Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/Archive 120

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 115←Archive 118Archive 119Archive 120Archive 121Archive 122→Archive 125

Semi-protected edit request

Please add to WP:RD/H#State of the Union address 1823: Who was Colonel Lee? this answer, if it does not duplicate someone else's work by the time it's posted:

Here is an 1825 report to Congress giving the names of the commissioners as Colonels William McRee and Roswell Lee, and Major George Talcott. Roswell Lee does not have his own Wikipedia article, but his son does, and he's mentioned in three other articles. George Talcott also does not have his own article, but his brother does; note that Talcott was apparently a captain in Monroe's speech of 1823, a major in 1825, a colonel in 1842–51, and eventually a general. (All this assumes I am not confusing any cases of two men with the same name.) --76.69.45.64 (talk) 07:34, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Done. Tevildo (talk) 08:59, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Request to add Query answer- being Bot-blocked

Would someone please add the following to the Miscellaneous RefDek Query "Judaism and jesus christ" [sic]

It's open to argument as to whether "St Paul" (aka "Saul") was actually Jewish (see Hyam Maccoby), but in any case his post-Ye'shua, pro-Gentile faction eventually marginalized most of Ye'shua's original followers and family as the "Ebionites", and they eventually disappeared from history. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 185.74.232.130 (talk) 18:59, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Feel free to check the links first. It's being bot-tagged as "potentially unconstructive" or some such, and while I expect many to disagree with it, I think it falls within the scholarly gamut of opinion on the subject (which is one I've been interested in for several decades). {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 185.74.232.130 (talk) 18:59, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

 Done. (Though I don't understand the bot-blocking issue.) -- ToE 19:32, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

The filter objects to "Jewish" (and similar words) due to the high level of anti-Semitic vandalism we've had. Tevildo (talk) 22:00, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
Jesus. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:07, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

As the same problem still persists, could someone please add the following immediately below Edison's recent comment.

The reviewers in question may not have been exercising NPOV; I find Maccoby's arguments compelling if not conclusive.
"Paul" is quoted as claiming many things in the New Testament (which was compiled and extensively edited by his followers), some of which are contradictory and some of which run counter to non-biblical (i.e. Jewish) sources from the period. If he was a Pharisee, why did he work as an "enforcer" for the Chief of the Saducees (the High Priest) - this is akin to a senior Sunni cleric employing a Shia to enforce Sunni law. "Paul" employs various standard Pharisaic judicial forms of argument, and gets more of them wrong than right. I said "most of. . . Yeshua's original followers and family", not "all of them."
Read Maccoby's The Mythmaker: Paul and the Invention of Christianity (1986) and make up your own mind.

Thanks {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 185.74.232.130 (talk) 14:41, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

 Done - My charge is asking you to reconsider registering a username, or lobbying to lift these silly long-term protections :) SemanticMantis (talk) 17:55, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

@SemanticMantis: I'm being told by two people at ANI here that people who just ask questions on the Refdesk are "WP:NOTHERE", unless they do actual article development. So I think 87.81 here may be wiser than us for staying as IP, unless and until he feels like focusing on articles. It's unfortunate since you don't get pingbacks. Maybe we can repurpose this space as a Jewish Refdesk. Wnt (talk) 12:19, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
Well, that's unfortunate. Librarians who work solely at real reference desks don't get told they are not librarians... Then again, you need a master's degree to be a reference librarian, and I get the feeling we could do with more participation on the ref desks from people with actual expertise and advance degrees (I know there are a handful of us, but I'd like to see more). Anyone who says that edits mostly to ref desks make a user NOTHERE deserves a TROUTing :-/ SemanticMantis (talk) 15:43, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
SemanticMantis and Wnt: thank you both for the continued assistance, and the concern. As I've mentioned a couple of times before when asked, although I've been Editing here for around 10 years now, (mostly on the Refdesks, somewhat on Article Talk pages, occasional mostly minor copy-editing on Article pages – I used to be a professional non-fiction editor), I haven't wanted to Register thus far because to me, it would be a commitment to expend considerable time learning much more about the workings, policies and procedures "under the hood", which time I don't currently feel able to give – I do have a demanding full-time job, and usually dip in when at Work in my lunch break (like now) or after clocking off.
(I'm a bit "all or nothing" – I can never join a club or similar organization without wanting to take an active role in helping to run it or at least to contribute effort.)
I feel no pressure to register in order to run up Wiki stats and a reputation, because I feel that all contributions, by anybody, should stand or fall purely on their individual merits.
Related to what SemanticMantis asks and Wnt suggests, I do indeed avoid involving myself in controversies because of the occasional adverse attitudes shown by some towards IP Editors. (The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.74.232.130 (talk) 15:42, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 January 2016

Hi, could this answer please be added to the Humanities desk, under the question "Accident of History"? Thank you in advance. 184.147.121.46 (talk) 16:08, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

People who write on the theory of history (possible redirect Category:Theories of history?) seem to use the term. Some possible references:
[1] defines it as "things happen and constrain what can happen next" - and suggests another possible redirect: Path dependence
[2], however, (1865)defines it as "events, which instead of being causes, are merely the occasions on which the real causes act."
[3] (too involved for me to understand, but the term does appear)
[4] (can be requested at Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request if you don't have a New York Times subscription) (1880) defines it as "great events that have sprung from little causes". Causality? 184.147.121.46 (talk) 16:08, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
Ah thanks! I saw this after I already made a redirect to Arbitrariness. I will move your post to the thread and perhaps reconsider. SemanticMantis (talk) 16:51, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

 Done

Thanks Allthefoxes and SemanticMantis!184.147.121.46 (talk) 21:20, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request

Since keeping the page open to IP's is just too much trouble, please post the following in WP:RD/H#How was India described when it joined the League of Nations and the United Nations? if it does not duplicate someone else's posting by the time this is done.

Article 1 of the Covenant does say that, but there is no Article X, and the text that Scicurious says is there is not in Article 10 or any other article. Perhaps Sci meant to replace X with an actual section number after finding the wording, but was unable to do so and forgot to delete that part of the posting. In fact it seems that the nearest thing to that wording is in Article 17, which refers to states that are not members of the league, not to ones that are.
As for the United Nations, see India and the United Nations#History. I can't cite a source because I don't remember where I saw this, but I've read that the Soviets objected to the membership of Canada as well as India, and demanded that if the other great powers wanted those two admitted, then in compensation they should be able to have two of their member republics admitted as separate members, and this compromise was accepted. (Canada progressed to independence through a series of stages from 1867 to 1982, but was independent in most ways by the 1920s.) --76.69.45.64 (talk) 08:29, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Done. Tevildo (talk) 12:27, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 January 2016

Please add this reference to the Humanities desk under the question Apostasy in Islam through inaction, thank you very much.184.147.121.46 (talk) 15:19, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

This article in the Economist (which I believe does fact checking) says prosecutions are generally for specifically promoting unbelief. But you should read - it discusses specific laws in specific countries, Quran texts, etc. 184.147.121.46 (talk) 15:19, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Done. Tevildo (talk) 15:44, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Sincere thanks, Tevildo.184.147.121.46 (talk) 16:26, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 January 2016

Could somebody please paste this at the end of my question 'Is "defrosted" a synonym of "thawed" in the context of freezing and thawing samples?' on the Language Desk, with the appropriate indenting: "Thank you! Your answers have been very helpful. --82.164.37.199 (talk) 20:59, 21 January 2016 (UTC) (OP)" Thanks, --82.164.37.199 (talk) 20:59, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Done. Tevildo (talk) 21:49, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 January 2016

Please add this answer to Sin cleansing, January 21 on the Humanities Desk, thank you.184.147.121.46 (talk) 12:06, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Our article on this topic is Ritual purification. 184.147.121.46 (talk) 12:06, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

 Done. Deor (talk) 12:20, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you very much, Deor.184.147.121.46 (talk) 12:59, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Can we remove the Hitler question now?

. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sagittarian Milky Way (talk • contribs) 14:45, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Are you asking about WP:RDL#Hitler's Mein Kampf 2016 reprint asked on 14 January? It should archive in four days. -- ToE 15:42, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
No, there was a question on RD/M along the lines of "What good things did Hitler do for Germany?" It developed in a predictable manner and has now been deleted. Tevildo (talk)
(ec)No, it's the one that starts out asking about Hitler's "good" accomplishments. It's just a typical ruse by the Jew-hating troll to lead up to his Jew-hating stuff, and it's now removed; unless the busybodies continue to restore it. And do you realize that by even bringing this up here, it's further feeding of that troll? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:46, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. Here is the removal. -- ToE 16:04, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

I think it's inadequate and highly impolite to delete all constructive contributions together with the troll posts for no compelling reason. However, for a lack of importance I won't revert. --KnightMove (talk) 16:19, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

It's a bit of a shame, really; StuRat actually provided references there. If it weren't for the trolling, we could preserve it for posterity. :-) Matt Deres (talk) 17:21, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
If StuRat has additional useful information on the subject, he could put it in the article. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:53, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
I wish we'd stop trying to infer poster's intent. Maybe that OP intended to troll us, or maybe they were just curious. I mean it is a sort of obvious question. If Hitler were simply pure evil as some narratives say, then he probably wouldn't have risen to power. And that raises the question of why people liked him and if he had any positive contribution. Oh well. FPAS again preventing us from AGF and providing references. SemanticMantis (talk) 16:29, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
When he started defending Hitler and talking about the Jewish bankers and such, he showed his true brownshirt colors. Now, are we going to keep feeding that troll? Or can we box this up now? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:11, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
I'd be happy to for us to remove followups from the OP that are not furthering the answering of the question. However, the original question wasn't unreasonable and neither were the majority of the answers to it. In many cases where leaders do extreme evil, they also do some good. The way Napoleon ruled France - or the British managed India - produced some nasty injustices - but also added to their respective cultures. Trying to hide that from subsequent history is non-productive. Removing perfectly valid responses to a reasonable question doesn't make sense to me. Removing this initial question on grounds of trolling alone is a slippery slope. When the question was asked, we did not attempt to guess the OP's motives - but instead gave (mostly) dispassionate, reasonable, answers - and that was the right thing to do. When the troll revealed him/herself as such, we could have restricted ourselves to removing inconsequential/off-topic responses and stayed well within our own guidelines. But judging the initial question on it's merits alone seems like a good approach to take. I don't believe we should set ourselves up as arbiters of who is a troll and who isn't without a good deal of prior discussion on this talk page. SteveBaker (talk) 17:31, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
Banned users are not allowed to edit. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:24, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
As User:Antandrus/observations on Wikipedia behavior wisely points out in #65, "The only one hundred percent certain way to get rid of a troll is to close the browser tab." —Steve Summit (talk) 19:44, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
Pretty hard to reach through the internet and close the troll's browser tab. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:13, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
I hope that's not what you thought #65 meant. —Steve Summit (talk) 22:20, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

If you watch closely here you will see a pattern that makes it clear that this was trolling, exactly the same kind of trolling the same person has done several times in the past. This area of Wikipedia has been feeding the trolls for too long and there needs to be far less tolerance. If people respond to trolls that is unfortunate, but we need to remove the trolling and the result of the trolling nonetheless. HighInBC 19:53, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

On a related point, should we delete the "Anti racism code word for anti white" question? (Or, rather, should we delete it now or wait until it deteriorates?) Normally, I'd have deleted it with no hesitation, but considering the opinions expressed above, perhaps it's best to seek consensus. Tevildo (talk) 21:47, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Come on, it's plain obvious it's the same troll again. If removing this kind of rubbish requires consideration and debate first, then something is very, very wrong with this board and how it's run. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:21, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
(ec)It's best to delete it before anyone responds to it. In this case, notice how Davidthebusdriver (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) made 10 meaningless edits in order to get confirmed and get past any semi-protection, and then posted another stupid race-baiting question. He's blocked now, of course. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:23, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

One of the things we could stand to do is relax a bit and not turn every instance of trolling or other bad behavior into our own meta battlefield. Remember, for a given instance of trolling here (or anywhere):

  • If we delete it, it is not going to be the deletion that makes the troll realize "Oh, I guess they're serious about quashing me, I might as well stop trolling."
  • If we fail to delete it, it is not going to be the victory that emboldens the troll to continue trolling forever no matter what we do.
  • If one of us ill-advisedly responds to the troll, it is not going to be the victory that emboldens the troll to continue trolling forever.
  • If someone deletes the trolling and all of its responses, it is not going to be the case that one of the now-deleted responses fails to {cure cancer, induce peace in the Middle East, solve the halting problem}.

My point is that if you believe that trolls don't necessarily need to be reverted every single time, but if on any given Sunday a troll does get reverted, it's not the end of the world. Contrariwise, if you believe that trolls do need to be reverted every single time, but for whatever reason some particular piece of trolling goes unreverted, that's not the end of the world, either. Finally, if you're miffed because some golden gem of your prose got deleted along with a troll's trash, you really need to get over it. As the stock Wikipedia edit notice used to say (and I wish it still did), "If you are not willing to have your contribution edited mercilessly or deleted, do not submit it." (Or whatever it was it used to say.) —Steve Summit (talk) 22:37, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, I hope we can all agree with this. I still think there are poorly resolved issues surrounding our (lack of) consensus on how to weigh intent, intuition, and AGF in declarations of trolling/banned user posts, but no need to discuss them here in this thread, and perhaps they can never be resolved due to reasonable differences in perspective, goals and values. If anyone wants to have a civil conversation on the topic, my talk page is open. SemanticMantis (talk) 15:09, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
Thank you. Let me also add that, despite my somewhat harsh tone above, if someone is miffed because a golden gem of their prose got deleted, I'm sorry about that, it is indeed unfortunate, I'd be miffed, too. But it's all part of the program: Wikipedia simply is not the place for golden gems of prose that need guaranteed posterity. —Steve Summit (talk) 15:48, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
The discussion there doesn't look like the Refdesk's finest hour, but I think it would be interesting to see a discussion of Hitler's actual effect on the economy. For example, my perception is that a "jobs program" like the Autobahn, even if it technically 'improved' the economy, did so by reducing regular white Aryan Germans to the status of slave laborers. (Whether you can improve an economy by reducing the population to slave labor, as long as there's a lot of it, is itself a useful question to ask the Davos cogniscenti...) Wnt (talk) 03:40, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 January 2016

Hi, I see that the humanities ref desk has been 'protected'. I've created an account but that will take 4 days (and editing articles) for me to get access to ask a question. Is there a way to speed that up or do I just need to wait? Thanks Mike Dhu (talk) 22:24, 24 January 2016 (UTC) Ah, it appears I do have access to the ref desk after all, sorry! Mike Dhu (talk) 22:27, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Edit request

Can you post this to the language desk, thank you;

To my untrained Western ears, the voiceovers in these two scenes from two completely different anime sound strikingly similar in style and tone. They even seem to end with the same word(s) or phrase(s). However the translations are completely different with no similarities at all. 

"In the anime production studio, the men spending nights sleeping at their desks are about to meet a HackaDoll."

"Dear Diary, today I went to the forest and I met a bear."

Could you explain this to me, someone who doesn't speak a lick of Japanese? The voiceovers seem too similar to each other to be a coincidence. Is it a cultural thing? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Japanesequestion2016 (talk • contribs) 21:59, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Already done by Basemetal [5]. BTW, can you sign your edit requests with four tildes ~~~~ so people don't have to hunt around in the edit history to find your name and a timestamp. Nil Einne (talk) 01:07, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

What is this guy doing?

User:Jobatten (Special:Contributions/Jobatten) and anonymous user 203.220.30.241 have been fucking with the reference desk archives lately. They've been adding whole sections to archive files that had never been in the active reference desk pages the first place. Now I do think it is ok to update the archives with an additional small piece of information to a question that was asked that you've just happened to come by after the section was archived, for the benefit of future users of the archives, but addding whole sections that were never there gives a distorted view of what went on at the reference desk. I called Jobatten out on it on their talk page but instead of answering they just blanked their talk page. I reverted their edits in those cases I had noticed but I can't keep watching their every move, so an admin may want to look into the matter and see what they're up to and put them out of commission if they're up to no good. Contact Basemetal here 14:29, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Likely the same guy, answering his own questions, trying to make a point of some kind about Australia. Both should be blocked for WP:POINT. And this kind of thing could be prevented by protecting the archives, which there has been no consensus to do here. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:07, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
I reverted his additions to the Nov 23 archive, but they're very odd. I initially thought he was asking new questions there by mistake, but they're apparently signed contributions of someone else (and BB as well). Were those redacted contributions or something? Curious. Matt Deres (talk) 15:13, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
I don't recall doing that, but you can zap it if you want to. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:22, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
It looks like he copied and pasted from a different archive into the Nov 23 entry. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:26, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
Yes, the question and answer were posted to the Humanities desk on Nov 23.[6] ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:29, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
OK, this is it: The questions (along with my one response) were deleted soon after,[7] and the user who posted them, Likenunt (talk · contribs), was indef'd as a sock. So what this new ID Jobatten (talk · contribs) is doing is grabbing that deleted stuff and posting it to the archive. Jobatten and the IP are obviously the same guy, and socks of the sockmaster behind Likenunt. The subject matter suggests the banned user Bowei Huang. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:41, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
The subject matter, the geolocation, the style of question and the behaviour in messing around with the archives suggest Bowei Huang so I concur. I'm assuming their questions were deleted for the same reason and so they're trying to add them back. Ar least it's better than them deleting answers they don't like. Nil Einne (talk) 01:04, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
Maybe the trolling questions shouldn't have been deleted in the first place, eh? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:18, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
  • I think we need two things; an RfC to ask if archive tampering (ince they can't easily be put on a watchlist) is a matter worth taking action upon; then second, a proposal by the bureaucrats who can handle such matters, followed by a second vote on who to address the issue (protection, semiprotection, whatever) so we don't end up with a plurality of mehs preventing something from being done to stop this. μηδείς (talk) 23:24, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
Sure, start an RfC, I think it would be good to assess the need, especially since the technical problems seem non-trivial. SemanticMantis (talk) 15:30, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
I don't see the deletion of these questions as an essential action, and so their reintroduction into the archives doesn't really concern me. I don't see the need for any extraordinary response to this situation. Wnt (talk) 15:55, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Yet another semi-protected edit request

In WP:RD/L#Size for a building, please insert this (at an appropriate position and indentation) in response to StuRat's suggestion about "altitude":

@Jayron32: Thanks, I heartily agree, and I think many others do too. Any ideas on how to do this? You can just remove the protection, but then another admin can just put it back, right? I don't know how much our peasant !votes matter when the admins can't agree... SemanticMantis (talk) 15:25, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Scolding questioners and calling them troll for asking questions where the answer is easy to find

When is it appropriate to scold a questioner and say they must be a troll because the answer was easy to find by Googling? See [8] by Iridescent. The question of why cities used lead pipes for water is one that probably has occurred to lots of folks hearing about the troubles Flint. Michigan experienced from old lead pipes when the water chemistry was changed. A real-life reference librarian would likely be fired for similar scolding. If a question is scatalogical, racist, or gibberish it might well be trolling. If it is easy to answer, that does not seem a valid basis for a personal attack.Edison (talk) 20:58, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

I think it's better just to say something on the regular's talk page if you object to one comment. We do get a spate of ask-anythng type questions when school gets back in on Jan 19th, I could see that bothering some. There's also the fact that we very unwisely removed the suggestion to try a search engine, and that the inquirer let us know where they have already looked. Reinstating those guidelines can't hurt. μηδείς (talk) 23:17, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, I think it's good form to do a little googling before asking, but it is by no means required. I'd give User:Iridescent a WP:TROUTing for being rude; and remind them they are free to ignore any question. User:ScienceApe may be young, naive, or just capricious, but they've been around for a while with the same consistent and acceptable behavior. Really, googling is often what gets people into trouble with bad refs, and I have no problem with our desks serving as a way to point people to RS rather than random junk. Theoretically we can do better, and we can also help people learn to find refs themselves in a way that isn't "just google it". SemanticMantis (talk) 15:36, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
More then once over the past few years there have been laments that the Reference Desks are in decline, that among other things there are fewer and fewer good questions to answer any more. Now, from the point of view of someone who loves to show off their knowledge and/or provide high-quality, well-referenced answers, the question "Why do they make pipes out of lead?" is an excellent question. There is just no good reason we should in any way be discouraging questions like that.
There seem to be two objections to questions like the one about lead pipes:
  • "The answer could easily be found by Googling." So what! The answer to any question can theoretically be found by doing enough Googling and other research. But some people are better at doing research than others. Some people need help with their research. We here are (or at least, we claim to be) people who are both good at research and enjoy doing it pro bono for others. And it is not possible to draw a hard line between questions that are versus aren't so "obviously" easy to answer that they're inappropriate to ask. (Even if there were such a line, there is currently precisely zero language in our Guidelines to suggest that "obvious" questions are not welcome here, much less that asking too many of them might lead to sanctions against you.) As always, if someone asks a question that you're not interested in answering, just don't answer it.
  • "The questioner might be a troll." But there comes a point at which the all-out jihad against trolls becomes more disruptive than the trolling itself, and that point is certainly on display at these the Wikipedia Reference Desks. If "Why do they make pipes out of lead?" is trolling, then I for one would much rather have the trolling than the endless bitter futile recriminations about the trolling. —Steve Summit (talk) 16:16, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
Yes, Google provides an answer easily. We all know that Google is of a divine nature, that we hold these rights to be self-evident, that Google has the right to know everything you think of and wonder about, even down to building their cookies into Firefox before (and after) you've cleared or refused any other cookie on behalf of the NSA, etc. [9] Only Google (certainly not Wikipedia) has the right to serve up whole chunks of copyrighted textbooks to aid your researches, provided it is according to their random and holy will. Let all take a moment to do one of their five daily prayers to the company. But then let us, however timorously, suggest that maybe, for the particularly curious, it might be interesting to see if users come up with any other explanation beyond that which Google tops its results with, supposing that perhaps the questioner in his sinfulness has failed to establish a sufficiently well-personalized profile of his interests with the company. Wnt (talk) 16:54, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
First, any plain trouting, if necessary, belongs on the user's talk page. The Ref Desk talk page is not the Berating Regular Users Talk Page. That being said I have asked plenty of googlable questions here myself, mostly because the search terms are far too broad, or because I want the filter of the few score of regulars here who really do seem to know just about everything between them. I'd still argue we need to restore the "have you used a search engine" and "link to any sources you've accessed in relation to your question" guidelines. μηδείς (talk) 20:22, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
User talk page trouting universally leads to "No, you are completely wrong to question what I wrote." Consensus must come from a talk page or other common venue. Edison (talk) 01:55, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
Right now, it would be progress if we could get people to stop using the Reference Desk itself as a page for berating people with weird policy arguments. Wnt (talk) 03:08, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
I agree, even though I might be guilty of that myself at times. If you notice, maybe it's time to start trouting :) SemanticMantis (talk) 14:43, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
Self-trout for complaining about the scolding in the Ref Desk page itself initially before contacting the editor on his talk page,and coming here. Edison (talk) 15:17, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
  • I have said many times that neither the reference desks or the reference desk talk page should ever have any personal comment or criticism of another editor, and that we should enforce that rule with an iron fist. Such comments should be on the user's talk page if the problem is minor, and at ANI if it is major. Just look at the history here. Has this sort of behavior ever had a positive outcome? You would have to do a lot of searching to find an example. This page and the refdesks themselves should be about content, not about users. Can we at least try it my way as a strictly time-limited experiment? (Sarcasm:) of course we can't. What we are doing now is working so well, no possible change could possibly improve on the Utopia we have created... --Guy Macon (talk) 19:08, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
I don't know if it's that simple. If someone is giving bad info and no refs in response to a question on the ref desk, it is probably a good thing to point that out on the desk, lest OP or other readers mistake some of our WP:OR wild guesses for something more reliable or expert in nature. It's true that it's unprofessional for us to bicker with eachother on the ref desks, but it's also true that it's unprofessional to "answer" the way some of our users do. So I'll stop commenting on other's lack of references on-desk the day all our respondents learn how to properly reference their claims (or prove them from first principles, as sometimes applies on the math desk). SemanticMantis (talk) 21:07, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
There are ways to point out an error without attacking the user who made it. A simple "that's not correct" followed by the correct information should suffice. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:40, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
Yes, I was speaking of criticism of the post/info, not trying to justify personal attacks. SemanticMantis (talk) 15:39, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
If they take the approach I suggested, it can be posted right there in the section. Attacking each other in front of the OP is really bad form, and simply pointing out an error in a neutral voice should get the point across without showing somebody up. If that's inadequate, take it to a user's talk page, or to here if necessary. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:24, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Special:RecentChangesLinked search for recent changes to archives

The top box of WP:Reference desk/Archives includes links to check for recent changes to the archives of the various desks, but that works by running Special:RecentChangesLinked against the various Links_to_all_archives pages, and those have not been maintained since 2009. Here is what the page for RDC used to look like. I've updated it to be current through 2016 and also to be in a more readable piped link calendar format. (Human readability of the page is not important for the function of Special:RecentChangesLinked, but it might have other uses.)

Barring objections, I will update the pages for the other desks as well. -- ToE 06:57, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

None heard, so I've updated the rest of them. -- ToE 00:22, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

semi-protected edit request

In WP:RD/L#19th century French forms please append (with appropriate indentation) the following:

So, to make it explicit, the reason the clerk has filled in part of the appreviation is that d might begin either dame or damoiselle. Similarly higher on the form, note how another d is completed by turning it into du; if the man had come from a different canton it might have become de l' or perhaps de la. Anything to save one character of handwriting! --76.69.45.64 (talk) 04:32, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
 Done. Tevildo (talk) 08:10, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

I removed a spam post

[10] In general, what is the procedure for dealing with spam accounts like this one? Obviously, User:Testinodele should be blocked, but is there a place to report such accounts for blocking? I suppose it is WP:AN/I, although that seems too significant of a forum to deal with a minor irritant like this. --Viennese Waltz 12:38, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Spam is usually handled at AIV. And FWIW, the account has stopped and has apologized for doing so. So a block is unnecessary, so long as they don't start up again. --Jayron32 13:10, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Where do I raise this issue?

I've noticed that the misc desk is now semi-protected (again, still, whatever) [11]. The humanities desk is still under semi-protection as well. I'm finding this situation very disruptive, but only an admin can change the protection status. Admins themselves seem to be in some disagreement on the issue.

I do not wish to discuss this issue here at present, so please let's not get into that in this thread. Please only respond if you want to help answer my question.

My question is, where should this be discussed? Make an RfC? Village pump? ANI, or some other venue? Or does anyone think that the best thing is to do it here (despite that not succeeding in finding any consensus in the past)? Wherever it goes, ideally we could have the participation of all admins who are involved with the ref desks. I really don't know what the best option is, and was hoping someone here can help me out. Thanks, SemanticMantis (talk) 16:07, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

The right place from a perspective of where we are supposed to discuss this sort of thing would be, in order, a discussion here, an RfC here, a discussion at AN (not ANI), an RfC at AN, (optional; use only if there has already been an arbcom case) an arbitration enforcement request, an arbitration case. Steps that have already been tried can be skipped, but at each stage there should be a complete list of links to previous discussions. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:12, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
I believe that if we could demonstrate good consensus here (on this talk page) on our preferred course of action, that most/all admins would respect our decision. —Steve Summit (talk) 20:08, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
Yes. in the list of steps I posted above, if at any stage there is a consensus, the problem is solved and you skip the rest of the steps. Unless the local decision goes against some policy, the admins will help us by issuing blocks to anyone who refuses to go along with the consensus. The problem is that we have never reached a consensus on what to do, and are unlikely to do so anytime soon. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:27, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
We already have a de facto policy of limiting protection duration on community pages to a few hours to a few days such as with ANI (here is its protection log) verses the lengthier protections which are sometimes placed upon articles. Thus, I think the protection policy talkpage would be the best place to reach a consensus of what can be written into policy and guidance (Wikipedia:Rough_guide_to_semi-protection) that can be duly applied here. -Modocc (talk) 15:07, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
@Modocc: Yes, thank you! That rough guide is very useful. SemanticMantis (talk) 15:47, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request of the hour

In WP:RD/M#question about font design, if it does not duplicate someone else's response, please post:

Basically this is because if the letter really only extended down to touch the baseline at a single point, then there would be whitespace between the bottom curve and the baseline on both sides of that point. This creates the optical illusion that the bottom of the letter is higher than it really is, so it looks as if the bottom is too high. (Similarly with the top of letters like O and C: it would look too low, making the whole letter seem too small.) See baseline and this page. --76.69.45.64 (talk) 06:13, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
 Done. And I feel you; If I didn't think certain admins would wheel war over it, I'd have removed the protection long ago. C'est la guerre. --Jayron32 06:18, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Responses to "Where do I raise this issue?" section that address other issues/questions

The first question to be asked in such a forum should be what to do about the racist troll that keeps trying to infest the ref desk. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:20, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

We have discussed this particular problem a few times and have discussed similar problems many times, all without arriving at a consensus for a solution. The suggestion that you (Baseball Bugs) have made in the past have seemed sensible, but they didn't gain consensus either.
In my personal opinion (which of course will fail to attain consensus) there is an underlying problem that fuels multiple problems like the racist troll. This can be easily be shown to be highly probable by the fact that not only the troll we are discussing but all the other trolls have equal access to the help desk but do not disrupt it in any major way.
So, what do the help desk and dozens of other forums on Wikipedia do right that the reference desks do wrong? First, they do nothing to suppress the trolls, because everyone on the Internet but us knows that responding to a troll in any way leads to more and more trolling. They either answer the question or ignore the question, with zero attempts to control the behavior of other people. If someone becomes too disruptive, they take it to ANI, where the admins have a lot of experience dealing with even the most persistent IP hoppers. This doesn't work for us because ANI has rightly concluded that we as a group have decided to respond to and feed the trolls.
So again I ask, can we please agree to try the following as a limited-time trial experiment?
  • No personal comments on the refdesks or on refdesk talk of any kind. Not to trolls, not to regulars.
  • Make all personal comments on the user's talk page on at ANI.
  • Decide to follow WP:TPOC.
  • Ask ANI for help as needed, referencing the fact that as an experiment we are no longer responding to trolls here.
If there appears to be support for the above (which I predict there will not be) I can polish it a bit and run an RfC. If the consensus holds (which I doubt) we can then ask ANI to block any regular who refuses to follow the consensus. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:19, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
The blatant racism spouted by that troll would not be tolerated anywhere else on Wikipedia. Why should it be tolerated on the ref desk? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:42, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
Because the actions you call "not tolerating" are making the situation worse and encouraging increased trolling? It's as if you wrote "setting buildings on fire would not be tolerated anywhere else. Why should it be tolerated in my home town" after someone pointed out that it would be better to do nothing and let the firefighters work rather than "helping" by pouring gasoline on the fire. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:21, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
Banned users are not allowed to edit. Doing nothing allows them to edit. That is the wrong answer. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:31, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
And how are your efforts to "do something" working out for you? Has the trolling stopped?
Did I say do nothing? I said do nothing on the reference desks. Instead go to ANI and let them handle it. "Doing something" here on the refdesks is like trying to put out a fire with petrol. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:39, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
Reporting the troll to ANI is a waste of time and only feeds the troll. AIV with minimal fuss (and hopefully no comments here) is the way to go. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:32, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
To decline to semi-protect certain desks for months on end, to pursue other avenues against the troll instead, is not, repeat not, "tolerating" him or his racism. I cannot make this point strongly enough.
To say that just because he is particularly vile and particularly persistent, we somehow have no choice but to degrade the utility of the desks (against the stated wishes of almost everyone else) is not only to tolerate him but to empower him. But we do have a choice, and I thank SemanticMantis for calling the question. —Steve Summit (talk) 19:55, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
Until you all are willing to actually do something, semi-protection remains the best option. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:58, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
I'd prefer to just keep reverting him and blocking his IPs. I can only keep up so long as one person however, periodically I have to do things like have sex with people who love me. Since the person who does this kind of trolling obviously doesn't have that specific restriction on his time, he tends to be more persistent than I am. Still, I think that since several of us admins live in different time zones, and are thus presumably having sex (and other less interesting demands on our time) at different hours of the day, I think we can all keep up without protecting the desks against our sexually inactive antisemite. Just my feelings on the matter; I think persistent direct action in the form of reverts and blocks is better than protection. --Jayron32 06:23, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
That's your opinion. I do not believe it is the consensus here. (And your words Until you all are willing to actually do something are not helpful.) —Steve Summit (talk) 20:01, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
That's your opinion. But the consensus here, as usual, is to do nothing new or different. Until such time (if any) that there is agreement, page protection is the only method available. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:29, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
Not true. Wikipedia has ways to solve problems even when there is no agreement. Just follow the list I gave in the section above, one step at a time. And semi-protection is not the only tool available. There are edit filters, range blocks, pending changes protection, etc. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:39, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
Why not try the pending changes? Or are you paralyzed by "no consensus"? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:32, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
Support: I think that giving referenced, AGF answers or ignoring is best practice for 99.9% of questions we receive, see here for a good example just today [12]. SemanticMantis (talk) 19:53, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
Yes, that was a good example, but it was unfortunately followed by this and this. Sigh. -- ToE 03:28, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
That was the Ohio State University troll. SIGH. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:38, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
The point being that we don't have to lower ourselves to their level and start trading insults on the desk. -- ToE 13:30, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
I agree I should have said it in small print. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:51, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
One point I should make: the main problem at the moment - certainly, the reason that RD/M is locked - is not trolling or vandalism (although it goes on, of course), it's apparently legitimate postings by banned users (well, one particular banned user). This person is extremely persistent, and manual removal of their material makes the desk virtually unusable both for IP and logged-in editors, due to the near-continuous edit conflicts it generates. If we follow the above suggestions and don't take any steps other than ignoring them, we're unilaterally lifting their ban, which we don't have the authority to do. If there's a technically feasible alternative which will allow legitimate IP posting without minute-by-minute intervention being required, we should consider it, but I don't know whether such an alternative exists. Tevildo (talk) 20:49, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
That's it exactly. Banned users are not allowed to edit. Some editors here not only don't care about that rule, but also they enable the banned user. And that's why there is never consensus on what to do. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:26, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
There is of course a fundamental contradiction here:
  • Banned editors can't edit (in that they're not allowed to).
  • Banned editors can edit (in that they're technically able to).
Given this fundamental contradiction, we will never have an ideal solution.
  • Some editors believe that we must prevent editing by banned edits by any means necessary, no matter what the cost.
  • Some editors favor a more balanced approach, even if that means some edits by banned editors may occasionally leak through.
But I disagree with these statements:
  • "Why should [blatant racism] be tolerated on the ref desk?" Again, not semiprotecting forever does not equate to tolerating.
  • "If we follow the above suggestions, we're unilaterally lifting their ban." False. A banned editor is banned. If we revert most of a banned editor's edits, but a few (for whatever reason) stand, we have not lifted the ban. (And no one is suggesting merely ignoring them.)
  • "Some editors here [...] enable the banned user." If it were the case that the banned editor had mostly stopped editing, but then some enabling-style behavior gave the banned editor impetus to edit again, this argument might have some validity. But as been stated repeatedly, we've got some vandals/trolls/whatever that are so perniciously persistent that nothing (or so it is said) short of protection will stop them. But if that's true, then it's not possible to enable them any further; they're already maximally enabled.
Finally, Bugs, I wish you would stop making it sound like anyone who disagrees with you on these points is soft on, or is supportive of, trolls and vandals. There's a lack of good faith on your part there; I'm pretty sure most of us are fully against trolls and vandals. (I know you and I disagree pretty strongly, but for my part, I'm trying not to say things like "Some people want to destroy the desks in order to save them" any more.) —Steve Summit (talk) 21:48, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
You do not assume any good faith on my part, so don't expect to be treated any better. And most of your complaints immediately above are incorrect. You talk about "consensus". I talk about trying something, and you won't try it. If you won't try, then you're doing nothing, and hence continuing to enable the troll. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:04, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
Can I clarify something? What, exactly, is the proposal from the "anti-protection" side to deal with (non-vandal, non-trolling) banned users (in practice, Vote X)? It would appear from Steve's posting that we should let "a few" of their edits stand. I assume this isn't a correct interpretation. WP:TPOC states that "Removing prohibited material such as ... violations of ... banning ... policies" is acceptable, so, interpreting that literally, we'd go back to the position where Vote X posts as fast as the rest of us can delete, and the board becomes unusable. What is the proposal for dealing with this particular problem, not "vandalism" in general? Tevildo (talk) 22:25, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
My belief as to the proper way of dealing with vandalism / banned edits (including the kind you're talking about) is simply:
  1. Revert.
  2. If after X minutes or Y reversions you're getting tired, enlist an admin to (semi)protect the page for up to Z hours.
  3. Repeat as necessary.
What we're arguing about, I believe, is the values of the thresholds for X, Y, and Z. In current practice, on the Reference Desks, X and Y are typically lower and Z is much higher than I at least am comfortable with.
But of course different people have legitimately different opinions on what X, Y, and Z should be. The appropriate values may also change over time. (The appropriate values are also certainly different for different kinds of pages which suffer different kinds of vandalism. Barack Obama is pretty much semi'ed forever, and I don't think anyone's complaining about that.)
When I refer to the possibility of some vandalism "leaking through", what I mean is that if X is relatively large, and if the number of people doing the reverting is small, there is a higher probability that, before the page is protected, some of the vandalism may remain visible for a significant period of time. (It will certainly get reverted eventually.) But if you want to add another variable to the model, let W be the average amount of time that a given vandalizing edit will be visible. As X goes up, W tends to go up, too. Earlier I said "Some people believe that we must prevent editing by banned editors by any means necessary", and those people tend to favor reducing W to an absolute minimum, too.
I guess you could say I'm more of a eventualist on vandalism reversion than some people here. —Steve Summit (talk) 22:55, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
I would amend that idea the following way: Revert once and see if the troll puts it back. If he does, don't get into a revert war; take it to AIV and wait for the troll to be blocked. Then revert again. Often an admin will see it and will simply block and revert. For us peasants, revert-report-revert works in the short run. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:03, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
Tevildo asks "What is the proposal for dealing with this particular problem, not "vandalism" in general?" My proposal is that we all face reality, admit that what we have done in the past has not worked, admit that we cannot agree on what to do in the future (which probably won't work anyway) and turn the problem over to the administrators. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:04, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
This approach has recently resulted in an ArbCom referral, with two administrators being officially reprimanded but no real practical progress. (Not an uncommon result of ArbCom referrals, but that's a different issue). "The administrators" are not a monolithic entity with a fixed, universal set of opinions. There are plenty of things that administrators can do - how are they to decide what to do? Tevildo (talk) 08:04, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
The usual way is:
  1. A discussion here (done, no consensus) If there is no consensus, go to the next step.
  2. A well-crafted and neutrally worded RfC here listing all of the suggested solutions from all of the previous discussions. (not done. we have had RfCs, but not as I just described) If there is a consensus (which I doubt), report anyone who refuses to follow the consensus at ANI. If there is no consensus, go to the next step.
  3. A discussion at AN (not ANI) explaining that we have a problem and cannot reach consensus on how to solve it. If there is a consensus among the admins, they will implement it. If there is no consensus, go to the next step.
  4. A well-crafted and neutrally worded RfC at AN, listing all of the suggested solutions from admins gathered from the previous step. If there is a consensus among the admins, they will implement it. If there is no consensus, go to the next step.
  5. An arbcom case, starting with a list of the steps that that have already been tried.
I would add one thing that isn't actually required but really helps. Instead of posting an RfC straight away, post a proposed RfC on a subpage and work with the other editors here to improve it, then post the resulting RfC. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:44, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
Since we are indeed discussing the issues here now, I'd ask everyone participating to carefully read and consider Wikipedia:Rough_guide_to_semi-protection that Modocc provided for me above. I was previously unaware of this document, and I see no reason why we shouldn't see what happens when we try to apply it to our case.
It is my stance that our pages do not meet the criteria for semi-protection, based on the rough guideline. We do have valuable contributions from IPs (recall that questions are very valuable too, without them we have no purpose!), and vandalism/trolling edits are not above the 5% threshold that is the estimated average for any WP page. Seriously, I find it hard to believe that any troll or vandal has made 5% of of the edits that are made onlyby the set of myself, Baseball Bugs, and StuRat, let alone our whole community of regular contributors.
Now, forget about what I think, let's try some numbers: I counted the edits in the 72 hours prior to the protection. I got 15 troll/vandal/banned edits, and 148 total. So that puts us at a rate of 10% bad faith edits, well below the WP average (ETA above the average for that window.) Disclaimer:I counted manually and quickly, I likely made some errors. Also, in fairness, there was one chunk of time where the ratio was 8/39, indicating there was a brief period of concentrated bad-faith edits. If anyone would like to propose better actual statistics for our desks, or even just methods for gathering them, I'd be grateful.
My conclusion is that, on a scale of days to weeks, our bad faith edit count is well below the WP average, and below the need for semi-protection, and certainly below the need that demands semi-protections that last longer than a few days. SemanticMantis (talk) 16:26, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
You might want to check your maths. 15 out of 148 are how many percent? Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:22, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
Oops, corrected. I made a typo and then reasoned off of it. I gave up counting after 72 hours, but I still think the weekly rate is not far from 5%. SemanticMantis (talk) 21:11, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
P.S. Are there any administrators reading or posting in this thread? Otherwise it is indeed quite useless. Because as long as one administrator wants to put in long-term semi-protection, then only other admins can change it, and in my experience admins try not to revert or argue other admins, even if they disagree. Hence we have the situation where one person effectively has authoritarian control over protection status at the ref desks, and that is why I started the thread above in the first place. SemanticMantis (talk) 16:52, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
Since administrator action is required regardless of any changes to policy or this essay (which I think should be revised especially its last section regarding protection duration), I'd take our concern to AN. FWIW, I'd like to see the policy guidance tweaked, but I'm far too busy to see it through myself though; for I think we are seeing the raw end of an unfortunate double-standard, for I seriously doubt that administrators would permit escalating the protection duration of ANI to weeks on end no matter how frequently it gets attacked. --Modocc (talk) 17:21, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
Here are my coments. First, User:SemanticMantis considers the frequent semi-protection of the Reference Desks to be very disruptive. I respectfully disagree. I am not one of those who is particularly concerned about the rights and privileges of unregistered editors. (In my opinion, giving them nearly the same privileges as registered editors was a mistake more than a decade ago that is not likely to be changed, but we don't need to worry about keeping the Reference Desk open to unregistered editors.) It is far more important to preserve the use of the reference desks by registered editors, and, since we have a long history of quarreling with each other about how to deal with trolls, using semi-protection as Troll-Be-Gone is helpful. I didn't always agree with User:Guy Macon that nothing is accomplished by arguing with each other at this talk page, but I do now. We should reserve this talk page for productive discussions about the reference desks, not unproductive ones. Also, as noted, report the trolls at WP:AIV, not at WP:ANI. Action is quicker at AIV. The fact that the troll is not a vandal in the strict sense is not important. They are an editor whose objective is to damage Wikipedia. I think that semi-protection should be longer, not shorter. Good-faith unregistered editors can always either make edit requests, or, better, register accounts and then make edit requests that will count toward the 10 edits in 4 days. To those editors like SemanticMantis who think that semi-protection is disruptive, what do they propose be done about troll posts? Ignore them? That is fine, but some editors won't ignore troll posts, but will delete them, which is also fine, or will delete them and the responses, which results in quarreling and is exactly what the troll wants. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:01, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
Hey, I started out asking for other places to go, only chiming back in when it was clear some people wanted to discuss. But since you asked, I tend to agree with Guy - trolls/vandals/etc don't bother the help desks, and I think his proposed reasons are compelling. Also I see the ref desk as a public service. If a user doesn't want to help the IPs, they don't have to. Me, I like to help the the young, the old, the ESL speakers, the public computer users, and other "random" sorts that show up as IPs. If you want a walled garden for questions and answers that requires registration and may have heavy moderation, there are tons of other options. Reddit, StackExchange, Quora, Facebook, Yahoo, etc. You don't have to like it, but WP is a place where everyone is supposed to have equal rights. Honestly, I'D rather have an open desk with more deletions than a closed desk. SemanticMantis (talk) 21:11, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
As I said, I disagree about the deletions. First, some editors have been too quick to delete questions that may not be troll questions, and that results in editors quarreling, which is exactly what the troll wants. Second, sometimes not only the troll post but the replies are deleted, and that annoys the replying editors, and results in quarreling, and that is exactly what the troll wants. We have shown that we don't work together effectively at dealing with trolls, so I see it as better to lock the trolls out. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:14, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
I think you may have misunderstood what I wrote regarding ANI for I did not bring it up as a place to report trolling. Instead, what I meant was that ANI is also frequently attacked by trolls and it is also frequently semi-protected, but the periods imposed there are always temporary from simply a few hours to few days (the term temporary is actually per policy BTW). It is only the rough guide (an essay) that states that semi-protection can be tried for weeks or more at a time and I don't think that time frame would be considered temporary at ANI or at any of the other community venues such as at the Village Pump. -Modocc (talk) 23:35, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

mobile version has no TOC

..so i have to switch to desktop version of this page (and the other refdesk pages) to see a Table of Contents. is it possible to change the mobile version to include a (collapsible?) TOC ? sorry if this is wrong place to ask. 172.56.13.105 (talk) 11:16, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Archiving delay

The Mediawiki/Wikipedia login/authentication framework is changing, and scsbot is currently unable to log in. Until I can get this worked out, the Help Desk and Reference Desks won't be archived, and we're going to have to add the date headers by hand. I expect this will be resolved in a day or two; I hope we won't have to resort to manual archiving (which is a plain nuisance). —Steve Summit (talk) 13:03, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Are the changes strictly about bots, or do they also plan to impact registered users eventually? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:06, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
The changes are not strictly about bots. As I understand it, the login path for normal, interactive users will likely be changing in visible ways, for example to introduce the possibility of two-factor authentication. See this message, which is about all I know so far, either. —Steve Summit (talk) 15:52, 22 January 2016 (UTC) [But please note I said possibility, not requirement. —scs]
Oy. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:57, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
The bot is barely working for the moment, though more than by luck than by design. Tonight's run has caught up and finished, and likely tomorrow's, too. If I can beat the cut-off and finish making the required changes before WMF finishes deploying the changes that demand them, we'll be fine, otherwise I may be back here asking for help/forgiveness again soon. —Steve Summit (talk) 02:21, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
Welcome back Scsbot! I was just about to break out the helper scripts to aid the hand archiving process, but I'm glad to see you back on the job. Thanks for all the work you regularly do. -- ToE 03:25, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Sigh. Presumably because of the ongoing WMF changes, the bot got confused last night and... duplicated all the archived content. (I swear that thing's developing a mind of its own. Not being able to log in or do anything at all I could understand, but performing a step twice? There's no code for that! Reminds me of this old imbroglio.) —Steve Summit (talk) 12:18, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Update: I didn't want that to happen again, but I didn't have time to investigate, so I didn't run the bot at all for a couple of days, and today, it seems to be working again, all by itself. (Perhaps the ongoing WMF changes involved a bug that they fixed, or a new feature that they rolled out and rolled back but will be rolling out again.) All in all, I fear that dear old scsbot is probably on its last legs... —Steve Summit (talk) 11:57, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
Would that the overpaid WMF project managers were on their last legs. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:13, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 February 2016

Iowa Caucus question

This question is coming from a British guy that has never been to the United States. Why did Hilary Clinton lose to Obama on 2008, and what do folks on the ground really think of Hilary Clinton this time round? What is the consensus? Thank you! --Commonîo (talk) 21:27, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Commonîo (talk) 21:27, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

 Done Tevildo (talk) 22:10, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Edit request – new question: Spelling of La Guardia

At the German Wikipedia we are wondering how Fiorello La Guardias surname should be spelled – as one word with camelcase G or as two words? The articles of the English Wikipedia tend to the spelling with two words, however some official documents and websites such as the report of the La Guardia Committee [13] and the website of the LaGuardia Foundation [14] spell his name as a single word. Which one is right and does it matter at all? --BlackEyedLion (talk) 08:55, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

 Done. Posted to RD/L. Tevildo (talk) 09:01, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Edit request Mathematics

Commenting to the question about how people used to do mathematics. I'm curious about something 186.146.10.154 (talk) 12:18, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

What exactly were the steps, or the algorithm to find out the values of the logarithm, sine or cosine tables? Back then There were like 1000 values for each table, but if you did not have the table, was it really impossible to do these calculations? 186.146.10.154 (talk) 12:18, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

 Done Placed on math desk. I see FPAS has semi-protected the MATH desk now. What a pain. SemanticMantis (talk) 16:10, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 February 2016

the article about the Haber Process [1]: Under "The Process" is written: This conversion is typically conducted at [....] 150–250 bar and between 400–500 °C And a little further down: [...] the ammonia synthesis loop operates at pressures ranging from [....] 60–180 bar Unless I missed something there is a contradiction here. Could someone clarify? 92.111.189.56 (talk) 08:30, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haber_process

 Done Placed on the science desk. --Modocc (talk) 09:13, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Chart system

Will we ever have a Pie/Bar/____ chart system "tab" next to "user page" and "talk page" for our user account, to notify us our activity(s) of requiring/providing assistance, the community(s) - such as WP community for science/religion... - that we are involved in and how much we've been useful/not useful, and so on? -- Mr. Zoot Cig Bunner (talk) 20:05, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

This question belongs at the Help Desk and under your actual user name. μηδείς (talk) 02:49, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
: Could you do the honours please? I believe, you are more admiring in WP than me. -- Apostle (talk) 18:48, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 February 2016

Please add this answer to the Humanities Desk, the Feb 2 question Dewey classification. Thank you. 184.147.121.46 (talk) 21:31, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

This mock test and explanation written by a librarian may be helpful. 184.147.121.46 (talk) 21:31, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
 Done Tevildo (talk) 21:36, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Today's first semi-protected edit request

Please add under WP:RD/H#Thought experiments, ethics, and cause:

An interesting real-life example is the court case resulting from the death of Sammy Yatim in Toronto, where the man who undisputedly killed him was acquitted of murder, but convicted of attempted murder. --76.69.45.64 (talk) 06:38, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
 Done. Deor (talk) 07:45, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 February 2016

Bernie Sanders had a father from Poland, yet why does Sanders not have a Polish surname? --Figerio Addgaf (talk) 21:50, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Figerio Addgaf (talk) 21:50, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

 Done. I wasn't quite sure where to add this, but since it's a politics-related query, I put it on the Humanities desk. Deor (talk) 21:58, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 February 2016

Please post this answer to the Humanities Desk, the question Any treaty against ballistic missiles. Thank you.184.147.121.46 (talk) 19:25, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

The category Treaties of North Korea may be help. The country is apparently been signatory to at least 90 international treaties. These are not always transparently named but at a glance, most of them are not weapons-related. According to our article, North Korea was a signatory to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, but withdrew in 2003. 184.147.121.46 (talk) 19:25, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
Done. Matt Deres (talk) 19:38, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
Thank you Matt Deres. 184.147.121.46 (talk) 23:13, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected you-know-what

Please append to WP:RD/C#Is there any computational method that's neither a numerical method, nor a symbolic method?:

  • Standard digital computers can be understood as doing everything by symbolic methods, including numerical computation; and the way I see the word "computation", that's really the only kind there is. However, you may consider what an analog computer does to qualify as computation (rather than as an alternative method used instead of computation). In that case it would qualify as an answer. --76.69.45.64 (talk) 23:13, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
 Done ―Mandruss ☎ 06:45, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request

Please post the following at an appropriate location and indentation in WP:RD/M#Amount of dollar prizes in lottery ticket games:

In Canada's Lotto 6/49, the smaller prizes are flat amounts. So we can imagine a scenario where there are 10,000,000 tickets sold (at $3 each) and 40% of the people buying them all decide to choose the numbers 1, 2, 3, and three others. If 1, 2, and 3 did in fact turn out to be among the numbers drawn, then the lottery would be obligated to pay out $40,000,000 in $10 prizes (in addition to any major prizes), despite taking in only $30,000,000 on tickets. The official rules, at least in Ontario, make no exception for this situation. Of course, the probability of something like this happening by chance is ridiculously small, and it's not considered a concern worth worrying about. --76.69.45.64 (talk) 21:55, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
 Done ―Mandruss ☎ 22:07, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Another straw poll?

Glutton for punishment that I am, I am wondering if a straw poll on the following narrow question would clarify anything:

In your opinion, is it appropriate to semi-protect the Reference Desks for more than one day at a time?

Of course I have my opinion, but what I would really be interested in is determining the consensus on this question. If a consensus could be shown that lengthier semiprotection is appropriate, that's fine, and I would be happy to stop arguing about it and move on.

(For the record, this is more or less the same question I was trying to indirectly get at earlier in the "Straw poll on primary goal in antivandalism efforts here" thread.)

This would be a strict support/oppose poll, with no further discussion. (Jimbo knows we've had more than enough of that already.) In fact, if I were to run such a poll, I would be strongly tempted to run it with the explicit proviso that "Any words beyond 'Support' or 'Oppose' will be summarily moved to a separate further-discussion section."

But for the moment (rather like SemanticMantis in his thread above), all I'm asking is, "Is this poll a good or bad idea, or how would you alter it?" (In particular, perhaps the useful appropriateness threshold should be two days.) —Steve Summit (talk) 15:46, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't think the length of semi-protection is really the issue; imposing a maximum period will just result in semi-protection being lifted then re-applied very quickly when that period expires, if we maintain the de facto status quo on our response to "prohibited" (to use the term from WP:TPOC) postings. What we need to decide, or at least attempt to decide, is how to respond to such postings - if semi-protection isn't acceptable, what are the alternatives? Tevildo (talk) 17:28, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
Some editors continue to bring up a Q&A site called "StackExchange". I don't know how it works or how to get to it. But if the ref desks were to consist solely of external links to that site, the trolls would become their problem. And it is claimed they have low tolerance for trolls or flaming. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:34, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
I think, first, that yet an other straw poll on strict time limits for semi-protecting the Reference Desk is not a good idea, second, that any wording of a straw poll that starts off with a time limit is not a good idea, because it implies that keeping the Reference Desks free for unregistered editors is more important than keeping the desks from of trolling, and, third, long periods of semi-protection are likely to be necessary until the WMF can respond to the idea of User:Newyorkbrad and take legal action against the trolls rather than playing Whack-a-Mole with them. As I have said before, I understand that some editors have said that, because it is extremely important to keep the Reference Desks open to unregistered editors, we should follow a policy of prudently deleting or ignoring the troll posts. However, we have already seen repeatedly that we, the Help Desk regulars, are not capable of a prudent response to the trolls other than to lock them out, because we do not have a consensus on how to deal with them, and therefore we quarrel, which is exactly what the trolls want. I do not favor any straw poll of any sort, because a straw poll is not binding and just leads to arguments both during it and after it. I might be in favor of properly worded RFCs about dealing with the troll, even though such efforts have been inconclusive in the past, as long as the RFC were not on the length of the semi-protection but on how to deal with the troll posts, as long as the RFC doesn't infringe on extended semi-protection. That is my opinion. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:15, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
I don't think StackExchange is a good, or even roughly analogous, model for the RefDesk. Firstly, they have 150 very narrow fields of enquiry. We have just eight - one of which is a "Miscellaneous" catch-all. What that means is that each of our desks has to accept a much wider, more diverse range of questions than StackExchange - which makes it harder to pin down a person as a troll. Secondly, StackExchange has a voting system and a "hold" system that's implemented formally and has teeth in the way the site is implemented. Another big thing that helps them is that there are no "anonymous" users - everyone has to sign up with a verified email address - which makes blocking the bad guys much easier. If Wikipedia banned write-access to anonymous users - and provided formal mechanisms for putting posts "on hold" - then we would be less at the mercy of the bad-guys.
Our problem is that we have to work within the infrastructure of Wikipedia - and that means being stuck with software that we can't easily change - and also forced to accept the rules, guidelines and culture of the web site we inhabit.
The big problem here is that with most Wikipedia pages, the vast number of users only need to be able to read them - a vanishingly small percentage ever edit them - so a block on anonymous users doesn't really impede the usefulness of the article. But a questions-and-answers page where a huge fraction of our readership can't ask questions is really a problem.
My biggest concern is with how a "troll" is identified here. It really pisses me off when I see a perfectly cromulant question - I spend 10 minutes researching an answering it - and then find that the whole thing has been hatted an hour later. When the question is not overtly trollish - do we have an actual troll in the first place? SteveBaker (talk) 18:51, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Regardless of the issue at hand, I will offer this advice. First, conduct a poll on whether the status quo is okay, or if a change needs to be made. Only then conduct a second poll, offering alternative changes, if the preliminary "a change needs to be made" faction wins in the first vote. If you offer 8 options up front, no option will win. For those old enough to remember, there was something like 80% support for rebuilding the Twin Towers after 9/11. It was pretty much a forgone conclusion, but various vested real-estate interests and office-holders beholden to their lobbyists didn't want so much real estate to go on the market so soon.
Hence the Port Authority, at the behest of one of its board members, held a contest between 8 different options, one of which was rebuilding, and the second of which was something like the current design. The other six options were all spoilers, meant to take votes away from the option to rebuild. Behind closed doors, it was decided that the predetermined "Freedom" tower would be built, because the "foot prints" of the North and South Towers was declared "sacred ground". The fact that they could simply built East and West Towers, caddy-corner to the former towers was ignored, and an "admin" decided for the current building even though 80% of the electorate voted otherwise.
So please, first ask if the system is broken, then offer a few simple alternatives to fix it. User:Medeis

\

User:Medeis - In my opinion, we nearly all agree that the system is broken. Maybe you disagree, because you may think that your policing of the Reference Desks keeps them working, but most of us disagree. We know that you are acting in good faith. You are probably doing the best that you can. I think that most of us agree that the system is broken, but we disagree so completely as to how it is broken that it is inconceivable that a poll will find how to fix it. It will be difficult enough to fix it with a true RFC. I think that the appropriate fix is one that is beyond our capabilities, and that is to ask the WMF to take action to suppress the troll. I think that the second-best action is long semi-protection, because that merely results in grumbling about the semi-protection, rather than the hostility resulting from efforts to fix the system. So in proposing the first RFC, on whether the system is broken (and, please, no straw polls), we need to be very careful how we define brokenness. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:44, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for signing the above for me, Robert. I wouldn't have bothered to add the advice on how to avoid logjam by dilution if I thought the system wasn't broken. I do neither the majority, nor the plurality of the troll-patrolling here, just as I don't find that I compulsively have to answer every question posted. Of course the problem with a self-appointed parliament of the whole is that no precedent stays in place. At one point removing material by a troll was supposed to be done with notice here, then it was decided that simply brought the troll more pleasure in the drama, and that material should just quietly be deleted. If the question is, are trolls a problem that require addressing, my answer is yes. Since I do not semiprotect, or have the ability to set up a pending-edit filter or so forth, that's not something I'll opine on now. μηδείς (talk) 01:12, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
I agree that the question "Is there a problem with ill-behaved OP's that needs fixing?" is separate from "How do we fix it?" - but I'm reasonably sure that a "Yes!" answer to the first question already has consensus. But if people here would like to ask it formally - then at least we could put that part to bed and move on by running a quick !vote. SteveBaker (talk) 18:57, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
Yes, my point is that if we first establish that there is a problem that needs addressing we can simply omit the "there is no problem" option, and offer a few 2 or 3, solutions. At that p[oint a majority consensus can be found. Otherwise, vote dilution. μηδείς (talk) 02:53, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
I have no problem with doing a quick poll to establish whether there is a problem or not. If we're going to do that then there are really two problems to poll. I'd suggest:
  1. In your opinion, would the degree of trolling on the ref desks be unacceptable if we did nothing to control it?
  2. If "Yes": Do we need to reform the current efforts to control the problem?
I'm fairly sure that the consensus will be "yes" and "yes"...but neither question is entirely uncontroversial. SteveBaker (talk) 16:59, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Support narrower polls and discussions here, both in this case and in general. It's clear lots of us have lots of feelings, and this is all rather complicated. It can be very counterproductive to go off on huge (old, well-trodden) tangents in the middle of an otherwise simple thread. I have been guilty of that behavior too, but I've noticed it and I've been working on it :) SemanticMantis (talk) 15:25, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
Polling is a subtle art. For example, should we offer all possible remedies as alternatives or as a menu of options of which several might be adopted? Should we add ground rules that all of the options we poll on already pass muster as things that are implementable within the MediaWiki framework - and which are acceptable under existing Wikipedia rules and guidelines? (IMHO, yes - there is no point in complicating matters by getting agreement on something that we can't implement).
SteveBaker (talk) 19:28, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
This is, of course, a good point - before we try and decide what we _should_ do, we'll need to establish what we _can_ do, both technically and within Wikipedia rules. Putting together such a list might be something which has some hope of reaching a result here. Tevildo (talk) 21:07, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
IMHO, the problem here is not with what to do about trolls - I believe we could come to consensus on a course of action in such cases. The problem that most concerns me is how we're identifying the trolls in the first place. I'm a big fan of not feeding the troll - but very, very often - I'll see a reasonable question from an OP and answer it - only to find that this person has mysteriously been labelled as a troll. There never seems to be any backing evidence - and such accusations always seem to come WAY too late to prevent inadvertent troll nutrition cycles.
Perhaps we could hold up questions in some kind of an unprotected queue until they pass whatever magic troll-filter we might erect? That way, "bad" questions would never appear in the main feed and trolls that fail the filter would absolutely never get fed. That's a relatively easy thing to implement - all we need is a bot that moves questions from an unprotected feed into the main ref desk pages. The main desk page could then be left unprotected and we could easily check to see that the question has passed the filter before we answer it. There are enough concerned people here that questions added without filtering could simply be removed or pushed into the filter manually. Such a mechanism might only add a few hours of delay.
My problem remains though - what criterion are we using in that filter? SteveBaker (talk) 19:28, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
The criteria are subjective, and that's fine to a point. What bugs me is that when I've asked the removing editor how they know post X is from a specific banner user or why a post is considered trolling, I've been told that I just need to trust my betters, and that explaining the rationale is troll feeding! So I've just stopped asking. SemanticMantis (talk) 20:13, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
It's not just troll-feeding, it would be giving away the "tells" that identify the troll to those with experienced eyes. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:14, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
Obviously, the way to recognize a troll or banned user depends on the case. Why would anybody expect a single "criterion"? For example, the racism troll is dead easy to spot: brand-new account, generic username, one-sentence question dealing with nazis, black people or Jewish people, usually worded in such a way so as to presuppose the truth of some racist talking point. The "Ohio" troll is a bit less obvious, but if you see an IP asking a question that appears to be deliberately daft or provocative, check their past contribs or scan the page history for similar IPs to see if they have a pattern asking more questions of the same kind. If yes, use WHOIS; if it's Ohio State University, it's them. Similar for "WickWack". As for "Vote (X)", their posts are extremely easy to WP:DUCK-test on discussion pages (any IP that turns up posting unsolicit rants and incoherent jumbles of links to complain about how other Vote X socks have been blocked or prevented from editing by evil administrators, guess who it is?). On the Refdesk itself, it's not quite as easy, as their contributions will mostly appear harmless at first sight (apart from usually being vaguely off-topic), unless they are using the same IP for both kinds of postings or you just keep track of their typical IP ranges (there's a list at WP:Long-term abuse/Vote (X) for Change; the 86.150.*–86.160.* range is the safest giveaway). In any case, before you answer a posting from an IP user, the least thing you should do is to check their contrib history; in a lot of cases that will give you some hints. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:03, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
Do you have any idea how many people use Ohio State University IPs every day? I do [15], and it tells me that using an OSU IP is absolutely not a sane condition for naming someone a troll. And even if there is just one person from OSU who asks questions about human sexuality, what's the problem? You are the one making it a problem, the rest of us have learned to either give a brief informative answer or move on. If your criteria for trolling includes "this user may enjoy our answers", then again, that's not, in my opinion, a sane approach to running a public reference desk. If you don't want to volunteer at a public desk, there are other places you can spend your time. SemanticMantis (talk) 16:05, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
Oh, and I see you now have closed off the math desk to IPs, and hatted a question based on the IP being in OHIO. Do you knot that OHIO is an entire state, with a population of ~11.5 million people? I'm sure lots of them have wondered about the history of math and computation. I've removed your hatting. If you want to follow the rules of WP:BRD, please feel free to start a new discussion on the topic below, and you can try to find WP:CONSENSUS instead of unilateral action. SemanticMantis (talk) 16:13, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
Yeah - thanks Bugs - you've just confirmed my worst fears. Your argument is precisely the argument made by Medieval Witch-hunters...not just close...exactly that. This has to end.
If there are criteria - then lets expose them to the light where they can be debated, and we can check that there aren't rouge elements amongst us using an entirely incorrect set of criteria. If trolls learn of these criteria and stop exhibiting them, then we've successfully stopped them from doing the things we don't like. If they find new ways of being annoying, then add that to the list.
The argument "I know this person is a troll because I have years of experience and I'm not going to tell you why" is entirely bogus and 100% contrary to Wikipedia's modus operandii. Wikipedia operates by openness of process - except in very specific cases where people's personal information is at stake - we operate in public where our processes can be seen, documented and verified. Do you seriously believe that a system where a rogue cabal, using hidden sets of criteria to delete content and hound specific users without the right of appeal or even an explanation as to what they were accused of doing would pass muster at WP:ANI? If that's the way you (and the usual gang of self-proclaimed troll-hunters) want to play it - let's take it to ANI and see how many microseconds this witch-hunt can last without being flamed into oblivion!
I can come up with several people who started out by asking seemingly weird questions - often at high rates - and were widely suspected of being trolls - but who eventually turned out to be entirely reputable and are now ref desk regulars.
WP:AGF
SteveBaker (talk) 16:28, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
Trolls love it when you let their stuff stand and debate about it. "This has to end." Permanent semi-protection would pretty well end it. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:42, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
I disagree with User:Baseball Bugs about various things, but I agree here. The damage done by the troll or trolls and our inconsistent approach to dealing with the troll or trolls outweighs the need to keep the Reference Desks open to unregistered users. I know that this view is unpopular with some of the Reference Desk regulars, but I ask them to propose a strategy that we will all buy onto for consistently dealing with the trolls other than semi-protection. I think that semi-protection is the least undesirable approach, given that it doesn't result in the regulars quarreling with each other (which is what the troll wants), only in some of the regulars grumbling. If one thinks that semi-protection is really unacceptable, I suggest that they first propose a policy that we can apply consistently that won't result in our quarreling with each other. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:57, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
By the way, I also agree with User:SteveBaker that relying on unpublished knowledge to identify trolls is undesirable. I think that Bugs is saying that we have to do that if the trolls continue to post to the Reference Desks. Relying on unpublished knowledge to identify trolls is one of the possible strategies that will make things worse by making the regulars quarrel. Semi-protection merely makes some of them grumble. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:00, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
Semi protection works well for regular articles (and I've advocated for that degree of protection many times in the past). It works because there is a natural distinction between "Editors" and "Readers" of our articles. When we semi-protect, we shut out IP Editors (which tend to be a relatively small proportion of committed editors - but a very large proportion of vandals) - but we still allow anyone to read the page. So the large numbers of innocent IP Readers don't suffer at all. If we substitute the word "User" for "Reader" - we're doing no damage whatever to the users - and small, but arguably acceptable, damage to the editors.
But here at the ref desks, our "Users" are also required to be "Editors" - that's the mechanism we have here - you ask questions by editing the page. So by semi-protecting, we cut off a huge number of perfectly innocent IP "Users" of the page - which sharply diminishes its usefulness and goes hard against Wikipedia's guiding principles of the free spread of knowledge and access to all.
Since semi-protection started, the numbers of questions has dropped precipitously. I think it may well be the eventual death-knell for WP:RD if we don't stop it.
So, what should we do?
It's extremely well-established that the only way to defeat a troll is to starve him/her of recognition. Without recognition, they do eventually get bored and move on.
IMHO, the way to solve this is to get rid of semi-protection - and to put a firm leash on the vigilante troll-hunters - who are stoking the fires of recognition to the max.
When you, personally, suspect someone of being a troll - or is just asking some stupid scatalogical (or whatever) question that you don't like, you should simply scroll past it. Do not answer it...not at all...not one word...no hatting...no deleting...no posting here to ask...NOTHING. Then we need to instill a culture of responsibility amonst our editors. Rule #1: DO NOT ANSWER DUBIOUS QUESTIONS. Make that the responsibility of editors - mostly fairly smart people, mostly people we can converse with at a sane level.
Now: The recognition of trolls and the definition of what constitutes a troll becomes a shared responsibility - "crowd-sourcing" if you like. A matter of culture. We can write columns of advice for troll-spotting - but if an evil-doer violates the spirit of those rules - or simply finds a new way to be annoying - our culture says that we just ignore them.
With that done, we have a new problem. What about people who continually provide answers to clearly trollish questions? This is something that we can try to deal with without getting the trolls excited. Firstly, we shouldn't try to respond instantly on a case-by-case basis...if we establish a pattern of one editor answering inappropriate questions, then lets quietly talk to that editor...preferably out of WP:RD altogether - on their talk page maybe. Point out that this is not how our culture here works. Perhaps offer them mentorship - "If you're thinking of answering a question, maybe you should email your mentor first?"...that kind of educational approach.
If a question goes unanswered for a while - implying that we all agree that it's a troll - THEN we can consider quietly deleting it. But starving the trolls of recognition is the only thing that works.
Now, I know that a bunch of people are going to jump on this and ask "Would you allow XXX to be asked? Really?!? REALLY!?!" (where XXX is overtly racist, scatalogical, sexual, whatever) - and my answer is "Yes"...yes, the question sits out there. BUT NOBODY ANSWERS IT. Really - not at all. Make it your personal responsibility to simply scroll on past. You may be offended by the existence of the text embedded in our file - but Wikipedia isn't censored - so it can just sit there. It does no harm if it's not answered.
A culture of professionalism can be instilled in our editors by peer pressure alone - but we can't control our OP's, and we don't need to.
SteveBaker (talk) 19:14, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
What is your basis for your claim that use of the desk has "dropped precipitously"? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:26, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
This vision might work for the classic trolls asking troll questions. I strongly object to doing it in cases where the questions themselves are offensive, such as that of the nazi troll. I do not want genuine newcomers and passers-by to visit the refdesk and find it to be a place where it's considered normal to have nazi questions sitting around every day. The recipe also of course doesn't work for banned users who don't ask questions but disrupt the answer threads instead, so for the main problem we're dealing with it's quite irrelevant. Finally, as you yourself say, the recipe demands discipline on the part of our regulars. And this is where it fails. There are many admirable and hugely intelligent things that Wikipedians can achieve together. But fifteen years of Wikipedia should have taught us that there is one admirable thing, the most intelligent of all, that Wikipedians will never, ever achieve: to bloody shut the fuck up. Absolutely no hope. (And just today the nazi troll was again treated to an answer, and not even by one of our notorious chatterboxes but by somebody who really ought to have known better [16]. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:40, 2 February 2016 (UTC)


Did you ever stop to think that permanent semi-protection is EXACTLY what the troll is aiming for - indefinite disruption to new users without having to lift a finger, meanwhile painting the regulars as assholes who slap down newbies at the first hurdle? Finding proxies takes effort. Thinking up stupid questions (or even just copy/pasting them from Yahoo Answers) takes effort. But semi-protection means the troll can go off and watch tv or whatever his actions continue to cause disruption in his absence. From the trolls perspective, short protection lengths or no protection at all are annoying because it means he has to keep 24/7 watch over the desks to keep up the disruption, and will eventually burn out. 205.202.35.226 (talk) 19:00, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Directly above me, folks, is what is called "the voice of reason." I've been trying to say the same thing for months, and that's why we SHOULDN'T be shutting down the desks. --Jayron32 19:05, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
This might be true for some of the classic trolls. I very much doubt it's true for banned users like the one we are primarily dealing here. This "Vote X" person doesn't want to provoke, they want to be heard. Desperately. The only perspective is to really shut the system off to them, for a time long enough that they get bored and find something else to do. This would work if people allowed it to work and made it clear to her that her path really is closed off and will remained closed off. But it won't work as long as people keep shouting and complaining and giving her fresh hope that somebody will be willing to listen after all, every day. The existence of all these protest threads here is what enables the trolling. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:20, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
You've got it right. With the caveat that they want desperately to be heard, but not desperately enough to go through the steps it would take to be un-banned. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:58, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
I looked over several removals of this so-called 'Vote X' (mostly by User:Future Perfect at Sunrise a few days ago) and they all seemed harmless to me. Let's set aside the ID issue, and assume it is definitely the same person out there who has a desperate need to be heard. We are allowed to remove banned user posts, but we are not required to. A bystander might also conclude that a few users here have a desperate need to exert control. If a banned user posts material that follows our guidelines and is otherwise benign, then getting riled up about it to prove we can win at a game of cat and mouse seems like a bad way to achieve our goals. SemanticMantis (talk) 21:09, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
The problem is their posts are certainly NOT all harmless. [17] --Modocc (talk) 22:52, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
Sorry, User:Modocc, I should clarify that the removals I saw looked harmless. I didn't look at all that many, maybe 5 or so. I don't deny that the user may have done harmful/disruptive things. I just don't see the value of removing a harmless post, and even FPAS seems to acknowledge that the edits "mostly appear harmless". Removal in that case just seems WP:POINTY to me. SemanticMantis (talk) 20:10, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
Semi-protection of the RD is evil...we definitely need to end it. The problem is that in order to do that, we need a solid story as to what we're going to do instead. You have my suggestion a couple of posts up there. The troll will have to spend effort typing questions - and getting past admin blocks - and the more effort we can put them too for the least possible recognition is the only way to exhaust them. SteveBaker (talk) 19:17, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
We have a solid story. It works everywhere else on Wikipedia. It's called WP:RBI. --Jayron32 19:32, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
User:SteveBaker writes: "Semi-protection of the RD is evil". Is it more evil than the constant disruption due to differing opinions on when and how to reply to the troll, delete the troll posts, collapse the troll posts, delete the responses? I submit that semi-protection of the RD is the least evil option that can work. Those who want the Reference Desk kept open agree that we need a solid story, but we can't agree on a single solid story, except that Jayron32 and FPAS can revert and block, but even then there are questions about the scope of the reversion. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:26, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
Sure. I've blocked every one of these trolls that I have authority to block. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:55, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
Steve, while generally agreeing with you on the principle of the thing, the suggestion above isn't going to work in practice with Vote X. They can, and do, just paste in their material as fast as we can delete it, and the board becomes unusable for everyone. This isn't to say that semi-protection is the only answer; I don't know what, as a matter of technical feasibility, alternatives there are. Pending changes might be a possibility, but I don't know how that would work. However, leaving their posts up, even if nobody replies to them, will (a) involve us being complicit in their ban evasion, and (b) allow their material to be read, which is what they want. Any solution we adopt has to deal with this one, particular, immediate problem, no matter how well it deals with generalized problems in theory. Tevildo (talk) 19:35, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps there is another way to explain this concept that I have. The problem splits into two parts:

  1. Identify troll.
  2. Deny recognition.

If we communicate in any way with each other about the identification of the troll - then the troll is gaining recognition from the very discussion itself, which (per #2) we strongly do not desire to do. So the idea that some people have is to have autonomous troll-hunting 'experts' who judge who is a troll by unspoken rules and then denies recognition by erasing or hatting stuff. This goes against the grain for many of us here - because unspoken rules and secret cabals are entirely contrary to the WikiWay - and we work by consensus, not vigilante action.

So what is needed is a means to identify the troll with consensus and without communication. What I'm proposing (which is: "If you think you found a troll - leave the troll's question alone - don't answer it.") is a kind of consensus test. Those who suspect that this is a troll don't respond. Those who WP:AGF and assume it's not a troll get to answer the question. If the consensus is that we have a troll then denial is complete, automatic and hassle-free. If there is not consensus that this is a troll - then answering the question is not unreasonable. This system allows us to do an implicit consensus "poll" and to naturally accept the findings and impose the punishment of complete denial - all without communicating a single word between us. The troll is denied perfectly when all editors agree that this is indeed a troll. SteveBaker (talk) 19:35, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

This method has proven time and again to not work, most certainly in cases like the nazi troll. They always find some useful idiot who will reply to them. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:14, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
Before you can claim something does not work, you have to specify what your goal is. My goal here is to prevent disruption, and my position is that frequent removal and semi-protection is disruptive, because many of us disagree, and the ensuing discussion detracts from our main purpose at the ref desks. In case it's not clear, I posit that our goal at the ref desks is to give polite, informed and useful references to people who come seeking answers, and long-term semi-protection does not forward that goal. It turns away many good-faith users, and lets the trolls disrupt us with minimal effort, as described above. Maybe you are not familiar with common trolling behavior that happens in classrooms and school libraries around the world. I am, and if you'd like, I can explain to you how ignoring the disruption, or providing brief factual answers denies the troll of their fun. It's been proven to work, time and again. SemanticMantis (talk) 20:47, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
FPAS has recently been advised by Arbcom to tone down his behaviour, to stop the personal attacks, to stop assuming bad faith all over the encyclopedia etc etc etc. Unfortunately it seems that it has fallen of deaf ears. FPAS is protecting himself and no-one else. There's little damage done in 99% of the edits he reverts, and yet he makes some kind of crusade out of it, like he's making Wikipedia a better place. Which he is not. The ongoing reversion of anything FPAS unilaterally dictates as a banned user (without any evidence other than his own "experience") is actually becoming disruptive and encourages the troll to continue unabated and more determined. Interestingly, several of these reverts simply point to the previous bad faith behaviour of FPAS and his personal attacks on other editors. Other edits he reverts are just fine. Most of the time it seems that FPAS is acting like a lone warrior, shooting from the hip against anything he likes, and regular editors can be treated by him like crap all the way. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:02, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
No he is protecting others for admins are supposed to be shutting down trolls so they don't harass editors.[18] --Modocc (talk) 23:05, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
"They always find some useful idiot who will reply to them." - in my opinion, we stand a better chance of dealing with the 'useful idiots' than we do of dealing with the troll. The useful idiot is acting in good faith, is approachable, and is (in a sense) "one of us". So a little education, peer pressure and a culture of handling these things in the ways I propose - should allow us to educate the useful idiots to be wary of trolling and to avoid feeding them - and thereby add to the purpose of the group. This is an eminently fixable problem...given the right cultural shift among the majority of editors here. SteveBaker (talk) 18:27, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
No, it's not fixable. Not until the enablers start paying attention. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:56, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
The problem is that most often these "enablers" are just innocent bystanders who have no clue about the lengthy history of banned users nor their MO while hopping from IP to IP. We have dictatorial admins who sweep around telling us all that they are doing the most important job on Wikipedia and should be allowed to block editors who have made 70,000+ article edits because they are "proxying for sockpuppets". The actual point is that none of this actually benefits our readers. It's not going to stop, ever. I don't understand the current approach of continually destroying one of the main aims of Wikipedia, particularly at the Ref desks, of "anyone can edit". These "prefect" admins are doing a "job" but seriously, it's not like they're reverting anything damaging. Most of the time they're reverting things that relate directly to their previous poor behaviour, which, ironically, Arbcom has clearly overlooked. "I didn't see anything sir..." The Rambling Man (talk) 19:24, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
I'm referring to "regulars" who do that enabling. And allowing that troll's garbage about Nazis and Jews and Africans and other racist stuff to stand would be very harmful to Wikipedia. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:27, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
Not if we consistently give them the cold shoulder. If someone came to see how we behave here - and noticed that questions about racist stuff never get answered - how could we be criticized for racism? The problem is with racism on the ref desk is not when someone asks a racist question - it's when someone answer one inappropriately. But that's something we can (in principle) fix. The trolls are not reasonable people - but Ref Desk respondents usually are. We can approach them, carefully explain why one doesn't answer questions like that - and point out that it is contrary to our policy to do that. Peer pressure means something to people who come here to answer questions. SteveBaker (talk) 15:11, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
Good luck convincing the enablers that they should stop enabling. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:45, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
Does anyone have a simple clear concise definition of what is "enabling" and what the Reference Desk regulars are doing that constitutes "enabling" that should be stopped? Is there agreement as to what is "enabling"? If there isn't agreement as to what is "enabling", then we get back to quarreling about what is enabling, which plays right to the trolls. I have asked and will continue to ask for an editor to provide a clear concise policy as to how to respond to trolls and whether there is agreement. However, I would propose that anyone who has a clear policy proposal should propose it by RFC, not by straw poll. Otherwise, in my opinion, and you may disagree, if we don't agree, extended semi-protection is the least bad answer. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:52, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

What happens if the trolls bypass semiprotection? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.181.244.127 (talk) 20:45, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

The only way that I know of that a troll can "bypass semi-protection" is to create an autoconfirmed account. That makes the job of dealing with them easier, because then they can be indeffed. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:37, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Just an observation, FPAS and his continual reversion of the "troll" who posts useful and interesting links back to poor behaviour, which is now considered "harassment", is not making a shred of difference. The IP postings continue unabated, the ref desks are arbitrarily protected so IPs can't edit, and yet the posts being reverted are generally of little interest or value beyond protecting the admin reverting them. It would be a useful exercise to just allow these posts to persist, to open the ref desks once again and see how we get on by managing a discussion with the perceived disruptive IP. After all, why should one admin unilaterally undermine the whole core principle of Wikipedia (an encyclopedia anyone can edit) just to protect his own ego? At least four or five times a day the IP changes and there is nothing we can do about that. It will carry on forever unless we engage and try to make things better rather than pretend all the poor behaviour of the IP and the admin go unaddressed. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:59, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request

This is for WP:RD/H#Did all slaves get American citizenship in 1865?:

As StuRat indicates, this was one of the important issues of Reconstruction. Here's a good article that goes into why it took several years to establish that the former slaves were citizens, and how it was done. --76.69.45.64 (talk) 04:30, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
 Done. Tevildo (talk) 08:53, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Straw poll on primary goal in antivandalism efforts here

So as I mentioned above, different people have different things they're ultimately trying to uphold here, or at least, different costs they're willing to bear. And this may end up being sort of like the old "good, fast, cheap -- pick two" dilemma.

So, separate from all the debates on what to do, let's have a three-way rank-ordered straw poll on what people would like to achieve. You may agree with at most one of the following three statements, and for rank-ordering purposes you may weakly agree with a second. (No need for "disagree" or "oppose" !votes in this poll, I think.)

Although I certainly have my own (rather strong) opinions here, I have tried to word these three alternatives neutrally. I have probably not succeeded. Therefore, for the next four hours or so, until 16:00 UTC on 2016-01-06, the wording of the three alternatives is subject to good-faith alteration. If you !vote in the next four hours, you may need to check back later and possibly change your !vote if you agree differently with a possibly different final wording. (But I hope we can avoid getting into any huge debates about the wording, as that tends to very quickly drown out any actual results from the poll.) And remember, for the most part this is a poll about ultimate goals, not the mechanisms we use to get there. —Steve Summit (talk) 11:39, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

The most important thing is to minimize vandalism

Vandalism must not persist on the desks. Vandalism must be reverted as soon as possible after it is committed, or ideally prevented from occurring in the first place.


The most important thing is that the desks continue to be openly usable by unregistered editors

The desks are a resource for all of Wikipedia's readers, not all of whom have registered yet. They must be able to freely ask questions and participate in discussions. (But at least for the purposes of this discussion, having to request an edit to a protected page does not constitute free, open access.)

  • Agree. All efforts to minimize disruption should always keep this in mind as a goal. --Jayron32 21:10, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Agree. By this I refer not only to avoiding long term semi-protection or Pending Changes, but also "filters" like the one mentioned a few topics below where some IP isn't allowed to ask a question about Judaism because it is "potentially unconstructive". I proposed an idea for an edit filter that isn't content-based, there was some small discussion of it, but if people don't think it's important enough to make that happen, it's not important enough to make some AI terminator drone happen either. Ultimately, establishing that Judaism is controversial on Wikipedia at the software-censorship level is a more meaningful triumph for anti-Semitism than any number of stupid not-really-a-questions by IP vandals. Wnt (talk) 23:58, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
  • I am referring to the section below by User:185.74.232.130, who is not blocked. And "having to post the question here" is moronic. I mean, we should have a special page set aside where users can ask these questions, what was it called ... oh, yeah. The Refdesk! Wnt (talk) 13:19, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment I don't feel I have the right to vote, since I'm not a regular editor, but as a reader of Wikipedia I really value these desks. There is a very helpful and welcoming community here. I was pretty astonished to see such a huge length of page protection, which has already gone unchallenged for over a month. Surely vandals should just be reverted, blocked, and ignored, whatever the nature of their edits. Troll questions are no more or less awful than someone randomly damaging articles, and myself as a sample size of one, I don't find either significant. It is usually obvious and fleeting. Keeping this page locked for months at a time stops me as a reader from ignoring the trolls, which continues their disruption of Wikipedia. My two cents anyway. 94.12.81.251 (talk) 20:38, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
Further comment: couldn't the nazi troll be formally banned, and any questions that amount to nazi soapboxing deleted on sight even if someone has already replied? 94.12.81.251 (talk) 20:44, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
We already do that. The troll is de facto banned; a formal ban decision won't change a thing. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:26, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
Going by the comments here, some people object to removing a question that has received good faith answers, even if it was asked in bad faith. I just wondered if nailing down a ban might change that, and allow for the protection to be lifted on the understanding that the troll will get immediately shut down if they try again. 94.12.81.251 (talk) 22:30, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

We should not allow trolling at the desks

  • Support Not sure why "vandalism" is being talked about, the problem here is trolling. The ref desks are already a hotbed of trolling, we need to continue to prevent it or we will alienate the new users who come here. Do people really think the desks will be more welcoming to new users if we don't prevent trolls from posting disgusting or racist questions? They will look at the place and think "Oh, this is a troll fest, lets go find a website that has some class". HighInBC 16:28, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

The most important thing is to minimize manual antivandalism work by volunteer editors

There is a strong preference for automated antivandalism mechanisms (including page protection and antivandalism bots); manual reversion is not generally adequate.

This poll presents a False dilemma

By picking three possible "most important things" and asking the reader to choose from that limited selection, this poll introduces a strong bias towards those three "most important things" and against more nuanced solutions.

Shouldn't that be a false trilemma? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:30, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
Pure genius.... :) --Guy Macon (talk) 13:00, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Support - I agree with User:Stephan Schulz, but the number of qualifying statements in supporting various choices indicates that it isn't time for a straw poll that excludes nuanced discussion. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:18, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Support The most important thing is that we make an encyclopedia. The whole ref desk thing is getting further and further from that. New users can work on building an encyclopedia. There is a huge difference between vandalism and trolling too, and an area being soft on trolling is hard on the whole project. This whole poll is framed in such a way as to gain a bias response. HighInBC 16:26, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Support of course we want both to make the desks accessible to newbies and to keep the trolling/vandalism down. The big thing is not really trolling except with the obsessive cases, but questions that fall afoul of the guidelines based on the wikimedia disclaimer. μηδείς (talk) 19:13, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
  • True - The missing choice is how to fend off trolls while still allowing sincere IP's and redlinks to use the ref desks. The core problem is a philosophical clash which shows no signs of finding a resolution. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:29, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment: This may well be a false dilemma, but, guys, unless you can offer those more nuanced solutions, for the purpose of this poll, you're begging the question! Of course we all want to minimize vandalism while maximizing open editing -- but this is a tradeoff. If we can't do both, if we can't have our cake and eat it, too, which way do we lean? Different people have very legitimately different opinions on that question, and that's what I was trying to gauge here. —Steve Summit (talk) 12:31, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
    • All kinds of solutions have been discussed, but talking about and doing are two different things. Instead of pre-empting something by saying "it won't work", how about trying something and seeing if it works (or not). Such as the flagged revisions or whatever it's called, as discussed farther up the page. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:12, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
Pending changes was suggested above but was rejected by some users. Still worth giving a try, though. Well, I can't think of alternatives right now, all I know is that long-term protection isn't the answer. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 18:04, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
You guys will be happy to know that I've withdrawn my objection to giving Pending changes a try. :-) --Modocc (talk) 02:54, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
  • The more nuanced solution is to use expiring semi-protection when it is really needed. Just like anywhere else on Wikipedia that has a troll problem. HighInBC 16:01, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

The underlying issue that this straw poll is attempting to address is when and how long should the reference desks be semi-protected. I will observe that there are two related but different problems that need to be recognized as separate, but that are sometimes conflated. The two problems are trolling and vandalism. Trolling has been a problem longer than vandalism, but is a problem requiring a more nuanced response. Trolling, at the reference desks, usually consists of the posting of questions that a reasonable observer can see are intended to provoke anger, or angry exchanges, or hate speech. There have been in the past some editors who have themselves become controversial by being very quick to respond to trolling, either by deleting or by hatting the troll post, and often by deleting or hatting the responses. Reasonable responses to trolling include ignoring it, deleting the troll exchange, hatting the troll exchange, semi-protecting the desk, and blocking the troll. It isn't always obvious whether a post is trolling, or, if it is, whether to ignore it or to respond. Vandalism at the reference desk usually consists of mass blanking, sometimes replacing it with hate speech or obscenity, or the mere introduction of obscenity or hate speech. Vandalism is a more straightforward problem. It should almost always be reverted, and the desk may be semi-protected and the vandal blocked. (Removing a single question is almost never vandalism. It may be a wise or unwise response to a perceived troll.) In discussing responses to what I will call bad conduct, we need to maintain the distinction between vandalism (straightforward) and trolling (more subtle). Vandalism must be prevented. The question is how, not whether. Trolling is undesirable, but there is not always agreement on what it is. Let's not conflate them. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:13, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

I will add that some significant part of our response to trolling is driven not by the behavior of the trolls, but by our behavior in responding to them. We ban troll questions in part because we are collectively incapable of not responding to them (or, in a related way, because we sometimes respond in ways that others of us find objectionable, or because the arguments we get into over the appropriate response end up being even more disruptive than the original question). "We have met the enemy and he is us." —Steve Summit (talk) 17:28, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

As a side comment, another underlying issue is what rights unregistered editors should have anywhere in Wikipedia in the first place. That has never been satisfactorily addressed, and probably never will be. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:13, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Amen, brother. When I think about all the serious problems that would vanish overnight if registration were required for editing ... I slap myself and try to think about something else. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:11, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
The reason some of us cling to unregistered editing so strongly is that it is one of the bedrock principles on which Wikipedia was founded. I firmly believe that Wikipedia would never have grown into what it is today without it. (Now, I concede, it could be argued that the principle, though once vital, has outlived its usefulness. However, as I say, some of us still cling to it.) —Steve Summit (talk) 11:16, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
Like a passenger on Titanic. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:25, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment: As too often happens here these days, one thread becomes many threads. How can we possibly hope to have a focused discussion and produce any worthwhile outcomes, while we constantly divide ourselves and in so doing conquer ourselves? I find myself less and less capable of even comprehending the issues, let alone participating in any resolution of them, when the discussions are spread among different threads all being carried on simultaneously. I find I come here, look, read, and go away dismayed, with nothing worthwhile to offer the many-threaded hydra. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 19:49, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
So what are you saying we should do differently in discussions? I introduce subheadings because I find it easier to read a series of paragraphs that way rather than introducing a series of paragraphs as threaded discussion, and because threaded discussion becomes hard to follow. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:31, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
Seems we have diametrically opposed brain hemisphere functions, Robert. Variety is good. I don't want anyone to dance to my personal tune. I was merely introducing a new counterpoint to the Grand Eternal Fugue that is the Ref Desk talk page. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 01:02, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
Because there should not be needed to indentify oneself to edit a wikipedia which anyone can edit. 190.25.113.134 (talk) 19:52, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
I'm not really sure why you're replying to JackofOz since your response seems unrelated to anything they said. However to be clear, there's never any requirement to identify yourself to edit pretty much all of wikipedia and few (if anyone) here is proposing you should be required to. The question here is over creating an account which doesn't require you to identify yourself. You're free to use a completely random username and password and not required to provide an email address when creating an account and if you do so, your IP address information which provides some level of identification has quite a high level of protection under our privacy policy. Editing wikipedia without creating account is also a lot in a lot of places, but not all (and as said is seperate to the issue of identifying yourself). Nil Einne (talk) 08:29, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Short term protection: Semi-protection vs Pending Changes protection

Given the results of this straw poll, there is certainly a strong consensus to maximize IPs' access to our desks, so in keeping with the above consensus the semi-protection on the Humanities desk should be lifted ASAP. In addition, in spite of the warning not to use Pending changes on frequently edited articles, I see pending changes as perhaps a plausible short-term alternative to semi-protection to be used for a few hours (and maybe days) that would certainly be kinder to IPs. Thus if you haven't yet, do log out and see the big mess you get when trying to ask a question on the Humanities desk as an IP which has been semi-protected for weeks and is not set to expire until MARCH (ouch). Although Pending changes will possibly be more cumbersome for registered users, I'll still support trying it at least, but only if its used sparingly and for a few hours or days at time. [I've withdrawn my previous opposition to switching to Pending Changes here ] --Modocc (talk) 21:29, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Again with the short-term? How will that improve things when you're dealing with a troll who's been at it for like 4 years? You should set it up ongoing and see how it works. If it flops, we can always go back to reasonable-length semi's. (2 months seems excessive.) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:34, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
Good, we agree that two months is excessive and I did take a look at the Humanities log and saw that semi-protection has been applied frequently for about two years now. So I can understand the frustration and desire by some to lengthen protections, but our policy should be consistent and not over-reactive and for our desks to be considerably kinder to IPs is a right step it seems. -Modocc (talk) 21:51, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
Of the ones here who say we should be nicer to IP's, how many make an effort to defend the pages against the bad-faith IP's? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:17, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
  • I agree. Thus per Wikipedia:Rough_guide_to_semi-protection indefinite protections can be temporarily lifted by any administrator and reapplied of course. The present application of semi-protection policy is flexible on this. Specifically, "The only way to determine if ongoing semi-protection is still necessary is to remove the protection and see if the vandalism resumes at previous levels. For this reason, all pages that are indefinitely semi-protected can have their protection removed from time to time. The administrator should monitor the page after removing the protection." --Modocc (talk) 23:38, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
  • The key factor would be that if the troll waits it out and comes back, the next semi should be several days longer than the previous. The troll knows it can just wait it out for a few hours or a day. But at some point (we hope) the troll would get tired of waiting out increasingly long time periods. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:57, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Not really. Being flexible prevents rewarding the troll which will reason if they ramp up their game each time then we get months long page protections. Besides, none of the desks have required long term protection and there is no reason to start doing so per the consensus above. --Modocc (talk) 00:23, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
  • If I wasn't clear above, I am certain that protection (whether it be Pending changes or Semi) should be primarily used to stop any of their game(s) short term. It should not to be used for long term prevention, especially here. --Modocc (talk) 00:42, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Protection is not meant to annoy them, and any such annoyance won't likely apply to the known excommunicated banned users that are likely to come back anyway regardless of the time frame. Anyway, the reason I started this subthread is that I do think that for the benefit of good-faith IPs that have absolutely nothing to do with the bad-faith trolls, applying short term pending changes is an option we should try out when it is called for. --Modocc (talk) 01:05, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
I just took a brief look into the pending changes talkpage archive, not long enough to get a complete handle on what to expect, but I did read that when it was going through the trial stage that it often timed out with large articles, that there was an increase in BLP violations than if semi-protection was in place and some editors actually used it to censor legitimate content (yeh I know what you're thinking, the minders will still mind regardless). Not at all great, but not insufferable, so at this point I'm of two minds and am very ambivalent as to whether or not it could work for us.. I suppose this is an important/but-not-so-important IP editing issue. Either way, I think I'll just have a lie down and try to enjoy a really hot cup a tea... and hope that this alternate universe sorts itself out. --Modocc (talk) 03:35, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
I'll point out too that if administrative wheel-warring is discouraging administrators from lifting the current three months long page protection on the Humanities desk then maybe this requires more than just local consensus (if we have that and I think we do from various editors, except from the administrator that imposed it) but an administrative discussion at WP:AN? And would this step not be even necessary had an indefinite semi-protection been applied in the first place? I wonder too whether or not if the admins at AN for whatever reason overrides the local consensus (because of other precedents perhaps) then even an airing out at WP:ARBCOM would help? To be frank, given that this is the Reference Desk which is supposed to help answer questions by unregistered readers and our editors alike, I find it unfortunate that we may even have to ask the larger community to get this consensus rock-solid, so would a RFC do? Or if you are an administrator, discuss this through the appropriate channels (email or whatever as you wish) and simply dispense with this drama inducing nonsense by following the above consensus? And while I'm on this tear... I shouldn't dare leave out Jimbo's (Jimmy Wales) input as the ultimate arbitrator in all things Wikipedia. --Modocc (talk) 05:24, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
I don't think Pending Changes is useful and I don't want to see it on the Refdesk. It is a less than lethal weapon, which is to say, something that is marketed as an alternative to firing a gun at a criminal and used as a way to get people to shut up at political rallies. No, just no. Wnt (talk) 15:58, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Problems & Solutions?

: I can't see any "conclusions" and or "mitigated" solutions rather than the edit request posts; since 2014. Has Wikipedia[ns] been like this since 2000? -- Apostle (talk) 19:44, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

I will note that we have ref desk talk page archives going back quite a way, and also of course archives of the actual reference desks. So you can look yourself to see how WP was going in the past. Here [19] is the first talk page archive, for your convenience. I note there is a bit of likely trolling or at least heated dispute going on there too, a user has asked for others not to use the term "Native American", because it is offensive to people who were born in the USA but are not what we normally mean when we speak of Native Americans. Interestingly enough, that user User:Alteripse later became an admin, and seems to have some activity as recently as 30 June 2013. So maybe they weren't trolling. Part of the whole problem is that internet troll is usually about assessing a motive and intent, and we can't ever really know another person's motives, but some of us sure like to guess :) SemanticMantis (talk) 20:11, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
: Do I get a Barnstar for being the nicest troll ever -- Apostle (talk) 07:08, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Mobile app

Hi am BOTFIGHTER, Can I login in Wikipedia official app(from playstore)?BOTFIGHTER (talk) 12:24, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

@BOTFIGHTER:. This question would be better on the Help Desk (WP:HD). Tevildo (talk) 13:12, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
I have asked it!BOTFIGHTER (talk) 12:24, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
You seem to have posted it to the help desk talk page, not to the help desk itself. However, I'm sure someone will pick it up. Tevildo (talk) 12:35, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
@BOTFIGHTER: Actually, you posted it to the talk page of our article, Help desk. No one is going to pick it up there. Post it at WP:HD. ―Mandruss ☎ 12:44, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
@BOTFIGHTER: Another editor has moved your question to WP:VPT#Mobile app. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:52, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
I saw that Mandruss , I am really sorry for asking at wrong place!BOTFIGHTER (talk) 15:54, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

"Don't Ignore the Trolls. Feed Them Until They Explode."

This article by Lindy West is the best essay I have ever seen on trolling. It has received other news coverage like this. I think that too many people in the great troll debate are making a false assumption - that they cannot make an intellectual connection - which is quite similar to the troll mind-set itself. As for me, my response when I get the chance will be to take people at face value and not criminalize their beliefs. And I would respond better if I didn't know that someone would be coming along to destroy the conversation. Wnt (talk) 15:02, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Good read, thanks for sharing. One opinion from me: the author correctly acknowledges 'the term "troll" is grossly overused and encompasses a million different species of special shitflakes' (great phrasing) and then mentions she is using the term as a catch-all for 'gratuitous incivility.'
I think in your linked example, the troll was basically civil in tone, and many of our trolls are. They are not entirely stupid, and they know that coming in with flaming incivility and aggression leads to simple removal and no disruption, but that a polite and seemingly honest naive interest in scientific racism is sure to split us roughly down the middle. In a sense it's ironically problematic that our community is so super anti-racist and anti-anti-semitic, etc. Of course we do not and should not even implicitly condone racism: it is stupid and harmful. But as it stands, asking racist questions with polite tone remains a glaringly obvious point of attack and way to get us to go ape shit on each other over clashes in ideals and values, and that isn't very good either. So I liked your response, and would have let the whole thing stand, but I'm also coming around to the notion that the eventual removal is probably not a big deal either. We can each play things our own ways, as long as we don't demonize and attack our fellow community members when they make a move we don't agree with. SemanticMantis (talk) 16:04, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
The Reference Desk used to deal with silly questions by answering them factually and providing references. The "troll" didn't succeed in causing any disruption because all they got was a neutral, deadpan response, and random observers saw Wikipedia being mature and informative in the face of even the silliest question. If you walked into a library and said something stupid and the librarians gasped in horror and fainted, it might prove to be entertaining to someone of that mindset. However, if the librarians just gave you several books about whatever subject you had talked about without any fuss or drama, how much fun would that be to a troll? None, I'd imagine. 82.44.55.214 (talk) 16:12, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
Do you have any old examples from the archives? I've not seen it done, but I've only been active here for a few years and wouldn't know about the norms from ~2005 or whenever. I do like the approach of allowing deadpan, well-referenced and professional answers to potentially offensive questions though, but I also understand that this is not current consensus, and the material may well be later removed. SemanticMantis (talk) 17:44, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
I'm in this camp. Anything else is recognition (that they are trolling), which cannot be denial of recognition. It also avoids the risk of a false positive, which is very real despite certain editors' superior powers of troll detection and identification (TDI). ―Mandruss ☎ 17:57, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
It's pretty common to have questions that may have been intended to promote some point of view being answered with calm dispassionate disproof of the claim. In the case of racism, I think our stance is usually a good one. Anyone viewing our pages will see the question for what it is and we will come out as the good guys. The only concern I'd have is if significant numbers of our responses were also from racist nut-jobs, and that could become problematic. I think it's important that we're not seen as "A good place to promote racism" - and so long as our answers provide the scientific perspective, then we have nothing to fear. Personally, I prefer to simply not answer these kinds of junk question and simply deny an answer - but the other way is OK with me. SteveBaker (talk) 18:22, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
If it's not a single clear-cut situation (not "Where can I find X" or obvious vandalism), just emulate real librarians and do your best to engage in a limited reference interview. This will go a long way in helping to establish the context for the question, helping you to know how to answer, and helping to winnow out the good-faith question from the bad-faith question. A great treatment of this subject appears in Robert C. Dowd's article "I Want to Find Out How to Freebase Cocaine or Yet Another Unobtrusive Test of Reference Performance", published in The Reference Librarian in 1990. In particular, see his comments on page 487, talking about the lack of reference interviews when he "trolled" a bunch of library reference desks with a suspicious-seeming request for information. Just as the librarians in question would have done a lot better, and resolved the situation far more adeptly, had they conducted proper reference interviews, attempting to converse normally with the potential troll will weed out a lot of the problems while identifying the ones that really are good-faith questions. Nyttend (talk) 20:23, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
As I read that, the point of the reference interview is to help give better information, and it explains the ALA position, then as now, is to provide full information on requests however controversial. At no point did the researcher count it as a "good score" when a librarian blew him off by sending him to Aisle 8 - even though he was, in fact, a troll, if only for ... research. So I don't take this as any kind of suggestion that we grill questioners and try to decide if they're legitimate; the goal is only to ask if they want more help. Of course, that was the 1990s, when America was full of self-righteous people who thought we had a better system than China. My those times have passed! Indeed, at some point we're probably going to need to have the lugubrious conversation on exactly what we should do to try to avoid the risk that people get caught up by infiltrators looking to involve them in criminal conspiracies... I've been putting that one off a few months now. Wnt (talk) 16:20, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
I regularly contribute to the comment threads in A.V. Club. On the occasion that people attempt to troll the community generally plays it straight with them. It's pretty funny to see since people take the trolling at face value. It tends not to last long as a result because the usual reaction is absent. No one gets incensed, no one gets angry. It just fades into the background. Very different kind of community, though. Mingmingla (talk) 22:18, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Edit request

An IP editor has made an edit request here. Please could one of those responsible for making it impossible for IPs to use the desks AND the talk page deal with it? It is unfair for you to expect the rest of us to fix the problems you have made. DuncanHill (talk) 11:20, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

 Done by Tevildo. [20] ―Mandruss ☎ 15:18, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
There's nothing stopping a user from creating a registered ID. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:45, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

New Idea...

OK - suppose we did this (I have no idea if it's technically and/or politically possible - but let's give it a shot):

The basic idea is to come up with a framework in which IP editors can still ask questions when the ref-desk is semi-protected against bad-guys.

  1. WP:RDx -- Block ALL edits to the WP:RDx pages...it will now be created and maintained by a bot of some kind. Nobody can edit it without admin privs.
  2. QUESTION FORM -- At the WP:RD main page, we create a form that would allow questions to be asked - and this form would NEVER be protected in any way. When someone fills out the form and hits "SEND" they are told that they'll get a response which will appear on the appropriate WP:RDx page sometime within the next 24 hours.
  3. QUESTION QUEUE -- A queue into which those questions would be dumped for ref desk 'experts' to peruse - each question starting out as a red-link to a sub-page into which answers can be added. This page is also fully protected and is populated only by a bot when a form is filled in. When one of us clicks on the redlink to create the page, we can start answering the question in that sub-page.
  4. QUESTION SUBPAGE - These pages might need to be created with semi-protection from time to time - but this is where we type our answers to people's questions.
  5. ANSWERBOT - The answer bot automatically transcludes the question-subpage answers from the queue to WP:RDx WHEN THAT PAGE EXISTS - and provides a handy link to add a new answer into the sub-page. So WP:RDx is now just a list of transcluded subpages...and...
  6. If no answer is provided within 24 hours, answerbot creates an entry on WP:RD/x that says something like: "Question from (username) has had no answers in the last 24 hours...sorry."...and removes the question from the queue page.

Net result is this:

  • Normal people ask the question on the form.
  • Some Ref Desker answers it (it's rare for a question to go beyond 24 hours without an answer - if it does, it's very unlikely to ever be answered).
  • Question pops up on WP:/RDx as usual for the questioner to read.
  • Followup responses are added into the question sub-page, and it's transcluded into WP:RDx.

The "user experience" for most people is little changed.

For bad guys:

  • Bad guy can only submit questions via the form.
  • We ignore questions from bad guys.
  • 24 hours later, a simple notice "Question from (BadGuy) has had no answers in the last 24 hours...sorry". Recognition is denied. The question never sees the (public) light of day.

...or...

  • Smarter bad guy submits question via the form.
  • Smarter bad guy goes to the question queue page and answers the question himself in order to get it onto WP:RDx.
  • Darn.

...or...

  • Smarter bad guy stops asking questions and instead starts putting crap into the answers.
  • Crap still appears on WP:RDx
  • Darn.

If either of the last two things happen - then we have remedies. We could, for example, apply longer term semi-protection to the question queue page. This would prevent IP editors from answering questions (which is not ideal) - but it WOULDN'T prevent them from asking questions...which is what we need here.

Note also, that only users with page-creation privilages can answer a question initially - but once the sub-page has been created, anyone else can chime in.

This gives us 100% of the benefits of semi-protection, but with only (say) 10% of the grief that it causes for us right now.

The only problem I see with it is whether the various mechanisms required to make it possible are feasible within the MediaWiki software.

There is one additional scenario to be concerned about:

  • Bad guy asks a question that seems kinda/sorta reasonable.
  • Innocent ref-desker naively answers it.
  • It appears on WP:RDx
  • ...well, is this all that terrible? If the question was kinda/sorta reasonable, maybe that's OK.

We can use normal means to ask the innocent-but-naive ref-desker to please try not to do that - but it's hardly a terrible thing. This isn't something the bad guy has control over - and we can apply peer-pressure and other more measured approaches to try to prevent it. But from public perception, it shouldn't be too obvious that there is a deep problem.

Comments please!

SteveBaker (talk) 18:07, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I am in fact trying very my best to sidetrack the RFC before it plays out!
My problem is that the RFC is asking "Do you want something horrible - or something MUCH more horrible?" - where is the option "Use our large brains to come up with something better?".
  • Trolls crave disruption.
  • Semi-protection is disruptive (as widely recognized in the RFC).
  • So semi-protection is feeding the trolls...and very likely makes matters worse.
I posted this because I don't like ANY of the outcomes of the RFC. One's options are limited to: (a) Abstain and let crap happen, (b) Support the measures and thereby endorse the claim "We have consensus for some kind of semi-protection!" (c) Oppose the measures and thereby allow unrestrained semi-protection. Where is the "No semi-protection at all" option?
What I propose here allows semi-protection to be applied where it's needed - and to become entirely unnecessary where it's at it's most dangerous.
We need some creative new plan. Nothing we've tried so far has come remotely close to being helpful - and no possible outcome of the RFC will be helpful either.
So, I'm presenting this proposal as a new idea - which I very much hope side-tracks the entirely useless/dangerous RFC result.
Let's all try to come up with cleverer solutions rather than just trying to choose between equally unacceptable alternatives...let's have more people come up with ways to sidetrack the RFC.
SteveBaker (talk) 18:45, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
Any consensus in the RfC will be a substantial improvement over what we've been living with as long as I can remember, probably longer than I've been around. As long as progress can be suspended when someone has a better idea, no progress will occur. There is literally no end to better ideas. Reap the less-than-ideal benefit, bank it, and then try for more. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:50, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
Nothing in the RFC is a new idea. In fact, throughout this entire discussion, I've yet to hear of a single new idea. Everything is a rehash of something we've already tried and failed with. Once a "consensus" has been achieved, it's a lot harder to introduce something new. So - I'm unapologetic about presenting a truly new idea. If you think it's bad, by all means poke holes in it - but running from the first truly new idea we've had on this topic is a response that disappoints me. SteveBaker (talk) 18:56, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
So the question queue is visible but has full protection? Isn't it difficult enough for admins to manage abuses of short edit summaries without having to wade through walls of trolling text? Moreover, since there are fewer administrators than us and they would be taking on more of the burden they are perhaps more likely to end up being targeted by the trolling more than they are now. --Modocc (talk) 18:53, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
As proposed, the question queue would be visible, yes - but not an obvious part of the public interface. Most people would have no need or inclination to go there unless they've decided to be become a question answerer (much as most people never read Talk: pages). But perhaps this is amenable to a tweak of some kind. Maybe only the subject line of the question goes into the queue page? I'm not presenting this as a "finished" idea - I recognize it may need a little work. SteveBaker (talk) 19:01, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
In retrospect, I suppose the question queue could have perpetual semi-protection rather than full protection...but my intent was that it would be maintained automatically - I'm not keen on the vigilante approach where people can start deleting questions on nebulous grounds. SteveBaker (talk) 19:04, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
I also don't think it's worth discussing this right now. I'd be much more interested in discussing this proposal in a few weeks. As I understand it, it looks like both of Jayron's proposals above have consensus at the moment. If we can get the desks unprotected, then we can hope and try to do better in the future with no new technology. As I understand it, nothing you propose now will be any less or any more more technologically or politically feasible in a few weeks. So while I can appreciate the notion of wanting to de-rail an RfC in favor of pursing other options that would otherwise be sealed off by said RfC, I don't think that's valid here, because those proposals won't prevent us from doing any of this in the future.SemanticMantis (talk) 20:02, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
As I have remarked, above (and I do hope people listen to those remarks) - neither of the two !votes above gave people the option to say "No" to routine semi-protection of WP:RD. They seek to limit the duration, and the categories for which it may be applied - but that's all. So no matter how that !vote turns out, there is absolutely no consensus that semi-protection is acceptable, or pragmatic as a solution to our problems.
Given that, I don't see why we can't go ahead and work on other possible avenues of attack while the RFC is in progress. I'd view the matter differently if the RFC had asked the actual important question - but it did not.
The reason I think the RFC is at best a waste of time - and at worst a colossal mistake, is that when you have consensus on those two questions, they will be waved around as evidence that we have consensus for semi-protection...and that we do not - no matter how the results turn out. So this RFC isn't going to help - not one jot. If we want to get this fixed, we need to focus our thoughts on finding better solutions. When we have a selection of possible solutions to choose from (one of which can be some form of semi-protection) then we can !vote between them - and if semi-protection turns out to have consensus - then it's worth using the RFC above to fine-tune the rules of engagement. What's happening now has the cart before the horse. SteveBaker (talk) 02:44, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
The RFC isn't about getting consensus for semi-protection. There already is policy for semi-protection. The RFC is about getting consensus to limit semi-protection. I respectfully therefore think that your dismissal of the RFC puts the cart before the horse. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:02, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
policy != consensus...and whatever consensus we once had needs re-testing in the light of the reality we're seeing. SteveBaker (talk) 07:03, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
To offer a different perspective : Last time I was a regular here, there was a pretty strong consensus that the refdesks should never have any level of protection.
To me, It's strange to occasionally glance over the desks and see them protected. ApLundell (talk) 12:21, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
  • I'm thinking no, just no. I suggested a much simpler technical solution a few weeks back (an edit filter that requires that non-confirmed users make edits that consist solely of added text followed by a signature) and even that didn't go anywhere. This Rube Goldberg contraption ... I can't keep it from exploding, even in my imagination! Wnt (talk) 16:26, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
    I saw that - I didn't see how it would help. SteveBaker (talk) 18:51, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

The reference desks are now closed to the general public

No IP user may post on the Humanities Desk or at the Miscellaneous desk. This is because User:Future Perfect at Sunrise has semi-protected those desks for much longer than usual terms, and also because User:Ian.thomson has now semi-protected this talk page, preventing even edit requests. As should be clear to anyone who's read my comments above, I dislike this state of affairs, and believe it to be in direct conflict with many of our core guidelines. I post here simply so that everyone is aware of the situation. I think this situation can only improve with more admins involved. If you know an admin, consider asking them to weigh in. SemanticMantis (talk) 21:39, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

I agree. FPAS is protecting himself from items being posted about his previous misconduct, why Ian Thomson has got involved is beyond me. If we are going to protect the Ref Desk from IPs, we should now launch an RFC to remove the Ref Desk from Wikipedia. One of the core concepts of the RD is that IPs, passing visitors, can ask questions. Right now, and obviously for the foreseeable future, and because of those admins making poor value judgements to protect themselves, we have destroyed a pillar of Wikipedia. If this continues then there is no other option other than to seek the removal of the Ref Desk and look for a re-appraisal of Wikipedia's five pillars. For what it's worth, FPAS and Arbcom care little for those admins who are working to promote freedom to edit Wikipedia. They would rather protect themselves, each other and putatively strike out at the rest of the editing community who are seeking a common sense solution of dialogue and resolution. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:45, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
It looks you are enabling and encouraging long term abusers and trolling. Why on earth would you encourage people to post the kind of attacks at the reference desk that were being posted about any editor? And you think it's wrong to protect editors from internet trolls and abusers of the project? The reference desk isn't supposed to be used as an outlet for attacking people, it's for help. You are an admin? Dave Dial (talk) 03:49, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
I think you must be unfamiliar with problem-solving. The current approach is simply damaging Wikipedia. Protecting the pages that are most likely to be edited more by IPs than any other page, and then protecting the page they are directed to when other pages they wish to edit are protected is patently absurd. You're a Wikipedian? The Rambling Man (talk) 07:00, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
Currently, if you log out and attempt to edit the humanities desk as an IP you will get directed to a page specifically for making edit requests, which, ironically, is what this talk page is not meant to do, so the IPs are getting better direction, even though it is more difficult for them but it doesn't prevent them either. It's best to keep these semi-protections short though.--Modocc (talk) 22:53, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
WP:RFED is the global edit request area, if anyone wants to keep an eye on it. Tevildo (talk) 22:59, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
Why on earth would any editor post comments about FPAS on a Reference Desk page? It's not a forum for discussing editor/admin conduct and I think the semi-protection was placed because of disruptive editing. I think the question should be not about which admin placed the protection but is it time to remove it? Liz Read! Talk! 23:03, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
I did not know that, or about the other venues for edit requests, thanks. SemanticMantis (talk) 23:47, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
It was politely pointed out to me that I am unfamiliar with the history of vandalism of the Reference Desks, especially harassing edit summaries. That makes the lengthy semi-protection more understandable but I still do not think it should be indefinite. Liz Read! Talk! 00:15, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
As I've pointed out above, I saw disruptive edits outnumber useful anon edits several times over for more than a week. In any other page, there'd be no qualms about protection.
Thank you @Liz:, for exemplifying WP:AGF, which I suggest that certain other users go re-read. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:48, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
Seems to me that you've tried to do what's best for the project. Indefinite doesn't mean forever. And it prevents the troll from knowing the exact time the protection will expire. Dave Dial (talk) 03:49, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
And it's not protected indefinitely, I protected it for a week and pulled it down to three days. It is move protected indefinitely, but that's standard for a lot of business pages like this one.
"([Edit=Allow only autoconfirmed users] (expires 14:24, 13 February 2016 (UTC)) [Move=Allow only administrators] (indefinite))." Ian.thomson (talk) 04:10, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
Of course it is move-protected indefinitely. Wikipedia space pages are usually move-protected indefinitely, because otherwise moving a highly visible page would be a form of vandalism. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:25, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
@Ian.thomson:, thank you for your explanation. If you look through my edit history, you will see me advocating AGF frequently, as well as providing polite service of scholarly references to all comers (in fact, I'm one of the too few active users who knows how to stay polite and civil and provide references on the ref desks, but that's another matter entirely).
I did not assume bad faith with your action; I saw the edit history and figured I knew your motive. I did not question your good faith, I said nothing about your motive, and nothing about your action other than you did it. I will clarify that I am questioning the usefulness of the protection status and the functionality of the ref desks when the talk page and the desks are closed to IP users. My complaint is more about the three month protection of the reference desk, your closure of this talk page for three days is much less of a concern. I was also unaware that there were other mechanisms than this talk page for making edit requests, so I truly apologize for jumping to the conclusion that IPs were left with no recourse. As for your analogy of semi-protecting other pages -- no article page on WP is designed as an interactive service to the public, so the comparison to article space is essentially inapt. IPs may or may not contribute much to articles, but they were until recently a plurality of our good-faith askers on the ref desks. While any member of the public can benefit from our mainspace articles while they are protected, these people cannot benefit from our reference desks while they are closed to IP users. If you want a closer analogy to the ref desks, look to the help desks, which are also different but much closer. I do not think hey have ever resorted to semi-protection for a three month period. SemanticMantis (talk) 16:11, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
I agree completely, this is absolutely a case where the "cure" is worse than the disease. FPAS is a particular problem Admin. He semi-protected my talk page, and refused to unprotect it, because a banned user had left comments there. He was recently brought up for review for some of his other more egregious behavior, but they left him with Admin powers, so I expect we will continue to have him causing problems here indefinitely. StuRat (talk) 17:23, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
He was fully justified in taking that action on your page. You were allowing personal attacks against other users to stand. That's not kosher. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:37, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
I don't think users are expected to police personal attacks on their talk pages. Wikipedia:User_pages#Removal_of_comments.2C_notices.2C_and_warnings says:
"Policy does not prohibit users, whether registered or unregistered, from removing comments from their own talk pages, although archiving is preferred. If a user removes material from their user page, it is normally taken to mean that the user has read and is aware of its contents. There is no need to keep them on display and usually users should not be forced to do so. It is often best to simply let the matter rest if the issues stop. If they do not, or they recur, then any record of past warnings and discussions can be found in the page history if ever needed, and these diffs are just as good evidence of previous matters if needed."
...which seems to say that you can remove it - but not that you must - or even that you should. SteveBaker (talk) 18:26, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
Yes, I politely asked FPAS to not delete things from my page too, and he responded quoting the same thing you just did, but concluded that he could remove banned user content, at his sole discretion, wherever he wanted, bar none. I'd point to the diffs on his and my talk page, but he deleted all my comments soon after, and I really don't care about what FPAS dpes, just so long as he quits messing up our ref desk, and acting like he doesn't have to follow consensus. SemanticMantis (talk) 18:54, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
Banned users are not allowed to edit. And leaving a personal attack on one's user page implies agreement with that attack. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:51, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
That's ridiculous - it implies no such thing. I might want to leave it there as evidence to others that I'm being attacked - or as evidence that the attacker is an evil-doer. There are any number of reasons why I might want to leave it there that have nothing whatever to do with agreeing with it. So, no...I have very often left posts on my user talk page that I don't agree with. Hence you are definitely incorrect. SteveBaker (talk) 19:41, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Another edit request

Please add to WP:RD/H#Titanic if it does not duplicate someone else's answer by the time it happens:

According to our article Titanic, it had a capacity of 833 people in First, 614 in Second and 1,006 in Third. The other 900 or so people potentially on board would have been crew. --69.159.9.222 (talk) 19:23, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
 Done ―Mandruss ☎ 19:42, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Reference_desk/Archive_120&oldid=1145648958"