On the other hand, there are times when people in the past have tried WY and decided in that situation Y was a bad idea. But your situation is X and it is quite different from what the answerer is familiar with from their experience with W. In this case you know X well, the answerer doesn't, and you know Y is what you want to do in this situation to solve X. The answerer assumes you're trying to solve W or something similar to W and you have to waste an inordinate amount of time assuring them your situation is sufficiently different from W in order to get a simple answer about how to do Y.
And that is why the onus is upon the person asking the question to explain the problem scope fully enough that anyone looking to help will be on the same page from the start and those who have encountered problems with similar approaches are aware that their experience isn't relevant.
Most often, the request comes in as:
> dev: How can I do def?
to which responses warning them of the problems with that approach and lacking the surrounding context are completely appropriate.
The issue is:
> ... Explaining everything involved in abc is a lot of work, and dev just wants to ask about def ...
Yes, it's a lot of work, but necessary to do either at the start or piecemeal consuming a lot more time overall between multiple people. To be respectful of other peoples' time, explaining abc is the correct thing to do.
