Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/Archive 129

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

Now at

What, you haven't bludgeoned Medeis enough already? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:27, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

If one looks at the general tone of the RD talk pages about ten years ago, and compares it with the current tone, what differences are there? I see no differences; in that the same few people (the first set) are trying to score points off another set of a few people (the second set) and to punish (by blocking, banning etc) the second set for saying things the first set dont agree with. Im not sure how this helps the pedia. If people just want an argument, why dont we just float this RD talk off into another universe where it will not bother people who just want simple answers to simple questions via the reference desk facility? --213.205.252.246 (talk) 23:08, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Which universe would you suggest? Bus stop (talk) 23:15, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Mortal Kombat vs. DC Universe. The good guys can score fatality points with "heroic brutality" in that one, and the bad guys can still kill the good guys, but with less gore than usual. Everyone wins (if they can remember which buttons to press). InedibleHulk (talk) 23:45, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

I like the solution in the original Star Trek episode The Alternative Factor, where the two opposing foes end up at each other's throats for all eternity, trapped between two universes: [5] (note that this episode featured all the special effects they could manage, both using negatives and rotating the camera, at the same time !). StuRat (talk) 01:46, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

The obvious solution is to bring a controversial action here and discuss it. That's what the talk page is for, and how it used to go here, until Macon said we shouldn't talk about other editors here - unless, apparently, it was he himself that wanted to talk about other editors here. This bogus "straw poll" should be closed, and we should use the talk page for reaching consensus on actions, rather than trying to ban editors who Macon doesn't like. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:28, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Strangely, the only (semi) serious response is actually from one of the most prolific contributors to RD talk. Although I notice that he/she cannot resist bringing forward an existing gripe he/she has of which I am unaware and couldnt care less. This is my point: stop fkg attacking each other to score points. Please lets all grow up. That includes you Bugs..--213.205.252.246 (talk) 22:04, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

"Fkg"?--WaltCip (talk) 13:12, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Fucking. Somehow less offensive if you abbreviate. Or, maybe a simple time-saver, like lol. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:14, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

• The irony here is so great you can watch it rust... --Jayron32 23:51, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

So why not remove the oxygen?--213.205.252.246 (talk) 01:11, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Touché. --Jayron32 01:15, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

It's the nature of the beast. It's what you get when you have free pseudonymous accounts and no organizational structure. We have rules and guidelines on conduct, but scarcely any enforcement. So when someone repeatedly behaves badly, we have very little recourse other than 1) repeatedly asking them nicely to be nice and follow the rules or 2) eventually loosing our temper and telling them, less nicely 3) trying to engage the byzantine arcane processes by which sometimes users can be officially sanctioned.

What's funny is that we all disagree on what rules are important. My personal bugaboos are the posting wild speculation, closing/deleting posts that are fine, challenging the OP with rude questions, etc. Others seem to think the worst conduct is allowing questions about poop to be asked and answered, or criticizing other regular editors. Opinions may vary, but I'll remind you that there's no effective way to keep the riff-raff out, and you are under no obligation to read or respond here at the reference desk. I too would like the reference desks to be better, and focused on providing of references, ideally presented by someone with some actual relevant knowledge of the topic. If you read long enough, it will become clear that some users are worth listening to, and others are not. The fact that this is a burden to getting good info is part of why our question rates have been declining, see also the growth of Stack Exchange, Quora, Reddit, and all the other places people can ask questions online. If you want a real mature community of grownups, seek a site with actual moderation, and ideally minor barriers to entry. In that vein, I'm fond of MetaFilter [6], though there are other similar places. SemanticMantis (talk) 14:24, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

"...closing/deleting posts that are fine..." in your personal opinion, and that's the trigger for most of the debate here, including the most recent one. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:08, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Bugs, let's not talk about that. We just did that, it was not fun. Suffice it to say, most people who know how this place works agree that there is a particular user who closes/removes content on improper grounds, and that is in NO WAY THE TOPIC OF THIS THREAD. Please excuse my use of caps. I feel I have to shout to make sure I'm getting through. SemanticMantis (talk)

"Improper grounds" in your personal opinion. If you don't want to talk about it, don't bring it up. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:46, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Oh, Bugs. SemanticMantis (talk) 14:11, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Oh, Bug. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:22, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

After recently mentioning User:DrChrissy as one of our better ref desk respondents, it has come to my attention that DrChrissy has passed away this July. I'm not sure how many of you interacted with him here, but whenever I saw his red sig I always knew I was getting good references and explanations from a skilled expert who sincerely loved helping others learn and understand the wonders of biology. Some wikipedians are sharing memories and sympathy over at User_talk:DrChrissy#CHERISHED_MEMORIES, I assume at least some of his meatspace friends and family are reading along. SemanticMantis (talk) 16:11, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

A worthy opponent, he will be missed. Our last skirmish: Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Humanities/2017_May_22#Agricultural_revolution_and_cats. StuRat (talk) 02:22, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

He called you out on your crap just like everyone else does. This isn't the Model UN, you don't skirmish with opponents here. You're obviously just openly trolling now. Adam Bishop (talk) 03:06, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

(I won't respond because this is not the appropriate place for an argument. StuRat (talk) 03:10, 25 October 2017 (UTC))

What can I say? I will sorely miss him, and his amazing explanations of animals, zoology, biology, and veterinary medicine! :( Eliyohub (talk) 14:03, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

The user template does seem to ping me, but with a bug/feature: If used more than once on the same page, I am only pinged once for the page, not for each use. This means not for each Q on a Ref Desk board. So, we should probably avoid using it, and stick with either ping or no template at all. Have others had similar experiences ? StuRat (talk) 15:54, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

AFAIK, there is zero difference in how these work. Both of them simply rely on the user mentions feature of echo, which primarily requires a link to the user page and a newly signed post but also has various other requirements, see

Wikipedia:Notifications for details. Of course as always, notifications aren't considered ultra reliable (including for example the possibility of people disabling them) so if it really matters, it's better to go to a user's user page. BTW it is possible to get notifications when you've failed to, or successfully mentioned another editor although I'm not sure if even these are guaranteed to be accurate. (Well obviously failed notifications alone isn't enough since if the software doesn't recognise you were trying to mention someone it can't tell you it failed. But it's theoretically possible that a successful mention is tied to a notification actually being sent although that would seem to raise privacy issues e.g. it effectively means a user's settings on user mentions are public. Nil Einne (talk

) 10:48, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

I have reverted several question closures by Legacypc, as such closures are not the normal practice on these boards. The reasons given for a closure do not match the rules specified for these RD's. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:54, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

I will add a bit more: The references desks are not just for "building the encyclopedia". They are also there for readers to find out information that might be held in Wikipedia, or elsewhere. There is a clear prohibition on certain types of questions. But the "How do I ..." questions are not prohibited. They just need appropriate answers to say that Wikipedia has and that we cannot help with advice or opinions. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:34, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Agreed, and very similar to what I said to him at the Suits Q [7]: "You've made a fundamental mistake in thinking the purpose of the Ref Desk is SOLELY to improve Wikipedia articles. It does have that purpose, among others, including connecting people to references both inside and outside Wikipedia, and providing useful answers to them." StuRat (talk) 15:56, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. We can talk about reforming the RefDesk, but such reform should not be done unilaterally and out of the blue by a single editor. Obviously. ApLundell (talk) 03:57, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Agree as well. As I've said directly to LegacyPac, even if there is consensus for reform, the reform they appear to be trying to unilaterally enact makes no sense, except as a backdoor to close the RD. If we only allow content that related to improving articles or is otherwise allowed elsewhere on the encylopaedia, then the RD serves no purpose as that content should almost definitely be elsewhere. This doesn't mean that we should allow any and sundry forums posts, but rather by definition the RDs are intended to allow content that isn't allowed elsewhere namely requests for helping finding references and ultimately information for personal use, and that may or may not eventually relate to improving wikipedia. Nil Einne (talk) 10:58, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for not pinging me or spelling my name correctly

WP:NOTFORUM . A large number of users support closing down the RefDesk, and I'm hardly trying to singlehandly reform things here. Legacypac (talk

) 01:58, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

I would really like to know where you get the idea that you have the authority to impose a sacred "close" that can't be reverted. We don't have "closes" here, in the sense of concluding a discussion aimed at consensus. We do sometimes remove questions, and you can call that a "close" if you want to, but it's not at all the same sort of "close" you get at, say, AfD.

The relevant guideline is Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines#When removing or redacting a posting. It does indeed say that one shouldn't restore a question that has been removed simply because one disagrees with the rationale, so that's a point for you. But it also says the person removing a question should generally post a notice on the refdesk talk page (that's this page), and that the remedy if you disagree with a removal is to come to discuss it here. It has been discussed here, and opinion is clearly against you. --Trovatore (talk) 05:02, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

This is now being discussed at ANI. [8] ApLundell (talk) 02:03, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Actually that is the edit-warring noticeboard. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:20, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Legacypac seems to think he can get away with unilateral hattings because his name isn't Medeis. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:57, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

G. Bartlett is right, of course. I had confused the administrator's noticeboards with each-other. ApLundell (talk) 02:41, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Did the bot get over-zealous, or has question volume really dropped that low? ApLundell (talk) 03:27, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Well, I was going to post a question on arm swing in human locomotion, but I found an article that answered my questions (is it learned, is it related to the gate of quadrupeds?) so I didn't. μηδείς (talk) 03:30, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

We may want to lengthen the time before archiving, as it looks like our Q's have reduced (possibly as a result of all this AN/I attention). I, for one, had some Q's I could have asked but opted not to, because of all this. StuRat (talk) 04:08, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

May I join this Leper colony? Bus stop (talk) 04:47, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Why not? This looks like a meeting of everyone Macon has on his Enemies List. The entertainment desk is also getting a little thin. It happens. I also note a BLP-based removal from the huge manatees desk.[9] It wasn't removed by Medeis, so it probably won't be challenged. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:49, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Oh, there's a question now. Thank goodness! ApLundell (talk) 14:57, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

That's what we need, a little bit of humor around here. We should start a new Reference desk by that name: the Huge manatee Reference desk. It can take the overflow capacity from the Miscellaneous Reference desk. (Wishful thinking.) Bus stop (talk) 15:28, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

I don't have any original ideas. This[10] is where that came from. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:54, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

In case anyone doesn't get the reference, that's a pic of the Hindenburg disaster with a huge manatee photoshopped in for the airship, and the quote changed to "Oh, the huge manatee !" from where a radio reporter actually yelled "Oh, the humanity !". StuRat (talk) 16:03, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes, specifically

Herb Morrison. He actually said, "Oh, the humanity, and all the passengers..." Presumably he was using the "humanity" to refer to the people on the ground waiting for the airship's arrival. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots

→ 18:00, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Vocabulary dot com says of "humanity" that it is "a word for the qualities that make us human, such as the ability to love and have compassion".[11] The announcer is reacting to his own mindfulness of the love and the compassion under assault and torn asunder by the disaster he is witnessing. Bus stop (talk) 19:54, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

I am testing the waters here before proposing it formally in a widely-read forum. The idea emerged recently at an ANI thread (I had thought up along those lines before, but seeing it written was much clearer).

The idea would be that any post on the RefDesk that makes a factual statement in answer to a question must link to a source for that statement (the responder's authority not being enough source). I do not think a

As a draft for the proposed wording, I suggest altering Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Guidelines#Guidelines_for_responding_to_questions as follows: (quoting only the modified paragraph)

Responses to posts should always attempt to answer the question and should almost always fall into one of three categories:

• direct answers or referrals to Wikipedia articles, web pages, or other sources, including at least one reference to a Wikipedia article, web page, or other source,
• clarifications of other answers, or
• requests for clarification.

Feel free to comment both on the philosophy and the wording. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 21:44, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

• Sounds good in theory. Try it for a month and see how it goes. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:13, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose as easily gamed rule creep. That would mean that my recent comment to Lgriot at the language desk would have been improper, because I said I would look for an RS later, or it would mean the response was okay because I linked to something pro forma. Perhaps the standard should be that citing an RS be possible. Even then, this would mean that we would have to stop offering translations of notable texts and stop identifying objects and species in many cases. Even better, the standard should be on the question itself; that it be capable of being answered objectively. μηδείς (talk) 22:19, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

  Problems about questions are a matter for another discussion, feel free to open a new thread. But if you want my $0.02, we already have sufficient rules in place against such questions ("we don't answer requests for opinions, predictions or debate") - the problem is not to entertain questions that fail them.

As for that restriction being easy to game, it surely is an improvement over the "anything goes" that is, policy or not, the current practice. (See: nirvana fallacy)

I don't see how this is a problem for "identifying objects and species" (if you match a photograph to a species, surely you should give a ref for the species, and I would be dubious of such a ref without a picture).

Finally, translation could be carved in as an exception if that is one of a finite number of identified problems, but honestly, I don't see that as a problem. Giving your own translation is no better than giving your own recollection of what physics course you had ten years ago as an answer to a science refdesk question; and surely, we don't want people to do that when at least in theory there is a source out there (a professional translation for the notable text, a physics lecture for the science Q). Yes, if only knowledgeable, past-

Dunning-Kruger-point people answered questions, that is an unneeded restriction; but experience has shown that's not the case (I refer you to the VPP thread for diffs, if you really need them). Tigraan^{Click here to contact me}

22:56, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Suggestion: Start with a machine translation for your ref, the add your own comments about where you think it is off. StuRat (talk) 23:17, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

• Comment. I'd like to see something along those lines, though I'm not sure what precisely. I think we need the ref desks to work like actual ref desks (with the emphasis on "ref") and with a bit of the rigor that's demanded of actual articles, rather than as free-form verbal diarrhea forums. There's a Michell & Web sketch on YouTube that I thought of when reading the ref desks recently, but I can't link to it as it's a copyvio - but I don't think there's any harm if I suggest "david mitchell reckon" as a search. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:24, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

• Comment I like the heart of it. Anything to discourage wild-ass guessing and other off-putting filler. ... To me the problem with this proposal is that "requesting clarification" and "Clarifying answers" are very wide umbrellas. I can't really support it without being sure that we won't just create another grey-area to rules-laywer and debate. It may be easier to define narrow categories of prohibited answers, rather than try to define wide categories for all acceptable answers, but perhaps that's just the same can of worms. ApLundell (talk) 23:12, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

• We really do need to allow requests for clarification, like: "You just linked to a 1000 page document, what portion of it do you think answers the Q ?" ... "Oh, sorry, page 238, 3rd paragraph." StuRat (talk) 23:15, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

I agree. But I can already imagine the rules lawyering on what constitutes legitimate clarifications and what's just noise and discussion. It already makes my head hurt. I acknowledge that I do not have a better suggestion, and perhaps I'm just being a pessimist. ApLundell (talk) 01:56, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose Too rigid; would hamper good-faith responders and make the desks less useful. Really we do want access to people's personal knowledge, when that knowledge is real rather than imagined. It's unfortunate that some responders have too high an estimate of what they actually know, but I don't think this is the way to fix it. --Trovatore (talk) 23:18, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

  We do want access to people's personal knowledge, when that knowledge is real rather than imagined. But how would you propose to check that this knowledge is real rather than imagined? Forget about writing something that could be codified as a Wikipedia policy and pass an RfC, the problem runs deeper. By definition, whoever is posting that knowledge cannot know whether it is or not solid; if we require them to check upfront we might as well demand the reference they checked against (this is the intended effect of the proposal); and requiring validation by other editors, in addition to being rigid as well, is no guarantee by the same token (cf. the famous "What is the length of the Emperor of China's nose?" metaphor in Feynmann's Judging book by their covers).

If your argument is that getting some good but unsourced answers is worth getting some rubbish answers, at least for the current ratio of rubbish to unsourced-yet-good, fine - let's agree to disagree. But if your argument is that we should find some unspecified way to do better, I feel compelled to link again to the nirvana fallacy. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 00:04, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes, my position is as you say that "getting some good but unsourced answers is worth getting some rubbish answers". That doesn't mean we can't work on the S/N ratio, but it does mean that I think the current ratio is not a good reason to do anything drastic. --Trovatore (talk) 00:15, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose Ditto Trovatore's comments and because we already have the guideline "The best answers address the question directly, and back up facts with wikilinks and links to sources." posted at the top of each page. Lets keep it simple. I doubt that adding more words would deter those that use the ref desks as a social gathering. -- Tom N talk/contrib 02:53, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

• Comment, we know how a good system with such requirements can be made to work well, you'll end up with the same sort of system used by scientific journals. So, any answer that I would give would have to go to a scientific peer review process to check if everything is properly referenced, whether my answer is well written and addresses the question in an appropriate way. Count Iblis (talk) 22:25, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose. A lot of the math type questions are unreferenceable in pure form -- I mean, people could give tangentially related general references, but if they are doing it as a procedural CYA that is a bad thing. I would support a prominent suggestion (somewhere that is more likely to be read) that it is best practice to include sources. Coming to a question without a source is like coming to a party without something to eat/drink - I mean, you can do it, but it's not good form. But with StuRat having been thrown under the bus I don't think we have nearly as much issue with anyone else regarding this. Wnt (talk) 00:22, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose. Including sources in a response is a good idea. But it should not be a requirement. Bus stop (talk) 03:30, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose in this absolute form; there are many responses which will not necessarily have sources. While we want to avoid the sort of "personal experiences" "trust me" "this is just common sense so I don't need sources" kind of answers, a blanket ban on responses without sources would also ban responders from, for example, asking clarifying questions of the OP which is a necessary part of being useful to the OP. When it comes to providing substantive responses, we SHOULD strive to direct OP to further reading, but there are situations, such as asking clarifying questions or explaining something in an already cited source, where we can still be useful without necessarily citing something every time. --Jayron32 15:21, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

  Just addressing the latter part of your reply: there are situations, such as asking clarifying questions or explaining something in an already cited source, where we can still be useful without necessarily citing something every time. The sourcing requirement would only apply to the direct answers, i.e. the first bullet point in the classification of the posts, not to the other two points ("clarifications of other answers", "requests for clarification"). Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 15:34, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

  The problem is that it is not easy to clearly delineate between the types of responses, and the LAST thing we want to do is give some of our self-appointed policemen yet ANOTHER reason to meddle with other people's work. The stipulation "you should not do this" is too often mistaken by some people to mean "the appropriate response is to remove or hat it". Giving those people more reasons to be disruptive is hardly useful. --Jayron32 15:39, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

  More to the point: Anytime we institute a requirement, someone decides it is their job to ENFORCE that requirement. The cure is worse than the disease, here. --Jayron32 15:41, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

  I can see an argument that the boundaries between the three types of answers are too fuzzy and allow gaming. But the only logical conclusion of the absolute view you give here is that no RefDesk-specific rule should ever be imposed because this would cause rogue policing. Surely, the more logical thinking is that if you see rogue policing, you drag its author to

  WP:ANI for disruptive editing or similar, and if this fails to produce any action you revisit your premise that their actions were indeed disruptive. (Yes, I am aware some ANI threads drown in quicksand even when action would have been justified. My point is that if rules cannot be enforced on the RefDesks, it would warrant looking into why it is so, not abandoning the idea of having rules at all.) Tigraan^{Click here to contact me}

  16:17, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

  The greater issue is whether behavioral norms are enforced as rules in this way. When writing guidelines, one has to "design for evil". It is not enough to merely have wise policies, it is necessary to consider how people will abuse your policies to be disruptive themselves and then account for that in your decisions on how to write them. I'm not advocating anarchy, but maintaining discipline is not ONLY accomplished by having rules. There are other means of establishing and encouraging behavioral norms, and writing down a rule is not always it. --Jayron32 16:23, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

  Some things can't be legislated. A sophisticated, urbane reference desk is desirable. But that quality is really a function of the people present, not of a rule imposed. Perfection is unattainable. All we can do is optimize for a good outcome. What that means in practice is that those "regulars" who use the reference desks should disproportionately influence "best practice". What has been decried as "bickering" is a necessary functioning of the reference desk's self-correcting process. Bus stop (talk) 16:29, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

  Excellently stated. I've always felt that the best correction is not to remove, delete, or obscure something wrong, but to correct. Tell readers what is wrong with someone's question or answer. Don't remove it. Enforce behavioral norms through correction rather than coersion. Explain what the problem is rather than punish the person who caused the problem. --Jayron32 16:37, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

This is a notification of a discussion at ANI related to the RD Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#StuRat's behaviour on the Reference Desks (again). I removed an earlier notification, due to concerns the notification may violate WP:Canvassing and dispute over how to deal with these concerns. Nil Einne (talk) 11:03, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Archived at WP:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive968#StuRat's behaviour on the Reference Desks (again). -- ToE 17:45, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#StuRat.27s_Proposal. StuRat (talk) 22:08, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

The ratio of refdesk-related noticeboard !votes to successfully answered refdesk questions is rapidly approaching parity. ApLundell (talk) 02:38, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Just as a quick note, for those confused by the strikeout of StuRat's comments, or the comments (until recently) on StuRat's talk page, note that per Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Closure review request for "StuRat's behaviour on the Reference Desks (again)" [12] a topic was enacted but later reversed to allow more time for the new proposal to be discussed. Nil Einne (talk) 06:55, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

″:Arrg!

StuRat Thread : 185k. (Result : Topic-Block)

StuRat Appeal : 6k (Result : Success on appeal, but re-blocked with slightly broader block)

ArbCom Request : 32k (Pending : Declined to take case)

AN3 Thread : 6k (Result : Boomerang)

AN3 Appeal : 14k (Result : Success on appeal)

Village Pump Thread : 306k (Result : Chaos)

All Current RefDesks : 206k

Ok, I admit that last total is a bit disingenuous, because the desks are more aggressively archived than those other things, but the math is still infuriating.

If there's not going to be a RefDesk closure or reform, maybe some kind of awareness campaign to increase RefDesk utilization would at least tip the value/waste ratio into the black? ApLundell (talk) 15:56, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

The new !vote has now ended the same way as the old !vote : A RefDesk ban for StuRat. ApLundell (talk) 04:43, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

It takes some chutzpah for deletionists to start a plot to delete the Refdesk then blame the regulars because they out-trolled the Nazi troll and all the other trolls that supposedly infest our Refdesks, plus those of us who answer them seriously when possible, in the quest to generate useless non-encyclopedic content. But there's something about the box at the top of the page about "permanent closure" that tends to make folks waste their time trying to have a place to talk at least once for every time they come and think up an answer.

That said, sure, it would be great to get more folks interested in the Refdesk. It isn't interesting without questions to answer! Wnt (talk) 01:10, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

There's nothing nefarious about shutting down (not "deleting") side-projects whose time has come and gone. It's normal. The RefDesk's trajectory is downwards, It's just a question of when it crosses the threshold where people are comfortable closing it.

Personally, I'd thought we'd passed that line. But the community is making it clear that we're close to the line, but haven't crossed it yet. So there's still time for some kind of positive action.

Imagining that we're beset by conspirators and plotters is not that positive action. It's just denial. ApLundell (talk) 01:22, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Why would you say that the reference desks' trajectory is downward? Bus stop (talk) 03:25, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

That argument is well articulated in the RfC. Agree or disagree, but don't ask people to re-articulate it (and presumably re-debate it) here. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:09, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

The "trajectory" of the reference desks is the future of the reference desks. Few at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#RfC: Should the Reference Desks be closed? predict the future of the Reference desks. They point out what they see as problems with the reference desks. They advocate for the shutting down of the reference desks. But should you conflate advocating for the shutting down of the reference desks with predicting the imminent demise of the reference desks? Bus stop (talk) 14:51, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

I haven't said anything about the number of editors who made the decline argument in the RfC. I merely said that it was made there, so there was no need to ask it to be repeated here by the same editor who made it in the RfC. Since you appear to lack a passing acquaintance with Ctrl+F, I'll helpfully do the legwork for you. The argument is here[13][14] and one support of it is here [15]. Now, if others want to re-debate that relatively minor point with you here, where such debate can have no effect, they are free to do so. Count me out. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:36, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

I have not conflated anything with anything else.

The refdesks are a shadow of what they once were. Therefore their trajectory is downwards.

If that trajectory doesn't change, the next attempt to shut them down will succeed.

The surest way to kill the refdesks is to deny they have a serious problem and instead convince ourselves that a conspiracy of evil deletionists is out to get us. ApLundell (talk) 22:57, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps I'm being overly dramatic, perhaps I'm an old softie, but it seems as if StuRat has just been scapegoated for all the Refdesks' problems. The proposal to shut down the Refdesks didn't pass, but somehow, during that process, StuRat's name came up as the lightning rod for all that was wrong with the Refdesks, so if the Refdesks couldn't be shut down, at least this "worst offender" could be banned. So, hey, at least we did something.

And yet, other recent actions against other problematic contributors have all been closed without taking any action, suggesting that (in the consensus view of the wider WIkipedia) StuRat's behavior was far worse -- something that I'm just not seeing. Perhaps Wikipedia has evolved into something I no longer have anything in common with. —Steve Summit (talk) 13:06, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

I'd be curious to see a list of what Wikipedia rules StuRat is alleged to have violated. Also, there does seem to be a vendetta, at least by some editors. For one, Legacypac (who has been edit-warring on the ref desks recently) has told more than one user, "maybe you should be next" to be banned from the ref desks. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:16, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

I partially agree. I didn't !vote in that discussion because I feel that, while StuRat's contributions are counter-productive more often than not, and his refusal to even understand this is infuriating, I see him as just a symptom of a greater problem.

I believe that the way the RefDesks are structured and administered encourages that kind of vapid contribution. Others will take his place. I'm sure of it.

Banning him wasn't wrong. But I don't think it'll accomplish much unless it's followed up with attempts to make the refdesk unwelcome for that kind of contribution. ApLundell (talk) 15:14, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

(Corollary : If there is some kind of RefDesk reform that adds structure and rules-clarity, it might make sense to provisionally unblock StuRat.) ApLundell (talk) 16:23, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

As StuRat's answers made mine look relatively on-topic and well-sourced, I'm banning myself from the desks till he's safely returned. It's solidarity, not an attempt to escape the new scrutiny. Before I go, I suggest at least one of you chain yourself to a tree and field questions from reporters (if you do it, they will come). InedibleHulk (talk) 19:06, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Est-ce qu'on entend un écho de Je suis StuRat ? Blooteuth (talk) 19:51, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Tout le monde est rat! InedibleHulk (talk) 21:04, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

@ User:InedibleHulk: Your post makes no sense to me at all. If you had said As StuRat's answers made mine look relatively off-topic and not well-sourced, ..., that would certainly compute as an argument for solidarity. But as it stands, it just supports the very reasons he was banned in the first place. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 00:34, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

If somebody who made my work look relatively worse was tossed, the power vacuum would slurp me one rung up the ladder. Good riddance, I'd say. When the bottom fell out, we were all pulled down a peg. You might not notice the draught from your still-lofty perch at Jack Tower, but down here by the sewers, well-meaning ruffians are certainly feeling the suck. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:28, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

:) -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:12, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

In the new milieu no such frivolousness will be tolerated. We have to wiktionary:get down to brass tacks. Under the new whipping process there will be lashes meted out for failure to supply at least three reliable sources for every assertion. Bus stop (talk) 02:06, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Just like clockwork, the complaint about Medeis to Admins has once again led to a proposal to ban the Ref Desk: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Time_to_close_down_the_ref_desks.3F. Bugs supports closing the Ref Desks. StuRat (talk) 17:48, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Mild support only. But if it happens, it would compel the busybodies to find someone else to harass. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:59, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Mildly harass. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:28, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Moved to WP:Village pump (policy)#RfC: Should the Reference Desks be closed? -- ToE 08:22, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

In addition to BB, JBL and SteveBaker also support closing down the Ref Desk. It seems odd to me that people who oppose the Ref Desk's existence would spend so much time on it. StuRat (talk) 00:06, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes, it boggles the mind. It's like they are announcing to the rest of us "This is worthless, and should be destroyed, that's why I spend lots of time there." Steve at least has basically quit the ref desks, so his !vote is less embarrassing. JBL has a PhD in math, so I think he'd be smart enough to know he can just not read or post on the ref desks. SemanticMantis (talk) 15:19, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

You'd be amazed at how much time most people spend doing things they know isn't productive. ApLundell (talk) 19:15, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

But, less snarkily, I don't think there's any contradiction.

If the desk is here, it would be even more embarrassing for Wikipedia for it to be un-staffed.

ApLundell (talk) 19:20, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

AFAIK SteveBaker's comments there are accurate. He spends very little time here now. I don't see that there's anything wrong, or unusual, in people who used to spend time here feeling things have changed and it's no longer worth it. Or perhaps it was always pointless and they've only just realised. Or maybe some combination of both. This doesn't have to mean that the RD should be closed. On the other hand the RD is part of wikipedia so editors may feel it harms wikipedia in some way and reasonably feel it should be closed. Ignoring a problem is not always the best solution. These and other issues have been dealt with to some extent in that very discussion so I don't think they should be a surprised to anyone whether or not you agree with these views. Putting these two together, I'm not sure why it should be unexpected that someone who used to, but no longer, spent a lot of time here may now feel it should be closed. I would agree it's perhaps a little more surprising for anyone who does still spend a lot of time here, although there are various reasons even there why it may arise. Nil Einne (talk) 11:43, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Now moved to its own subpage: WP:Village pump (policy)/RfC: Should the Reference Desks be closed. -- ToE 09:20, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

I have requested that the ArbCom open a case concerning conduct at the Reference Desks. I have suggested that the ArbCom can take this on either of two tracks. The fast track would be to implement

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Conduct_at_Reference_Desks. Statements may be made to the ArbCom to support (or oppose) accepting the case. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:42, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Arbitration request removed; unanimously declined by the Committee. -- ToE 09:33, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

It's been noted that some of the desks have been getting rather empty. As such, there's no need to archive them as quickly; page size isn't as much of a problem these days.
Archiving used to kick in after 4-6 days, depending on the desk. For simplicity, I've just readjusted the archiver to a consistent interval of 7 days, for all desks. (As always, this is easily changed, whenever consensus dictates.) —Steve Summit (talk) 13:15, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Sounds good. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:22, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Good work. I was wondering if it's also worth considering consolidating the desks. So it wouldn't seem so slow.

ApLundell (talk) 15:22, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Ironically, it was pretty much a single desk originally (if I'm remembering correctly) and was gradually expanded. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:33, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Even earlier it was just one combined Help/Reference Desk. Earliest preserved history is now at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Miscellaneous. Rmhermen (talk) 23:07, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

There has been a tremendous amount of bad energy affecting the Refdesks lately, and as pointed out above, the volume is way down at the moment. So let's strike a blow at all the Debbie Downers here and simultaneously try to make the Refdesk more valuable to Wikipedia...

1) Read a few articles on Wikipedia. I know you do anyway. 2) STOP when you feel a "WTF???" coming on. Don't just let it lie -- see if there is a real question an article raises that you want to know about. 3) Make a reasonable try to answer it (we don't want people saying "hey just search gooooogle"). 4) Post it. 5) If you get a decent answer, add the source to the article. 6) Repeat, ideally daily, until the Refdesks have recovered their pre-AfD volume.

Anyone up for this? I just tried my first one at the Science desk, about hammock (ecology)s in Namibia. Wnt (talk) 23:18, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Not that I don't appreciate your positive attitude, and I certainly don't enjoy being one of the Debbie Downers, but I interpreted what I read from the long recent discussions at WP:ANI, WP:VPP etc differently:

If you want the reference desk to thrive and become a place where people actually want to ask questions and expect solid answers, the focus of change/improvement probably should be on the answers, not on the questions. Try to understand what the querent is seeking, keep it referenced and informed, and keep it friendly, don't belittle OPs and their questions (if you feel they're ridiculous, just don't respond), try not to speculate and guess in your answers, don't proselytize and soap-box, don't slip in your personal POV, etc. If we stick to certain principles, then we have a chance of turning this into a useful service, else I, too, think the refdesks have become obsolete and don't care whether they're abolished or not. As pointed out in discussions above, StuRat was an easily targeted warning-example, but the "community's patience" for keeping a reference desks won't increase if we continue as before (or as though StuRat was the crucial problem).

If we offer a good service, then we probably need not worry about traffic, but I don't believe in artificially perpetuating the desks (which is what your proposal looks like to me, even if that wasn't your intention). ---Sluzzelin talk 01:28, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

• ^^^Mostly this^^^ --Jayron32 02:42, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Indeed. If I were new here this year, I don't think I'd be back. So much of our responses are "just google it" or "you can't ask this", or people giving "answers" without references. While some of us are still providing good service, I can see why a lot of people are going elsewhere for their needs at present. SemanticMantis (talk) 17:53, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

So they can ask their trolling questions elsewhere? Why is that a problem for Wikipedia? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:48, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

WP:HERE in good faith to help people find good references, I'll not be discussing this with you further. SemanticMantis (talk

) 15:09, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

• Ref desk postings should be like bowel movements, natural, not forced. That being said, the WE ARE ABOUT TO DELETE THIS SHIT tag at the top of each desk does nothing other than scare people off. I suspect that is actually their real purpose, just as closing the StuRat threads with the comment "only people who oppose StuRat's banning support alternatives" and his being summarily blocked without any history of escalating blocks and warnings was meant to achieve a preconceived end. Let's have those tags removed. I post questions when they occur to me, I am not about to start making stuff up. μηδείς (talk) 05:15, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

I moved the tag to this page. I guess it should be somewhere until that discussion is closed. ---Sluzzelin talk 20:47, 4 November 2017 (UTC) .... Oh crap, I did no such thing, only moved it from Wikipedia:Reference desk, but not from the individual desks where it must be transcluded, but I couldn't figure out immediately where to look, and am about to leave the keyboard. I support removing those tags from the six desks (but leaving one on this talk page until the discussion at the Village Pump has been closed). ---Sluzzelin talk 20:51, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

I removed it from Wikipedia:Reference desk/header, since anyone who saw it and wanted to contribute to the discussion almost certainly has done so. It should disappear from the individual pages once the queue catches up. Deor (talk) 21:00, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

• The trouble with not responding is that someone else will respond. This is in response to "if you feel they're ridiculous, just don't respond". I think the desks are necessarily conversational. It would be hard not to respond to someone in real life. If something seems ridiculous I think it's OK to brush them off with a dismissive comment. We are not required to be saints. We err when our responses are lengthy and ridiculous. Bus stop (talk) 14:11, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

I like the idea of increasing Ref Desk usefulness ....

... but regulars generating more question on our own seems like it's just reinforcing the "exclusive social club" aspect of the desk and not the "service to readers" aspect.

This proposal is well-intentioned, but I think it would be counter-productive. ApLundell (talk) 23:12, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Well, It would help defend against the (silly, imo) argument that the ref desks are not helping the greater goals of WP. SemanticMantis (talk) 17:53, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

I have reverted this [16] closure. Please follow our guidelines, which clearly state that we should sanction answersthat violate our guidelines, rather than closing any question that may seem to be soliciting e.g. medical or legal advice [17]. SemanticMantis (talk) 14:50, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

The guidelines say discouraged and not forbidden. Those are not synonyms. --Jayron32 17:27, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing that out. I assure you that I have read that section many times, and know what it says. I do not think it is unreasonable to ask our users to follow our guidelines, and I do think we should at least make some effort to do what they say, which is that removal offending responses is preferred, and removal of questions is discouraged. SemanticMantis (talk) 17:36, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

You're saying "censor responses, not questions"[18] yet you're negating that by insisting on restoring the responses also. What gives? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:42, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

I've re-closed the responses, per SM's own words, and replaced Medeis' signature with mine, so that SM won't be confused. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:49, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

I didn't see any responses there that gave legal advice. I have deleted every single response I've ever seen that gave legal or medical advice. If you feel a response contains medical advice, I encourage you to delete that, not the question. and PS:Hey

WP:BRD? When someone reverts an edit, and then opens a discussion on the talk page, you're supposed to discuss, not edit war. I have re-opened it because that how it should stay until consensus is reached, vis. BRD. SemanticMantis (talk

) 17:53, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

You're the one that's edit-warring, and I have now reported you for it. And why did you say "Follow our guidelines. Censor RES[P]ONSES, not questions" if you didn't actually mean it? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:55, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

I don't see any reason the question can't be addressed without providing legal or financial advice, and it is not explicitly a request for either.

In general, this word "advice" has been stretched all out of its natural meaning by people whose trigger is set way too light. Look, I have this weird mole, what should I do? is a request for medical advice, but what are the possible things that an oddly shaped mole can be? is not. Similarly, I've been arrested for barratry, what should I do? is a request for legal advice, but what are the possible defenses against a charge of barratry? is not.

In the instant case, the poster asks whether an EU citizen can become a US resident without a degree or job. Then he/she gives background, but the background is not part of the question. The question itself can be answered without giving advice of any sort. --Trovatore (talk) 17:51, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

"Could I become a resident if I am financially independent but without a degree or an "official" job?" How do you figure that doesn't require legal advice? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:54, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

"Could" can mean "Is it possible". It's not restricted to "What should I do". We could, for example, find an example of someone who was in exactly these circumstances and became a resident. Then we proffer that example, with a disclaimer that that's just one isolated case and it may not be appropriate for the OP, but it does demonstrate that it's possible. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 18:16, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

• @
  velut luna
  18:19, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

My apologies, I sometimes use bold text to get people's attention. I have now removed the bolding. As for edit warring, that is what I was trying to stop. Feel free to correct me if I am wrong, but I think

WP:BRD goes like this: 1) a bold closure was made. 2) I felt it was in error, so I reverted it and brought it here for discussion. 3) We are supposed to leave things as-is until consensus is reached. SemanticMantis (talk

) 18:56, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Your comment "censor responses, not questions" implies you would approve of "censoring" the responses. Yet you "un-censored" them. Why? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:01, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Let me direct you to where I answered that question, when you asked me just a little bit ago :[19]. It's just a few lines up the page, and you responded there, so please forgive me if my assumption that you read and understood the comment is inaccurate. SemanticMantis (talk) 19:17, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

What statement there explains why you said "censor responses, not questions" on the edit summary and then contradicted yourself? When you commented on "censor responses" I changed the hat to include the question but "censor" the responses... per your own words.[20] Then you said "BRD Medeis":[21] as you missed that it was I who restored the hat and left the question visible per your own words. If you hadn't said "censor responses", I would have left the whole thing alone. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:24, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Hey Bugs, I will not explain myself to you again. Read my comments or do not, but you've wasted enough of my time already. Yes, I got it wrong, I thought medeis had reverted me when it was you, I apologize for not checking that before accusing her of reverting me. She did that later, [22], still in violation of BRD and good faith editing. SemanticMantis (talk) 21:14, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

I will take that as an admission that you messed up with that "censor responses" comment. Consequently, I have closed the edit-warring complaint. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:17, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

That's an odd taking, and not at all how I would have interpreted SemanticMantis's statement. ---Sluzzelin talk 22:08, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

It's the closest he's come to admitting he messed up. His comment said he supported "censoring" responses, and then he apparently changed his mind. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:18, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Note that legal advice is the giving of a professional or formal opinion regarding the substance or procedure of the law in relation to a particular factual situation and medical advice is the provision of a formal professional opinion regarding what a specific individual should or should not do to restore or preserve health. On nearly all websites that discuss medical or legal topics, the disclaimer is descriptive ("Whatever we tell you, it's not professional advice in the legal sense of the term"), not prescriptive ("We are forbidden from giving you medical/legal advice in the broader sense") - otherwise sites like WebMD or LabourBlawg would be impossible (or at least very very boring). Our rules similarly should be read not to forbid a general discussion of legal or medical topics (not even for a specific case), but as a rule against giving formal, professional advice, as in "I am a lawyer, I've carefully considered your case, my opinion is X (and you can send my fee to address Y)". The oversensitiveness of some editors for these questions is very hard to understand for me - I can only explain it by either a misunderstanding of the law or a mindset that puts form over substance. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:39, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Or putting the interests of Wikipedia ahead of the interests of editors who think we should answer everything even when it requires professional advice. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:44, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

There is no chance that anything we say on Wikipedia is professional advice unless someone explicitly claims he or she is an appropriate professional. This is not a risk to Wikipedia. Your reaction is based on a misunderstanding of the legal situation. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:50, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Has that theory ever been tested? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:54, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

In what sense? As far as I know, there never even has been a lawsuit against Wikipedia for providing legal or medical advice (much less for legal or medical malpractice, which would be more to the point), so no legal case has been decided. But in that sense the theory that eating tofu is not aggravated battery also has never been tested... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:00, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Does the WMF say it's OK to give professional advice as long as you make it clear that you're not a professional? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:05, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Well, according to a discussion years ago, it's on you, not on the WMF, no matter what your declaration. ---Sluzzelin talk 22:08, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

(ec) You cannot (in the sense "you are not able to", not "you must not") give professional advice unless you are a professional, so the question is vacuous. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:13, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

That's a strange interpretation of "cannot" in this context. Also, you talked about other sites having disclaimers. Where is it on the ref desk? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:18, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Bugs, see also this discussion as well as, e.g., Cyberadvice: "The Ethical Implications of Giving Professional Advice over the Internet". Basically, as a professional, you have even less business giving medical or legal advice anonymously via internet. ---Sluzzelin talk 22:22, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Whatever became of the assertion that requests for professional advice are subject to removal? When was that abandoned? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:26, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Medical disclaimer and Wikipedia:Legal disclaimer. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:31, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm only seeing those items on the main ref desk page, and not particularly emphasized. Shouldn't they be linked anytime someone asks for professional advice? Especially if you're saying we're not allowed to box up responses to such requests. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:46, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Comment. Ideally we would work a disclaimer into our response. We would preface what we are about to say with some words that would serve the purpose of distancing ourselves and Wikipedia in general from what we are about to say, on grounds that legal/medical advice should be given by a professional in a more appropriate setting. Bus stop (talk) 04:03, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes, this is completely reasonable. I often write something like "we cannot give legal advice, but we can point you to references on the matter, such as..." This is also what actual reference librarians do if you ask a question that can be interpreted as a request for legal/medical advice. However, we cannot stop certain aggressive and hostile parties from closing down anything they like, so. SemanticMantis (talk) 19:30, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

hat [removed]|I think we're done here. --Jayron32 13:32, 17 November 2017 (UTC)}}

Resolved

←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:54, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

To SemanticMantis (talk · contribs): Thank you for contributing to the feeding of a blocked user. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:38, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

While one learned volunteer laboured to cleanse the Science Ref desk of an Evil Entity, another learned volunteer had been labouring to provide an apt and well referenced answer to what is a sensible and answerable question. Rather than expend more efforts or hard feelings on the consequent existential confrontation,[23] I suggest the solution of deleting the whole exchange that Baseball Bugs has hatted, while allowing to stand the question and answer both signed by SemanticMantis. This way the Science desk gains and the Evil Entity is expelled from view. Both BB and SM have earned thanks here. Blooteuth (talk) 22:26, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Normally I would agree that it should be deleted. But given that SM's "I heard somewhere" refers to the blocked editor's question immediately above, keeping the hatted item there puts it in the proper context. And by the way, the IP-OP was blocked long before SM posted his response. SM's lack of vigilance is no justification for keeping his precious pearls of wisdom intact. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:40, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Take it to user talk. You didn't even reference what this was about. Should you not be welcome on SM's talk page (no idea, haven't checked, just saying "if") then you can post your comment, including the ping, on your own user talk page. It's not needed here. ---Sluzzelin talk 23:05, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

This is about Wikipedia:Reference desk/Science. Review the "baked beans" stuff and you'll see that it precisely belongs here. I didn't want to get into an edit war over this topic. I want some other views on this besides just SM, whose view is pretty much "don't delete anything." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:13, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

This belongs here with some explanation of the "figuring" involved. The bickering between you insects gives cause to wish like Mercutio almost did "A Pyrethrin o' both your houses". Blooteuth (talk) 13:16, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

No, it doesn't. We've already fed the trolling questioner too much. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:15, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

@Baseball_Bugs The Science Ref. Desk is not for you to treat as a Twitter account for ruminations such as "I figured IP User 91.47.17.210 was the banned user Light Current". Your preoccupation with that user has been going on for YEARS from as far back as 12:07 12 July 2012 when you declared "DriveByWire --> 'Wire' as a hint for "Current" is pretty obvious". Really? It seems you wish to keep adding to the present over 200 pages in category "Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Light Current" but you haven't realized that it is you (if anyone) that puppet has most to thank for encouragement. The bug should stop here. Blooteuth (talk) 17:52, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The question of whether to answer serious questions about a puerile subject from IP users who can be identified with a varying degree of probability with a certain blocked/banned user may have some interest, but neither the pointy echoing of such a question nor this aggressive thread (seriously, the first post here needs at least a diff) will help to answer it. However, what it probably does is encourage further such questions (trolls enjoy being fed), more than either approach (ignoring/hatting the question, or answering it in a serious tone). I do not know what to suggest since apparently only cold ashes are left of the bridges between you two, but the current modus operandi is probably suboptimal. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 18:00, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

I think suspected trolling should be addressed by careful engagement with the suspected troll. If we don't want to encourage trolling we should attempt to converse with a suspected troll. In general we should want to expose the troll as being a troll. This is sometimes accomplished by asking questions for "clarification". Most trolls do not even respond. Some trolls respond once. But no real troll will carry on a sustained conversation. Dealing with trolls is a battle of wits. The form that most trolling takes is the one carefully crafted post. It may look haphazard but I think it often is not. That is because a ploy is to play on the sympathies of those responding to such posts. I think the most effective response is the carefully crafted followup question. Trolling becomes ineffective in extended conversations. It becomes increasingly uncomfortable for a troll to carry on a conversation that they can see will eventually expose their pranksterish motivation. Bus stop (talk) 18:37, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

That never worked with Light Current. I got tired of fighting that banned user, and instead offered him an olive branch, which he spat on. However, after I stopped posting his socks at AIV, he mostly went away. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:57, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Placing my above commentary into context, I neglected to even look at the post under discussion, the one on the science desk. My comments are just general comments. Bus stop (talk) 18:49, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Resolved

←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:54, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

I removed the hatting of this because the question is still a football. I found it unhatted, hatted the off-topic policy stuff, came back later and found the whole thing hatted. I don't think we should hat talk-page discussions even if 'resolved', but this isn't really. As for the uncanny ability of one editor to recognize a troll when no one else can, I remain unconvinced, and if I were convinced, I'd be recalling recent accounts of racism in the Air Force [http://edition.cnn.com/2017/11/08/us/air-force-academy-racist-message-trnd/index.html and be wondering if "he that smelt it dealt it". Wnt (talk) 04:10, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm glad you find this useful. I'd like to see you show where one of these conversations ever led to anything more than false feelings of moral superiority. --Jayron3213:19, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

@Jayron32 please sign your posts. Blooteuth (talk) 16:21, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

I have fixed my mistake. --Jayron32 16:39, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

[moved from 'talk:/Header']

...from a random user: it would be appreciated if the ref-desk regulars would keep process bickering to this talk page only. 2606:A000:4C0C:E200:C9A:4B44:2E28:1611 (talk) 08:52, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

That would be ideal, for sure. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:27, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Random reply: UhWxD8VhHjozi4X9P0DWj6cNoyBIMkjsat6SuizUrdoeS2jPiYFdLE4RfFF09P27ONRILLWFz3o3X4QMviTXFiZTmYfRlqH7joLXR3L1qX8wQ0doJoeRm3ZH VSq5RRn5iACdeuDyCVlXHMPbNT25xBfYLTfCvHLDKDYk9QwjXmJG8F4nPWlCwxj9Npt1lMhAzlZRfgDt Count Iblis (talk) 08:03, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Can I quote you on that? Bus stop (talk) 08:14, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Whaddya mean, "doJoe"? You want we should make mincemeat outta the bum, or just pay his article a little visit? And are we talkin' Joey Riley (footballer, born 1996) or Joey Riley (footballer, born 1991) here? Ambiguously violent and/or sexual innuendo has no place in the stream of garbage characters racket no more, boss. Kids these days, they still love the mindless drivel, but they want to scan it fast, without having to stop and recognize familiar fragments, much less provocative pareidolia.

That aside, I agree with MPbNT25xB. And when I Googled "SuizUrdoeS", it asked if I was concerned with "SeizUreS" instead. A fair question, I think. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:57, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

I was especially alarmed by the notion of dLE4RfFF09P27ONRILLWF. How could that be? Bus stop (talk) 03:54, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

It could have been worse. It could have been YSBzaWxseSBjb21wdXRlciBudXJkIGpva2Ug. —Steve Summit (talk) 12:58, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

TnVyZCBpcyBub3QgYSB3dXJkLg== ―Mandruss ☎ 21:24, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

But of course we are expected to

lXHMPbN. Bus stop (talk

) 13:45, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

That's easy for you to say. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.208.173.186 (talk) 09:54, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Beginning with Count Iblis's comment this has been one of the more useful discussions I've seen on this page. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:48, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

I think we are finally beginning to free ourselves from the confines of the pointless rules of language. Bus stop (talk) 13:56, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, if I may say so. Gandalf61 (talk) 10:42, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Jeezus. This thread is like the Wikipedia version of a Usenet cascade. Wnt (talk) 22:11, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

I've altered the archive settings slightly for this page. The old settings are leaving discussions up for almost a month. --Jayron32 16:28, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

I don't normally look at the Entertainment reference desk, but there seem to be a lot of questions being removed with the explanation "This question is about a work of fiction. We cannot explain the motives of fictional characters beyond what you yourself saw/heard in the episode". Is this appropriate? I know that by their nature these are going to be difficult to answer, but I would argue that there are several potential sources of answers than could be referenced::

1. 1) The work itself may contain the answer (and the questioner just missed it)
2. 2) The author may have published an explanation separately to the original work.
3. 3) Particularly in the case of famous works, there may be lots of academic discussion about the motives.

Finally, I can't see anything in the reference desk rules that say such questions shouldn't be asked (or answered). Iapetus (talk) 09:47, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

There's a user who asks these kinds of questions frequently. He's been told time after time after time, by a variety of editors, to look for an internet forum where these kinds of questions can be debated and speculated about. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:34, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Also note the IP in these recent instances, 98.239.113.209 (talk · contribs), was blocked by Jayron32 for long-term abuse. Jayron is one of the admins who is well-acquainted with that user. I think the user/sockmaster was banned some time back, but I don't recall the original user ID. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:10, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

For background on this user, see

WP:DUCK test with flying colors regarding behavior. --Jayron32

12:14, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

I think in some cases we can discuss works of art without reference to reliable sources. Doing so leaves us open to trolling. But I don't think there is a cut and dried way of distinguishing between good questions in this area and bad questions in this area. The same applies to responses. There are proper and improper responses. Bus stop (talk) 15:39, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

I think we can direct people to read specific reliable and well regarded analysis of works of art, but I think we should avoid blanket explanations or analysis unconnected to anything except our own opinions. --Jayron32 15:51, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

I think the OP makes a valid point when they say "[t]he work itself may contain the answer (and the questioner just missed it)". I don't think it is necessarily problematic to make reasonable observations about facets of the work of art that may be obvious but may be overlooked. It is in the nature of works of art that the artist designs a point to be buried within a story and therefore missed except by unusual perceptivity. Thus discussion of the work of art is precisely what the artist hoped for. It is the raison d'être of the work of art. Bus stop (talk) 17:50, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

That may be, but it is irrelevent to the matter at hand. The raison d'être of this desk is to provide people with reading material (references) about a topic they are searching for information on but cannot find. What artists intend or do not intend for their works doesn't make a lick of difference to the work we do here. You can be entirely correct regarding discussing works of art; hell, I often talk about works of art with my friends in exactly this way. It is just not what we do here, because it clutters this forum and confuses its purpose. --Jayron32 17:56, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

So, such questions are valid then, in the sense that valid and useful references may exist. Even if a particular user is unaware of those references?

It seems like the questions are being closed, not because of any long-standing policy, but because a user has guessed that references don't exist. We can argue about how likely the guess is to be correct, but it's still questions being closed because of a guess. ApLundell (talk) 19:50, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

On the other hand, if these questions are being closed because they're posted by a particular problem user, then I strongly believe that the closing statements should say so, honestly and clearly.

ApLundell (talk) 19:53, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps you would prefer the more succinct

WP:DENY? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots

→ 20:04, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

But many TV shows, songs, movies, books, etc., have obscure or ambiguous themes, events, clues, allusions or explanations. In fact, the best works of art are those one can enjoy repeatedly, noticing something new each time. [SPOILER-Gosford Park] There's no incromulence whatsoever in asking why Helen Mirren killed the lord in Gosford Park, because many of the details of relationships are only implied, never explained explicitly. [End Spoiler alert] Plus, much of that movie is difficult for Americans who don't get the subtleties of class in Britain of that era. There are countless other examples of such works of art. So starve the troll, but let others keep eating. μηδείς (talk) 20:18, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Given that I am the user who did the hatting, it would have been nice to know this discussion was taking place. I believe it's possible to ask answerable in-universe questions. My reply to SMW about Futurama lacked a direct reference (it would be surprising to find a definitive statement about something that didn't take place) but I felt the question was appropriate because a) someone who watched an episode or two could reasonably ask if any explanation is given "in-story" somewhere and b) someone deeply familiar with the show, like me, could supply an "

WP:DUCK detector. Matt Deres (talk

) 04:31, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Hatting for trolling makes sense to me. But I think works of fiction can be discussed. I think we can make reasonable observations about fictional characters. When we only discuss what is obvious I don't think it is original research. It is interpretation which is one's personal spin on what transpired in a fictional work. In this instance the action taken—hatting—was justified, but the reason given raised questions. We are making judgements about both trolling and whether or not a question is reasonable-enough to address. I see no problem with this. Those that would decry the problematic nature of the Reference desks are shying away from exercising judgement. We should accept that we are making judgements often. The fact is that everything is not reducible to rules. This is just as true in the rest of the encyclopedia but the Reference desks are more exposed to the constant onslaught of borderline trolling. Bus stop (talk) 07:43, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

If it is obvious, then one of two things must be true: 1) The OP already knew it, which means we don't have to tell them (telling people things they already know is rude) and 2) It has already been written about by reliable sources. If 1) is not the case, then 2) should apply. Find a source and direct the OP there. If 2) also does not apply (that is, there are ZERO reliable sources to direct the OP to on the topic), then you were wrong about your analysis being obvious, which means you probably shouldn't be sharing it in the first place. --Jayron32 14:50, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure that's necessarily true. If it's obvious but trivial then its unlikely to have been discussed in what Wikipedia considers "reliable sources" (e.g. academic texts, as opposed to blogs and web forums). Furthermore, it doesn't follow that if something is clearly explained in the fiction, then it will be obvious to the question asker. So I don't think there should be anything wrong with pointing them to the explanation in the fiction. (Personally I'd also say we shouldn't be bound too strictly by the normal rules against OR/synthesis. If someone asks "what does X mean in film Y", where X is a phrase/gesture/etc that exists outside the work (e.g. a Shakespeare quote) and is being used in its normal sense, it should be enough to give a source explaining X, without having to find one that says "in film Y, X means..."). Overall, if someone is asking questions about meanings or motivations in a work of fiction, the best response is surely either a) provide relevant references if you know of them, or b) leave it open so others can do so. Not c) close it on the grounds that it can't be answered. Finally, as others have said, if a question is being closed because the questioner has been banned, then that should be the explanation give. Iapetus (talk) 09:54, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

I never closed the question, so I can't answer to that. I blocked the person for violating the ban. I have no pony in the race regarding the hat issue. --Jayron32 12:25, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

It is not my analysis that is obvious; it is facts that are obvious. The facts I am referring to are those provided by the artist. For instance, I posted a question about a short video that was available online. The question I posed was about an upraised hand seen in the video. I asked if there was significance in that gesture. More to the point I asked what the significance was of that gesture. I was clearly not trolling; no one accused me of trolling. There was no source that could have elucidated the significance of that upraised hand. Yet others told me in no uncertain terms that the significance was the absence of a wedding ring. While I considered that as a possible explanation before I posted the question, I was also unsure because two fingers were, in my opinion, conspicuously separated from the other two fingers, seeming to perhaps convey a "message" that I might not have been familiar with. We are discussing two things here. Is a question trolling? And, what are appropriate responses when the factors relating to the question are obvious, and no source addresses those factors. Here is the post about which I am speaking. Bus stop (talk) 15:34, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

I recall that discussion. The video at least allowed for the possibility of interpretation within the context. The troll being discussed here raises obscure points about obscure films and TV shows, and seems to make the assumption that the ref desk readers have seen those shows. He never provides links to videos and such. His questions are typically "why did so-and-so do such-and-such?" In short, what's in their heads? If the troll can't figure it out from the show, there's very little chance that any one of us can either. Which is why he was always told to seek a forum where fans of the given shows could kick lots of ideas around. But he wouldn't do that. And that's probably why he ended up blocked. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:40, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Therefore there are two different questions: whether or not we are dealing with a troll, and whether responses inevitably involve original research or responses that are just guesses and therefore inappropriate for a Reference desk. My overriding point is that judgement is involved. There aren't cut-and-dry answers. We have to accept that each situation is different. Policy and guidelines exist for the understanding of what is important. But the application of policies and guidelines require interpretation; we are exercising judgement whenever we have borderline situations. We can articulate policy until the cows come home but ultimately we must exercise judgement. Bus stop (talk) 16:07, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Just to be clear here, since the discussion has returned to the blocked troll, is that he was not initially banned because he asked these questions at the ref desks. That's unrelated to his ban. He was banned because of his

tendentious editing of articles related to sexuality and sexual assault in articles about works of fiction. That ban is still in force. We continue to block him because that ban has never been recinded, so he's not allowed at Wikipedia. The fact that he also asks very specific questions on the ref desks of a very specific format that makes him easy to identify so we can block him. Had he not already been banned for unrelated matters, we would not continue to block him when he pops up. --Jayron32

17:05, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

ApLundell (talk) 16:07, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

You can't assume lying. I don't think anyone is "blatantly dishonest". There are other explanations that are quite innocuous. Bus stop (talk) 16:16, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

I have changed the hat headings to

WP:DENY. That should be clear enough. And by the way, it was Matt Deres who did the original hatting. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots

→ 15:09, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes, this is what was closed.

WP:DENY is sufficient explanation. Bus stop (talk

) 16:24, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Of course he is not the only one doing it - someone used for the question about the Catalan poem, with equally useless results - but he's the most egregious offender. Adam Bishop (talk) 12:37, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Your lack of good faith is appalling. A lone user ordering me not to use it (which I don't do very often anyway) and with no rule-based authority for issuing that order, does not qualify as "literally everyone". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:27, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

There are rules, and then there is common sense. When we have active, relevantly bilingual Ref Desk regulars and/or contactable editors, who in some cases have already provided informed and colloqial translations, and in others can be relied upon to do so shortly, the use of an automatic system known to be highly fallible by someone not fluent in the (non-AmE) language in question is actively unhelpful. *Ducks and runs.* {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.208.173.186 (talk) 15:31, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

No one provided any references. When did Argument from authority become valid in Wikipedia? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:33, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

References: a fair point, since we are supposed to provide references where possible. However, since the possible passages in any given language are effectively infinite, and since translations from one language to another are necessarily contextual, subjective and open to many different possibilities of varying validity, let alone style, it would only be possible to provide a referenced translation if one had already been made and published in a reliable source. That would be possible for the small minority of passages that are part of existing literary works or similar so notable as to already have been translated into the target language, but will not be for the vast majority. (And even if translations do exist, we could argue endlessly about just which translation of, say,

The Odyssey

, is most appropriate to the particular request.) Most translations requested here are going to have to be done on the fly.

Argument from authority: I disagree with this characterisation; it's more a case of "argument from competence." Aspro (to take a random example) is not known to us to be a professional translator or professor of languages giving him a supposed "authority" in translating from German to English (or vice-versa), but he is demonstrably bilingual in German and English and has clearly demonstrated competency in translating between the two, taking into account such matters as colloquial nuances and poetical expressions which most literate humans can, but Google Translate cannot.

I think there is a profitable discussion to be had regarding the proprieties and procedures of providing translations on the Ref Desk, not least for the benefit of those who cannot operate on common sense, and need (or claim to need) iron-clad rules to operate within at all times. However, given the tenor of past RD-related discussions (which I generally do follow but avoid participating in as a price for my deliberate non-Account status) I'm not sure how well it would go; I imagine also that there are better places than this to have it. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.208.173.186 (talk) 16:06, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

The issue is not the use of Google Translate, per se, it's the refusal to back down when it is made clear that Google Translate is wrong. It's OK to be wrong some times. It happens to me quite frequently. Admit it and move on; don't hold your ground in the face of being wrong just so you don't have to admit it. --Jayron32 16:29, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

So someone else can use Google Translate, just not me. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:42, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Um, no-one else does use it on here. --Viennese Waltz 22:07, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Not so fast. In the discussion of a Catalan poem, a section or two below the German phrase question, a user named Yuri used Google Translate... as already mentioned by Bishop, immediately below here. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:13, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Ok, can we just agree that: 1) We don't get points for answering first or for the volume of answers we provide so it's absolutely unnecessary to rush to be the first to give someone a Google Translation. 2) The person asking the question can go to Google Translate themselves if they want a Google Translation - it's actually kind of insulting to suggest the asker hasn't considered that option already. This is not the same as us Googling an answer for them, which can sometimes take some skill or involve something the OP overlooked; Google Translate does what it says on the tin and will just translate whatever you stick into it, no need for any extra expertise on our part. 3) Google Translate has no idea what you're putting into it and can't give you any context whatsoever, and if you don't already have some knowledge of the languages you're using, it is very actively a bad idea to translate anything with it. If it gives you anything resembling a correct answer it will almost be in spite of itself. For something like French or German it might give you something intelligible, maybe. But as we can see from the question about the Catalan poem (which, let's give some credit to Bugs, he did not try to answer), the result is mostly nonsense. For something even less closely related to English, it might as well not exist at all. In my Expert Opinion (Tee-Em), Google is a horrible translator and should never be used to answer any questions here. Adam Bishop (talk) 20:11, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Maybe you should schlep the user Yuri over here, since he was the one who used the Forbidden Site for that Catalan stuff. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:32, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Grow up, what other people do and do not do has nothing to do with your actions. Just own up to a mistake, error, misjudgement or whatever you want to call it and everyone will leave it be. Something similar to that is called acting like a grown up. Goes both ways of course where the other side then really does leave it be and not gloat about ones acknowledgement of a misjudgement. "But mommy, that boy is doing it too" is no excuse and is not the way to carry oneself. The answer to the question about the german phrase was not helpful. Speculating about the "punch" a word has in a language one does not speak is not helpful. Claiming "that is what google translate said" is aproaching a reference is... a bit of a joke to be honest. The OP even said he looked himself for an answer on- and offline, google translate probably was the first stop on the web. I am sorry if it may sound a bit harsh but this "episode" just annoyed me enough to say something. I will be dismissed anyhow but now i feel better. Have a good day anyway and sorry for being a bit grumpy i guess lol 91.49.95.110 (talk) 23:08, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

I always try to take the advice of users with an edit count in the single digits. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:22, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

You do whatever you like. And if you want to carry on like you do, nothing i can do anyway. Bit telling that it matters more to you who gives advice than what to take away from it though. And i am clearly not the only one that thinks something went wrong there. Also, as long as it is permissable to edit as an ip, even a variable ip, i will do so despite all the abuse and/or suspicion one gets. I have nothing to hide, comment on things i see sometimes, fix typos and grammar etc. If that is not good enough for you or you want to change it, you know where to start an RfC. Anyway, it really is nothing personal. I saw an issue that bothered me, i commented and you are free to ignore it. Why make an issue out of me editing as an ip? But whatever really. I am sorry if i offended you but i just called it like i saw it. 91.49.95.110 (talk) 23:41, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

I've been around a lot longer than Bugs, I have a 5-digit number of edits, and this is even my real name, but my advice doesn't count either, haha. Adam Bishop (talk) 23:51, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

To be fair, unsolicited and grumpy advice starting with "Grow up" is probably not the best way to go about convincing someone of ones point, haha. Probably should have worded it differently and am sorry if i caused offense. 91.49.95.110 (talk) 00:46, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

• Once again, we have the usual rule creep common to all committees. But this is a total non-problem. All the rules that govern wikipedia govern the ref desks. Just as we don't need special permission to remove comments by banned users, just as we cannot violate WP:BLP, we cannot use Google Translate without credit (so all usages of it should be identified) and
  WP:RS
  applies, which I am sure rules out giving machine translations of long idiomatic text in the form of gobbledy-gook as authoritative. If it's not actually codified somewhere, it's clear that it's consensus. We don't need new laws, just for the existing ones to be enforced.

But since the RD is collaborative, and comments of doubt, requests for clarification, and comments that point in the direction of an answer with caveats like "I can't find the source, IIRC from college..." and so forth when clearly identified as uncertain are allowed just as they would be on talk pages. The only problem would be putting forth a machine translation without attribution and as if it were a definitive answer. I don't think I have ever seen that done here. I do see petty peeves and simmering grudges being phrased as if they were policy disputes. μηδείς (talk) 16:08, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

When you're remembering something from a book you have in storage, you're still at least providing the OP with information that they did not have. Google Translating without attribution would be worse, sure, but no one is doing that, I hope. Giving a Google Translation even with attribution is not useful and probably actually hinders our chances of finding an answer. It's just pure laziness. Adam Bishop (talk) 17:43, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Language isn't my desk, but my feeling is unattributed Google Translate is annoying, not to mention technically plagiarism. However, an attributed version is not completely useless because it lets people put down a marker for continued efforts. After all, Google might serve people a different translation depending on the phase of the moon, the secret preferences of their host government, or the targeted ads running alongside the translation in that particular marketplace. If you expect some editors to pick apart a piece of text, they should indeed start with a known quantity, something archived here, not a transient flicker in the dark. Google Translate results can have value added far above the original output by something as straightforward as putting a wikilink to the Wiktionary entry for each and every word in the quoted text. Of course, what you really want to see are subsequent revisions as editors confer. A straight-on good translation by a natively bilingual speaker would be better, sure ... but it's best not to miss the city bus while you're waiting for that handsome stranger to cruise by in his Lamborghini, don't you think? Wnt (talk) 02:18, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

B8-tome (talk · contribs) asked a question at a ref desk, quickly reverted, as to why liberals "hate Jews but love Muslims?"[25] That's the kind of question the Nazi troll might ask. B8-tome has some 'splainin' to do. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:45, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

How did B8-tome choose Reference desk/Language for that question? Bus stop (talk) 16:12, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

The account has been blocked. For anyone who needs more explanation, I've left a short one at User talk:B8-tome that should establish a rationale for the block. This is either the Nazi troll, a copycat, or a hacked account. In any event, unless some very compelling explanation is forthcoming, that account will not be editing Wikipedia again. --Jayron32 17:17, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Definitely that user, and trying to claim Bus Stop "supports" him is typical fact-twisting by the Nazi troll. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:27, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Note the internet usage of "B8".[26] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:46, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Sometimes trolls forget which account they're in and/or forget to log out. That's how the massive sockfarmer called ItsLassieTime was exposed a few years ago. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:58, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

So far I haven't seen any evidence here or at that talk page to convince me this person did anything but ask one question somebody found awkward. Is there any indication of similarity here to anyone else aside from political convenience? Wnt (talk) 02:10, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

He was found out, and went silent. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:13, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

You blocked him and then he went silent, so he's guilty? That is lame even by

witch hunt standards. Wnt (talk

) 02:20, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

You are apparently unacquainted with the ref desk Nazi troll. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:44, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Wnt; the troll in question has very specific and easily identifiable tells. He asks questions on the ref desk of a very specific format that obey an easily identifiable template. B8-tome is clearly of that template. That one particular person (being you) hasn't encountered this person before doesn't mean much. We've been dealing with this person for years, and it's not as vague as "asks a slightly uncomfortable question". It's "asks a specific question with a specific word order in a specific format that is so specific it makes him instantly identifiable". This is a banned user, and has been taken care of. --Jayron32 12:08, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Actually the editor didn't go silent straight away. Instead they said "Those are Nazi methods" Nil Einne (talk) 06:21, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

He would know from Nazi methods. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:45, 2 December 2017 (UTC)