting punched, but I'm not sure how to ask that without sounding loaded or whatever. Benjamin (talk) 02:38, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

You know, you can type "reactions to Richard Spencer getting punched" into Google, and you wouldn't have to involve any of us in that at all. --Jayron32 03:34, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

That's true, and I typed it for you. Here you go:[2] On the other hand, the same applies to any refdesk question that can be answered using web resources. To a large degree the desks exist to provide information assistance to people lacking in Googling skills, reading skills, time, and/or energy. There are web services where you actually pay (a little, and it's a voluntary "donation") for that assistance; I've used one of them a couple of times myself, ages ago, and I got pretty good results. There are one or two refdesk regulars who enjoy doing that pro bono, but for the most part the desks continue to exist because (1) their ideal persists and (2) a number of vocal regulars like to hang out here and discuss stuff. In my opinion a community cost-benefit discussion about the continued existence of the desks is long overdue. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:03, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Of course there's that Google search, but I ask the ref desk because I don't know those sources 1) actually answer my question, and 2) do so in such a way that would be reliable, for such a contentious and speculative claim. They are also all news stories. I would be particularly interested in analysis from a more scholarly perspective. Also, how can I ask about Richard Spencer without sounding loaded? Benjamin (talk) 04:14, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

I've looked through those hits before. News stories, blog posts, and opinions from ethics experts. Nothing approaching even an unscientific study. The data you want has not been gathered. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:18, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm not convinced such sources don't exist, but if that is the case, I would also be interested in sources discussing similar events in the past, if an analogy could be drawn. Benjamin (talk) 04:22, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

I know of one regular refdesk responder, SemanticMantis, who I would trust to provide a competent, quality answer to such a complex and nuanced question. The rest of us lack the skills and/or the motivation. Ask us how many total solar eclipses will be visible from within North America this century, and you're more in line with what the refdesks are designed to handle. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:32, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Aw, Mandruss, if you go on like that you'll make this bug blush! While I thank you for your vote of confidence, and I do pride myself on research skills and strive for WP:NPOV, this question is fairly outside my wheelhouse. I am here to help, but I am perhaps a bit selfish in what I choose to help with, usually it has to be something I already know a good bit about, or something I already want to learn more about. Maybe another case where I don't know much and don't care, but I do know how to quickly find some references to research. Anyway, if OP asks on the desk, I may try to help, but imo it's not that useful to mix answers of question with discussion of questions here on this talk page. SemanticMantis (talk) 16:25, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

This is a reasonably well studied subject, but the question you asked is a bit broad for a simple answer. Here is just one example of a paper on this subject, specifically looking at public support for political violence in Northern Ireland over time, and by affiliation. If you something specific in mind, we can help look for references, just not as crazy specific as your previous question. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:29, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

The question is half of the answer. OK, maybe not literally "half". But it has to be recognized that there is a burden on the person posing the question, both in its initial formulation, as well as in followup commentary. Bus stop (talk) 13:42, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Would it be okay to ask specifically about the effect of Richard Spencer getting punched, or would that be too specific or loaded? Could I ask if there are any sources on similar events in the past?

Also, in the future, is it okay for me to get help with wording on this page before I post to the desk?

Also, User:Eliyohub invoked an unwritten "loaded question doctrine" in earlier discussion. Perhaps something along those lines could be added to the guidelines page?

Benjamin (talk) 07:39, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Don't you think people can be depended upon to engage others in a way that they would like to be engaged if the positions were reversed? Why expand the guidelines? Bus stop (talk) 12:53, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

WP:DBAD is a sufficient guideline and does not need any expansion. It's a good life principle. --Jayron32 12:58, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

How's this for a question?

Are there any sources analysing the effect of Richard Spencer being punched?

I've seen some saying it makes his ideas stronger, some weaker, but none reliable.

Also, if there are no sources about this event, are there any about similar past events?

Thanks.

Benjamin (talk) 08:19, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Hatted materialism question

I hatted this [3]. 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. I'm not surprised that a bunch of materialists are angry and want personal revenge. Please, abuse your admin powers and ban me. Money is tight (talk) 10:31, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia already has an essay on systematic bias. Benjamin (talk) 10:40, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Your comment doesn't make much sense. If wikipedia is as biased as you claim and the community here is as bad as you claimed elsewhere, then you're not going to get anyone's admin privilege revoked even if the block was inappropriate. There's no "unbiased" Supreme Court here, WP:arbcom who are the only ones likely to revoke admin privilege is appointed by the community. (BTW an admin cannot generally ban an editor, they can only block them.) Nil Einne (talk) 10:50, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

In the past some of their questions were provocative, but they seemed to mostly avoid following up with arguments. The recent question about conciousness and the origin of life (but not really evolution despite the heading) was problematic but they also seemed to eventually stop trying to argue with the respondents. Maybe they would have done that here but I decided not to wait. Of course they also asked this question [4] and even asked for it to be "unlocked" [5]. (Yet I somehow suspect they don't see the connection of that with this question [6].) Nil Einne (talk) 11:46, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

For the amount of dedication you put into investigating my previous ref desk questions, I'm flattered. Money is tight (talk) 21:44, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

It's not as hard as you seem to think. I maybe opened 10-20 contribs total and have a multitab browser. And your contribution history is not very high, it fits in a single page of 500 results. Some of the stuff are obvious red flags like the inhibition thing and even the plastic surgery title sounded questionale and/or I semi-remembered them; also the sockpuppetry thing (albeit that was from your userpage not contribution history and you don't seem to have done anything wrong there). Others I just opened out of interest than because I suspected to see anything. I almost definitely spent significantly more time replying then I did checking our your contribution history. Nil Einne (talk) 08:22, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Let's not turn this into a general indictment of a user. Thread got problematic and was properly closed. I think Money is tight is (mostly) fine, they just need to learn that it's not a good idea to respond to most every reply with a rebuttal. Clarification and discussion are fine, but they seem to be approaching recent questions in a forum-like manner, and that's not ideal. Also perhaps read up a bit on loaded question. SemanticMantis (talk) 15:08, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

• The guiding principle is that questions seeking information are fine. Questions seeking affirmation are not. Questions seeking confrontation are ESPECIALLY not OK. --Jayron32 00:18, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

• We often get a combo of the first 2, which is also fine: "I believe X to be true, am I correct ?" StuRat (talk) 17:50, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

• No, not really. The sentiment is more "I believe X to be true, and you can't prove me wrong". --Jayron32 11:33, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Dates on the language desk

They seem to have run amuk. Could someone de-muk them please? Carbon Caryatid (talk) 15:12, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Done. I'm not sure what happened there; Maybe someone added the March 5 in there manually while trying to be 'helpful'. Matt Deres (talk) 15:26, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Scsbot itself misplaced that March 5 header. It was confused by the March 4 hat on the preceding March 3 question. -- ToE 18:45, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

The "personal attack" card

I ask User:Baseball Bugs to kindly desist from pulling out the "personal attack" card unless there is clear evidence of an actual personal attack. He does it far too often, and has been doing so for well over a decade. I've explained it to him more than once, but nothing ever seems to change.

The latest episode started here:

• The definition posted by Dbfirs proves your personal attack to be incorrect.

The so-called "personal attack" that BB was objecting to was User:Fgf10's:

• Rump is a perfectly normal term in English. The BBC writes in English, not American. (Even though it's a perfectly normal term in American as well). There is no lack of 'neutrality' or insult, apart from in your mind. This 'question' can be closed now.

How is this possibly a personal attack? There's nothing derogatory, pejorative or negative about saying that a certain idea exists only in a particular person's mind. It's another way of saying "you are the only person who thinks that", or "nobody agrees with you". So what! It's not a PERSONAL attack. If you must couch it in "attack" terms, then it's an attack on what you said. But YOU are not what you say or do. One can attack what you say or do without attacking you, personally. That was exactly what FgF10 did.

An attack on you, personally, would be something like "There is no lack of 'neutrality' or insult, apart from in your obviously diseased mind". But merely adverting to the fact that you have a mind is not any kind of personal attack.

The consequent palaver was very disrupting, and is exactly the sort of thing that we abhor. It's the sort of thing, inter alia, that has caused me to withdraw in large part from the ref desks and focus my energies elsewhere.

Can User:Baseball Bugs please come here and indicate, once and for all, that he understands the difference between a personal attack and an attack or commentary on, or rejection of, what someone has said?

And can he please, once and for all, undertake to mend his ways and stop calling "personal attack" except when this is actually justified?

Thank you. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:25, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

He's not the only one. Several people find the concept of "correct a mistake you made" or "justly note an incorrect thing you did" as definitions of "personal attack" as though, when people behave against expected norms, or continue to press forward with demonstratedly incorrect answers to questions, those corrections of fact and behavior represent personal attacks. There needs to be a reminder that telling people they are doing the wrong thing, when they are actively doing the wrong thing, is not a personal attack. --Jayron32 02:49, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

FGF is a sporadic editor whose main goal here seems to be to insult other users. How many references did he provide in his self-styled "corrections"? Or are we to assume that his personal opinion is gold? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:28, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Agreed with Jack. Too many editors are too loose with that term as well as others including "vandal" and "troll", and the result is counter-productive. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:31, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

There's a right and a wrong way to "correct" other users. FGF consistently goes the wrong way. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:34, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Even if true, that doesn't make the cited statement a "personal attack". ―Mandruss ☎ 03:35, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

The apart from in your mind is the main problem. Not only does he have his facts wrong on the question I raised, he also asserts that there is something wrong with my mind. It's hard to get more personal than that. And it's typical of his approach to other users. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:18, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Didn't even notice this bit. There were several posters before me already stating the correct answer, and my correction was correct as well. So lets start by saying I was correct, and you were incorrect. You keen insisting the usage of a term was a problem. Therefore it was an opinion, and it was only wrong in your mind. I am a sporadic editor because I only answer stuff I know about. More people should follow my example. Fgf10 (talk) 13:58, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

That is not what that phrase means to most people - as Jack said above. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:29, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

It was a personal attack in his mind. <ducks> --Jayron32 04:32, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

"There is no lack of 'neutrality' or insult [with that use of "rump"], apart from in your mind." That entire sentence is demonstrably incorrect... and personalized. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:36, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

First, WP:NPA says nothing about being incorrect, which clearly demonstrates your tendency to interpret the term too loosely. Second, if you're going to invoke the "Comment on content, not on the contributor" clause of NPA, you're going to have to explain how this, this, andthis are not personal attack. I have no doubt I could find more examples from the desks themselves. One needs to hold themselves to the same standard to which they hold others. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:49, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Jayron, I concede that it may well have been a personal attack in Fgf10's mind. But the only person who can know that is Fgf10 themself. If Baseball Bugs suspects this was the case, that's his call, but he cannot act as if it were established fact, without violating WP:AGF. So, in the very act of naming an editor for allegedly breaching one important rule, he must himself breach another important rule. Some would say that's the definition of hypocrisy. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 06:23, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

It was not a personal attack, it was merely a correction. People here have an annoying habit of posting things that are factually incorrect, without and supporting evidence, and then calling personal attack when they are corrected. BB is merely the most obvious example of this. If people can't stand being corrected, they shouldn't be on the refdesk. If I behaved like that in my day job (medical research), I'd probably have been fired by now. Fgf10 (talk) 09:08, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying, but who else is regularly guilty of the same behaviour we're discussing here? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 09:15, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure it's helpful to the general health of these desks to further the conversation in that direction. People who get reminded of these problems have every reason to know that they are causing them. Playing tattle-tale and dragging people through the mud because we want to make them feel bad isn't useful, and I'd have actually preferred if no individual was named, even the ones that have been already. A general reminder to not use a blanket "personal attack" defense when people point out your mistakes is sufficient. --Jayron32 11:32, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

See Richard Avery's response to Baseball Bugs on this criticism at Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Science/2016_December_5#Ginkgo_fruit_yield, when accused of a personal attack for saying "you are wrong". He brilliantly re-phrased his response, in line with the finest traditions of diplomacy. I felt duty-bound to award him a barnstar for his efforts. Eliyohub (talk) 13:41, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes, but in rephrasing his response, he ceded ground to BB which should never have been ceded. He didn't need to rephrase, and should have stood his ground. Rephrasing it as he did is as good as siding with the Bug. --Viennese Waltz 13:51, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

If people are wrong, they're wrong. Simple as. In that example, the original response was entirely appropriate. That is not even remotely a personal attack. Fgf10 (talk) 13:54, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Speaking personally, I don't see anything wrong with Richard Avery rewording his response on request. In fact I'd agree that people should generally be commended for trying to be more diplomatic. In the Richard Avery case, while this may not have been the intention, there is a risk the re-worded response could be intepreted as highly sarcastic and even more offensive than the original response so I do think there are risks there but this doesn't negate the general idea. I would particularly disagree it should be avoided because your ceeding ground to someone. I myself have a tendency to get heated when I see something that annoys me for some reason, and but I do sometimes reword my response later when I've calmed down a bit (often before anyone says anything). Other than hopefully helping the conversation, a good reason to be diplomatic is it avoids you looking like an idiot if you turn out to be wrong (so it does depend on how sure you are that it's the other party). However I'd never agree there's anything instricly wrong with saying someone is wrong and agree it's most definitely not a personal attack nor is the example highlighted by Jack. Nil Einne (talk) 14:30, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Given the stats I cited below, one could argue it's not really a "personal" attack, because he treats everyone this way. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:42, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Or you could, you know, just accept that it's not an attack at all and move on. --Viennese Waltz 15:32, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

So far in March, I count 19 edits by FGF. Only one of them has anything resembling a reference. The other 18 are uncited personal opinions delivered in a condescending way toward at least 5 different editors. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:28, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Even if true, that is not a description of personal attack in the Wikipedia sense, which is the topic of this thread. PA is blockable, and none of that is blockable. The corollary: If it isn't blockable, it can't be PA. You continue to miss the point, so I'll refer to what I said to you one year ago.[7] ―Mandruss ☎ 20:06, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

I had not been aware of the Science desk Gingko fruit discussion but it demonstrates a flaw in your thinking, Baseball Bugs. You find a position that suits you, and you stick to it against the weight of all evidence to the contrary. Stickability can be a very good quality - but not in these sorts of cases. When you assert that those who say "You are wrong" are making a moral judgment and a personal attack, and they reply that there is no judgment and no attack, you must rethink your opinion. How can you claim to know better what was in their minds than they themselves? You cannot. Nobody can. You must accept what people say about the intent behind their words - particularly in an environment like this where we're deprived of all the non-verbal parts of normal human communication, which make up the huge bulk of the meaning. You are entitled to suspect otherwise all you like, but, as I said above, you are not entitled to act as if your suspicions were established fact. Otherwise, it is tantamount to accusing them of lying. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:40, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

I'll disagree with the thrust of that. "You are wrong" may lack humility and tact ("You are wrong in my opinion" would be an improvement), but it is never a moral judgment nor personal attack and no defense should be necessary. You might say that "You are wrong" is the basis for all debate. In my opinion. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:05, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Is your disagreement with Bugs or with me? Your indentation says me but your words seem to refer to Bugs. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:11, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

My previous comment was my first disagreement with you. You said, When...they reply that there is no judgment and no attack, you must rethink your opinion. And I'm saying they shouldn't have to say that and the MJ/PA accusation should not be made in the first place. Referring specifically to "You are wrong."
If I don't feel somebody's wrong, there is no debate. That I feel they are wrong is implicit in the fact that we are engaged in the debate, and saying it is no more MJ/PA than the debate itself. Again, "in my opinion" helps, but I often omit it for brevity, and humility is fairly uncommon anywhere in life. Most folks are far more certain about things than they have any reason to be. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:15, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

I think we're in furious agreement. I agree that people shouldn't have to defend their words against baseless accusations of MJ/PA. In a perfect world, such charges would never be made in the first place. But we live in an imperfect world, where such charges are sometimes made, and we're discussing exactly such a case here. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 00:05, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Ok. But wait, let's not miss an opportunity to wallow in semantics. Here's the dictionary entry for "wrong". Adjectival sense 1 is a synonym for sinful or immoral. In most contexts I think the far more common usage of the word is adjectival sense 3, which is a synonym for incorrect. If Bugs is applying sense 1 to this case, he's, well, wrong. If he's not, saying that someone is incorrect is hardly MJ or PA, per my previous comment. In my opinion. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:39, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Without naming names (you know who you are) let me ask a simple question. If an individual has in the past received significant pushback regarding their behavior on the refdesks and has never changed their behavior in any way because of this social pressure, would it be fair to say that anyone who posts a brand new complaint about that individual is wasting our time? -Guy Macon (talk) 03:00, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

It serves our readers. If someone gives an answer that should not be heeded, then we should flag that answer with an explanation of why (usually because it's off the cuff and provides no useful sources to read). Readers should be told to ignore such answers. --Jayron32 03:53, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

The above seems to describe the benefits of criticizing an answer on one of the reference desks, which may very well serve our readers. How does criticizing the person who gave the answer on the reference desk talk page serve our readers? --Guy Macon (talk) 14:45, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

It doesn't. --Jayron32 14:52, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Yet this thread is not at all about criticising someone who gave an answer. It is about asking someone who regularly engenders disruption by falsely accusing others of personal attack when there was none, to stop this practice, and to understand what "personal attack" means around here. So far he has not indicated he has such an understanding, and has not undertaken to cease being disruptive. See this short interchange as well. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 00:50, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Guy, are you proposing an alternative solution, proposing a pragmatic surrender, or simply making a rhetorical statement of frustration? ―Mandruss ☎ 15:05, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

I would propose a pragmatic surrender to FGF, who treats most everyone with contempt, hence it's never a "personal" attack. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:06, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Bugs, I rather like you and I don't consider you to be particularly disruptive, ,but you are one of the people who does not change their behavior when confronted with pushback and social pressure from other users. I apologize for writing "you know who you are". Apparently some of you don't. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:48, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Mandruss, I do not consider not doing something again after doing that exact same again and again has never had any effect a "pragmatic surrender". I consider it being stupid. I consider it willfully ignoring the obvious fact that what we are doing is not working.

While I did not propose an alternative solution in my comment above, I have done so on multiple occasions, and have never been able to generate a consensus to try my solution, even as a limited-time experiment. My solution, once again, is:

• Get rid of all of the special rules that only apply to the refdesks and which the admins refuse to enforce.
• Apply the standard rules that apply to all talk pages. In particular, apply WP:DISRUPT and especially WP:TPOC.
• Stop complaining about other editors on the refdesk or the refdesk talk pages. Instead, complain on the user's talk page, and if that doesn't work, file a report at WP:ANI.
• Let the administrators do their job.

Why refuse to try the above, even as a limited-time experiment? Beats me. Nobody has ever bothered to explain why they refuse to try it.

--Guy Macon (talk) 02:48, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Sounds good. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:35, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't recall such a proposal, although it may have been lost in the noise. I know I've said in multiple contexts including RD that it costs very little to give something a try. If it fails, we gain tangible evidence to replace WP:CRYSTAL arguments. And then we try something else. Inertia sucks. But I also support a community-level discussion about the continued existence of the desks. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:08, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

That's a question for another place. But I support Guy's proposal. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 06:09, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

In general one should eschew terms that are overused. Since Wikipedia speaks of "personal attacks", one should couch that concept in other language—any other language. Bus stop (talk) 18:36, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

One should not eschew "personal attack" because it's overused. They should learn its definition and use it correctly and only where it applies. Accusing someone of blockable behavior is a serious matter. Bugs spends so much time at WP:ANI that he can't possibly be unaware of how Wikipedia applies WP:NPA in practice. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:36, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

You mean there are certain words people shouldn't use because policy uses those words? That is a debatable idea. Bus stop (talk) 11:15, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

If FGF could "correct" other users without resorting to condescension, it would be much more productive. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:58, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Again, that has nothing to do with your misuse of the term "personal attack", which is the topic of this thread. I don't think anybody in this thread is defending FGF. Certainly not me, since (1) I don't know much about it, and (2) that's off topic. I fully understand that it's common practice to respond to crticism of one's behavior by diverting attention to someone else's behavior. As a former parent of small children, I have never bought that and I never will. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:14, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

There's something you don't understand: I LIKE being corrected - with actual facts, not with condescending personal opinions. What FGF calls "corrections" ARE ATTACKS - on 5 different editors just this month. Did you ridicule your own children? Or did you merely explain to them why they got something wrong? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:25, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Diffs, please. "You are wrong" is not personal attack by any reasonable interpretation. The preceding statement is an actual fact, well supported by reason above, not a condescending personal opinion. If you like that so much, why are you doing everything in your power to resist hearing it? ―Mandruss ☎ 01:39, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Where did I say you made a personal attack? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:45, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Sigh. Let's review. FGF said, "apart from in your mind". You called that a personal attack. We have made a very strong case that "apart from in your mind" is a way of saying "you are wrong", which is not a personal attack, so your use of "personal attack" was not appropriate. We would like you to acknowledge that fact and say that you will make an effort to avoid false accusations of PA (and other blockable behavior, while we're at it) in the future. Are we on the same page now? ―Mandruss ☎ 01:51, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

FGF has attacked FIVE DIFFERENT EDITORS in March, and when I stood up to him about it, Jack brought a complaint here. You want diff's? Look at his grand total of 19 edits in March, and you'll see only one of them had any kind of reference, and the other 18 consisted of ridiculing condescension toward those FIVE DIFFERENT EDITORS. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:56, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Ok, I've now looked at those 19 edits. The closest thing to PA is "If you're so thin skinned...". That's one occurrence, not a pattern, and it's very borderline. For the most part, I object to FGF's confrontational tone (I'd call it a sort of TRM Lite), and I agree that it's condescending. I personally find it offensive, but it's regrettably quite common at Wikipedia, and Wikipedia never blocks based solely on that kind of tone. If we did, half of our experienced editors would be temp-blocked at any given time. If it isn't blockable, it can't be PA and we simply ask that you be more careful with the application of that term. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:19, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Bugs, there seems little point in raising the extent of FGF's behaviour only now. You didn't complain about it when it was happening - except for the specific case we're discussing here, and then you overreacted with your claim of personal attack. You can never use another editor's claimed inappropriate behaviour as a justification for your own inappropriate behaviour. Little kids have that defence in their armoury ("But s/he started it", "S/he made me do it"), however I suspect you're slightly more senior than that. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 06:45, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Or as blocked users sometimes say in their unblock requests "You forced me to sock". 5.150.92.20 (talk) 10:51, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

No one makes anyone do anything here. FGF chooses to attack other editors. And I chose to stand up to him. But since he does that with everyone, there's no further point in standing up to him. Instead, I'll say something like, "Per discussion on the ref desk talk page: If you've got a problem with someone else's editing, take it to their talk page." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:58, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

You have a deal, sir. We'll all hold each other to that.

For future reference, as per WP:TPOC, a true personal attack can be simply removed by any editor without warning or any further ado. If a post does not qualify as a personal attack but still seems undesirable, it can be raised on the editor's talk page as per your suggestion. As can an apparent pattern of negative and/or aggressive posts. Or the WP:DISRUPT protocols can be invoked. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 19:20, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Medeis many deletions and hats

She's deleting many Q's, responses, and hatting others, with no justification. See Special:Contributions/Medeis. She seems to try to misinterpret the Q in a way that can justify these actions. For example, a simple request for the name of a company, given it's abbreviation, and she deleted it as a request for "legal and personal advice": [8]. Or this scientific Q with scientific answers gets hatted by her as being a forum Q: [9]. StuRat (talk) 03:41, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

The responses kind of meandered away from the original question, but I don't see it as asking for legal advice, although there's certainly an "advice" aspect to it. It would be better just to return it to being boxed up, because there's really nothing more we can do for the OP, who will have to take some initiative in the matter. That second question kind of looked like trolling, but it's potentially answerable. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:43, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

If an individual has in the past received significant pushback regarding their behavior on the refdesks and on the refdesk talk page yet has never changed their behavior in any way because of this social pressure, would it be fair to say that anyone who posts a brand new complaint about that individual on the refdesk talk age is wasting our time? (See the section above this one for a proposed alternative). --Guy Macon (talk) 06:52, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

I think Medeis is far less hat-or-delete-happy than in the past. Though if there's a reversion, it would be best to bring it here, as with any "content dispute", rather than edit-warring. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:02, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

There seems to be ongoing attacks on established editors here. Any coincidence. Or is some sort of agenda at play here. Because that's how it looks to neutral observer. 74.215.182.131 (talk) 11:58, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

It's all or mostly good-faith debate about how the ref desks should operate. No problem. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:52, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

74, Wikipedia is a community and we are all accountable to each other. If somebody criticizes my behavior in good faith, I will directly counter their criticism (no sidestepping), modify my behavior, or leave the premises. I will not use loaded words like "attack" and "agenda", or allow anyone else to do so (I'm not claiming that Bugs or Medeis did either). I expect the same from others. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:48, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

I have a concern about a wider question, which is hatting in general. Isn't this a tool for expressing an opinion, and isn't it non-verbal? I think it is akin to edit-warring. (And now comes the propaganda and editorializing.) We should aim for reliance on the verbal in everything we do. And we should eschew that which veers into the realm of the physical. Bus stop (talk) 18:12, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

That's far too tangential to the topic. It is not about Medeis, nor specific to the ref desks. Suggest raising that at the Village Pump. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:56, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

This topic has come up many times here, and the closest thing to agreement seems to come on very obvious trolling, like the neo-Nazi idiot. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:01, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Vegetable

What say y'all about the best way to handle the editorial-disguised-as-a-question on the language ref desk? Knowing that the OP has edit-warred on the Vegetable page over what the definition of a vegetable is. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:55, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

The best way to handle such questions is:

• Get rid of all of the special rules that only apply to the refdesks and which the admins refuse to enforce.
• Apply the standard rules that apply to all talk pages. In particular, apply WP:DISRUPT and especially WP:TPOC.
• Stop complaining about other editors on the refdesk or the refdesk talk pages. Instead, complain on the user's talk page, and if that doesn't work, file a report at WP:ANI.
• Let the administrators do their job.

I would really, really like to see someone -- anyone -- here try these steps in case we are discussing, then report back here telling us how well it worked. Perhaps my plan is unworkable. Perhaps it just needs a little tweaking. perhaps it is perfect and we will end up kicking ourselves for not trying it earlier. We will never know unless a few of the regulars try it.

(I would advise being specific at ANI that you are trying the above steps so that the administrators at ANI are clear that this isn't just one more attempt to get them to enforce our house rules.) --Guy Macon (talk) 19:01, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Excellent answer! Thank you for your efforts in improving The Reference Desk. This is refreshing. 2600:8806:4807:E700:C46C:938B:1C34:F3CC (talk) 19:33, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Fresh vegetables are indeed refreshing. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:49, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

You're worth your carat in carrots.--WaltCip (talk) 12:04, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

My first instinct was to take it to WP:AIV. I thought it would be better to ask about it here. Sorry I bothered. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:23, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

You don't have to agree with my advice, but if you do agree with my advice, "Stop complaining about other editors on the refdesk or the refdesk talk pages. Instead, complain on the user's talk page, and if that doesn't work, file a report at WP:ANI" is part of my advice. WP:AIV would also be a good choice for experienced users like you who know which board is best in a particular situation. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:49, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Does this count as a request for prediction,opinion, or debate?

See here:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Humanities#Jews_allowing_Muslims_to_impose_sharia_law