Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Reference desk: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous edit
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
m Reverted edits by 94.175.7.239 (talk) to last version by Favonian
m Archiving 2 discussion(s) to Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/Archive 133) (bot
 
Line 1: Line 1:
<div class="toccolours" style="float: right;"><small>[[#footer|Skip to the bottom]]</small></div>
<div class="toccolours" style="float: right;"><small>[[#footer|Skip to the bottom]]</small></div>
<div style="clear: right;">{{shortcut|WT:RD}}</div>
<div style="clear: right;">{{shortcut|WT:RD}}</div>
{{#ifeq:{{PROTECTIONLEVEL:edit}}|||{{pp|small=no}}}}
{{Wikipedia:Reference desk/talk header}}
{{Wikipedia:Reference desk/talk header}}
{{archive box | auto=yes |search=yes | age=10 |
{{archive box | auto=yes |search=yes |collapsed=yes| age=7 |bot=lowercase sigmabot III |


{{center|'''[[Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines|RD Guidelines]]'''
{{center|'''[[Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines|RD Guidelines]]'''
Line 16: Line 17:
{{User:MiszaBot/config
{{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{aan}}
|archiveheader = {{aan}}
|maxarchivesize = 200K
|maxarchivesize = 256K
|counter = 120
|counter = 133
|minthreadsleft = 5
|minthreadsleft = 4
|algo = old(10d)
|algo = old(7d)
|archive = Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/Archive %(counter)d
|archive = Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/Archive %(counter)d
}}
}}
__FORCETOC__
__FORCETOC__


== Unreadable in dark mode ==
== Straw poll on primary goal in antivandalism efforts here ==


Unfortunately I have no solutions to offer, but [[Wikipedia:Reference desk]] is nearly unreadable in the new dark mode - the very light grey text in the white boxes just vanishes. Thought I'd at least note it here in case anyone knows of a fix. [[Special:Contributions/57.140.16.8|57.140.16.8]] ([[User talk:57.140.16.8|talk]]) 15:00, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
So as I [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Reference_desk&diff=698392611&oldid=698373070 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 and cheap|good, fast, cheap -- pick two]]" dilemma.
:It all looks normal to me. Where is this "dark mode" option you're talking about? ←[[User:Baseball Bugs|Baseball Bugs]] <sup>''[[User talk:Baseball Bugs|What's up, Doc?]]''</sup> [[Special:Contributions/Baseball_Bugs|carrots]]→ 00:10, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
::See [[Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)/Archive_214#Dark_mode_for_logged-in_users_on_desktop_coming_this_week!]] @[[User:Baseball Bugs|Baseball Bugs]] [[Special:Contributions/97.113.14.140|97.113.14.140]] ([[User talk:97.113.14.140|talk]]) 03:47, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
:::It looks like that's where complaints about this thing should be taken. ←[[User:Baseball Bugs|Baseball Bugs]] <sup>''[[User talk:Baseball Bugs|What's up, Doc?]]''</sup> [[Special:Contributions/Baseball_Bugs|carrots]]→ 03:58, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
::::I have no complaints about the tool; seems to be working as intended, but this page isn't set up to render usefully using it. But hey ho. [[Special:Contributions/97.113.14.140|97.113.14.140]] ([[User talk:97.113.14.140|talk]]) 12:13, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
:::::I think you should take this question to the Village Pump. Either that, or don't user Dark Mode. ←[[User:Baseball Bugs|Baseball Bugs]] <sup>''[[User talk:Baseball Bugs|What's up, Doc?]]''</sup> [[Special:Contributions/Baseball_Bugs|carrots]]→ 03:03, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
:::::: Good advice. I tried it once. I didn't like it. <small> (Sex, that is. I also didn't like being reasonable, or the new Wikipedia dark mode.)</small> -- [[User:JackofOz|<span style="font-family: Papyrus;">Jack of Oz</span>]] [[User talk:JackofOz#top|<span style="font-size:85%; font-family: Verdana;"><sup>[pleasantries]</sup></span>]] 22:08, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
:Thank you [[user:Jdlrobson|Jdlrobson]] and [[user:Izno|Izno]]! Looks great now. [[Special:Contributions/57.140.16.8|57.140.16.8]] ([[User talk:57.140.16.8|talk]]) 13:29, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
::Great! <span style="background:white; color: black;">🐸</span>&nbsp;[[User:Jdlrobson|Jdlrobson]] ([[User talk:Jdlrobson|talk]]) 08:26, 9 August 2024 (UTC)


== Humanities and header hatnote ==
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.)


Last week, [[User:Mod creator|Mod creator]] decided to [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?diff=1239039867 add a hatnote] to the humanities desk, and then [[User:PrimeHunter|PrimeHunter]] decided to [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?diff=1239763053 remove it] a few days later. Here's the content:
Although I certainly have my own (rather strong) opinions here, I have tried to word these three alternatives neutrally. I have probably not succeeded. <s>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.</s> (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. —[[User:scs|Steve Summit]] ([[User talk:scs|talk]]) 11:39, 6 January 2016 (UTC)


{{redirect|WP:RD/H|the template header used in all areas of the [[WP:REFD|reference desks]]|WP:Reference desk/Header}}
=== The most important thing is to minimize vandalism ===


Neither adding nor removing was discussed, and lack of discussion was [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?diff=1239763267 one reason given for its removal]. So, let's start a discussion...is this header a good idea? I'm leaning toward "no", thanks to the reasons given for removal, but I can understand the reasoning for adding. [[User:Nyttend|Nyttend]] ([[User talk:Nyttend|talk]]) 22:55, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
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.
:Agree with the removal, there is no reason to have that at the top of the page. --[[User:Viennese Waltz|Viennese Waltz]] 14:15, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
:No; the template is way further down the ladder. While pageviews are not infalliable, [https://pageviews.wmcloud.org/?project=en.wikipedia.org&platform=all-access&agent=user&redirects=0&range=this-year&pages=Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Humanities|Wikipedia:Reference_desk/header the comparison] – on a logarithmic scale, you'll note – is pretty damning. If someone is looking for [[WP:Reference desk/header]] they probably know how to find it. [[User:Cremastra|Cremastra]] ([[User talk:Cremastra|talk]]) 19:24, 16 August 2024 (UTC)


== Bots ==
* ''Weakly agree.'' —[[User:scs|Steve Summit]] ([[User talk:scs|talk]]) 11:39, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
* ''Weakly agree'' with the provision that it refers to ''obvious vandalism'' under [[WP:AGF]]. --[[User:Stephan Schulz|Stephan Schulz]] ([[User talk:Stephan Schulz|talk]]) 11:50, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
* '''Agree''' with the same provisions as Stephan. However, I am opposed to any form of long-term semi-protection (short-term protections of at most a few days are acceptable for me if necessary, though). Pending changes isn't perfect but I would very much prefer it over semi. [[User:Narutolovehinata5|Narutolovehinata5]] <sup>[[User talk:Narutolovehinata5|t]][[Special:Contributions/Narutolovehinata5|c]][[WP:CSD|csd]][[Special:Newpages|new]]</sup> 12:12, 6 January 2016 (UTC)


Do the bots really edit pages or something else because I saw from the citation bot literally remove and replace the same information with the same words [[User:Avyanna.Owam|Avyanna.Owam]] ([[User talk:Avyanna.Owam|talk]]) 11:45, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
:Where did you see that? ←[[User:Baseball Bugs|Baseball Bugs]] <sup>''[[User talk:Baseball Bugs|What's up, Doc?]]''</sup> [[Special:Contributions/Baseball_Bugs|carrots]]→ 07:19, 9 October 2024 (UTC)


== Fake Desi media content querant ==
=== The most important thing is that the desks continue to be openly usable by unregistered editors ===


Looks like the Californian troll who pretends to be a poorly comprehending fan of Indian subcontinent media, with poor English, has now got themself an account. (If I was sufficiently motivated, I'd link the thread several months back where they crowed in perfect English about successfully fooling us.)
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.)
Should something be done about this? {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} [[Special:Contributions/94.1.211.243|94.1.211.243]] ([[User talk:94.1.211.243|talk]]) 07:51, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

:Not sure I follow. The last couple of times they've posted on Ents from an IP address, it's geolocated to India. --[[User:Viennese Waltz|Viennese Waltz]] 09:05, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
* '''Agree.''' —[[User:scs|Steve Summit]] ([[User talk:scs|talk]]) 11:39, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
::The issue has been sorted, the account has been indefinitely blocked. --[[User:Viennese Waltz|Viennese Waltz]] 13:24, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
*'''Agree.''' --[[User:Stephan Schulz|Stephan Schulz]] ([[User talk:Stephan Schulz|talk]]) 11:49, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
*'''Agree''' - The reference desks have been affected by such trolls for a long time now, but locking it down just because of it, at the expense of good-faith editors, isn't doing favors. Doing so could potentially turn away potential editors, and while it could be argued that the same can be said of semi-protected articles, the reference desks are different in that they're (in theory) supposed to be pages open for asking questions. [[User:Narutolovehinata5|Narutolovehinata5]] <sup>[[User talk:Narutolovehinata5|t]][[Special:Contributions/Narutolovehinata5|c]][[WP:CSD|csd]][[Special:Newpages|new]]</sup> 12:12, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
*'''Agree'''. [[User:Deor|Deor]] ([[User talk:Deor|talk]]) 14:09, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
*'''Strongly Agree.''' These desks have absolutely served everyone well, so please keep up this good work and have a Happy New Year! -[[User:Modocc|Modocc]] ([[User talk:Modocc|talk]]) 16:22, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
*'''Agree'''. Hey {{U|Deor}}! Happy new year! [[User:Drmies|Drmies]] ([[User talk:Drmies|talk]]) 16:58, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
*'''Strongly Agree.''' As the first experience in Wikipedia for many people, as it was for me, it should be friendly. Between not being allowed to post and then getting slapped down for their post when they do get access, we may be scaring quite a few people away. [[User:StuRat|StuRat]] ([[User talk:StuRat|talk]]) 19:45, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
**How many ''sincere'' users have been "slapped down" here? ←[[User:Baseball Bugs|Baseball Bugs]] <sup>''[[User talk:Baseball Bugs|What's up, Doc?]]''</sup> [[Special:Contributions/Baseball_Bugs|carrots]]→ 19:49, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
***Quite a few, considering OP's even get slapped down for not including refs in their Q. [[User:StuRat|StuRat]] ([[User talk:StuRat|talk]]) 22:59, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
****Do you have some examples? ←[[User:Baseball Bugs|Baseball Bugs]] <sup>''[[User talk:Baseball Bugs|What's up, Doc?]]''</sup> [[Special:Contributions/Baseball_Bugs|carrots]]→ 03:23, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
*****Not offhand, but if you keep watching, I'm sure there will be plenty more. The Q typically takes the form of "Is it true that..." and the snarky response says something like "What makes you think so ? I'd like to see a source that indicates this is so." [[User:StuRat|StuRat]] ([[User talk:StuRat|talk]]) 05:24, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
******I wouldn't think your hypothesized example happens very often. What's more likely is a question like, "Why are all Scottish people misers?" ←[[User:Baseball Bugs|Baseball Bugs]] <sup>''[[User talk:Baseball Bugs|What's up, Doc?]]''</sup> [[Special:Contributions/Baseball_Bugs|carrots]]→ 05:41, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

*'''Agree'''. All efforts to minimize disruption should always keep this in mind as a goal. --[[User:Jayron32|<span style="color:#009">Jayron</span>]][[User talk:Jayron32|<b style="color:#090">''32''</b>]] 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. [[User:Wnt|Wnt]] ([[User talk:Wnt|talk]]) 23:58, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
**Having to post the question here is not a horrible handicap. FYI, the one who posed that question in the first place is now blocked, though the responses continue. ←[[User:Baseball Bugs|Baseball Bugs]] <sup>''[[User talk:Baseball Bugs|What's up, Doc?]]''</sup> [[Special:Contributions/Baseball_Bugs|carrots]]→ 03:24, 13 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! [[User:Wnt|Wnt]] ([[User talk: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. [[Special:Contributions/94.12.81.251|94.12.81.251]] ([[User talk: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? [[Special:Contributions/94.12.81.251|94.12.81.251]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Future Perfect at Sunrise|Fut.Perf.]] [[User talk:Future Perfect at Sunrise|☼]] 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. [[Special:Contributions/94.12.81.251|94.12.81.251]] ([[User talk:94.12.81.251|talk]]) 22:30, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
*'''Agree'''. [[Special:Contributions/190.25.113.134|190.25.113.134]] ([[User talk:190.25.113.134|talk]]) 17:04, 1 February 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". [[User talk:HighInBC|<b style="color:OrangeRed">HighInBC</b>]] 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.

* '''Support''' --[[User:Guy Macon|Guy Macon]] ([[User talk:Guy Macon|talk]]) 14:22, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
::<small>Shouldn't that be a ''false trilemma''? --[[User:Stephan Schulz|Stephan Schulz]] ([[User talk:Stephan Schulz|talk]]) 15:30, 6 January 2016 (UTC)</small>
:::<small> Pure genius.... :) --[[User:Guy Macon|Guy Macon]] ([[User talk:Guy Macon|talk]]) 13:00, 7 January 2016 (UTC)</small>
*'''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. [[User:Robert McClenon|Robert McClenon]] ([[User talk: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. [[User talk:HighInBC|<b style="color:OrangeRed">HighInBC</b>]] 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. [[User:Medeis|μηδείς]] ([[User talk:Medeis|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. ←[[User:Baseball Bugs|Baseball Bugs]] <sup>''[[User talk:Baseball Bugs|What's up, Doc?]]''</sup> [[Special:Contributions/Baseball_Bugs|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 [[You can't have your cake and eat it|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. —[[User:scs|Steve Summit]] ([[User talk:scs|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. ←[[User:Baseball Bugs|Baseball Bugs]] <sup>''[[User talk:Baseball Bugs|What's up, Doc?]]''</sup> [[Special:Contributions/Baseball_Bugs|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. [[User:Narutolovehinata5|Narutolovehinata5]] <sup>[[User talk:Narutolovehinata5|t]][[Special:Contributions/Narutolovehinata5|c]][[WP:CSD|csd]][[Special:Newpages|new]]</sup> 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. :-) --[[User:Modocc|Modocc]] ([[User talk: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. [[User talk:HighInBC|<b style="color:OrangeRed">HighInBC</b>]] 16:01, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
::*The current ref desk vandal has been banned for more than 4 years and he's still going strong. ←[[User:Baseball Bugs|Baseball Bugs]] <sup>''[[User talk:Baseball Bugs|What's up, Doc?]]''</sup> [[Special:Contributions/Baseball_Bugs|carrots]]→ 16:31, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

===Two Related but Conflated Problems===
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. [[User:Robert McClenon|Robert McClenon]] ([[User talk: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]]." —[[User:scs|Steve Summit]] ([[User talk:scs|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. [[User:Robert McClenon|Robert McClenon]] ([[User talk: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. &#8213;[[User:Mandruss|<span style="color:#775C57;">'''''Mandruss'''''</span>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:Mandruss|<span style="color:#AAA;">&#9742;</span>]] 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.) —[[User:scs|Steve Summit]] ([[User talk:scs|talk]]) 11:16, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
:::{{small|Like a passenger on ''Titanic''. ←[[User:Baseball Bugs|Baseball Bugs]] <sup>''[[User talk:Baseball Bugs|What's up, Doc?]]''</sup> [[Special:Contributions/Baseball_Bugs|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. -- [[User:JackofOz|<font face="Papyrus">Jack of Oz</font>]] [[User talk:JackofOz#top|<span style="font-size:85%"><font face="Verdana" ><sup>[pleasantries]</sup></font></span>]] 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. [[User:Robert McClenon|Robert McClenon]] ([[User talk: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. -- [[User:JackofOz|<font face="Papyrus">Jack of Oz</font>]] [[User talk:JackofOz#top|<span style="font-size:85%"><font face="Verdana" ><sup>[pleasantries]</sup></font></span>]] 01:02, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
:::: Because there should not be needed to indentify oneself to edit a wikipedia which anyone can edit. [[Special:Contributions/190.25.113.134|190.25.113.134]] ([[User talk: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). [[User:Nil Einne|Nil Einne]] ([[User talk: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 [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Reference_desk&diff=699727627&oldid=699719152 here] ] --[[User:Modocc|Modocc]] ([[User talk: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.) ←[[User:Baseball Bugs|Baseball Bugs]] <sup>''[[User talk:Baseball Bugs|What's up, Doc?]]''</sup> [[Special:Contributions/Baseball_Bugs|carrots]]→ 21:34, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
::Good, we agree that two months is excessive and I did take a look at the [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=Wikipedia%3AReference+desk%2FHumanities 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. -[[User:Modocc|Modocc]] ([[User talk: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? ←[[User:Baseball Bugs|Baseball Bugs]] <sup>''[[User talk:Baseball Bugs|What's up, Doc?]]''</sup> [[Special:Contributions/Baseball_Bugs|carrots]]→ 22:17, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
:::* I do. —[[User:scs|Steve Summit]] ([[User talk:scs|talk]]) 22:30, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
:::* Per [[WP:VOLUNTEER]], "There is no minimum or maximum anyone can contribute". That includes anyone that is reverting and preventing either bad-faith or incompetent edits of course. And in most cases, reasonable incentives and hospitality can get better results than angry mobs wielding large sticks although some of us do have mops.. -[[User:Modocc|Modocc]] ([[User talk:Modocc|talk]]) 22:40, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
::::*We want to avoid a situation where someone opens the door to the henhouse and expects others to shoot the foxes. ←[[User:Baseball Bugs|Baseball Bugs]] <sup>''[[User talk:Baseball Bugs|What's up, Doc?]]''</sup> [[Special:Contributions/Baseball_Bugs|carrots]]→ 23:31, 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." --[[User:Modocc|Modocc]] ([[User talk: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. ←[[User:Baseball Bugs|Baseball Bugs]] <sup>''[[User talk:Baseball Bugs|What's up, Doc?]]''</sup> [[Special:Contributions/Baseball_Bugs|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. --[[User:Modocc|Modocc]] ([[User talk:Modocc|talk]]) 00:23, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
::::::::*Your theory is that the troll's real game is to get the ref desk shut down? ←[[User:Baseball Bugs|Baseball Bugs]] <sup>''[[User talk:Baseball Bugs|What's up, Doc?]]''</sup> [[Special:Contributions/Baseball_Bugs|carrots]]→ 00:32, 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. --[[User:Modocc|Modocc]] ([[User talk:Modocc|talk]]) 00:42, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
::::::::::*"Short term" won't stop it. The troll just waits until it expires, and starts again. It needs to be long enough that the troll's waiting period grows annoying to him. ←[[User:Baseball Bugs|Baseball Bugs]] <sup>''[[User talk:Baseball Bugs|What's up, Doc?]]''</sup> [[Special:Contributions/Baseball_Bugs|carrots]]→ 00:51, 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. --[[User:Modocc|Modocc]] ([[User talk:Modocc|talk]]) 01:05, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
:I just took a brief look into the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Pending_changes/Archive_4 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 [[WP:BLP|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.. <small>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. </small> --[[User:Modocc|Modocc]] ([[User talk: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 [[WP:RFC|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 [[User talk:Jimbo Wales|Jimbo's (Jimmy Wales)]] input as the ultimate arbitrator in all things Wikipedia. --[[User:Modocc|Modocc]] ([[User talk: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'''. [[User:Wnt|Wnt]] ([[User talk:Wnt|talk]]) 15:58, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

* Pending changes useless and combines worst of both worlds. A trolling IP still needs to be reverted and a high chance that IPs posting questions will lose interest. [[User:Casliber|Cas Liber]] ([[User talk:Casliber|talk]] '''·''' [[Special:Contributions/Casliber|contribs]]) 07:33, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

== For native English speakers only: Would a native English speaker talk like this? ==
{{hat|Moved to Language desk}}

(Let's say A and B are friends in their late twenties, and A is a pessimist when it comes to dating and relationships.)

A: ''She only loves you for your money, obviously. If you told her you sold your car and quit your job, she'd be gone in a minute.''

B (being sarcastic): ''Sure, I'll take your word for it. You're a self-proclaimed authority on dating, aren't you? You made me realize that every woman I've ever met or fallen in love with was either a sociopath or a gold digger.
''

(I got mixed responses the last time I asked native-English speakers if this conversation sounded natural to them. Some said the wording is so archaic and stilted. Others said it's fine the way it is. What are your thoughts? If you were A, and B told you that, would you say "well, I didn't expect a 21st century native English speaker to say that"?)[[User:Jra2019|Jra2019]] ([[User talk:Jra2019|talk]]) 02:59, 23 January 2016 (UTC
{{hab}}

==An observation on possible effects of long-term semi-protection==
Since several of the ref desks have been semi-protected for longer periods, I think there has been an ''increase'' in newly autoconfirmed users posting inflammatory and disruptive material on the ref desks. Notably, the protection periods are public, and their duration is ''longer'' than it takes to autoconfirm a new users account. I wonder if the semi-protection has been seen as a challenge by some, and encourage them to increase their campaigns of disruption? I don't think the ref desk can ban the creation of new user accounts, nor can it overhaul the entire autoconfirmation process (Wikipedia:User_access_levels#Autoconfirmed_and_confirmed_users). Just some food for thought. [[User:SemanticMantis|SemanticMantis]] ([[User talk:SemanticMantis|talk]]) 22:07, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
:Indeed. Although this is unlikely to be any more productive than the previous discussions, I can still repeat my question - what can we do as an alternative? Not "what ''should'' we do?", that question appears to be unanswerable at the moment. What ''can'' we do? [[User:Tevildo|Tevildo]] ([[User talk:Tevildo|talk]]) 22:11, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
::Well, I for one was happier with the situation as it stood a few months ago, or whenever it last was that all desks were open for a whole week at a time. We could go back to that. That's something we ''could'' do, even if some of us don't think we should. I don't think the bad guys changed since then, I think we did. My aim was not to have any extended discussion, just to point out my observation. [[User:SemanticMantis|SemanticMantis]] ([[User talk:SemanticMantis|talk]]) 22:23, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
:::I Agree with the previous suggestion that another user stated a while back. [[Special:Contributions/24.149.111.152|24.149.111.152]] ([[User talk:24.149.111.152|talk]]) 22:53, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
::::Any hint on which suggestion or which user? As an IP user, I think your feedback is important here, but I don't know what you're talking about. [[User:SemanticMantis|SemanticMantis]] ([[User talk:SemanticMantis|talk]]) 17:26, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

:::Well clearly things have changed. We had hardly any semiprotections until Vote X showed up a few months ago. I don't know if Vote X changed, they just showed up. [[User:Nil Einne|Nil Einne]] ([[User talk:Nil Einne|talk]]) 05:35, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
::::Shortly after he was indef'd, right? ←[[User:Baseball Bugs|Baseball Bugs]] <sup>''[[User talk:Baseball Bugs|What's up, Doc?]]''</sup> [[Special:Contributions/Baseball_Bugs|carrots]]→ 18:24, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
:::::No, vote X was banned a long time before they showed up here. See [[Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Vote (X) for Change]] [//en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&oldid=441062660]. However while X is a problem, perhaps there's another editor, I don't see much mention of the open proxies (e.g. random Korean and other IPs) that began significant attacks a few months ago. (But it sounds like X is using enough different IPs that a range block is considered unfeasible.) In truth partly because there's not that much I can do, I'm not that familiar with the details behind the recent attacks. (In fact as an aside, I wasn't even aware we had started to regularly delete stuff from the Ohio State IP.) Actually most of the problematic editors I'm familiar with have thankfully seemingly given up except for Bowei Huang and WickWack (and I guess the racist Toronto editor). [[User:Nil Einne|Nil Einne]] ([[User talk:Nil Einne|talk]]) 14:37, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
::::::A wise admin once told me that it's easiest to think of these characters as being actually all the same guy. ←[[User:Baseball Bugs|Baseball Bugs]] <sup>''[[User talk:Baseball Bugs|What's up, Doc?]]''</sup> [[Special:Contributions/Baseball_Bugs|carrots]]→ 16:01, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

=== Summary and discussion ===
:I think that we can summarize the positions on trolling and semi-protection into three categories. First, there is the idealistic position. Second, there is the pragmatic position. Third, there is the despairing position. The idealistic position is that we should keep the Reference Desks open to unregistered editors, and that, due to trolling, we need to adopt a consistent sound approach to how to deal with trolling. The pragmatic position is that the idealistic position has been tried and has failed, and that extended semi-protection is sometimes necessary. The despairing position is that perhaps the Reference Desks are themselves a failed experiment and should be shut down, leaving users to go to other Reference Desks that perhaps do a better job of dealing with trolls. As a pragmatist, my question for the idealists is what should be the consistent sound approach to trolling, and also what evidence is there that any particular workable approach to trolling can be adopted that won't lead to quarreling. I would appreciate any comments, including any discussions by idealists of what the consistent sound approach to trolling should be and why they think it will work without being disruptive. Alternatively, if they think that disruption is better than extended semi-protection, can they just say that? [[User:Robert McClenon|Robert McClenon]] ([[User talk:Robert McClenon|talk]]) 18:46, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
::Thanks for summary, it seems mostly fair and accurate to me. In brief, I'm what you'd call an Idealist. I challenge the notion that something "failed" in the past. I think things were fine last year at this time, or even a few months ago. I think think that there was occasional quarreling about trolls/methods/ID, but that was preferable long-term semi-protection. Actually it was my impression that most of 2015 was just dandy on the ref desks - sure, some trolls/vandals played games, but some patrollers removed/banned, lots of us gave lots of refs, lots of IP OPs left satisfied. I personally learned some things, taught some things, and overall had a nice time. [[User:SemanticMantis|SemanticMantis]] ([[User talk:SemanticMantis|talk]]) 19:04, 4 February 2016 (UTC)<small>(P.S. I hope you don't mind the new heading I added, just trying to keep things organized in case this gets long. I hope responses can stay brief, and be about your summary/how people want to identify) </small>
:::I have no objection to adding a heading. (At least one editor has complained vociferously about my adding of headings to my comments; I am not sure why.) I would ask any idealist to suggest what the consistent workable solution is to the problem of trolling that will not result in quarreling. I think that the difference between most of 2015 and the present is simply that the troll or trolls have become more stubborn and vicious, and that makes it harder. So my question for idealists is what is a consistent effective approach to trolling that will not result in disruption. [[User:Robert McClenon|Robert McClenon]] ([[User talk:Robert McClenon|talk]]) 19:17, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
:::: I agree with SemanticMantis that the "previous" policy had not "failed", that semiprotection need not be a ''fait accompli'', and that we don't necessarily need a new, mo' bettah solution. But Robert McClenon makes a very important point when he asks for a solution that additionally prevents quarreling, and I confess that on that score I for one utterly despair of finding one. —[[User:scs|Steve Summit]] ([[User talk:scs|talk]]) 03:42, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
:::::I thought ''some'' quarreling was widely known to be an unavoidable consequent of running an encyclopedia that anyone can edit. Of course I'd like less, but these spats go on all over WP, no? Of course arguments are much more tolerable if we can stay [[WP:CIVIL]], and I'm working on that too. To me the disagreements are just part of the open nature that makes WP so great and yet also sometimes frustrating. In my opinion, the "''anyone''" in [[WP:5P3]] is just as important as any other guiding principle we have. [[User:SemanticMantis|SemanticMantis]] ([[User talk:SemanticMantis|talk]]) 16:00, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
: I'll say it: disruption is better than extended semi-protection. I would rather read racists arguing their point of view under pretense of asking questions than read edit requests, straw polls, filter proposals, protection debates, or ethics debates. I really don't mind - if there's something that looks like a question, I'm happy to see it get something that looks like an answer. And more to the point --- even if racists seem to ask stupid questions from a stupid point of view, so what? There's lots of stupidity to go around, and the efforts some make to make it sound like racism is a totally settled question is just whistling past the graveyard. Hell, just yesterday I found out that Jews are now ''officially'' second class citizens in Britain - because potentially they could get Israeli citizenship, the Home Secretary is free to revoke their citizenship for conduct "seriously prejudicial" to Britain's interests ... as defined by the Home Secretary. After that, who knows - deportation, internment? [http://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN06820/SN06820.pdf] Why the fuck are we pretending we're too virgin pristine and pure to hear anti-Semitic ''talk'' when the facts on the ground look a lot like pre-Nazi Germany? We might as well recognize that racists are people too and just wade into it. [[User:Wnt|Wnt]] ([[User talk:Wnt|talk]]) 02:51, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
::Allowing racist drivel to stand harms Wikipedia. ←[[User:Baseball Bugs|Baseball Bugs]] <sup>''[[User talk:Baseball Bugs|What's up, Doc?]]''</sup> [[Special:Contributions/Baseball_Bugs|carrots]]→ 16:01, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
:::''How?'' This is a Reference Desk. You bring your ignorance, we bring our answers. That's the way it's ''supposed'' to work. I've seen this Internet thingy grow from before there was a World Wide Web, and there's ''always'' been racists on it, and they've ''never'' been anything but an indication that a mode of communication is free enough to be worth reading. Once it becomes some administrator's POV combination echo chamber and inquisition interrogation room, what's the point of looking at it? [[User:Wnt|Wnt]] ([[User talk:Wnt|talk]]) 17:40, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
::::Racism is not tolerated on Wikipedia. ←[[User:Baseball Bugs|Baseball Bugs]] <sup>''[[User talk:Baseball Bugs|What's up, Doc?]]''</sup> [[Special:Contributions/Baseball_Bugs|carrots]]→ 18:05, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
:::::Tell us, oh defender of the faith, from what font do you draw these pronouncements? If some fundamentalist Muslim has an anti-gay perspective and someone disagrees, do you say that anti-gay Islamism isn't allowed on Wikipedia, or do you say that anti-Islamic fabulousness isn't allowed on Wikipedia? We never agreed on such censorship, and we don't need it. Even those foremost in the hunt for the "racist troll" usually try to justify themselves in terms of various other policies rather than admitting they are on a censorship crusade. I am not saying that I particularly ''like'' his content, nor even am I arguing right now sight unseen that you leave it alone, but right now I'm only making the more basic point that you shouldn't ruin the Q and A for everyone else who isn't signed up on the site out of intolerance for his point of view. [[User:Wnt|Wnt]] ([[User talk:Wnt|talk]]) 19:52, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
::::::From the font of ''observation''. ←[[User:Baseball Bugs|Baseball Bugs]] <sup>''[[User talk:Baseball Bugs|What's up, Doc?]]''</sup> [[Special:Contributions/Baseball_Bugs|carrots]]→ 20:11, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
:::::::Well, there's the whole genesis of Wikipedia policy in a nutshell. A few people want to have control and start doing administrative things the rest of us don't agree with. Then they say "we've observed this is how things are done on Wikipedia", so that must be the real policy, and so policy has to be changed to match what is actually done. [[User:Wnt|Wnt]] ([[User talk:Wnt|talk]]) 21:21, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
::::::::Countless editors have been indef'd for racist remarks. Got a problem with that? Talk to the admins about it. ←[[User:Baseball Bugs|Baseball Bugs]] <sup>''[[User talk:Baseball Bugs|What's up, Doc?]]''</sup> [[Special:Contributions/Baseball_Bugs|carrots]]→ 02:25, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
:::::::::Countless editors have been indef'd for ''anti''-racist remarks (well, alright, probably most have been indeffed for anti-transphobic, anti-anti-gay, anti-anti-religious remarks, but I think we're both generalizing). Even if there has been bias on the part of the admins against racists, that's not literally a point at law (much like even if there is a huge bias by American law enforcement, it isn't ''technically'' illegal to drive while black). If you think I'm going to accept that you can unilaterally come up with some new rule against racist sentiments, you're excessively optimistic. But you ''do'' reveal that your crusade against "trolls" isn't really a crusade against trolls at all -- it's a crusade to '''controll''' what everyone on the project is allowed to say or believe. The trolls are merely the trial balloons you use for target practice. [[User:Wnt|Wnt]] ([[User talk:Wnt|talk]]) 03:40, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
::::::::::I follow the admins' lead on these things. If you've got a problem with the admins, make your complaints to them. ←[[User:Baseball Bugs|Baseball Bugs]] <sup>''[[User talk:Baseball Bugs|What's up, Doc?]]''</sup> [[Special:Contributions/Baseball_Bugs|carrots]]→ 03:53, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
:::::::::::I don't believe your summary of their actions is technically accurate. Despite some untoward indications to the contrary, they have generally resisted admitting to punishing people for thought crimes, however often they may do it, and so I take them at their word. [[User:Wnt|Wnt]] ([[User talk:Wnt|talk]]) 04:13, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
::::::::::::If you turn in someone at AIV for posting racist garbage, they will typically get blocked for it. Assuming they hadn't been blocked for it already. ←[[User:Baseball Bugs|Baseball Bugs]] <sup>''[[User talk:Baseball Bugs|What's up, Doc?]]''</sup> [[Special:Contributions/Baseball_Bugs|carrots]]→ 04:20, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
::::::::::::: [[WP:AIV]] is for reports of ''"obvious vandalism"''. While many cases of vandalism use racist terms for shock value, and some are even targeted by racial animosity, there is no rule against asking honest questions that explore racist theories or question the evidence for racial equality.
::::::::::::: It's important to remember that banning racist ideas would have a very severe negative consequence - it would mean that statements of racial equality are not [[falsifiable]] in this forum, and therefore lack scientific meaning. If a racist sees ten people pile on against his ideas, and an eleventh says "well he has a point here" and gets banned, the take-home message we send is that this is a propaganda forum and only people saying racism is wrong are allowed to speak ... so he ignores us. That's as bad a way to fail to answer the question as there is, and it would mean that the Refdesk fails to accomplish its purpose. [[User:Wnt|Wnt]] ([[User talk:Wnt|talk]]) 12:50, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
::::::::::::::The troll in this case is not asking honest questions. ←[[User:Baseball Bugs|Baseball Bugs]] <sup>''[[User talk:Baseball Bugs|What's up, Doc?]]''</sup> [[Special:Contributions/Baseball_Bugs|carrots]]→ 13:21, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
::::::::::::::: My comments above were prompted by your insistence that "racism is not tolerated on Wikipedia". If you accept there is no blanket prohibition on that point of view, then we're back at a more mundane issue of whether a troll is messing with us, with more mundane objections like "how do you know this one (whichever one) is really the troll?" But that's better started as a different conversation. [[User:Wnt|Wnt]] ([[User talk:Wnt|talk]]) 14:05, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::In my experience here, racism is dealt with severely. Maybe your experience is different. ←[[User:Baseball Bugs|Baseball Bugs]] <sup>''[[User talk:Baseball Bugs|What's up, Doc?]]''</sup> [[Special:Contributions/Baseball_Bugs|carrots]]→ 15:44, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::::I block for racism. Racism is not tolerated on Wikipedia. Thanks Bugs. [[User:Drmies|Drmies]] ([[User talk:Drmies|talk]]) 21:08, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
(unindent)
:It seems to me that most (hopefully, all) banning and blockings for racism were actually on grounds of vandalism, violations of [[WP:NPA]] and so forth. It's very hard (but not impossible) to be a typical racist without violating lots of actual Wikipedia rules and guidelines. I don't think there are any rules that forbid people from actually being a racist...if they are careful not to insult people personally, not to put things into articles that they don't have solid references for, if they assume good faith and so forth.

:A part of the problem here is that we live within the greater scope of Wikipedia. We really do have to adhere to the extant rules and guidelines - and making up our own rules that run contrary to the letter '''and''' the spirit of those rules isn't gonna work.

:So, what does that leave us with?

:* Semi-protection: Just seeing the horrible decline in the number of somewhat reasonable questions should be enough to tell us that semi-protection is a failed technique - the 'treatment' is far worse than the 'disease'. Elsewhere in wikipedia, shutting of the ability to edit an article only damages the editors - and only marginally because they mostly create accounts. Users of wikipedia who come here to look up some piece of information are not harmed in the slightest. But here, on the reference desks, it's a total disaster because it impact our users...not just our respondents. So semi-protection is NOT a solution - it's a disaster.

:* Banning & Blocking: This can work very well for some classes of people - those who use the same IP address range...but some ISP's provide a wide range of addresses and cycle them rapidly - and that makes any kind of blocking and banning very painful. You can't block an overly-wide range of IP addresses because it'll start to negatively impact other users - and you have to be very light on your feet to ban each new IP address as it pops up. So while I don't think we should stop doing this - I think it's never going to be 100% effective.

:* Vigilantes: Deleting 'bad' questions without discussion or consensus (and often, counter to consensus). This is a favorite of at least a couple of RefDesk regulars - but it too comes with severe problems. If we just allow vigilantes to go out there and gun down the bad guys, we lose oversight and visibility into process. Who do we trust to do this? On what grounds are they deciding to delete? On who's authority are they acting? We've seen this go awry far too often, with these self-proclaimed "expert" troll-hunters deleting questions that they basically "just don't like" - that are actually quite acceptable - on grounds that they "know" the OP is a troll - using criteria for "knowing" and "troll" that are unspecified and not subject to community oversight or adjustment. Recently it was claimed that some of us had a "gut feel" for when someone is a troll and that the criteria had to be kept secret. This is a classic tactic of secret police forces everywhere - arrest people in secret on the grounds of wrong-doings that are never discussed or are not a part of public knowledge. This is most definitely not the Wikipedia way of doing things. If you want to be a lawman - you've got to go pass examination of your history here - go get your admin badge and be prepared to justify the actions you've taken and risk losing your badge if you overreach. The idea that we have roaming vigilantes following their own gut reactions is about as far from Wikipedia rules and policies as I could imagine. So, no - this isn't acceptable.

:* Deny Recognition: This is the way Wikipedians are supposed to handle this kind of thing. Don't answer questions you think are tollish (or questions you just don't like). Don't discuss whether you think someone is behaving trollish on any kind of public forum. This ''might'' work - but it requires some effort on our behalf. We really have to instill this approach into the hearts and minds of our editors - we need a culture of quiet professionalism. Bad questions have to go completely unanswered - unrecognized. You can't get into edit wars with deleting other people's answers. If we believe that a particular editor is answering questions that are clearly trollish - then let's have a quiet discussion on their usertalk page - and preferably take it completely offline to email if we can. Low key, quiet discussions are needed here. I believe that with a new spirit of professionalism and pride in our work here - we could deny recognition to trolls and the problem would largely go away. Simply refusing to answer bad questions can work...but we all need to be on board with it. There will be a problem with new editors arriving and not having that spirit - but it's easier to explain this quietly, and off-desk, to reasonable people than it is to fight trolls. But I recognize that this is a 'soft' answer - trolls will still be able to cause a certain degree of disruption. We may wish to impose additional rules (eg: Impose a "One question per day" limit - or "Questions that get no response within 24 hours are automatically removed - with a brief automated explanation being sent to the usertalk page of the OP") to allow us to purge floods of junk questions. But these need to be rules that do not entail discussion or any kind of judgement that will be arbitrarily ruled. Simple rules that are sufficiently obvious that we can impose them semi-automatically - or even completely automatically - so they don't result in vigilante-ism.

:* Kill the ref desk: Well, there is a case to be made for doing that. We are an odd corner of Wikipedia - but we do serve a purpose. Wikipedia article talk pages specifically do not allow questions about the subject matter of the article to be asked - they only exist to discuss the article. It's useful to be able to tell people who try to ask questions inappropriately: "You can ask this on the Wikipedia reference desk!" - and when they do, they generally get an intelligent answer. The world (and Wikipedia) would be a sadder, less rich place without us - but there are alternatives.

:The options to firmly deny recognition and to end the ref desk are the two that have not yet been tried. Ending the ref desk isn't an experiment we can try - we know it would stop the trolls - but the consequences of it going away would be impossible to assess. So we're left with deny recognition. But doing it won't be a quick process - and it would require a good-faith effort on behalf of everyone to give it a fair trial. Sadly, there are enough vigilantes among us to make that a hard sell. Personally, I regard vigilante actions as "disruptive editing" - and that's sufficient grounds for an admin to kick those people out of the system for a while if we're really trying hard to deny recognition and they won't play ball. But I'd rather do this by getting everyone to understand the need to act as cool, calm professionals - to treat being an editor at the ref desks as a badge of honor - to raise our self-worth to a higher level.

: 15:01, 8 February 2016 (UTC) <small><span class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:SteveBaker|SteveBaker]] ([[User talk:SteveBaker|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/SteveBaker|contribs]]) 15:01, 8 February 2016 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned -->
::Again, while not disagreeing with the basic principle of the above, how do we deal with Vote X and similar banned users who post apparently reasonable material? Delete their postings? But that, as I interpret your statement, constitutes "vigilantism". Leave them up and allow them to be answered? But that's connivance in their ban evasion. Post messages along the lines of "The above comment is by a banned user - please do not reply to it"? Is that really better than deletion? If there is another workable method, I think it'll need to be explicitly spelt out in any proposal that's likely to be accepted. [[User:Tevildo|Tevildo]] ([[User talk:Tevildo|talk]]) 23:23, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
:::[[User:SteveBaker]] says that the one option, short of shutting down the Reference Desk, that hasn't been tried is to deny recognition. First, I would like a detailed clarification of what is meant by deny recognition. Does it mean to delete the troll posts, or to leave them standing unanswered? What should be done if the troll post is answered by someone who in good faith does not think that the post is trolling? Is there any reason to think that we as a class of regulars will be able to agree on what posts are troll posts? What evidence is there that we will all be able to agree on a single strategy? [[User:Robert McClenon|Robert McClenon]] ([[User talk:Robert McClenon|talk]]) 00:31, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
:::The comment has been made that we could redirect our Reference Desk to something like StackExchange, which deals effectively with trolls. Do they permit anonymous (unregistered) editing? If so, how do they deal with trolls? If they do not permit anonymous editing, and deal with trolls effectively, then how does that differ from semi-protection in its effect? Wikipedia deals effectively with registered trolls. We just don't deal effectively with unregistered trolls, a side effect of our permitting unregistered editing. [[User:Robert McClenon|Robert McClenon]] ([[User talk:Robert McClenon|talk]]) 00:31, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
::::: Stack Exchange is not an option, IMO, although this isn't the thread to discuss why. —[[User:scs|Steve Summit]] ([[User talk:scs|talk]]) 14:30, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
::::I note that Steve has replied to WickWack's latest post on RD/S - I've not done anything with it, but I don't think this counts as "Denying Recognition". [[User:Tevildo|Tevildo]] ([[User talk:Tevildo|talk]]) 13:13, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
:::::And which question would that be? I answered a bunch of reasonable questions - you '''say''' that one of them is a notorious troll - but I only have your word for it. On what basis do you make the assessment that this is a troll? I'm betting it's another one of those "gut feel" things - right? If trolls go to all the trouble to ask interesting and reasonable questions, then they aren't "trolling" - and they aren't doing damage to the ref desk...as opposed to the vigilante and semi-protection approaches. [[User:SteveBaker|SteveBaker]] ([[User talk:SteveBaker|talk]]) 13:24, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
::::::"I only have your word for it." That's an assumption of bad faith against an established editor, which is what the enablers here do frequently. ←[[User:Baseball Bugs|Baseball Bugs]] <sup>''[[User talk:Baseball Bugs|What's up, Doc?]]''</sup> [[Special:Contributions/Baseball_Bugs|carrots]]→ 14:31, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
:::::::{{tq|That's an assumption of bad faith}} - Only if said established editor was accused of deliberately lying, distorting, dissembling, etc., and that's not how I interpret the words. It's not unreasonable, let alone non-AGF, to ask for evidence to support one's claims (if it is, the scientific method is founded on AGF failure). None among us is infallible or above challenge. &#8213;[[User:Mandruss|<span style="color:#775C57;">'''''Mandruss'''''</span>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:Mandruss|<span style="color:#AAA;">&#9742;</span>]] 15:05, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
::::::::By saying too much, it can tip off the troll on how to better evade detection the next time. "I only have your word for it" implies an inherent distrust of the word of the other editor. ←[[User:Baseball Bugs|Baseball Bugs]] <sup>''[[User talk:Baseball Bugs|What's up, Doc?]]''</sup> [[Special:Contributions/Baseball_Bugs|carrots]]→ 15:45, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
:::::::::I could be wrong, but I'm not aware of any policy that would preclude providing the evidence by email. If I then got the same answer from three experienced editors in good standing (including the originator), I could go on faith. &#8213;[[User:Mandruss|<span style="color:#775C57;">'''''Mandruss'''''</span>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:Mandruss|<span style="color:#AAA;">&#9742;</span>]] 15:52, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
::::::::::Feel free to write to the user and ask how he knows. Just don't post such info here. ←[[User:Baseball Bugs|Baseball Bugs]] <sup>''[[User talk:Baseball Bugs|What's up, Doc?]]''</sup> [[Special:Contributions/Baseball_Bugs|carrots]]→ 16:21, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
::::::::::I'm quite happy to post this, as I have before - WickWack is identifiable from the Telstra IP address, geolocation to Perth, lack of references, and, in this case, the misspelling ("binocculars"). My main point is that following Steve's process requires us to allow WickWack and Vote X and similar banned users - not ''trolls'', I emphasize; as we can see, their contributions can be reasonable - but similar ''banned users'' to post despite their bans. [[User:Tevildo|Tevildo]] ([[User talk:Tevildo|talk]]) 16:37, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
:::::::::::: OK - so everyone who uses Telstra in Perth and who makes an occasional typo is now automatically "A Troll". That's nonsense - completely unacceptable. Perth is a city of 2.2 million people. Telstra is the biggest cable company in Australia - with about 30% of the market. Nearly everyone misspells a word here and there - so there are probably around 700,000 people whom you'd label as "WickWack". In most English speaking world, 24% of people visit wikipedia frequently - so there are likely to be 170,000 Telestra users in Perth who misspell words occasionally visiting Wikipedia today. How many of those visit WP:RD? I don't know - but I'm sure it's a lot more than just one. So I can tell you with near certainty that if those are your criteria, you are mis-identifying innocent people as "WickWack" with alarmingly high frequency.
:::::::::::: Now, if that person was posting something abusive or ridiculous, I might get suspicious. But that post (the one about "railroad perspective" with the misspelled "binocculars") wasn't even a question - it was a response to a question - and quite an interesting and on-topic response at that. I'm sorry - but if that's your definition of "A Troll" - you're showing us PRECISELY why your approach to troll identification is broken. This is abusive and a clear violation of [[WP:AGF]] - so let's stop that right now. [[User:SteveBaker|SteveBaker]] ([[User talk:SteveBaker|talk]]) 17:49, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
:::::::::::::Steve, read my reply. I am not describing, and never have described, WickWack as a troll. You are deliberately misrepresenting my position by using that term. WickWack is a banned user, and I am entirely confident that the posting is by WickWack. I do not feel I can have any further useful discussions on this subject. If this ever comes to a formal proposal, your actions have convinced me that permanent semi-protection is the only reasonable option. [[User:Tevildo|Tevildo]] ([[User talk:Tevildo|talk]]) 18:36, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
::::::::::::::Troll or banned user is beside the point. You gave your evidence that the user in question is this WickWack, SteveBaker applied reasoning and logic to very effectively pick it apart, and that is exactly why we can't blindly accept one person's judgment on these things. &#8213;[[User:Mandruss|<span style="color:#775C57;">'''''Mandruss'''''</span>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:Mandruss|<span style="color:#AAA;">&#9742;</span>]] 18:47, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

:::::::::::::: It's worth asking why Tevildo is ''still'' so sure that that respondant is WickWack. We asked how the identification had been performed - and we received an answer from Tevildo - and having (I think) quite effectively demolished it, we're still left with Tevildo being "entirely confident"?!? WTF? So, I have to ask: On what ''additional'' evidence is that confidence based? That this is a Telstra user, based in Perth who makes spelling mistakes isn't remotely proof enough to warrant me shunning an interesting and thought-provoking answer. Not even close! It maybe reduces this to a 1:100,000 chance that this is WickWack...that's an entirely useless confidence level. Now, had the answer been in any way derogatory, or goading people into a debate, or broaching unpleasant topics, or in violation of some guideline or other - I'd definitely increase that confidence level considerably. But no! This was an entirely appropriate, interesting, polite, on-topic response. Yeah - it doesn't have references - but that's true of a very large proportion of responses to very tricky questions like the one we were responding to. Yeah, the respondent can't spell "binocular" - but if we're banning people for making spelling mistakes, I'm sure quite a few of us are in deep trouble. Sure, this ''might'' have been WickWack - but unless you have some more evidence to present, what you have is a "gut feel" which stands very little chance of being correct.

:::::::::::::: So, Tevildo: Put up or shut up.

:::::::::::::: This is why the "shoot from the hip" vigilante approach to fighting trolls is so bad. It's just like the [[Salem witch trials]] - where people were tried and convicted without anything remotely resembling evidence. We cannot, and must not, condemn 100,000+ people to being blocked from the ref desks, wrongly accused and generally frustrated just because one person here has a "gut feel"! That's bullshit and it has to stop. [[User:SteveBaker|SteveBaker]] ([[User talk:SteveBaker|talk]]) 21:27, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

::::::::::::::: Spot on, even if a tad verbose. :D &#8213;[[User:Mandruss|<span style="color:#775C57;">'''''Mandruss'''''</span>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:Mandruss|<span style="color:#AAA;">&#9742;</span>]] 21:50, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::It's assuming bad faith on the part of regular editors, and assuming good faith on the part of drive-bys. ←[[User:Baseball Bugs|Baseball Bugs]] <sup>''[[User talk:Baseball Bugs|What's up, Doc?]]''</sup> [[Special:Contributions/Baseball_Bugs|carrots]]→ 21:53, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::::(1) It is <u>not</u> assuming bad faith from anyone, as I said above. (2) We <u>should</u> assume good faith from <u>everyone</u> until bad faith is <u>proven</u>. 100% certainty is never possible, but we should get a lot closer than Tevildo did above, which you appear to be defending despite it being shredded by SB, and closer than I think you do a lot of time. I'm sorry you're that cynical, but that's not an issue for this page. &#8213;[[User:Mandruss|<span style="color:#775C57;">'''''Mandruss'''''</span>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:Mandruss|<span style="color:#AAA;">&#9742;</span>]] 00:03, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::::He hasn't shredded anything. And kissing up to trolls while disparaging established editors is called a "double standard". ←[[User:Baseball Bugs|Baseball Bugs]] <sup>''[[User talk:Baseball Bugs|What's up, Doc?]]''</sup> [[Special:Contributions/Baseball_Bugs|carrots]]→ 01:01, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::::OK, I'll just make this point, as regards "a lot closer". If SteveB's figure is meant literally, we should have about half a million posts from legitimate Telstra users on the desks. Even if it's exaggeration, we should have dozens of them. Can you find ''one'' of them? Show us ''just one'' legitimate post from an anonymous Telstra user. This is before we get into the other characteristics of WickWack. [[User:Tevildo|Tevildo]] ([[User talk:Tevildo|talk]]) 09:00, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::::::Oh good grief. Don't you see that I just ''did'' that?! If you believe that every post from telstra/perth is WickWack - then every post I find from that area MUST be WickWack...then you ask me to find one that isn't. Don't you see that you've blinded yourself to the possibility that you might ever be wrong? And I didn't say that all 100,000 telstra/Perth/anonIP/Wikipedia-users post to the ref desks...that's clearly stupid - most of them come here to read articles about Japanese Railway stations or something - but, out of 100,000 - it would be surprising if none of them came here to ask a question once in a while. What I ''am'' saying it that there is a high probability that a post from an anonIP user in that area ISN'T WickWack...and by automatically assuming that they are, you're potentially making a horrible, horrible mistake. Even if there is only a 50/50 chance - wrongly accusing that one innocent questioner is enough of a bad thing to invalidate utterly the supposed benefit of a valid WickWack identification. So unless you have some further degree of certainty that this is an evil-doer, then you're damaging the ref desk rather than helping it. IMHO, if the questions and answers posted by a telstra/Perth/AnonIP/Spelling-mistooker are not nasty - we should [[WP:AGF]] and handle them just as we do with TimeWarner/Austin/Registered/Apostrophe-abusers like me. The only sure way to know you have an evildoer in our midst is if they actually do evil. Put another way - if the only way for evil-doers to do evil is to post innocuous, innocent questions at a reasonable volume so that we can't be reasonably certain that they are doing evil - then what evil are they actually doing? [[User:SteveBaker|SteveBaker]] ([[User talk:SteveBaker|talk]]) 15:00, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::::::Steve, not that it's any skin off my big nose, but did you bother to search the archives for the repetition of the spelling error in question that Tevildo recognized before going on this march? It has been all too evident that Wickwack still likes to contribute here (there have been plenty of his postings which easily pass the [[wp:duck]] test) and given the context it is not likely a ''random'' error, but I won't edit war over this one. --[[User:Modocc|Modocc]] ([[User talk:Modocc|talk]]) 15:47, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

:::::::::::This thread illustrates limitations on a strategy of Deny Recognition. It either assumes that editors can recognize known trolls, or puts a burden on them to recognize known trolls. It is hostile to good-faith editors who would like to become Reference Desk regulars, because they will learn that they can be scolded if they reply in good faith to trolls. I will note that Bugs just said, in a thread at [[WP:ANI]], that continuing to allow unregistered editors to edit is a mistake. I would at least say that tying ourselves in knots, e.g., by a Deny Recognition policy which provides the right to criticize failure to recognize trolls, in order to avoid semi-protection is silly. Deny Recognition is not effective unless the right to respond at the Reference Desk is limited to editors who have been trained in how to recognize trolls. I will again ask for a concise description of how any anti-troll strategy other than semi-protection can be consistent and avoid causing quarreling. Any anti-troll strategy that causes quarreling over how to implement it is playing into the hands of the trolls. In my own opinion, some of the editors here are trying themselves in knots to try to say that we can avoid semi-protection. [[User:Robert McClenon|Robert McClenon]] ([[User talk:Robert McClenon|talk]]) 17:25, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
::::::::::::If you can't tell that a post is from a troll - then is it really a troll? We see (above) a perfectly reasonable, interesting, on-topic response to a question being labelled as a "troll". But why? It's a perfectly ordinary day-to-day ref desk response. I don't particularly care to shut down those kinds of posts. Again, if I can't tell that it's a troll - why try to stop it? If a troll posts reasonable questions and responses as well as nasty ones - then I'm quite happy to deny recognition to the nasty ones and accept the reasonable ones. If the troll can thereby be trained to "play nice" in order to get recognition, then that's a good thing - right? [[User:SteveBaker|SteveBaker]] ([[User talk:SteveBaker|talk]]) 17:49, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
:::::::::::::I agree that if a post isn't obviously a troll post, it may not really be a troll post. You, [[User;SteveBaker]], said that what we hadn't tried yet was Deny Recognition. Since you think it is all right to respond to a reasonable question, without obsessing about whether it is from a banned user, can you please define concisely how Deny Recognition will work? What I see in Deny Recognition is a formula for allowing some regular editors to attack other reference desk editors for not obsessing about whether the post is from a troll. Can you please define concisely how Deny Recognition will work, and why it is better than semi-protection? [[User:Robert McClenon|Robert McClenon]] ([[User talk:Robert McClenon|talk]]) 17:56, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
(unindent)

It's hardly rocket science. If you don't like a post (rightly or wrongly - and for ''any'' reason whatever) - simply don't reply to it - and don't mention that you didn't reply to it - and don't mention if someone else replies to it. If everyone refuses to answer posts we don't like - then with luck, the poster will eventually give up typing junk that everyone ignores - and simply go away - or will be forced to ask interesting questions just to get a response...which is basically fine.

The only problem with that is with people who persistently ''answer'' questions that the rest of us think are inappropriate (persistently - not just once in a while). My opinion is that we quietly (and not anywhere on the RD itself), explain to them that this is probably a bad idea because it's feeding a probable troll. I'm not talking about "scolding" or "punishing" - just a quiet, gentle word in the person's ear. Maybe something like: "''Hi! I noticed that you've been answering quite a few WP:RD questions that seem to be from people who are asking them just to cause a fuss and get everyone upset. Our policy is to try to ignore people like that rather than answering their questions. It would be helpful to everyone if you could do that too. If it's not obvious to you whether a question is dubious or not - feel free to ask any of the Ref Desk regulars - myself included.''"...Trying to get an overall feeling that RD editors are sane, rational, intelligent, professional, caring people - who would just like to explain the problem here.

Why it's better than semi-protection is twofold:
# Trolls can create multiple accounts very easily - and blocking them is just as hard as blocking IP addresses - so semi-protection won't stop them forever.
# It cuts out our legitimate IP users and drastically reduces the number of people who benefit from our service.
[[User:SteveBaker|SteveBaker]] ([[User talk:SteveBaker|talk]]) 18:51, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

The other thing people desperately need to remember is that ''we do not necessarily need an absolute, one-size-fits-all policy here''. If we're trying to revert and/or deny recognition to trolls, but we don't manage to do it 100.00% of the time, that does not mean that we have failed. And if we're ''not'' trying to revert and/or deny recognition to trolls, but we do sometimes, that does not mean that we have failed, either. (I said [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Reference_desk&diff=prev&oldid=701005505 something like this eariler].) —[[User:scs|Steve Summit]] ([[User talk:scs|talk]]) 19:45, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
:Sure - there are definitely scenarios where I'd delete a question. For example, if some evil-doer decided to post 100 instances of the same exact question by doing a copy-paste...or if they were using an account that was '''definitely''' identified as a blocked or banned user (and by "definitely", I don't mean various gut feels and mysteriously ill-described methods). But doing that requires that the situation is sufficiently obvious that nobody is likely to disagree with it...because once we start arguing a particular case, we're feeding the troll again. To avoid that kind of discussion, we'd ideally want to enshrine the deletion policy in a formal WP:RD guideline or something. [[User:SteveBaker|SteveBaker]] ([[User talk:SteveBaker|talk]]) 21:42, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
:: As far as banned users are concerned, there is no need for such, because banned users are handled on the RD exactly like anywhere else: they get reverted, on sight, no matter what it is they post (question, answer, obviously disruptive, seemingly harmless – it doesn't matter a bit). They get reverted as soon as they are identified, and most of the time that happens through the [[WP:DUCK]] test. We do it everywhere on Wikipedia; there's nothing special about doing it here too. Now, for genuine ''trolling'' that happens not to be ban evasion (yet), we might talk about additional guidance, but that's a different matter. I really, really wish people would stop mixing these categories up all the time. [[User:Future Perfect at Sunrise|Fut.Perf.]] [[User talk:Future Perfect at Sunrise|☼]] 21:56, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
:::My point exactly. See [[WP:BMB]]. I've deleted WickWack's posting and its replies. If anyone wishes to restore it, I won't take any action. To Steve - show us _one_ anonymous posting from Telstra on the reference desks in the past four or five years that isn't from WickWack, and you might have a point. [[User:Tevildo|Tevildo]] ([[User talk:Tevildo|talk]])
:::: It's worth noting that there's a fundamental, base-postulates issue here. Suppose that:
::::# Anonymous user A makes a 100% innocuous, productive edit. (Mainspace, talk space, RD, doesn't matter.)
::::# Editor B knows -- just knows -- that anonymous user A is actually banned user Q. (Doesn't matter how editor B knows this, doesn't matter if editor B is right or wrong in this assessment.) Since banned users are not allowed to edit, editor B believes that the edit in (1) must be reverted.
::::# Editor C believes, since the edit in (1) was 100% innocuous and productive, that it (a) cannot with certainty be known to have been performed by banned user Q and (b) might as well be let to stand. (Editor C may believe this despite having read [[WP:BMB]].)
::::Now, my point in posting this is that ''editors B and C will never, ever agree''. Nothing will be gained by their arguing with each other any further, nothing will be gained by repeated appeals to [[WP:BMB]]. Editors B and C will have to agree to disagree on this point. (However, since policy favors editor B, once the problematic edit in (1) has been pointed out, it will typically have to be reverted, even if some other editor turns right around and makes it, since it was after all productive.) —[[User:scs|Steve Summit]] ([[User talk:scs|talk]]) 22:29, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
:::::It's also worth noting that miscreant admin D blocks long-term editors E and F because he '''assumes''' and '''claims''' they are "proxying for a banned editor'''. In no sense at all has miscreant admin D made '''any difference''' to Wikipedia other than to falsely block long-term editors, protect ref desks so that legitimate IPs cannot edit and create a hostile environment by poor communication whereby only "those in the know" (i.e. the miscreant admin and his buddies) understand what the hell is going on. [[User:The Rambling Man|The Rambling Man]] ([[User talk:The Rambling Man|talk]]) 22:34, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
:::::::I disagree that B & C can't ever agree if they are rational people. If B can explain the grounds on which A was identified as Q, and if they are reasonable then (rationally), C should apply the same test, obtain the same result, agree whole-heartedly that A is Q and back down forthwith. On the other hand, if B fails to adequately explain grounds for accusing A of being Q then C should stand ground and defend A's right to the presumption of innocence. Everything depends on the reason that B identified A as Q. In our recent debacle, B provided an argument of sorts and C doesn't believe it's remotely convincing. How B can stand up and continue to proclaim A is Q without evidence is beyond C's ability to comprehend. In a similar situation in the past, a different B (B<sup>3</sup>, perhaps) claims to hold their reasons secret on grounds of tipping off Q. C thinks that B<sup>3</sup>'s reasoning is unacceptable because it makes it impossible for others to verify that the test is valid and does indeed identify A as Q. [[User:SteveBaker|SteveBaker]] ([[User talk:SteveBaker|talk]]) 20:56, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

::::I wouldn't go so far as to include all Telstra but definitely Telstra that geolocate to WA. BTW, I saw this reply after Steve Baker had replied but I think before anyone else had (or maybe it was one more person can't remember) and immediately thought "this sounds like WickWack and the IP also looks like it) and quick geolocation confirmed it's WickWack's normal range. Seeing replies, I didn't do anything. I think a key point many editors are missing is that while to some extent recognition of the IP does come in to play, a lot of time it's fairly obvious from reading the response who it is. When you consider this combined with geolocation or WHOIS of the IP the chance of a false positive is not so high. Frankly with someone like Bowei Huang (who I think gave up editing from IPs) even a single question is normally enough for recognition although since SPI can be variable in what evidence they require, I normally wait a few posts before reporting (but not deleting if there are no replies). Although I think BWH often edits other stuff before coming here now anyway (perhaps partially because the desks they prefer are often semi-protected). P.S. Let's not forget that WickWack got in trouble not for asking questions but for their responses, in particular that they needed to be right so much that they invented other identities to affirm they were right. (And this discovery came after people were getting sick of them being excessively argumentative in their replies about being right, even when they had no sources.) [[User:Nil Einne|Nil Einne]] ([[User talk:Nil Einne|talk]]) 15:27, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
:::Since it has come up, I suggest you reacquaint yourself with some other material at [[WP:BMB]] It urges us balance ban enforcement with:
:::*Avoiding inconvenience or aggravation to any victims of mistaken identity.
:::*'''Maximizing''' the number of editors who can edit Wikipedia.
:::*'''Avoiding conflict within the community''' over banned editors.
:::I suggest that the current state of affairs is not achieving any such balance. I think it is unarguable that long-term semiprotection '''fails''' to maximize the number of editors. I think it is unarguable that the previous several thousand words on this talk page constitute strong evidence for conflict within the community. So I ask, why are you behaving against our guidelines? [[User:SemanticMantis|SemanticMantis]] ([[User talk:SemanticMantis|talk]]) 16:17, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
::::Any ''sincere'' editor who wants to edit here can do so. ←[[User:Baseball Bugs|Baseball Bugs]] <sup>''[[User talk:Baseball Bugs|What's up, Doc?]]''</sup> [[Special:Contributions/Baseball_Bugs|carrots]]→ 16:24, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
::::Although Wickwack is banned [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive249#Topic_ban_of_IP_editor_known_as_Wickwack_and_other_aliases] and he more or less gets removed on sight (unless we quarrel over it) he is not the cause of the trolling by [[Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Vote (X) for Change]] that has led to the current semi-protection. Given the description of their behavior and their unprovoked disruption of the language desk with edits such as [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Language&diff=prev&oldid=700929162 this] and subsequently reverted [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Language&diff=next&oldid=700939111] by an administrator, I've no doubt that this editor is keen on attempting to reap discord between the various administrators and contributors. And a quick check of these IPs' posts will bear this out. Thus given the severity of their past attacks and the current [[WP:Rough_guide_to_semi-protection | rough guide on semi-protection essay]] which says "If semi-protection is to be tried, its first application should be for a short duration, a few days or a week. If vandalism continues after the protection expires it can be added for a longer duration." it's not unsurprising that we have been in disagreement on the proper "balance" here, especially regarding "a longer duration". --[[User:Modocc|Modocc]] ([[User talk:Modocc|talk]]) 17:04, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
::::::I'm sorry, I know there's lots of related issues floating around, and it gets confusing. I brought up the guidelines about balance above because they seem to be to be contraindicating our current situation. I don't care if it's Wickwack, bowei, light current, Vote X, or whoever. I don't care if they are banned users,trolls,vandals, or whatever. My point was that this semi-protection is not balancing anything. While I am open to other viewpoints, I don't understand how one admin gets to go against consensus (even Robert, who doesn't agree, admits below that the consensus seems to be ''against'' long-term semi-protection). The protection is disrupting many IP users and many frequent helpful contributors, all because what, FPAS doesn't want to remove Vote X's posts? If he doesn't want to, he doesn't have to, but that doesn't mean he gets to shut everyone else down. The long-term abuse profile you linked advises [[WP:RBI]]. I posit that '''Vote X''' is getting tons of recognition, right here, right now. So ironically, I guess we can thank the protecting admins for giving recognition attention to these bad faith users. Letting one jerk hold all of the ref desks (and now the talk page!) hostage is just a really sad state of affairs, especially when it seems to also be against our own guidelines. (PS to simplify these discussions, I propose the term "Witch" to be "any troll, vandal,spammer, banned user, or otherwise disruptive user who acts in bad faith". That way we won't have to argue about what category the ne'er do wells in question belong in ;) [[User:SemanticMantis|SemanticMantis]] ([[User talk:SemanticMantis|talk]]) 21:28, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
:::::::<small>SM, that term might be construed as being offensive to practitioners of the [[Wiccan Rede]]. Shall we have an argument about this, as well? It seems to be our primary skill at the moment. [[User:Tevildo|Tevildo]] ([[User talk:Tevildo|talk]]) 22:01, 10 February 2016 (UTC)</small>
:::::::Ha, so now we are too civilized to dunk test witches. :-) Since I'm certain that Telvido, whom you were addressing, and the administrator Fut.Perf. have been acting within the guidelines even when we disagree with them: then feeding the wretched ones becomes unavoidable if we demand arguments and/or every minute detail of the justification(s) for the semi-protections. On a related note, I discovered an essay the other day which advocates keeping a low profile and staying above the fray.. not that is likely, but its best we argue about appropriate policy and for us not tp throw around allegations of its abuse. -[[User:Modocc|Modocc]] ([[User talk:Modocc|talk]]) 22:36, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
::::::::If we do want an argument, may I suggest "miscreant"? [[User:Tevildo|Tevildo]] ([[User talk:Tevildo|talk]]) 23:07, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
:::::::''"The protection is disrupting many IP users and many frequent helpful contributors, all because what, FPAS doesn't want to remove Vote X's posts? If he doesn't want to, he doesn't have to, but that doesn't mean he gets to shut everyone else down."'' -- I couldn't have expressed it better myself. Unaware of the ongoing discussion on this talk page, I posted a like-minded message onto his user talk page; but he didn't condescend to respond. --[[User:My another account|My another account]] ([[User talk:My another account|talk]]) 20:06, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

:Something that occured to me, is the premise at the beginning of this question even correct? I don't check out all the desks nor do I regularly check out the history to see what's happened recently, but a lot of the stuff I am seeing is stuff like [[Special:Contributions/Kevin.b32]] coming from newly registered non autoconfirmed editors. The autoconfirmed editors I've seen tended to be Bowei Huang socks who's frequency doesn't seem to have been changed by protections. Are there examples of this increase in disruptive recently autoconfirmed editors (perhaps 2 or 3). Autoconfirmation isn't a particularly high threshold but it is a threshold many can't be bothered with.[[User:Nil Einne|Nil Einne]] ([[User talk:Nil Einne|talk]]) 07:53, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

====Semi-protection of this talk page====
While I have been arguing, apparently in disagreement with a consensus of the other regular editors here, that long-term semi-protection of the Reference Desks themselves is the lesser evil compared to any other strategy for dealing with trolling at the Reference Desks, since we can't agree on the details of how such a strategy should be implemented, I see that this Reference Desk talk page has been semi-protected. Can the protecting admin, [[User:Ian.thomson]], explain why that is thought to be necessary here? I think that semi-protecting a talk page is an extreme measure. (I do remember once when it was necessary, at a [[WP:FRINGE|fringe science]] talk page that was subject to disruption by multiple IPs, but it is an extreme measure.) [[User:Robert McClenon|Robert McClenon]] ([[User talk:Robert McClenon|talk]]) 19:37, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
:I too, await an explanation, thanks. [[User:SemanticMantis|SemanticMantis]] ([[User talk:SemanticMantis|talk]]) 21:28, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
::It's simple. The ongoing IP edits are providing too much information on the misbehaviour of Arbcom-favoured admins who are compelled to block just about every IP wherever possible around here, and protect the Ref Desk from genuine usage. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy, the blocking admins are actively destroying Wikipedia's core principles and they know it. [[User:The Rambling Man|The Rambling Man]] ([[User talk:The Rambling Man|talk]]) 21:33, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
::(I couldn't resist, I made a new section about this below for increased visibility.) [[User:SemanticMantis|SemanticMantis]] ([[User talk:SemanticMantis|talk]]) 21:41, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
:Although perhaps not wishing to endorse TRM's statement in its entirety, I still must agree that various admins have been rather too aggressive recently in their responses to Vote X. Manual reversion seems to work satisfactorily, on the talk page at least, and locking it for a week in response to eight Vote X postings in six hours does not appear to be a proportionate solution. [[User:Tevildo|Tevildo]] ([[User talk:Tevildo|talk]]) 21:45, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

:These are the sockpuppets of [[Wikipedia:Long-term_abuse/Vote_(X)_for_Change|Vote (X) for Change]] over the past ten days: [[Special:Contributions/86.152.26.40]], [[Special:Contributions/78.146.125.6]], [[Special:Contributions/81.151.129.173]], [[Special:Contributions/31.53.53.101]], [[Special:Contributions/86.176.97.182]], [[Special:Contributions/86.154.82.210]], [[Special:Contributions/92.27.34.20]], [[Special:Contributions/80.194.231.224]], [[Special:Contributions/86.136.177.72]], [[Special:Contributions/213.104.52.87]], [[Special:Contributions/86.154.83.10]], [[Special:Contributions/94.193.77.45]], [[Special:Contributions/31.53.53.101]], [[Special:Contributions/94.192.26.242]], [[Special:Contributions/31.52.138.1]], [[Special:Contributions/86.150.228.245]], [[Special:Contributions/86.180.40.47]], [[Special:Contributions/92.8.222.102]], [[Special:Contributions/81.151.101.240]], [[Special:Contributions/31.53.162.96]], [[Special:Contributions/94.193.78.90]], [[Special:Contributions/86.154.82.191]], [[Special:Contributions/81.151.128.169]], [[Special:Contributions/90.213.129.1]], [[Special:Contributions/176.250.251.225]], [[Special:Contributions/86.188.86.81]], [[Special:Contributions/92.27.72.99]], [[Special:Contributions/80.194.236.138]], [[Special:Contributions/217.41.38.76]], [[Special:Contributions/78.149.195.161]], [[Special:Contributions/80.44.37.98]]
:31 over 10 days, each making a few posts (so several a day). In that time, there were maybe a dozen semi-protected edit requests. Blocking wasn't working, because he was just hopping to a new IP. If someone disagrees with the protection, I don't mind if it's shortened or eliminated, but that seemed the most obvious solution to me.
:And a further note in response to some of the stuff I'm seeing here: I don't know or [[WP:DGAF|care]] about any politics between that sock and arbcom or whatever, I just saw disruptive posts outnumbering useful anon edits by close to 10 to 1 for over a week. When that happens on other pages, we do the same thing, and no one seriously suggests that we delete that article or that it has anything to do with site politics. '''Same deal here.''' I suggest a few editors go re-read [[WP:AGF]]. [[User:Ian.thomson|Ian.thomson]] ([[User talk:Ian.thomson|talk]]) 01:44, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
::Thank you for the explanation. Are you saying that disruptive edits to this talk page substantially outnumbered good-faith IP edits? [[User:Robert McClenon|Robert McClenon]] ([[User talk:Robert McClenon|talk]]) 02:35, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
:::Yes, many times over. If it was closer to equal, I'd've left it alone. [[User:Ian.thomson|Ian.thomson]] ([[User talk:Ian.thomson|talk]]) 03:04, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

:Without commenting on the merits of the semiprotection of this talk page, and at the risk of [[WP:Beans]] we do already have [[Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/unprotected talk page]] if editors need it. We could link to it from the top if needed. <p>From what I've seen, this is common with user talk pages that are semiprotected, but not with article talk pages. Partially this is because there are often BLP concerns, but I think also because editors can't be bothered dealing with reverting so many IP edits when so few are useful. Definitely with [[Talk:Poop]] and [[Talk:Forum]] but also I think in cases like [[Talk:Justin Bieber]] it gets boring reverting all the Justin Bieber rules/Justin Bieber sucks posts. From a look at [[:Category:Semi-protected talk pages]], it looks like the majority just have {{tl:pp-vandalism}} or {{tl:pp-semi-blp}} and one or two have links to [[WP:RFED]] (I couldn't actually find a semiprotected article talk page that was in use). <p>P.S. Some of those are a bit weird. E.g. [[:File talk:Swift performs in St. Louis, Missouri in 2013.jpg]]. Perhaps it was used in her article, but it doesn't look like that talk page was ever protected so I'm not sure why they ended up on the file talk page. <p>The only comment I will say about the merits of the talk page semi-protection is I think whether we need to consider if the number of IP useful IP edits are high enough that we should accept the annoyance of reverting unwanted contribs despite the poor ratios. While I never checked, I presume in most of the pages I listed, the number of helpful IP edits is very small because while many of the articles aren't FA, it's still harder to make a useful contrib without careful reading and they're also less likely to bother anyway. <p>One possibility is to link to the unprotected talk page in the various headers so that IPs can easily find the unprotected talk page. Again at the risk of beans, it looks to me like most constructive IP edits here are edit requests which aren't going to be significantly affected by being on a different page and the unconstructive are attempted to participate in the ongoing discussions by banned editors. <p>[[User:Nil Einne|Nil Einne]] ([[User talk:Nil Einne|talk]]) 08:37, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

:: Many years ago, I did a study by taking 200 randomly selected articles and figuring out the percentage of "good" vs "bad" edits over 12 months for IP versus named-account editors...and overwhelmingly, the good edits were by users with accounts and the bad ones were IP's - it wasn't by a small margin, it was overwhelmingly true. On that basis, I've generally supported semi-protection requests for articles that are actively being vandalized...it works, and it's not a terrible thing for the future of the encyclopedia (although some ardent anon-IP people might be scared off - it doesn't greatly impact the quality of our articles).

:: But here on the ref desks it's different. We might very well find that IP's who ''respond'' to questions aren't very important - but IP's who ''ask'' questions are pretty much our core demographic. Blocking them from asking questions easily is like telling IP users that they can't read Wikipedia articles anymore!

::As a compromise, I wonder if semi-protection over just some limited IP address range is technologically feasible? That would go some way to solving the telstra/Perth issue. It would still make life harder (but not impossible) for hypothetical telstra/Perth innocents while shutting out telstra/Perth bad guy. I still don't like it - but it would be an improvement over blanket semi-protection.
:: [[User:SteveBaker|SteveBaker]] ([[User talk:SteveBaker|talk]]) 15:43, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
::: The effect would be achievable, though technically not through semi-protection proper but through an edit filter. I've been considering this myself. It would certainly be more effective than the content-based filters we've been trying so far, and it would lead to considerably less collateral damage than either full rangeblocks (affecting all pages), or semi-protection (affecting all IPs). Trouble is that at least in the Vote X case, the set of affected ranges is quite large, so the filter would be fairly complex. I was under the impression that filters consisting of a lot of complex pattern matching are computationally costly, so we'd have to check with the filter gurus to see if it's advisable. Don't know how big the affected ranges are for the Telstra guy. [[User:Future Perfect at Sunrise|Fut.Perf.]] [[User talk:Future Perfect at Sunrise|☼]] 15:58, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

:::It is technologically possible to block certain IP ranges from editing certain pages. Without divulging too much into detail per [[WP:BEANS]], the consequences however would be blocking an entire city from editing said pages (for the refdesks, this would only apply to anon users editing from a specific area). However if this idea were to be implemented, protection would likely be unnecessary and would allow a greater number of editors to edit. If this is a solution that has consensus, I can try to implement it for you guys. [[User:Elockid|<span style="font-family:Berlin Sans FB;font-size:105%;font-weight:bold;color:#4682B4">Elockid</span>]]&nbsp;<sup>[[User talk:Elockid|<span style="color:#99BADD">Message me</span>]]</sup> 15:55, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
::: Steve, while I may regret posting this, I don't think that blocking Telstra would be of assistance. WickWack is not a prolific poster, and manual reversion is all that's needed to deal with him - and, as you point out most vocally above, there are many thousands of non-banned Telstra users who might want to post. Vote X is a different matter - they use a vast range of IP addresses, and a range block wouldn't be feasible, as far as I know - otherwise, I'd expect it to have been tried already. [[User:Tevildo|Tevildo]] ([[User talk:Tevildo|talk]]) 16:05, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
::::That's good information. So that brings us back to the previous issue - how do we know that a post is from Vote X? [[User:SteveBaker|SteveBaker]] ([[User talk:SteveBaker|talk]]) 18:31, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
:::::It'll be interesting to see the answer to that question, it might help in resolving a small part of our current issues. I don't know it myself. [[User:Tevildo|Tevildo]] ([[User talk:Tevildo|talk]]) 19:34, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
::::::Yeah to be clear, Wickwack clearly isn't the reason the RD is semiprotected and aren't really that hard to deal with or identify. Identifying Vote X is a bit harder although from what I've seen they generally give it away in the end. (Actually I wrote a long comment where I partially address this in reply to the proposal below but I haven't decided whether to post yet.) I wouldn't completely rule out an edit filter based range block of Vote X. IMO the big issue here is complexity. I presume the reason a general range block hasn't been implemented is it's considered too disruptive to block such large ranges throughout the encyclopaedia despite the high level of disruption which isn't just to the RD (they've been around since 2012 or so). To give a random possibly [[WP:Beans]] example, I'm not sure if we have to worry about Vote X disruption [[Talk:My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic]] and related articles any time soon. Since we're semi protecting the RD anyway, there would ultimately be less disruption here if it was possible and worked. (The ranges are large enough that we may stop a small number of non Vote X edits which is unfortunate, but I think it's difficult to argue that the majority of edits from these ranges here aren't coming from Vote X particularly when they often give it away.) The later may be the other issue, I asked this elsewhere and I don't think anyone answered. Is the editor who was using open proxies (or whatever) and was changing to South Korea and random other locations within minutes Vote X or someone else? Will they be back with a vengence in that form and do they have enough open proxies to cause significant disruption? I guess we won't know until we try. [[User:Nil Einne|Nil Einne]] ([[User talk:Nil Einne|talk]]) 07:31, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
:::::::That's not Vote X (the person using the proxies). I have been stepping up blocking anonymizing services, so that should be of some deterrent for them. [[User:Elockid|<span style="font-family:Berlin Sans FB;font-size:105%;font-weight:bold;color:#4682B4">Elockid</span>]]&nbsp;<sup>[[User talk:Elockid|<span style="color:#99BADD">Message me</span>]]</sup> 13:06, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

== Mobile app ==

Hi am BOTFIGHTER, Can I login in Wikipedia official app(from playstore)?[[User:BOTFIGHTER|BOTFIGHTER]] ([[User talk:BOTFIGHTER|talk]]) 12:24, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
:{{ping|BOTFIGHTER}}. This question would be better on the Help Desk ([[WP:HD]]). [[User:Tevildo|Tevildo]] ([[User talk:Tevildo|talk]]) 13:12, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
::I have asked it![[User:BOTFIGHTER|BOTFIGHTER]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Tevildo|Tevildo]] ([[User talk:Tevildo|talk]]) 12:35, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
:::{{ping|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]]. &#8213;[[User:Mandruss|<span style="color:#775C57;">'''''Mandruss'''''</span>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:Mandruss|<span style="color:#AAA;">&#9742;</span>]] 12:44, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
:::{{ping|BOTFIGHTER}} Another editor has moved your question to [[WP:VPT#Mobile app]]. &#8213;[[User:Mandruss|<span style="color:#775C57;">'''''Mandruss'''''</span>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:Mandruss|<span style="color:#AAA;">&#9742;</span>]] 13:52, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
::::I saw that [[User:Mandruss|Mandruss]] , I am really sorry for asking at wrong place![[User:BOTFIGHTER|BOTFIGHTER]] ([[User talk:BOTFIGHTER|talk]]) 15:54, 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. [[User:SemanticMantis|SemanticMantis]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:The Rambling Man|The Rambling Man]] ([[User talk:The Rambling Man|talk]]) 21:45, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
::It looks you are enabling and encouraging [[WP:LTA|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? [[User:DD2K|Dave Dial]] ([[User talk:DD2K|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? [[User:The Rambling Man|The Rambling Man]] ([[User talk: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.--[[User:Modocc|Modocc]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Tevildo|Tevildo]] ([[User talk: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? <font face="Papyrus" size="3" color="#800080">[[User:Liz|'''''L'''''iz]]</font> <sup><font face="Times New Roman" color="#006400">[[Special:Contributions/Liz|'''''Read!''''']] [[User talk:Liz|'''''Talk!''''']]</font></sup> 23:03, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
:::I did not know that, or about the other venues for edit requests, thanks. [[User:SemanticMantis|SemanticMantis]] ([[User talk: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. <font face="Papyrus" size="3" color="#800080">[[User:Liz|'''''L'''''iz]]</font> <sup><font face="Times New Roman" color="#006400">[[Special:Contributions/Liz|'''''Read!''''']] [[User talk:Liz|'''''Talk!''''']]</font></sup> 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 {{ping|Liz}}, for exemplifying [[WP:AGF]], which I suggest that certain other users go re-read. [[User:Ian.thomson|Ian.thomson]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:DD2K|Dave Dial]] ([[User talk:DD2K|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))." [[User:Ian.thomson|Ian.thomson]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Robert McClenon|Robert McClenon]] ([[User talk:Robert McClenon|talk]]) 04:25, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
::{{ping|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. [[User:SemanticMantis|SemanticMantis]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:StuRat|StuRat]] ([[User talk: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. ←[[User:Baseball Bugs|Baseball Bugs]] <sup>''[[User talk:Baseball Bugs|What's up, Doc?]]''</sup> [[Special:Contributions/Baseball_Bugs|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''. [[User:SteveBaker|SteveBaker]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:SemanticMantis|SemanticMantis]] ([[User talk: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. ←[[User:Baseball Bugs|Baseball Bugs]] <sup>''[[User talk:Baseball Bugs|What's up, Doc?]]''</sup> [[Special:Contributions/Baseball_Bugs|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. [[User:SteveBaker|SteveBaker]] ([[User talk:SteveBaker|talk]]) 19:41, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

== Concrete proposal ==
{{rfc|policy|prop|rfcid=7BE144C}}
OK. It's time for a concrete proposal here. Talking around each other has been solving nothing. We must come up with some way to reach an agreement on how to handle trolling. I'm going to put forth two proposals to an up-down vote. We need to have a clear path forward from the interminable conflict over protecting the ref desks. Please vote only in the voting sections, and leave the threaded discussion for the discussion section. I'd like to see just these three proposals voted upon before coming up with alternatives. If any of these fail, THEN we can move forward with alternate proposals.--[[User:Jayron32|<span style="color:#009">Jayron</span>]][[User talk:Jayron32|<b style="color:#090">''32''</b>]] 20:33, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

===Proposal 1: length of protection===

Proposal: The Reference Desks and Reference Desk talk page shall only be protected for a maximum of 48 hours at a time, and shorter protections should be tried first during periods of heavy abuse.

;Rationale for proposal
It is clear that there is no strong support for long-term protections of the ref desks or this talk page. We should start with very short protections (a few hours at most), and we should never see the desks protected for longer than 48 hours, and they should spend more time open than closed.

====Support====
#--[[User:Jayron32|<span style="color:#009">Jayron</span>]][[User talk:Jayron32|<b style="color:#090">''32''</b>]] 20:33, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
#-- [[User:SemanticMantis|SemanticMantis]] ([[User talk:SemanticMantis|talk]]) 20:37, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
#—[[User:scs|Steve Summit]] ([[User talk:scs|talk]]) 20:47, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
#Per my opinion that virtually any consensus is better than none. &#8213;[[User:Mandruss|<span style="color:#775C57;">'''''Mandruss'''''</span>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:Mandruss|<span style="color:#AAA;">&#9742;</span>]] 20:53, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
#—Especially the talk page. [[User:Deor|Deor]] ([[User talk:Deor|talk]]) 21:13, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
#- [[User:Tevildo|Tevildo]] ([[User talk:Tevildo|talk]]) 21:22, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
#- Partial agree, as to the talk page. [[User:Robert McClenon|Robert McClenon]] ([[User talk:Robert McClenon|talk]]) 21:23, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
# Agree with the caveat that I read this to mean that this proposal is ''limiting'' protection lengths, but not ''authorizing'' protection in the first place. Protection has been pushed on us as a fait accompli, but I think we can do without it entirely, and this should not be taken as an authorization or acceptance of it in any way - we're just agreeing to limit it as a first step to action. [[User:Wnt|Wnt]] ([[User talk:Wnt|talk]]) 22:18, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
#It's abundantly clear that the current "protection regime" is not working in way. The bizarre hope that the vandals will suddenly disappear after 72 hours or 168 hours has been already shown to be bullshit. By removing access to the areas of Wikipedia that IPs are most likely to access is like watching ISIS destroy historical architecture, and those that continue to advocate such a stupidly unimaginative and regimental approach to this are destroying Wikipedia more than the vandals. The blocking and protection that FPAS (for example) has indulged in has achieved '''nothing'''. The IP can continue to add comments at will. In fact, the results are negative, the IP continues to control the Ref Desks, good faith editors cannot because of the prefect admins, and FPAS continues to protect himself. It's a joke. [[User:The Rambling Man|The Rambling Man]] ([[User talk:The Rambling Man|talk]]) 23:05, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
# Yes. A couple of hours means he might get bored and be elsewhere for a bit.[[User:Casliber|Cas Liber]] ([[User talk:Casliber|talk]] '''·''' [[Special:Contributions/Casliber|contribs]]) 07:34, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
# — <small><span class="nowrap" style="border:1px solid #000000;padding:1px;"><b>[[User:Ched|Ched]]</b> : [[User_talk:Ched|<font style="color:#FFFFFF;background:#0000fa;">&nbsp;?&nbsp;</font>]]</span></small> 13:44, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
# '''Support with caveats''' [[User:SteveBaker|SteveBaker]] ([[User talk:SteveBaker|talk]]) 15:32, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
# '''Support''' - Better still why not get rid of IP editing altogether ? .... It would probably solve 90% of all our problems!, Anyway a few hours is a start & at the moment is better than nothing, If the trolling continues by the same person then bump the hours up. –[[User:Davey2010|<span style="color: blue;">'''Davey'''</span><span style="color: orange;">'''2010'''</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Davey2010|<span style="color: navy;">'''Talk'''</span>]]</sup> 23:29, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
# '''Support''' - - the reference desk is a major part how the world sees our site; we pride ourselves as being an encyclopedia that "anyone can edit", so protection for these pages must be as short as possible. [[User:Od Mishehu|עוד&nbsp;מישהו]] [[User talk:Od Mishehu|Od&nbsp;Mishehu]] 18:14, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
#'''Support''' I can't see most trolls hanging around the RD longer than 48 hours. [[User:Miniapolis|'''''<span style="color:navy">Mini</span>''''']][[User_talk:Miniapolis|'''''<span style="color:#8B4513">apolis</span>''''']] 23:03, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
#'''Support''' -- <span style="font-size:1.6em;line-height:.8em;">[[User:OlEnglish|&oelig;]]</span>[[User talk:OlEnglish|<sup>&trade;</sup>]] 06:08, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

====Oppose====
#Oppose 48-hour rule on Reference Desk pages, but would support a limitation to 5 days. [[User:Robert McClenon|Robert McClenon]] ([[User talk:Robert McClenon|talk]]) 21:25, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
#I concur that 5 days would be a better upper bound. You don't want to make things ''too'' easy for the trolls. ←[[User:Baseball Bugs|Baseball Bugs]] <sup>''[[User talk:Baseball Bugs|What's up, Doc?]]''</sup> [[Special:Contributions/Baseball_Bugs|carrots]]→ 21:38, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
#Manifestly invalid proposal in principle. Protections on the Refdesk will continue to be handled according to the same principles as everywhere else on the project, following [[WP:Protection policy]]. No "consensus" here can restrict the application of that policy or exempt this page from it, per [[WP:LOCALCONSENSUS]]. [[User:Future Perfect at Sunrise|Fut.Perf.]] [[User talk:Future Perfect at Sunrise|☼]] 21:59, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
#This RfC is invalid as it based on false premises. No local consensus among people who dedicate themselves to freely speaking at ref desks can limit admin discretion on handling disruption to the project. Further, proposing a limit completely misunderstands the nature of trolling and DENY. It's a bit BEANSy to spell out the details—suffice to say that the problem would be resolved soon if not for the actions of those ref desk contributors who amplify and enable the disruption. [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] ([[User talk:Johnuniq|talk]]) 23:28, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
#Fut. Perf. and Johnuiq said it. [[User:Akhilleus|--Akhilleus]] ([[User talk:Akhilleus|talk]]) 01:13, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
#Per FPaS, Johnuiq and BB. Handle as with any other protection, based on need. [[User:Beyond My Ken|BMK]] ([[User talk:Beyond My Ken|talk]]) 01:25, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
# Support the feels, '''oppose''' the proposal. Discretion, not rules. All&nbsp;the&nbsp;best: ''[[User:Rich Farmbrough|Rich]]&nbsp;[[User talk:Rich Farmbrough|Farmbrough]]'',<small> 14:45, 14 February 2016 (UTC).</small><br />
#'''Oppose''' per the above. Admin discretion is adequate. [[WP:RFPP]] works fine if you think an admin did too little or too much protection. Adding more rules will just cause problems the first time an admin protects 50 hours, then it is a debate. There has been no argument provided that says why we should treat the Ref Desk differently than any other page on Wikipedia. [[User:Dennis Brown|<b>Dennis Brown</b>]] - [[User talk:Dennis Brown|<b>2&cent;</b>]] 19:20, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
#I support the proposal on paper, but as mentioned above, 48-hours might be a bit too short in certain cases. I would very much prefer trying 48-hour protections in most cases, but 48-hours should not be the limit; maybe at most up to a week (any longer should require some kind of consensus). [[User:Narutolovehinata5|Narutolovehinata5]] <sup>[[User talk:Narutolovehinata5|t]][[Special:Contributions/Narutolovehinata5|c]][[WP:CSD|csd]][[Special:Newpages|new]]</sup> 01:35, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

====Discussion====
{{tq|I'd like to see just these three proposals voted upon}} - I appear to be missing one proposal. &#8213;[[User:Mandruss|<span style="color:#775C57;">'''''Mandruss'''''</span>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:Mandruss|<span style="color:#AAA;">&#9742;</span>]] 21:04, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

I have taken it on myself to put a formal RFC template on this proposal. I was about to prepare a similar but slightly different RFC, but am willing to just let this one run its course, because any reasonable RFC with formal closure, and this is a reasonable RFC, is better than either endless back-and-forth or straw polls that don't clearly result in consensus. [[User:Robert McClenon|Robert McClenon]] ([[User talk:Robert McClenon|talk]]) 21:27, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

In response to FPaS' comment, this proposal does not contradict or modify [[WP:SEMI]] in any way. All it does is to change the definition of "short period" in [[WP:ROUGH]] (which, I'm sure nobody needs to be reminded, is ''not'' official policy) from "a few days or a week" to "48 hours maximum". [[User:Tevildo|Tevildo]] ([[User talk:Tevildo|talk]]) 22:14, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
:'''^^^^''' This. Thank you for stating this clearly and succinctly. [[User:SemanticMantis|SemanticMantis]] ([[User talk:SemanticMantis|talk]]) 23:05, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
In response to FPaS' comment, an RfC is not a local consensus. Any reasonable reading of [[Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines]] suggests that a community consensus trumps policy for a specific case or situation. I also don't care for your overbearing tone. &#8213;[[User:Mandruss|<span style="color:#775C57;">'''''Mandruss'''''</span>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:Mandruss|<span style="color:#AAA;">&#9742;</span>]] 22:18, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
:That's what FPAS does, like some kind of overlord, he knows best, and despite the fact that most of the IP traffic relates to his misbehaviour, he continues to call foul. [[User:The Rambling Man|The Rambling Man]] ([[User talk:The Rambling Man|talk]]) 22:53, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' - I agree with [[User:Tevildo]] and with [[User:SemanticMantis]] in respectfully disagreeing with [[User:Future Perfect at Sunrise]]. On re-reading of [[WP:Protection policy]], about protection in general and semi-protection in particular, the policy states that admins may impose semi-protection when necessary. It does not specify the length. We may indeed be trying to establish a local consensus, but, if so, it is a local consensus to guide the global consensus as to the length of the semi-protection. What the policy cited by FPAS on local consensus is that local consensus may not override global consensus. The global consensus is a policy authorizing semi-protection. Stating that the Reference Desk and its talk page should never be semi-protected would be a local consensus to override global consensus. This is only an effort to guide the implementation of the global consensus. [[User:Robert McClenon|Robert McClenon]] ([[User talk:Robert McClenon|talk]]) 00:26, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' - I will note that this proposal was originally written by another admin, [[User:Jayron32]], who is just as familiar with the protection policy as FPAS. I then put an RFC tag on it, because, as I said, any RFC is better than no RFC, or better than one of these empty straw polls. What I infer is that, in response to disruptive editing, FPAS decided to impose a very long period of semi-protection. Jayron32 appears to think that the semi-protection is too long, but he is constrained against shortening it unilaterally, because that would be [[WP:WW|wheel warring]], so that he did the constructive thing to try to get local consensus defining reasonable periods for semi-protection for the Reference Desks. I respectfully disagree with FPAS, who states that any discussion that would restrict FPAS's judgment, with which others disagree, is improper. In other words, FPAS appears to be saying that the policy is simply that the first admin gets to specify the length, and there is no way to constrain that judgment. Maybe I misunderstand FPAS; if so, please clarify. I thank [[User:Ian.thomson]] for being willing to shorten the semi-protection here. [[User:Robert McClenon|Robert McClenon]] ([[User talk:Robert McClenon|talk]]) 00:36, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' - I thought, until now, that I was much closer to FPAS, in favoring semi-protection, than to most of the Help Desk regulars, some of whom think that semi-protection is never appropriate (but who can't agree on the alternative). I think that some of them are compromising in supporting a two-day limit (with which I disagree). However, it appears that I may be more nearly aligned with them, in merely thinking that there should be reasonable limits on semi-protection, than with FPAS, if I understand. Maybe I misunderstand FPAS. [[User:Robert McClenon|Robert McClenon]] ([[User talk:Robert McClenon|talk]]) 00:36, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
*'''Comment''': We have to understand what there are two things that make places like this different from Article space:
** In article space, shutting down edits - even with full protection - inconveniences hardly anyone. Sure, someone may want to fix something and can't - but the article may still be read by anyone - and serves it's purpose fully. In ref-desk space, shutting down edits with any protection level whatever, makes the page unusable to whomever the protection locks out. The analogy in article space was that if, in order to prevent trolling, we blanked out the page so it could no longer be read by IP users. If such protection levels existed for article, we'd be unbelievably cautious in applying them - even for one hour, yet here on the ref-desks, that's happening routinely.
** In article space, most people who want to use Wikipedia - but who aren't interested in editing it don't create accounts - why would they? But in order to use the Ref Desks, they have to "edit" the page in order to ask their question and add followup information if they need to. That means that we get far more innocent IP "editors" than most other pages. So semi-protection impacts a larger slice of the population than in a regular article-space page.
*# We should NEVER semi-protect both the content page(s) and the talk page simultaneous - because that amounts to shutting out innocent IP users entirely with no means to even ask why or to request a non-IP user to ask a question on their behalf.
*# I don't believe that even a short span of semi-protection is useful because imposing it rewards the troll by disrupting the ref desks. We have to understand that the troll craves recognition - and allowing them to shut out 80% of our potential users is victory for the troll. Applying semi-protection ''is'' feeding the trolls.
*: I supported this masure because I believe that limiting the period of time for which the troll is effective at disrupting us is better than letting them disrupt us for much longer periods - but zero would be a better limit for me. [[User:SteveBaker|SteveBaker]] ([[User talk:SteveBaker|talk]]) 15:47, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
:::meta: This last para is a display of two very important editor traits which are both in very short supply all over the project. First, that consensus requires give-and-take. Second, the understanding that the perfect is the enemy of the good. Thanks, Steve. &#8213;[[User:Mandruss|<span style="color:#775C57;">'''''Mandruss'''''</span>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:Mandruss|<span style="color:#AAA;">&#9742;</span>]] 15:58, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
:::It's true that these desks are by no means equivalent to article space, thus I recently logged out when this talkpage was not protected and did so again when it became semi-protected and the latter case appeared more intuitive since it directs to [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection#Current_requests_for_edits_to_a_protected_page this page], thus I've thought of advocating the exact opposite: for admins to semi-protect this talkpage whenever any of the desk pages are protected. And with that, a few hours of inconvenience <s>isn't</s> shouldn't be a huge price to pay, but it needs to be a measure of last resort. And looking at that page again to follow through, I can't find the instructions for making a request: apparently they are supposed be somewhere at the top of that page I linked to, but if they there then they must be buried somewhere within the protection request instructions which is not helpful. So lets keep this page unprotected at least until these instructions are fixed. --[[User:Modocc|Modocc]] ([[User talk:Modocc|talk]]) 16:19, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
* '''Procedural Note:''' When the results of this !vote are tallied - everyone needs to remain clear that it is a consequence of the way that this question (and the subsequent question) were asked, that at no point was anyone asked "Would you like to be rid of semi-protection completely?" or "Are there better solutions we should consider instead?". Consequently, consensus on this question is entirely limited to asking what the span of semi-protection should be, '''''if''''' (hypothetically) we wanted semi-protection at all. Please let no-one consider EITHER outcome of this !vote as an endorsement of the policy of semi-protection in the first place. [[User:SteveBaker|SteveBaker]] ([[User talk:SteveBaker|talk]]) 02:33, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
::[[User:Davey2010]] - See [[WP:Perennial proposals]] and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Perennial_proposals#Prohibit_anonymous_users_from_editing. I happen to agree with you that unregistered editing was a mistake from the inception of Wikipedia, but we are apparently in a minority. I personally don't see why editors who want to be anonymous can't register pseudonymously, but we are in a minority. In any case, at these Reference Desks, there are editors who think that our mission is to serve the community of unregistered editors, and that any limitation on that mission, even by short-term semi-protection, defeats the purpose of the Reference Desks. I disagree with that, but those of us who would prefer to eliminate IP editing are getting nowhere, especially here where some editors think that our mission is largely to serve the IPs. [[User:Robert McClenon|Robert McClenon]] ([[User talk:Robert McClenon|talk]]) 17:50, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
:::Exactly it takes what 5 minutes the most to create an account.... Not really rocket science, Personally I consider registered editors "the community" and that's it .... I couldn't care less about the IPs but I know I'm certainly the minority on that, I'm extremely surprised the proposal was ever rejected but I'm even more shocked by the statement "'''''Reasons for previous rejection:''' A large portion of our good edits come from IP addresses''" ..... Now I sit here and actually wonder "What good edits?" ...., So it looks like IPs are here to still for an extremely long time then .... Shame really!. –[[User:Davey2010|<span style="color: blue;">'''Davey'''</span><span style="color: orange;">'''2010'''</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Davey2010|<span style="color: navy;">'''Talk'''</span>]]</sup> 18:15, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
::::I do see good edits from unregistered editors. I also occasionally see constructive participation at dispute resolution from unregistered editors. At the same time, I don't see any solid reason why they don't register. Also, it doesn't take 5 minutes to create an account and edit a semi-protected page. It takes 5 minutes to create an account. It takes four days to create an account and edit a semi-protected page. You, [[User;Davey2010]], and I disagree with some regulars here that this Reference Desk has a special mission to serve the unregistered editors, because we don't see unregistered editors as the community. [[User:Robert McClenon|Robert McClenon]] ([[User talk:Robert McClenon|talk]]) 22:30, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
In response to Rich Farmbrough and Dennis Brown, the problem we have at the moment is lack of agreement among the admins who regularly patrol the desks as to the appropriate duration of semi-protection and the threshold for applying it. This RfC is (as I understand it) intended to establish a formal consensus on these issues, as informal reliance on administrator discretion is not apparently working. [[User:Tevildo|Tevildo]] ([[User talk:Tevildo|talk]]) 22:05, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

===Proposal 2: Reasons for protection===

Proposal: The reference desks should only be protected for a) manifestly abusive, obscene, or disruptive attacks which are b) repeated and for which c) other methods such as [[WP:RBI|reverting and blocking]] are not working. If the content of the posts are not objectionable, the desks should not be protected, even if the posts are made by banned users.

;Rationale for the proposal
It is rarely contentious to remove posts or to protect the reference desks for posts which everyone recognizes as abusive or trolling. It is always contentious where the content of the posts is unobjectionable, but where it is found that some banned user has posted. There is little agreement that we need to lock down the desks just to make someone go away, where their posts to these desks wouldn't be recognizably wrong, except for that they are banned.

====Support prop. 2====
#--[[User:Jayron32|<span style="color:#009">Jayron</span>]][[User talk:Jayron32|<b style="color:#090">''32''</b>]] 20:33, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
#--[[User:SemanticMantis|SemanticMantis]] ([[User talk:SemanticMantis|talk]]) 20:38, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
#—[[User:scs|Steve Summit]] ([[User talk:scs|talk]]) 20:47, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
#&#8213;[[User:Mandruss|<span style="color:#775C57;">'''''Mandruss'''''</span>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:Mandruss|<span style="color:#AAA;">&#9742;</span>]] 20:54, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
#—[[User:Deor|Deor]] ([[User talk:Deor|talk]]) 21:13, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
#- With caveat. [[User:Tevildo|Tevildo]] ([[User talk:Tevildo|talk]]) 21:22, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
#-'''Support''' [[User:Robert McClenon|Robert McClenon]] ([[User talk:Robert McClenon|talk]]) 21:24, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
#Support with caveat - I am reading "only" to mean that this proposal bans other reasons for blocking. I do not want posts removed for "obscene" content, and I do not read this proposal as a specific authorization to do so; so for now I will support stopping the other removals, with intent also to stop removals of "obscene" questions. [[User:Wnt|Wnt]] ([[User talk:Wnt|talk]]) 22:18, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
#Those acting as "prefect admins" are destroying the core principles of Wikipedia. It's absolutely clear that their approach is not working. Something new needs to happen here. [[User:The Rambling Man|The Rambling Man]] ([[User talk:The Rambling Man|talk]]) 22:49, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
#—[[User:Dbfirs|''<font face="verdana"><font color="blue">D</font><font color="#00ccff">b</font><font color="#44ffcc">f</font><font color="66ff66">i</font><font color="44ee44">r</font><font color="44aa44">s</font></font>'']] 00:12, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
# — <small><span class="nowrap" style="border:1px solid #000000;padding:1px;"><b>[[User:Ched|Ched]]</b> : [[User_talk:Ched|<font style="color:#FFFFFF;background:#0000fa;">&nbsp;?&nbsp;</font>]]</span></small> 13:45, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
# '''Support, again - with caveats''' [[User:SteveBaker|SteveBaker]] ([[User talk:SteveBaker|talk]]) 15:49, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
#'''Support'''. –[[User:Davey2010|<span style="color: blue;">'''Davey'''</span><span style="color: orange;">'''2010'''</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Davey2010|<span style="color: navy;">'''Talk'''</span>]]</sup> 23:31, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
#'''Support''' - the reference desk is a major part how the world sees our site; we pride ourselves as being an encyclopedia that "anyone can edit", so these pages must be unprotected unless disruption is really too bad for this to work. [[User:Od Mishehu|עוד&nbsp;מישהו]] [[User talk:Od Mishehu|Od&nbsp;Mishehu]] 18:12, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
#[[User:Peter James|Peter James]] ([[User talk:Peter James|talk]]) 11:56, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
#'''Support''' - Pretty much my opinion above. The semi-protection is becoming too long that it's affecting even good-faith editors, and with the exception of the troll(s?), we need to assume good-faith on the IPs and new users, as not all of them may be familiar with Wikipedia policies and guidelines. [[User:Narutolovehinata5|Narutolovehinata5]] <sup>[[User talk:Narutolovehinata5|t]][[Special:Contributions/Narutolovehinata5|c]][[WP:CSD|csd]][[Special:Newpages|new]]</sup> 01:42, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

====Oppose prop. 2====
#Manifestly invalid proposal in principle. Protections on the Refdesk will continue to be handled according to the same principles as everywhere else on the project, following [[WP:Protection policy]]. No "consensus" here can restrict the application of that policy or exempt this page from it, per [[WP:LOCALCONSENSUS]]. [[User:Future Perfect at Sunrise|Fut.Perf.]] [[User talk:Future Perfect at Sunrise|☼]] 22:00, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
#The false premise here is that disruption at the ref desks would not spread to other areas and cause wider disruption. Wikipedia is not the place to exercise free speech rights. [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] ([[User talk:Johnuniq|talk]]) 23:32, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
#What they said. [[User:Akhilleus|--Akhilleus]] ([[User talk:Akhilleus|talk]]) 01:14, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
#Again, protection as warranted, as per the needs of the situation. [[User:Beyond My Ken|BMK]] ([[User talk:Beyond My Ken|talk]]) 01:27, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
# [[WP:LOCALCONSENSUS]] does seem to be a problem here. Setting up rules that hamstring admin isn't the solution to ongoing troll problems. Using WP:RFPP effectively is. [[User:Dennis Brown|<b>Dennis Brown</b>]] - [[User talk:Dennis Brown|<b>2&cent;</b>]] 19:21, 14 February 2016 (UTC)


{{collapsetop|Discussion belongs in the discussion section of the RFC, not in a separate section. --[[User:Guy Macon|Guy Macon]] ([[User talk:Guy Macon|talk]]) 04:36, 12 February 2016 (UTC)}}
'''<nowiki>==General Public?==</nowiki>'''<br>
I am opposed to any of the immediately above suggestions, as they are based on ''at best'' arbitrary suppositions. This "either 48 hours or nothing" BS is ''Bee Ess''. The first matter is to hold a Wikipedia-wide RfC as to whether there is a problem (at least, an ANI) and then to ask about a solution. To present a 48 or nada solution is to present a ''fait accompli'', and to ask reasonable users to oppose it, proving their lack of reason. [[User:Medeis|μηδείς]] ([[User talk:Medeis|talk]]) 01:21, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
:Medeis, I'm puzzled why you need a separate section to !vote oppose on the proposals. Each proposal already has a Discussion section, if the Survey sections are not enough. A separate section would only seem to give your viewpoint more prominence than others. A minor point, maybe, but I'm puzzled. Educate me. &#8213;[[User:Mandruss|<span style="color:#775C57;">'''''Mandruss'''''</span>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:Mandruss|<span style="color:#AAA;">&#9742;</span>]] 02:34, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
::Applying nowiki to section header, collapsing discussion. --[[User:Guy Macon|Guy Macon]] ([[User talk:Guy Macon|talk]]) 04:36, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
{{collapsebottom}}

====Discussion====
* It should be noted that IP users cannot currently !vote on this proposal, and that IP users are still currently considered [[WP:HUMAN]] by WP and are considered by default to have full editing rights, including !voting. If any IP user is reading along and wants to !vote or discuss this proposal, please leave an edit request anywhere you can, including my talk page. [[User:SemanticMantis|SemanticMantis]] ([[User talk:SemanticMantis|talk]]) 20:43, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

* It would be good to more precisely characterize/quantify what we mean by "not working". (For example, a few days ago this talk page was protected after two (2) reversions failed to stop the troll.) —[[User:scs|Steve Summit]] ([[User talk:scs|talk]]) 20:47, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

* I do have a slight reservation on this proposal as stated, in that it might, if taken literally, mean that semi-protection was _never_ acceptable in the case of frequent repeat postings by identifiable banned users, if such postings aren't objectionable individually. I support the basic principle that semi-protection should not be the first response in this sort of case. Perhaps if we make it clear that "disruptive" can include re-postings of such frequency that the desks become effectively unusable? But I appreciate that the literal meaning may be the intended meaning, in which case I'll change my !vote to Oppose. [[User:Tevildo|Tevildo]] ([[User talk:Tevildo|talk]]) 21:22, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
::: Suppose Wikipedia has one person who is dedicated to flooding us with nonsense nonstop. If we protect one location, ''why'' couldn't he go somewhere else, and somewhere else again, and cause greater disruption, because we don't know where he's going to strike next? Nay, if other methods of blocking fail, it's better to have some people watching and revert his edits at a fixed target page. Additionally, if people insist on these 48-hour semi-protections, there is no reason why a Wikipedia administrator can't let the semi-protection expire each 48 hours and wait a bit before deciding to renew it. Seriously, it's ''one action'' to put a new 48-hour semi-protection - we shouldn't act like admin time is so precious, and the value of our pages so small, that it is better for people to be driven off for weeks on end than to make them put in a couple of minutes every other day. [[User:Wnt|Wnt]] ([[User talk:Wnt|talk]]) 22:24, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
::::It might in fact be a good idea to quantify a minimum value for Wnt's "a bit" and put it explicitly into the rules if the basic proposal is accepted. [[User:Tevildo|Tevildo]] ([[User talk:Tevildo|talk]]) 22:32, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
::::: Well, it's hard to quantify. You would let the protection expire and see if the troll comes back. If he does, I doubt the administrator is going to wait for too many tries before acting, and I'm not really eager to argue otherwise. So the use of defining "a bit" is to say how long it takes with no vandalism before the admin treats the desk as fresh, and decides it will take more than one comparable vandal posting to create a pattern of abuse that requires new protection. Which depends to some degree on instinct whether it is the same troll checking in or a random passerby. In any case the existing proposals don't address the question of what pattern is needed in any specific way. All things equal, if we've specified the 48-hour limit as something we can at least agree on, then this small flexibility left to the admins is probably a minor issue. Our main problem right now is really long protections that maximize the collateral damage per troll served. [[User:Wnt|Wnt]] ([[User talk:Wnt|talk]]) 23:11, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
::::On the issue of "obscene", I would interpret it to mean something like "inappropriate use of bad language", rather than "sexually explicit". But this can be clarified if necessary. We, of course, are not permitted to allow legally obscene (''[[Miller v. California]]'') material to remain available. [[User:Tevildo|Tevildo]] ([[User talk:Tevildo|talk]]) 22:46, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
::::: The thing is, when is it "inappropriate"? The way I see it, a poster can have a valid reason to use any word in Wiktionary. The time when we want to delete posts is when ''there isn't a question'', just some abuse. If someone's cup is already full, how can we fill it? But if that's the case, it doesn't matter if it's ''not'' obscene. So the 'obscene' bit is two parts confusion, one part censorship, no part necessary to consider in this situation. And of course, the Miller test can be applied to images ''per se'', not involving the Refdesk at all, so we don't have to worry about that in this conversation. [[User:Wnt|Wnt]] ([[User talk:Wnt|talk]]) 23:04, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
*Besides the possibly missing third proposal highlighted by Mandruss above, there seems to be an extra T at the end of this proposal. Is part of the proposal missing or is the T unintentional? [[User:Nil Einne|Nil Einne]] ([[User talk:Nil Einne|talk]]) 21:23, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
**I have boldly removed the mystery T. Subject to BRD of course. &#8213;[[User:Mandruss|<span style="color:#775C57;">'''''Mandruss'''''</span>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:Mandruss|<span style="color:#AAA;">&#9742;</span>]] 21:43, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
* As I explained in the discussion of the first question - if a troll wishes to disrupt the ref desks, for most of our users, all (s)he has to do is to trigger semi-protection. Since semi-protection locks out a bunch of people from using the reference desks to ask questions (it's raison d'etre), the troll gets their kicks from locking people out. This rule simply forces them into posting obscene questions in order to trigger the protection rather than something else. I supported this rule (with extreme reluctance) for the slightly arcane reason that I believe that forcing the troll into making more distinctively trollish edits makes it easier to recognize them than if they can cause grief with relatively innocuous questions. [[User:SteveBaker|SteveBaker]] ([[User talk:SteveBaker|talk]]) 15:56, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
::I think you're on to something in your last sentence. And honestly I think if our admins will adhere to the forming consensus here, then the more obvious trolling will be ''less'' reason to close, since that is much easier to spot and deal with. The proposals clearly state that RBI is preferable to closing, and any admin who seeks to close too soon without much effort at using the normal tools will perhaps earn a trouting and revert for going against express consensus. [[User:SemanticMantis|SemanticMantis]] ([[User talk:SemanticMantis|talk]]) 16:10, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
* '''Procedural Note:''' When the results of this !vote are tallied - everyone needs to remain clear that it is a consequence of the way that this question (and the previous question) were asked, that at no point was anyone asked "Would you like to be rid of semi-protection completely?". Consequently, consensus on this question is entirely limited to narrowing the categories for which semi-protection is to be permitted - at no point does it ask whether semi-protection should be used even in these narrow cases. There was no option to !vote "None of the above". Please let no-one consider EITHER outcome of this !vote as an endorsement of the policy of semi-protection in the cases outlined here. [[User:SteveBaker|SteveBaker]] ([[User talk:SteveBaker|talk]]) 02:33, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
*::'''Comment''' - '''No''' to [[User:SteveBaker]]. On that point alone, [[User:Future Perfect at Sunrise]] is correct. An RFC, here, on getting rid of semi-protection completely, would indeed be invalid. There is a global consensus, embodied in [[WP:Protection Policy]], that semi-protection can sometimes be used when necessary. I am aware that some editors here think that the mission of the Reference Desks to serve unregistered editors is so special that the Reference Desks should never be semi-protected. Policy says that semi-protection is sometimes necessary. Therefore, any editor who wants to get rid of semi-protection here completely should go to [[WT:Protection Policy]] with an RFC to modify the policy to provide that the Reference Desks are exempt from the protection policy and should never be protected. I would oppose such a rules change, but that is what you need to do if you want to get rid of all semi-protection here. There is a policy. We can't use a local consensus here to override the policy, only to guide and clarify it. [[User:Robert McClenon|Robert McClenon]] ([[User talk:Robert McClenon|talk]]) 17:27, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

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

[http://jezebel.com/dont-ignore-the-trolls-feed-them-until-they-explode-977453815 This] article by Lindy West is the best essay I have ever seen on trolling. It has received other news coverage like [http://arstechnica.com/business/2015/01/how-an-internet-trolling-victim-bonded-with-her-worst-troll/ 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 [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Science&diff=prev&oldid=704390578 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. [[User:Wnt|Wnt]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:SemanticMantis|SemanticMantis]] ([[User talk: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. [[Special:Contributions/82.44.55.214|82.44.55.214]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:SemanticMantis|SemanticMantis]] ([[User talk: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). &#8213;[[User:Mandruss|<span style="color:#775C57;">'''''Mandruss'''''</span>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:Mandruss|<span style="color:#AAA;">&#9742;</span>]] 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. [[User:SteveBaker|SteveBaker]] ([[User talk: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 "[http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1300/J120v11n25_22 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. [[User:Nyttend|Nyttend]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Wnt|Wnt]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Mingmingla|Mingmingla]] ([[User talk:Mingmingla|talk]]) 22:18, 12 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.

# '''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.
# '''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.
# '''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.
# '''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.
# '''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...
# 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!

[[User:SteveBaker|SteveBaker]] ([[User talk:SteveBaker|talk]]) 18:07, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

* My only comment at this time -- sorry if it seems negative or dismissive -- is, can we let the RFC above play out, before sidetracking ourselves with new proposals? —[[User:scs|Steve Summit]] ([[User talk:scs|talk]]) 18:25, 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.
:: [[User:SteveBaker|SteveBaker]] ([[User talk: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. &#8213;[[User:Mandruss|<span style="color:#775C57;">'''''Mandruss'''''</span>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:Mandruss|<span style="color:#AAA;">&#9742;</span>]] 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. [[User:SteveBaker|SteveBaker]] ([[User talk: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. --[[User:Modocc|Modocc]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:SteveBaker|SteveBaker]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:SteveBaker|SteveBaker]] ([[User talk: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.[[User:SemanticMantis|SemanticMantis]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:SteveBaker|SteveBaker]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Robert McClenon|Robert McClenon]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:SteveBaker|SteveBaker]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:ApLundell|ApLundell]] ([[User talk: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! [[User:Wnt|Wnt]] ([[User talk:Wnt|talk]]) 16:26, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
*:I saw that - I didn't see how it would help. [[User:SteveBaker|SteveBaker]] ([[User talk:SteveBaker|talk]]) 18:51, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

== Problems & Solutions? ==

[[File:Face-devil-grin.svg|20px]]: 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? -- [[User:Russell.mo|Apostle]] ([[User talk:Russell.mo|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 [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Reference_desk/Archive_1] 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 American]]s. 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 [[epistemology|''really'' know]] another person's motives, but some of us sure like to guess :) [[User:SemanticMantis|SemanticMantis]] ([[User talk:SemanticMantis|talk]]) 20:11, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
:::[[File:Face-devil-grin.svg|20px]]: <small>Do I get a Barnstar for being the ''nicest'' troll ever {{=2|cute}} -- [[User:Russell.mo|Apostle]] ([[User talk:Russell.mo|talk]]) 07:08, 13 February 2016 (UTC)</small>

== Edit request ==

An IP editor has made an edit request [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection#Wikipedia:Reference_desk.2FLanguage 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. [[User:DuncanHill|DuncanHill]] ([[User talk:DuncanHill|talk]]) 11:20, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
:{{done}} by Tevildo. [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Language&diff=704757728&oldid=704755815] &#8213;[[User:Mandruss|<span style="color:#775C57;">'''''Mandruss'''''</span>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:Mandruss|<span style="color:#AAA;">&#9742;</span>]] 15:18, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

:There's nothing stopping a user from creating a registered ID. ←[[User:Baseball Bugs|Baseball Bugs]] <sup>''[[User talk:Baseball Bugs|What's up, Doc?]]''</sup> [[Special:Contributions/Baseball_Bugs|carrots]]→ 17:45, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

== Scicurious hatting my question ==
{{Scicurious hating my question}}
Hi I asked a question at the refdesk, and it was hatted by scicurious because he said my question is preposterous. I asked him on his talkpage, and he said that my question is inappropriate because it involves too much discussion and analyzes the intent of others. I then asked him about why other people have asked those types of questions, and why they don't get hatted.[[User:Winkplan211|Winkplan211]] ([[User talk:Winkplan211|talk]]) 16:25, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

:For the benefit of others, (1) you were editing unregistered or logged out then, and (2) [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Science&diff=prev&oldid=704680609 this] is the question in question. I agree that it is not a question of fact but of opinion, and the desks are not forums for general discussions of this type. As for consistency, you won't find a lot of that on the desks or anywhere at Wikipedia, and that's the inevitable result of group rule. We do our best, and we are continually trying to make improvements to the desks (as seen elsewhere on this page), but it's a messy business. Best of luck. &#8213;[[User:Mandruss|<span style="color:#775C57;">'''''Mandruss'''''</span>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:Mandruss|<span style="color:#AAA;">&#9742;</span>]] 16:48, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

:Your posting of the question to the [[WP:RD/S|Science Desk]] was absurd, because the question isn't scientific, and you were posting there to avoid semi-protection of the Humanities Desk and the Miscellaneous Desk. The question, if in good faith, is absurd because it makes assumptions that the meanings of words are the same throughout the world (or it may have been trolling). The posting of the question to a Reference Desk was inappropriate because it called for opinions and speculation, and other editors shouldn't post questions that call for opinions and speculation either. Your question needed hatting. Whether other questions also do is outside the scope of this thread. [[User:Robert McClenon|Robert McClenon]] ([[User talk:Robert McClenon|talk]]) 17:17, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

::That's a bit harsh. It's natural and reasonable to expect some consistency in the treatment of such questions, very little of that exists, and this user, as far as we know, is the victim of our own failure to agree (i.e., reach consensus <u>and</u> document it) and coordinate. &#8213;[[User:Mandruss|<span style="color:#775C57;">'''''Mandruss'''''</span>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:Mandruss|<span style="color:#AAA;">&#9742;</span>]] 17:27, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
:::Good point, [[User:Mandruss]]. I think that any questions that are as compoundly absurd as that one should have been hatted, and if we didn't hat a question that was placed to the wrong desk (probably to bypass semi-protection), and called for speculation and opinions, and was based on a verbal fallacy, should have been hatted. I was harsh. Maybe there are questions that we haven't been harsh enough about. [[User:Robert McClenon|Robert McClenon]] ([[User talk:Robert McClenon|talk]]) 18:03, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
::::We shouldn't expect expert knowledge of RD usage from first-time RD users (particularly with the lack of consistency) and doing so may very well make them one-time RD users. &#8213;[[User:Mandruss|<span style="color:#775C57;">'''''Mandruss'''''</span>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:Mandruss|<span style="color:#AAA;">&#9742;</span>]] 18:36, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
:If you live in Seattle, why does your IP geolocate to Los Angeles? ←[[User:Baseball Bugs|Baseball Bugs]] <sup>''[[User talk:Baseball Bugs|What's up, Doc?]]''</sup> [[Special:Contributions/Baseball_Bugs|carrots]]→ 17:44, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
::Yeah, since their stated location differs from what the geolocation services say, they should immediately be suspect. Obviously, they are attempting to conceal the fact that they are in Los Angeles. Good eye Bugs! <small></sarcasm></small> &#8213;[[User:Mandruss|<span style="color:#775C57;">'''''Mandruss'''''</span>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:Mandruss|<span style="color:#AAA;">&#9742;</span>]] 17:57, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
:::Or they could be using a proxy server. However, if the registered user is sincere, he'll gladly explain this oddity. ←[[User:Baseball Bugs|Baseball Bugs]] <sup>''[[User talk:Baseball Bugs|What's up, Doc?]]''</sup> [[Special:Contributions/Baseball_Bugs|carrots]]→ 18:00, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
::::They could live in Seattle and be in a hotel in LA on business now, for all we know. There was no reason to even suspect anything more than an understandable mistake here, so why even look at geolocation in the first place? You actually seek out reasons to be suspicious, and then use them to justify your suspicion. There is nothing to be explained here. &#8213;[[User:Mandruss|<span style="color:#775C57;">'''''Mandruss'''''</span>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:Mandruss|<span style="color:#AAA;">&#9742;</span>]] 18:10, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
:::::The troll looks for every opportunity to exploit the strong sentiments about Christians, Jews and Muslims. If you're not paying attention to that, that's your problem, not mine. ←[[User:Baseball Bugs|Baseball Bugs]] <sup>''[[User talk:Baseball Bugs|What's up, Doc?]]''</sup> [[Special:Contributions/Baseball_Bugs|carrots]]→ 19:40, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Bugs, why did you call me a troll? I was just asking a question without knowing it was inappropriate[[User:Winkplan211|Winkplan211]] ([[User talk:Winkplan211|talk]]) 20:29, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
:I didn't. And furthermore, I think the question you asked is answerable, though complicated. ←[[User:Baseball Bugs|Baseball Bugs]] <sup>''[[User talk:Baseball Bugs|What's up, Doc?]]''</sup> [[Special:Contributions/Baseball_Bugs|carrots]]→ 22:42, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm visiting Los Angeles to go see some of my relatives[[User:Winkplan211|Winkplan211]] ([[User talk:Winkplan211|talk]]) 18:22, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
:There you go. No explanation required, but given anyway. Of course they could be a troll lying to us, and we should demand proof that they are visiting relatives, perhaps a notarized statement from a relative living in LA. &#8213;[[User:Mandruss|<span style="color:#775C57;">'''''Mandruss'''''</span>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:Mandruss|<span style="color:#AAA;">&#9742;</span>]] 18:25, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

:This is an example of a question that was in appropriate because it's all opinion - and inappropriate-squared because it was asked in the science area. Personally, I'd have just ignored it for it's content alone - and transferred it over to the appropriate desk if it had just been in the wrong place. But a combination of both things...I'm not surprised it was hatted. [[User:SteveBaker|SteveBaker]] ([[User talk:SteveBaker|talk]])

:There will always be a high level of uncertainty in these things, there is no avoiding that. We will never have enough reliable information, full stop. So the question becomes, should we err on the side of trust, or err on the side of distrust? Which is worse, alienating some innocent readers, or being taken by some clever but innocuous trolls? Which is worse, having the former telling their friends and family what assholes there are at Wikipedia's reference desks, or the latter trading high fives about what suckers there are here? Those are the <u>only</u> two alternatives, and I say the former is worse. Those who choose the other may have personal issues with being seen as suckers, and they may wish to honestly examine that possibility. &#8213;[[User:Mandruss|<span style="color:#775C57;">'''''Mandruss'''''</span>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:Mandruss|<span style="color:#AAA;">&#9742;</span>]] 19:37, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

*'''[[User|Bowei Huang 2]]''' I have removed this material entirely, it perfectly fits [[User|Bowei Huang 2]]'s ''modus operandi'' of creating a history with a talk page and talk page comments, and then immediately resorting to questions of the form, If Ideology A holds Belief B, then why doesn't Country C..." Notice the facility with the system, and the lack of userspace contributions typical of new users. This should probably go to SPI or ANI, but I have a birthday party to attend. [[User:Medeis|μηδείς]] ([[User talk:Medeis|talk]]) 21:16, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

::{{ping|Medeis}} Please take it to SPI after the party, and please do me the favor of a pointer to that investigation. Even if you're right in this case, you'd need to demonstrate a solid and accurate batting average (like .800 or better) for me to defer to your superior troll-hunting skills in general, and those of Bugs. But I can be convinced. &#8213;[[User:Mandruss|<span style="color:#775C57;">'''''Mandruss'''''</span>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:Mandruss|<span style="color:#AAA;">&#9742;</span>]] 21:28, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

:::In the meantime, ask {{U|Jayron32}} who just blocked another [[User|Bowei Huang 2]] sock last week. If you want to see Huang's block history and style, click user contributions, then sock puppet investigations then archive. In any case I am not the one who moved or blocked these questions in the first place, and you can see plenty of doubt as to the user's good faith above that has nothing to do with me. [[User:Medeis|μηδείς]] ([[User talk:Medeis|talk]]) 21:35, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

::::What I see above is (1) Robert pretty close to the fence, and (2) Bugs convicting (or at least indicting) the guy on exceedingly flimsy evidence—as he is prone to do, resulting in almost no credibility in my eyes. I don't call that "plenty of doubt". {{tq|I am not the one who moved or blocked these questions in the first place}} - You are conflating evidence of ignorance with evidence of trolling, which doesn't do a lot for <u>your</u> credibility in my eyes. I have never said that the question shouldn't have been removed, in fact I said the exact opposite. &#8213;[[User:Mandruss|<span style="color:#775C57;">'''''Mandruss'''''</span>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:Mandruss|<span style="color:#AAA;">&#9742;</span>]] 21:41, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
::::::You are mischaracterizing what I said. I asked him about the location discrepancy, and he answered my question. No problem. ←[[User:Baseball Bugs|Baseball Bugs]] <sup>''[[User talk:Baseball Bugs|What's up, Doc?]]''</sup> [[Special:Contributions/Baseball_Bugs|carrots]]→ 22:44, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
:::::::So, given that any troll above the age of 5 could easily fake an answer, what was the point of the question? To verify that they were above the age of 5? &#8213;[[User:Mandruss|<span style="color:#775C57;">'''''Mandruss'''''</span>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:Mandruss|<span style="color:#AAA;">&#9742;</span>]] 23:19, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
::::::::To see if they had a reasonable explanation, which they did. ←[[User:Baseball Bugs|Baseball Bugs]] <sup>''[[User talk:Baseball Bugs|What's up, Doc?]]''</sup> [[Special:Contributions/Baseball_Bugs|carrots]]→ 01:46, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

:::::I concede that I was harsh in labeling the original question "absurd", because, on consideration, it may have been either a deeply ignorant good-faith question or a troll question. It involved a verbal fallacy, that "conservative" has the same meaning among US Christians and among Greater Middle Eastern Muslims, which may have been either deeply ignorant but good-faith, or trolling. (In both contexts, "conservative" can at times mean "consistent with traditional religious values", but that context depends on what the traditional religion is.) At the same time, the question in any case called for opinions and speculation. Also, placing the question, which had nothing to do with science, at the Science Desk, was inappropriate, and was sufficient reason for hatting. A better approach would have been to wait for semi-protection to expire here and post an edit request. [[User:Robert McClenon|Robert McClenon]] ([[User talk:Robert McClenon|talk]]) 22:35, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

:::::::I agree with you, if a majority of the population is "deeply ignorant" about these matters. I suppose it depends on your definition of "deeply", but it's a fact that most of us lack both the time and the interest to be well-informed about political issues, and especially world political issues. Haven't you seen the videos of people on the street being asked the name of the current vice president of the U.S.? They weren't faking their ignorance. It's sad and embarrassing, but true.<br />The fact that the question was inappropriate and out of place is not in dispute here. I don't know why we're talking about that, unless we're debating hatting vs. removal. &#8213;[[User:Mandruss|<span style="color:#775C57;">'''''Mandruss'''''</span>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:Mandruss|<span style="color:#AAA;">&#9742;</span>]] 22:54, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

:: So instead of spreading knowledge by enlightening readers including the OP -- who is certainly not the only person not to know that the word "conservative" has multiple meanings -- we've labeled him a troll and deleted the question and the answers. Nice work. —[[User:scs|Steve Summit]] ([[User talk:scs|talk]]) 22:59, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

:::The question was removed because it was not a question of fact but of opinion, which was the right move. Trolling is a separate issue. &#8213;[[User:Mandruss|<span style="color:#775C57;">'''''Mandruss'''''</span>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:Mandruss|<span style="color:#AAA;">&#9742;</span>]] 23:03, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
::::It appears that the user was yet another Bowei Huang sock. Ugh. ←[[User:Baseball Bugs|Baseball Bugs]] <sup>''[[User talk:Baseball Bugs|What's up, Doc?]]''</sup> [[Special:Contributions/Baseball_Bugs|carrots]]→ 23:07, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
:::::SPI link, please? &#8213;[[User:Mandruss|<span style="color:#775C57;">'''''Mandruss'''''</span>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:Mandruss|<span style="color:#AAA;">&#9742;</span>]] 23:09, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
::::::Ask someone who made the connection. It wasn't so obvious to me, but some of the users here know Bowei Huang's M.O. much better than I do. ←[[User:Baseball Bugs|Baseball Bugs]] <sup>''[[User talk:Baseball Bugs|What's up, Doc?]]''</sup> [[Special:Contributions/Baseball_Bugs|carrots]]→ 23:12, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
:::::::As I thought. Been there, done that. &#8213;[[User:Mandruss|<span style="color:#775C57;">'''''Mandruss'''''</span>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:Mandruss|<span style="color:#AAA;">&#9742;</span>]] 23:14, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
::::::::Meaning what? ←[[User:Baseball Bugs|Baseball Bugs]] <sup>''[[User talk:Baseball Bugs|What's up, Doc?]]''</sup> [[Special:Contributions/Baseball_Bugs|carrots]]→ 23:20, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
:::::::::Meaning it's the same old story. Certain people's overestimation of their skill at making these "connections", with no real accounting of their success rates in the absence of an SPI investigation for each case. They weren't proven wrong in a lot of cases, ergo they were right. As far as I'm concerned, and with the evidence I've seen, and I could still be shown to be wrong, there's a lot of self-deception happening in the area of troll detection at these desks. &#8213;[[User:Mandruss|<span style="color:#775C57;">'''''Mandruss'''''</span>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:Mandruss|<span style="color:#AAA;">&#9742;</span>]] 23:32, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
::::::::::The "same old story" is assumption of bad faith regarding established users, and assumption of good faith regarding users who turn out to be block evaders. ←[[User:Baseball Bugs|Baseball Bugs]] <sup>''[[User talk:Baseball Bugs|What's up, Doc?]]''</sup> [[Special:Contributions/Baseball_Bugs|carrots]]→ 01:44, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
:::::::::::As we've said before, asking for real evidence is not assumption of bad faith, so please stop abusing WP:AGF. But let's turn this around. I'm an "established user", right? So, by your reasoning, I can declare any non-established user a sock and they will be indeffed 34 minutes later. And the block, which was based at least partly on my judgment, will confirm that they were in fact a sock, thereby justifying the block. And I can add another notch to my gunbelt for all to see, showing my continued prowess at sock detection. Who needs SPI when they have me? Is this correct? If not, why not? Do you see anything, say, circular and self-validating about this kind of reasoning? &#8213;[[User:Mandruss|<span style="color:#775C57;">'''''Mandruss'''''</span>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:Mandruss|<span style="color:#AAA;">&#9742;</span>]] 02:22, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
::::::::::::Your premise would be true IF you had a working knowledge of a given troll's way of working. Open SPI's are not required when the situation is obvious. Unlike you, I assume good faith on the part of the admins who are familiar with these trolls, to be able to identify their M.O. and act on it. If you want to find out how they determined it, send an email to the blocking admin. There's no reason to post any "tells" here that would help the sockmaster to better evade detection. ←[[User:Baseball Bugs|Baseball Bugs]] <sup>''[[User talk:Baseball Bugs|What's up, Doc?]]''</sup> [[Special:Contributions/Baseball_Bugs|carrots]]→ 04:16, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
:::::::::::::Bugs, I'm done trying to reason with you, but I urge you to learn the meaning of the words "good faith", starting with [http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/good%20faith the dictionary definition]. &#8213;[[User:Mandruss|<span style="color:#775C57;">'''''Mandruss'''''</span>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:Mandruss|<span style="color:#AAA;">&#9742;</span>]] 05:01, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
::::::::::::::I use the equivalent term "sincere". ←[[User:Baseball Bugs|Baseball Bugs]] <sup>''[[User talk:Baseball Bugs|What's up, Doc?]]''</sup> [[Special:Contributions/Baseball_Bugs|carrots]]→ 05:16, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::To question someone's reasoning or judgment is not to question their honesty or sincerity. I credit you with the intelligence to know the difference. &#8213;[[User:Mandruss|<span style="color:#775C57;">'''''Mandruss'''''</span>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:Mandruss|<span style="color:#AAA;">&#9742;</span>]] 05:18, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::You should send an email to the blocking admin, and get up to speed on the Bowei Huang saga. ←[[User:Baseball Bugs|Baseball Bugs]] <sup>''[[User talk:Baseball Bugs|What's up, Doc?]]''</sup> [[Special:Contributions/Baseball_Bugs|carrots]]→ 06:42, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

How do I get future perfect at sunrise to look at my block and unblock me? I'm sorry for my behaviour. And also, whose Bowei Huang 2? <small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/72.211.210.198|72.211.210.198]] ([[User talk:72.211.210.198|talk]]) 01:30, 14 February 2016 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

*Mandruss, you seem to be saying that I should spend an hour of my time to file an SPI to get the most recent troll, who's ''already'' been blocked and castigated by several others, to justify my simple deletion of their provocation. Well, no. My Dad's turned 78, the longest serving US Supreme Court Justice has died, and perhaps the most important ever debate of this year's presidential primary is about to begin. A good SPI takes well over an hour to prepare, and if neither Jayron nor {{U|Nil Einne}} nor anyone else involved in the last of Bowei Huang 2's blockages wants to comment, than neither do I. If you want to revert my deletions, feel free, and then maybe I will file an ANI or a 3RR when I have the time to waste. [[User:Medeis|μηδείς]] ([[User talk:Medeis|talk]]) 01:28, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

::I have to say, I'm not convinced this is Bowei Huang 2. While there are similarities in the question style there's something about the tone and other factors of behaviour which seem different to me. In fact, even in terms of the question, I'm not sure if Bowei has asked about political parties before. And I don't think they've asked about Islam recently. However there are so many different identities over so many years, and I've surely never seen many of their questions which were deleted or I just didn't check the desk then. <p>I can't really be bothered explaining the behavioural and tones differences though and to some extent [[WP:Beans]] comes in to play. (Not that I'm sure this matters for Bowei Huang.) I will say that I came to this conclusion before this discussion started. I saw their comment on the unprotected talk page and I'm fairly sure I was certain enough that I didn't bother to geolocate or WHOIS the IP. <p>I did see the similarities and was wondering if the issue was that it was identified as Bowei Huang. But at the time Scicurious had moved and hatted the question without any mention of Bowei Huang and frankly I didn't see much merit in the question as well. <p>Now that I do look at it, geolocation is another factor. I don't know what CUs have seen obviously but when Bowei Huang used IPs it was always been Australian ones as recently as late last year and some of the stuff did strongly suggest they were living in Australia. <p>There is the possibility of open proxies, or maybe the story about visiting relatives is true. And if they were doing any of this I guess it would be a good time to try and mask themselves better. (Although Bowei Huang 2 has been around for I think 8 years now and socking for over 4 years or something. While they have changed a bit over that time, I would say all the differences here are fairly unique over that long history.) <p>To put it a different way, there's enough doubt in my mind that I wouldn't support a block for reason of being a sock of Bowei Huang without further evidence. I'm not sure what the norms are, but I presume a CU could still be done on the account if someone bother with an SPI case, despite the fact the account linked itself to an IP. <p>[[User:Nil Einne|Nil Einne]] ([[User talk:Nil Einne|talk]]) 12:01, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

:::Thanks, Nil. I have two very brief comments: ''first'', I noticed the difference in geolocation, as well as the common ''modus operandi''. And, ''second'', every time I have spent a good hour filing an SPI (except, perhaps once--I don't keep records--so this is a wild guess) it has been turned down, since the OP has already been blocked. [[User:Medeis|μηδείς]] ([[User talk:Medeis|talk]]) 04:01, 15 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 [[RMS Titanic#Passenger facilities|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. --[[Special:Contributions/69.159.9.222|69.159.9.222]] ([[User talk:69.159.9.222|talk]]) 19:23, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

::{{done}} &#8213;[[User:Mandruss|<span style="color:#775C57;">'''''Mandruss'''''</span>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:Mandruss|<span style="color:#AAA;">&#9742;</span>]] 19:42, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

== Congressional lame duck period in 1960 ==
{{editprotected|ans=y}}
(for Humanities desk)

According to [http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=990DE4DD1E30F937A25752C1A96E9C8B63 this article], [[John F. Kennedy]] was elected POTUS while serving in the US Senate, but didn't resign from the Senate because he "had no lame-duck period to worry about". This is contrast with Barack Obama, who resigned from the Senate a week or so after the 2008 election. My question: why didn't JFK have to worry about a lame duck period? Also, if one of the POTUS candidates currently serving in the US Senate (there are several) gets elected President, will there be some de-facto requirement that they not be re-sworn into their Senate seats at the start of the 114th Congress on January 3, 2017? That would let them stay in the Senate potentially until the Presidential inauguration on January 20. This is relevant because of the potential change in partisan control of the Senate affecting Senate rules, e.g. the [[nuclear option]] stopping a possible filibuster of a new SCOTUS nominee, depending on which Senators are present to vote when the new Congress starts. Thanks. [[Special:Contributions/173.228.123.101|173.228.123.101]] ([[User talk:173.228.123.101|talk]]) 00:17, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

:{{done}} &#8213;[[User:Mandruss|<span style="color:#775C57;">'''''Mandruss'''''</span>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:Mandruss|<span style="color:#AAA;">&#9742;</span>]] 00:22, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

== Nothing new here ==

Occasionally I ask questions at the reference desk. Sometimes I glance at this page too. It's a shame to see, every time, that the page is filled with permanent argument about how to manage the reference desks, which seems esentially unchanged over five years or even more. It seems that more effort goes into these dicussions here than actually goes into answering the relatively modest number of questions that are posted. My first advice would be for reference desk administrators to take this discussion out of the public view. Obviously people are going to keep trolling when they see the constant drama and argument that they provoke. Secondly, I think you guys are making it more difficult than it needs to be. Delete the stupid questions silently. If a genuine question sometimes gets accidentally deleted then tough. If a troll sometimes accidentally gets answered then so what. Senior editors should, at least publicly, be supporting each other's decisions in this regard, not constantly bickering in full view. [[Special:Contributions/81.132.196.131|81.132.196.131]] ([[User talk:81.132.196.131|talk]]) 00:25, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
:I mostly agree, in that what the trolls are accomplishing is getting there to be bickering in full view. I think that, when questions are improperly deleted or hatted, issue does need to be taken, because the deleting of legitimate questions is even worse than bickering, and that therefore editors who think that a question should be deleted or hatted should carefully consider whether they will be supported. I certainly think that this comment illustrates the limitations of Deny Recognition, in that a policy of Deny Recognition that is accompanied by rebuking of editors who respond honestly to questions that are thought to be troll questions is even worse than just either ignoring the questions or responding to them. I mostly but not entirely agree. The silent deletion of genuine questions however should not be ignored or tolerated. [[User:Robert McClenon|Robert McClenon]] ([[User talk:Robert McClenon|talk]]) 01:43, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
::And again I would point out that the help desk doesn't have these problems and encourage everyone who is discussing this here to try to figure out why we have a problem that a similar board on Wikipedia avoids. What are we doing wrong that they are doing right? And please don't claim that we are somehow special. The only thing "special" about us is that our behavior encourages trolling. --[[User:Guy Macon|Guy Macon]] ([[User talk:Guy Macon|talk]]) 14:42, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
:::That premise attempts to validate the "look what you made me do" game. ←[[User:Baseball Bugs|Baseball Bugs]] <sup>''[[User talk:Baseball Bugs|What's up, Doc?]]''</sup> [[Special:Contributions/Baseball_Bugs|carrots]]→ 14:50, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

:::The help desk is much narrower subject matter. It's mostly about how to use Wikipedia. It wouldn't seem likely to draw trolls very often. ←[[User:Baseball Bugs|Baseball Bugs]] <sup>''[[User talk:Baseball Bugs|What's up, Doc?]]''</sup> [[Special:Contributions/Baseball_Bugs|carrots]]→ 14:59, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

::::I don't follow that. If one wanted to, they could easily troll HD by asking dumb questions about how to use Wikipedia. It wouldn't take long before WT:HD looked a lot like this page. Guy's question remains unanswered. &#8213;[[User:Mandruss|<span style="color:#775C57;">'''''Mandruss'''''</span>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:Mandruss|<span style="color:#AAA;">&#9742;</span>]] 16:23, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
:::::Or like "Why do the Jews control Wikipedia?" Right. Maybe you or Guy or someone who lauds the help desk could find a few examples of how they've dealt with trolling. ←[[User:Baseball Bugs|Baseball Bugs]] <sup>''[[User talk:Baseball Bugs|What's up, Doc?]]''</sup> [[Special:Contributions/Baseball_Bugs|carrots]]→ 17:15, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
::::::Guy's point is that they <u>haven't</u> dealt with trolling, because they don't have a significant amount of it. He asks why the difference.<br />I was a fairly active HD responder for something like a year, and I never saw anything that resembled trolling. While false positives are a problem here in my opinion, it would be highly unlikely to have significant trolling activity there and miss it completely. &#8213;[[User:Mandruss|<span style="color:#775C57;">'''''Mandruss'''''</span>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:Mandruss|<span style="color:#AAA;">&#9742;</span>]] 17:30, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
:::::::And my point is that the narrow subject matter range of the help desk is not conducive to the type of trolling we get on the ref desks. ←[[User:Baseball Bugs|Baseball Bugs]] <sup>''[[User talk:Baseball Bugs|What's up, Doc?]]''</sup> [[Special:Contributions/Baseball_Bugs|carrots]]→ 18:55, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
::::::::And the type of trolling is beside the point. A troll doesn't care how he gets his fix. &#8213;[[User:Mandruss|<span style="color:#775C57;">'''''Mandruss'''''</span>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:Mandruss|<span style="color:#AAA;">&#9742;</span>]] 19:12, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
:::::::::No, it is not beside the point. If you think of the trolling questions that keep recurring here, few or none of them would likely get asked at the help desk. ←[[User:Baseball Bugs|Baseball Bugs]] <sup>''[[User talk:Baseball Bugs|What's up, Doc?]]''</sup> [[Special:Contributions/Baseball_Bugs|carrots]]→ 19:14, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
::::::::::<small>(Shakes head in utter astonishment. Walks away, again.) &#8213;[[User:Mandruss|<span style="color:#775C57;">'''''Mandruss'''''</span>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:Mandruss|<span style="color:#AAA;">&#9742;</span>]] 20:09, 14 February 2016 (UTC)</small>

:::In response to Guy Macon's question, I can think of three things. (When I say "we" below, I refer to the reference desk participants collectively.)
:::*''With us, it's personal.'' We don't just quietly deal with trolls and vandals, we are on a quest to eradicate them.
:::*''We give plenty of recognition.'' Related to the above, our responses to trolls and vandals and our debates over how to handle them are voluminous and very visible.
:::::I would comment that a few editors here think that we should have a very strict Deny Recognition policy, but that they attempt to impose that by scolding other editors who don't recognize a troll post, and so respond to it. The scolding is an even better form of recognition. [[User:Robert McClenon|Robert McClenon]] ([[User talk:Robert McClenon|talk]]) 16:55, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
:::*''We alienate posters we don't like.'' When someone posts something borderline, we tend to assume they're a troll or a vandal, and to berate them for it or accusatorily question their motives. I can't prove it or cite examples, but over time this may tend to turn the occasional casual troublemaker into an active troll, or into a singleminded vandal with a vendetta against us. —[[User:scs|Steve Summit]] ([[User talk:scs|talk]]) 17:25, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
:::::Your third point there is the "look what you made me do" game. ←[[User:Baseball Bugs|Baseball Bugs]] <sup>''[[User talk:Baseball Bugs|What's up, Doc?]]''</sup> [[Special:Contributions/Baseball_Bugs|carrots]]→ 18:53, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
:::::: I'll see your "look what you made me do" and raise you "look how you made me cut off my nose to spite my face". —[[User:scs|Steve Summit]] ([[User talk:scs|talk]]) 19:26, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
:::::::I'm saying that the trolls who get angry about being banned (Light current would be one), justify their behavior on the grounds that Wikipedia "made them do it." Nobody makes trolls do anything. They ''freely choose'' to do what they do. ←[[User:Baseball Bugs|Baseball Bugs]] <sup>''[[User talk:Baseball Bugs|What's up, Doc?]]''</sup> [[Special:Contributions/Baseball_Bugs|carrots]]→ 19:32, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
::::::::And I'm saying that the RD regulars who get angry about being trolled, and in response do things that may damage the desks, justify their behavior on the grounds that... —[[User:scs|Steve Summit]] ([[User talk:scs|talk]]) 20:31, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
:::::::::Who's angry? ←[[User:Baseball Bugs|Baseball Bugs]] <sup>''[[User talk:Baseball Bugs|What's up, Doc?]]''</sup> [[Special:Contributions/Baseball_Bugs|carrots]]→ 21:06, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

::::That's a very diplomatic use of "we". &#8213;[[User:Mandruss|<span style="color:#775C57;">'''''Mandruss'''''</span>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:Mandruss|<span style="color:#AAA;">&#9742;</span>]] 17:43, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

I think the "Guy's point is that they haven't dealt with trolling, because they don't have a significant amount of it" comment confuses cause and effect. To be blunt, pretty much every online forum that deals with trolls the way the reference desks do is flooded with trolling, and most online forums that deal with trolls the way the help desk does don't have much of a trolling problem. Steve Summit's post above correctly identified what we are doing wrong. --[[User:Guy Macon|Guy Macon]] ([[User talk:Guy Macon|talk]]) 20:19, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
:I stand corrected, then, and I reiterate Bugs' request for some examples of how trolling has been handled at HD. As I said, I never saw any of it during my year there (nor did I witness anyone else seeing it). &#8213;[[User:Mandruss|<span style="color:#775C57;">'''''Mandruss'''''</span>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:Mandruss|<span style="color:#AAA;">&#9742;</span>]] 22:04, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
:::I would like [[User:Guy Macon]] to clarify what he is saying is different about how we handle trolling as opposed to how the Help Desk handles it. I think that I agree, but would appreciate clarification. I think that I mostly agree with Guy, as explained in my post below, that we encourage trolling by trying too hard, first, to deal with trolling, and, second, by complaining noisily about semi-protection. Is Guy saying that we try too hard to come up with solutions to trolling and so reward it, or what? [[User:Robert McClenon|Robert McClenon]] ([[User talk:Robert McClenon|talk]]) 16:58, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
::::Our biggest problem is that certain individuals insist on trying to control the behavior of others. That never works. We need to put a stop to that kind of behavior, because it has a long history of generating increased trolling everywhere anyone has ever tried it. We need to stop feeding the trolls. We need to either ignore posts we don't like, reply to posts we don't like with a deadpan serious answer to the question asked as if we never noticed that it was an attempt to disrupt the helpdesks, or report posts we don't like at ANI for the admins to deal with. We need to stop responding to trolls. We need to stop hatting or deleting comments by trolls. We need to stop talking about trolls. We need to stop talking about each others responses to trolls. We need to stop making trolls the center of attention. We need to stop making regulars who respond to trolls the center of attention. We need to put all of the above in an RfC (possibly as a limited-time experiment), achieve an overwhelming consensus that this is what we want to do, put it in our guidelines, and report anyone who refuses to follow the consensus at ANI so that they can be blocked for being disruptive. '''What we are doing now is not working.''' --[[User:Guy Macon|Guy Macon]] ([[User talk:Guy Macon|talk]]) 17:57, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
:::::I support that, with emphasis on {{tq|put it in our guidelines}}. I think an RfC including "all of the above" would be unworkable, but I don't see why it can't be broken into smaller pieces. For example, the three alternatives beginning with "We need to either". And ''stay away from tangential discussion in the RfC''. &#8213;[[User:Mandruss|<span style="color:#775C57;">'''''Mandruss'''''</span>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:Mandruss|<span style="color:#AAA;">&#9742;</span>]] 18:39, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
::::::Breaking it into a series of RfCs is a good idea. Alas, I don't think the RfC that addresses the problem that certain individuals insist on trying to control the behavior of others (behavior that increases trolling every time) will pass. I think we have too many refdesk regulars who really, really like controlling the behavior of others and too few that are willing to let it go, even for a limited-time trial. :( Every time the refdesks feed a troll a devil gets his horns... --[[User:Guy Macon|Guy Macon]] ([[User talk:Guy Macon|talk]]) 00:30, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
::::: I, too, agree with this, but I have to ask: if trying to control people is a fool's errand, how do we expect to control the behavior of the people who insist on trying to control people? —[[User:scs|Steve Summit]] ([[User talk:scs|talk]]) 01:32, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
::::::Trying to control people ''when you are an ordinary editor just like they are'' is a fool's errand, but controlling people ''when you are an uninvolved Wikipedia administrator'' works just fine, and can be enforced if needed with blocks or topic bans. All we need to do is to decide to ignore the minor disruptions and to report the major disruptions at [[WP:ANI]] so the admins can do the job we elected them to do. --[[User:Guy Macon|Guy Macon]] ([[User talk:Guy Macon|talk]]) 15:41, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

====Still nothing new here, but comments====
I agree with [[User:Guy Macon]] that trying to control or change the behavior of other editors here does not work. A few regular editors here apparently think that they will be able, by sufficient persuasion (or lecturing or berating), to impose a satisfactory strategy for dealing with trolls. Any such assumption is either foolishness or arrogance (or both). Therefore, continuing to discuss what the Right Strategy is for dealing with trolls is a mistake. In particular, trying to discuss what the Right Strategy is for dealing with trolls that will work better than occasional semi-protection is a mistake. The use of semi-protection for dealing with disruptive unregistered editors is supported by Wikipedia [[WP:Protection Policy|protection policy]]. If you think that the Reference Desk is so special, as a service to unregistered editors, that it should never be semi-protected, post an RFC to amend the protection policy by exempting the Reference Desk; don’t try to modify policy here by local consensus. Complaining about the behavior of other editors here doesn’t help (and encourages the trolls). If you think that the behavior of another editor, such as improper hatting or deleting of troll posts, is problematic, but doesn’t require [[WP:ANI]] attention, take it to the other editor’s talk page. The hatting or deleting of troll posts at the Reference Desks has been shown to create more controversy than it avoids. Either ignore the troll posts, or respond to them as if they were not troll posts. (The deleting of troll posts at the Help Desk does work, but there is consensus there as to what are troll posts, and there isn’t consensus here.) Stop trying to change the behavior of other editors. Stop complaining about the behavior of other editors here. Either complain to them on their talk pages, or complain at [[WP:ANI]] after reading [[WP:BOOMERANG|the boomerang essay]]. If you really think that the Reference Desks should never be semi-protected, file an RFC at [[WP:Protection Policy]]; don’t file an RFC to that effect here, and don’t complain here. (I agree that three months of semi-protection is too long, but that isn’t the main problem, and that doesn’t excuse a lot of noise here.) [[User:Robert McClenon|Robert McClenon]] ([[User talk:Robert McClenon|talk]]) 17:19, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

How should editors deal with other editors who are trying to control other editors here? Either complain to them at their talk pages, with templates if necessary for using a talk page as a forum, or, if necessary, take them to [[WP:ANI]] after reading [[WP:BOOMERANG|the boomerang essay]]. [[User:Robert McClenon|Robert McClenon]] ([[User talk:Robert McClenon|talk]]) 17:19, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

:I fully agree with Robert McClenon's comments above.

| .--.
| ______.-------| |
| __ (_____( | |\\\\|
| __..--'' ``--.._ __/ `-------| |--,
| __ ``--..____ .--'| \ ___ | | ||
| __..--'' ``--.._ | | | | | | | ||
| ``--..___| | | |___| | | ||
The plug is pulled. `--.|_/ | | ||
Ignored is the disruptive one. ____\ .-------| |--`
Feed him I will not. (_____( | |\\\\|
| `-------| |
| `--`

:--[[User:Guy Macon|Guy Macon]] ([[User talk:Guy Macon|talk]]) 17:38, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

:+1 &#8213;[[User:Mandruss|<span style="color:#775C57;">'''''Mandruss'''''</span>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:Mandruss|<span style="color:#AAA;">&#9742;</span>]] 19:06, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

== [[WP:HERE]] and the Ref Desks ==

As of this writing, this page is a 385 kb waste of time and effort that, imho could (should?) have been spent actually writing/improving articles. If fact, how does having a "Reference Desk" even contribute to building an encyclopedia? I could understand if it were editors asking for references they need in order to write articles. But the overwhelming majority of RD questions have nothing to do with building an encyclopedia, and the answers usually even less so. It's become a place where some people hang out and ask questions that can be answered with a simple google search while others chime in with their opinions. There are plenty of forums where these people can go socialize, make jokes and argue opinions. Instead of the RfC above, I'd be interested in an RfC in a neutral centralized location to find out whether the community believes the "reference desks" (as they are now, not what they have been or what they could be) are in keeping with [[WP:HERE]] and want to keep them or would rather close them permanently.--[[User:WilliamThweatt|William Thweatt]] <sup>[[User talk:WilliamThweatt|Talk]]</sup><sup>[[Special:Contributions/WilliamThweatt|Contribs]]</sup> 10:56, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

:Agreed. It's even worse than just not contributing to Wikipedia; the Reference Desks actually act as a brain-drain on the rest of the site, sucking in otherwise intelligent people into endless arguments and idle banter that do nothing to further Wikipedias core mission. Shut them down, I say. [[User:Musurethine|Musurethine]] ([[User talk:Musurethine|talk]]) 12:42, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
:*Note: this is {{user|Musurethine}}'s first edit. —[[User:scs|Steve Summit]] ([[User talk:scs|talk]]) 12:56, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

:See [[WP:Reference desk/Refdesk reform RFC | this RfC]] from two and a half years ago. The option to close the desks had some traction but the result was to keep. Recently, it was suggested at ANI by [[User:The Bushranger|The Bushranger]] that these desks should be split into a separate Wikimedia entity.[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=702518241]] and the reactions to that were mixed. -[[User:Modocc|Modocc]] ([[User talk:Modocc|talk]]) 13:31, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

::Should we post an RfC proposing such a split? If so, where should the RfC be posted? --[[User:Guy Macon|Guy Macon]] ([[User talk:Guy Macon|talk]]) 14:46, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
::: A new Wikimedia site whose user base will consist of about a dozen persons per day worldwide, asking questions, and about another dozen regulars, providing answers? People, get a grip. One of the factors that makes this whole endless debate so useless is the tendency among the regulars of pathetically overrating the ''importance'' of the whole thing. Just fathom this: among the millions and millions of people who turn to Wikipedia every day in search of information, maybe 10–20 per day end up at the desk asking a question (and that already includes the trolls and the serial-stupid-question-asking regulars). The number of casual visitors who even just look at the desks in search of information without participating (i.e. people other than those who ask questions and the regulars who answer them) may be somewhere in the hundreds. Compared with the total traffic at Wikipedia that's a tiny, near-negligible number. If the entire refdesk were to be zapped today, how many people worldwide apart from us regulars would even notice, let alone care? [[User:Future Perfect at Sunrise|Fut.Perf.]] [[User talk:Future Perfect at Sunrise|☼]] 16:46, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

::::Hard to argue with that reasoning. Could well be a monumental case of bikeshed. &#8213;[[User:Mandruss|<span style="color:#775C57;">'''''Mandruss'''''</span>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:Mandruss|<span style="color:#AAA;">&#9742;</span>]] 16:54, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
:::::Indeed it could, along with "editors" who do nothing to improve Wikipedia for our readers and actively degrade the project for our IPs who act in good faith, other than protect themselves from scrutiny. If it's such a big "non-deal", why all the protections, reversions, blocks etc? It can't work both ways. If the current function of Ref Desk is no longer tenable because it's continually being protected by such "prefects", let's make it clear in the instructions that IP editors are no longer welcome. That's the ultimate solution unless the current "approach" changes somehow to preserve one of the fundamental tenets of Wikipedia. [[User:The Rambling Man|The Rambling Man]] ([[User talk:The Rambling Man|talk]]) 18:10, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
::::::Requiring registration for the ref desk would significantly curb the problem. And requiring registration does not alter the "anyone can edit" aspect. They just need to do a few minutes of work to get an account set up. ←[[User:Baseball Bugs|Baseball Bugs]] <sup>''[[User talk:Baseball Bugs|What's up, Doc?]]''</sup> [[Special:Contributions/Baseball_Bugs|carrots]]→ 18:51, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
:::::::The real question seems to be not whether IP editors are "no longer welcome" at the Reference Desks, so much as whether the Reference Desks have a special inviolable mission to IP editors that warrants overriding the standing policy on semi-protection, which is that it may be used when necessary. Some of the regular editors here seem to think that ''any'' semi-protection violates the mission of the Reference Desks, which is to serve the unregistered editors, and that we must avoid semi-protection. First, if they think that, they should file an RFC at [[WP:Protection policy]] to specify that the Reference Desks are special in that way. Second, we have seen that quarreling about alternatives to semi-protection are more disruptive than semi-protection, and so are not pragmatic. [[User:Robert McClenon|Robert McClenon]] ([[User talk:Robert McClenon|talk]]) 19:30, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
:::::::: What we '''do''' know is that the current approach of prefect admins reverting, blocking and protecting is making '''no difference at all''', and it could be argued that it is making the situation '''worse''' by highlighting it. The status quo is wrong, we all know that, including the prefect admins, so let's do something different lest this become a venue where IPs aren't allowed. As I said before, let's rework "anyone can edit" to "anyone with an account can edit".... [[User:The Rambling Man|The Rambling Man]] ([[User talk:The Rambling Man|talk]]) 20:50, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

::The rationale is that en.wikipedia.org is the wrong venue for the venue. That may be true, but moving the venue wouldn't solve the problem. It would only relocate it. Those of us who went to the new location to continue their participation would be faced with the same problems, and their time would still be diverted from developing articles. Those who did not would simply be dumping the problems on someone else, and they could just as easily remove these desks from their watchlists and stay away from them. I don't see how changing the host would be a solution to anything, aside from the fact that, strictly speaking, the encyclopedia's primary mission is being compromised. It would be a purely symbolic move. Things like DYK are also ancillaries that are not about the development of articles and drain significant time from that effort. &#8213;[[User:Mandruss|<span style="color:#775C57;">'''''Mandruss'''''</span>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:Mandruss|<span style="color:#AAA;">&#9742;</span>]] 16:12, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

: We did just fine in an era before the vigilantes and aggressive admins got involved - but it's hard to say what is the cause and what is the consequence. If you look at WP:RD around 2007/2008, there was considerably more professionalism and much less meta-discussion - back then I don't think anyone would even consider getting rid of it. We were getting around 70 questions per day - and independent studies done of our performance were favorable:
: [http://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/abs/10.1108/00220410910998951] [http://eprints.rclis.org/20329/1/Paradox%20of%20expertise-final.pdf] "''The quality of answers on the Wikipedia Reference Desk is similar to that of traditional reference service. Wikipedia volunteers outperformed librarians or performed at the same level on most quality measures.''"

: Locking the desks up so people can't ask questions freely - and then claiming that we have hardly any posters is hardly a fair way to judge how well we fill a need. I agree that spinning it off as a separate WMF project doesn't make much sense. Moving it completely outside WMF would be relatively easy - it doesn't consume much in the way of server resources - but the lack of traffic coming from Wikipedia would be a death-knell.

: IMHO, we need to find a way to fix this service - and build it back into a service that's at least as good as it was half a dozen years ago. I think the way forward is to discourage vigilanteism and to keep uninvolved admins who don't understand how we work off of our backs. Every move that either of those groups go through feeds the trolls. There were still trolls in 2008 - we dealt with them quietly, and mostly by either ignoring them or providing dead-pan answers - they weren't a problem at all.

: [[User:SteveBaker|SteveBaker]] ([[User talk:SteveBaker|talk]]) 17:57, 14 February 2016 (UTC)


:Trolls are going to troll. They're going to do whatever they want and nothing we can do will stop them.

:Admins are going to block posters, delete questions, and wall off the refdesk entirely. They are going to do whatever they want and nothing we can do will stop them.

:The difference, of course, is that trolls are a minor nuisance. In the lack of any organized initiative against them whatsoever, we might each have to blank a section every few days. That would be a shame.

:Whereas an administrator has the ability to keep new users from getting involved or getting answers, to dismiss our collateral effects on article writing, to deny any value to archives of answered questions, to insist that no format but the one they have in mind counts as an encyclopedic resource, and when all else fails, they can simply destroy the whole Refdesk outright.

:A reasonable person might question whether someone who can't see any value in having a Refdesk at all should be taking the lead in enforcing "anti-troll" restrictions that most people here strongly oppose, and answering discussion on the topic with a big slice of I Didn't Hear That slathered in a sauce of Only Admins Get A Vote. A reasonable person might think that someone who actually likes and values the Refdesk might do a better job of enforcement, or non-enforcement, of anti-troll crusades.

:But what reasonable people think doesn't matter - only what admins think matters. The medium is the message, and the message of Wikipedia is one about power establishing itself and defending itself at all costs. There is no Science or Humanities in that message, and no room for them there.

:The real lesson we can take from this is that not just this refdesk, not just Wikipedia, but the entire Internet is a dead end. It is all about power and control, masquerading temporarily as content. Everything written, whether to the Refdesk Archives or to Wikipedia or even to the online newspapers and scientific journals ... all of it comes with an expiration date. A Dark Age is the manifest destiny of a culture subsumed by power and control. [[User:Wnt|Wnt]] ([[User talk:Wnt|talk]]) 18:11, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

::I agree about Dark Age, and I've long believed that we'll enter the next one within a couple of centuries at most. This goes to my personal userbox:
::{{User:Melab-1/Userboxes/Template:Green userbox|id=[[File:Milky Way Galaxy.jpg|46px|link=File:Milky Way Galaxy.jpg]]|info=<center>This user is aware that, in the end, ''it's only Wikipedia''.</center>}}
::Truth be told, our lives are little more than ways to occupy ourselves until the next collapse. But I've found that to be a tough sell, and understandably so. I'm just occupying myself, like you and everyone else, and the Internet, Wikipedia, and RD are part of that. &#8213;[[User:Mandruss|<span style="color:#775C57;">'''''Mandruss'''''</span>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:Mandruss|<span style="color:#AAA;">&#9742;</span>]] 18:29, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

*Would you assert that a library reference desk is a wasted effort, and that they should all be closed? After all, they do not increase the number or quality of books on shelves, they take up space, and they cost money. They only serve to help ''patrons'', rather than improve a library's infrastructure, holdings, or income. Why indeed to libraries tolerate such a drain on their resources?
:It really comes down to what you think any of this is HERE for. I think it's obvious to see that a reference service fits easily and cleanly into WP/WMF goals. Also recall [[WP:PAPER]], and all those kilobytes of discussion are not wasting much of anything. Also recall the fact that nobody is obligated to spend any time on WP:RD, so I have a hard time caring if anyone doesn't like the ref desks' presence. I advise such people to simply ''not read'' our reference desks, which I'm told is both ''free'' and ''easy'' to do! (I also think [[concern trolling]] may be an interesting and relevant read) [[User:SemanticMantis|SemanticMantis]] ([[User talk:SemanticMantis|talk]]) 15:34, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

::I wouldn't (and haven't) asserted "that a library reference desk is a wasted effort..." I do assert that Wikipedia '''isn't a library'''. It's a "free encyclopedia that anybody can edit". Neither my [[Funk & Wagnalls]] nor my [[World Book Encyclopedia]] included a desk/forum where a group of editors hung out and asked/answered questions with actual references, much less jokes and opinions. Reference desks ''do'' belong in a library, they ''don't'' belong in an encyclopedia. If, however, you insist on comparing this to an actual library reference desk (a premise I don't accept), this sort of [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AReference_desk%2FScience&type=revision&diff=704968577&oldid=704967481 useless, opinionated, unreferenced answer], which is the norm here not the exception, wouldn't be tolerated there either. I'm not trying to be dismissive of the contributions of the few editors such as yourself who actually try to provide neutral, referenced answers to legitimate thoughtful questions. On the contrary, I enjoy reading your answers and those of a few others, for example, and I sometimes learn things. However, as great and well-researched as your answers are, neither the question nor the answer contributes to the building of the encyclopedia to any significant degree. There are entire websites out there which exist solely for the purpose of answering people's questions (and frankly do better overall jobs at it). We don't need to attempt to duplicate that here. At best, the ref desks are a distraction (from the Project/content creation) and, at worst, as exemplified by the current farce, contribute to the general public's negative view of WP. WP would be a better, more productive place without them.--[[User:WilliamThweatt|William Thweatt]] <sup>[[User talk:WilliamThweatt|Talk]]</sup><sup>[[Special:Contributions/WilliamThweatt|Contribs]]</sup> 05:18, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
:::Thank you for your comments.<br />A couple of years ago I made the mistake of trying to enforce the instructions at the top of a reference desk page. I was promptly slapped down by an editor with years of experience, who was one of the responders violating the instructions. When I got zero support at the desk, I took the issue to the Village Pump and dropped a link to it in the RD discussion. I got no support there either, from either RD regulars or others. Nada. The take-home was that the most important thing is to avoid offending experienced editors (a respected editor with about 8 years of experience actually said that at VP). Conclusion: Those instructions don't mean squat to the Wikipedia community, they're just bureaucratic noise to be ignored at will. The rules for the desks are whatever those then present wish them to be, and they will vary with a period of days or hours as that mix changes. <u>Nothing</u> in that area has changed in the past two years. &#8213;[[User:Mandruss|<span style="color:#775C57;">'''''Mandruss'''''</span>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:Mandruss|<span style="color:#AAA;">&#9742;</span>]] 05:36, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

:::{{ping|WilliamThweatt}} With regard to "Reference desks ''do'' belong in a library, they ''don't'' belong in an encyclopedia", you may want to see the fourth (and the ninth) paragraph [http://www.kcet.org/updaily/socal_focus/commentary/where-we-are/the-life-and-afterlife-of-an-encyclopedia.html here]. I vaguely recall using ''Britannica'''s reference service myself once in the late 1950s or early '60s for some forgotten school project (since my family did own a set). Sure, the existence of that service was basically just a marketing ploy, but it at least shows that providing such a thing wasn't thought to be ''antithetical'' to an encyclopedia's goal of satisfying its customers. [[User:Deor|Deor]] ([[User talk:Deor|talk]]) 06:26, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

::::Thank you, Deor for that link. I too used those old school 'pedias back in the age before internet, but was unaware of any such service. Interesting. I think, however, the key is in this sentence ''[t]he salesman also offered, at added cost, access to a research service that would gather data on any question you asked (strictly limited in frequency, however)''. It was an additional service for which the customer had to pay extra and had strict limitations on frequency. Not really comparable to either an in-person library ref desk or WP ref desks, imo. It was, as you point out, a marketing ploy; the only relation it had to the encyclopedia is that the salesman already had his foot in the door. I think its purpose was not to satisfy customers but rather to make money. Regardless, I'm not saying the ref desks are "antithetical" to (i.e. mutually incompatible with) WP. I'm saying they're simply ''irrelevant'' to content creation/maintenance and do nothing to advance the goal of building "a free encyclopedia that anybody can edit" while providing a forum wherein certain editors freely opine and joke. To re-purpose a term from RfA, the ref desks have become a net negative, a diseased fruitless limb whose time for pruning has come (again, imho).--[[User:WilliamThweatt|William Thweatt]] <sup>[[User talk:WilliamThweatt|Talk]]</sup><sup>[[Special:Contributions/WilliamThweatt|Contribs]]</sup> 07:20, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
::::FWIW, I also used the Britannica Research service. I was only a teenager at the time - my parents had bought a set of Britannica - and with it came a perforated sheet of about 50 stickers - each good for one free query at their service. I used it several times - often for the kinds of questions we see here every day. I remember asking "Is Time Travel Possible?" - mailing it off, with a sticker. Many weeks later, I got a thick envelope with reprints of a dozen scientific papers - and a hand-typed reply pointing out some Brittanica articles that I might not have read - and explaining why the articles the reprinted for me were important. This was most certainly the "snail mail" equivalent of what we do here. So there is precedent.
::::Furthermore, "Wikipedia isn't a library" is becoming less true as time goes on. We have 5,000,000+ english language articles - which is perhaps like having 500,000 non-fiction books on shelves. That's considerably more material than most library reference desks have at hand. [[User:SteveBaker|SteveBaker]] ([[User talk:SteveBaker|talk]]) 16:26, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

:::{{ping|WilliamThweatt}} Well I'm glad you think at least some of us are doing it right :) Here's the thing: we'll ''always'' have bad answers, and WP will ''always'' have bad articles. The point is that we can ''improve''. That's the wiki way, right? For a ref desk question, we may only get a few days, so it is indeed more ephemeral and different than article space. But I don't think anyone would way to shut down WP just because some articles are not great. As others have noted, other encyclopedias have offered reference service. I also posit that we ''do'' help improve the encyclopedia, though I don't think that is necessary to justify our existence. I know I add wikilinks and correct typos to articles I cite with some frequency. And we must have helped Kavebear (?) write and reference a whole section of our Hawaiian history over the past year. Finally, I think the distraction argument is a red herring. I like to help people as I can, when I can, and I like the way I can do ref desking in 10 minute chunks. If the ref desk were closed, I don' think I (or many others) would suddenly go off to improve our articles. Basically, I think WP was created largely to help the public have easier and freer access to information, and that the ref desks are consistent with that goal. [[User:SemanticMantis|SemanticMantis]] ([[User talk:SemanticMantis|talk]]) 15:25, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

: William Thweatt's points are well taken (and I mean that), but it's worth noting that, for better or worse, the Reference Desks ''are'' a core part of Wikipedia, as evidenced by the fact that ''they're [[Main Page#Other areas of Wikipedia|linked to right there on the Main page]]'', with a friendly note stating we "serve as virtual librarians" and "tackle your questions on a wide range of subjects". The desks are ''not'' just a playpen for a few bored regulars, and they're not just for other Wikipedia editors who are doing research for article space.
: These notions could certainly evolve and may be doing so now. At some point, if the only-for-registered-editors trend continues, we're going to have to see about getting that link deleted from the main page. —[[User:scs|Steve Summit]] ([[User talk:scs|talk]]) 17:20, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
::In my opinion, the "only-for-registered-editors trend" (AKA lengthy and often-renewed semiprotection) is a rational response by the protecting administrator to persistent trollfeeding by refdesk regulars. Get rid of the trollfeeding and the need for often-renewed semiprotection goes away as well. --[[User:Guy Macon|Guy Macon]] ([[User talk:Guy Macon|talk]]) 17:44, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

== Semi-protected edit request on 14 February 2016 ==

{{edit semi-protected|Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities|answered=yes}}
<nowiki>== Population of Arabia at the time of Muslim Conquests ==</nowiki>

Does anybody know how many population Arabia had at the time of prophet Muhammad and Muslim Conquests? By Arabia, I mean Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Oman and other Arab countries of Persian gulf.
[[Special:Contributions/46.224.248.52|46.224.248.52]] ([[User talk:46.224.248.52|talk]]) 16:55, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

{{done}} [[User:Future Perfect at Sunrise|Fut.Perf.]] [[User talk:Future Perfect at Sunrise|☼]] 16:58, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

== Practical question ==

Is it possible to fix the sidebar so that it doesn't obscure the full <nowiki>{{pp}}</nowiki> template? And can we avoid turning this into a discussion about the use of the full template? Thanks. [[User:Tevildo|Tevildo]] ([[User talk:Tevildo|talk]]) 17:36, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
:For me with the Vector skin, the right sidebar covers the lower-right corner of the template without obscuring any of its text, which I don't see as significant. I can make it obscure some of the text by playing with the size of the window, however, so YMMV. &#8213;[[User:Mandruss|<span style="color:#775C57;">'''''Mandruss'''''</span>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:Mandruss|<span style="color:#AAA;">&#9742;</span>]] 18:08, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
:Try the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reference_desk Help Desk]. Its a technical question, no one will help you here...not in the link I stated either. -- [[User:Russell.mo|Apostle]] ([[User talk:Russell.mo|talk]]) 18:40, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
:[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Humanities&diff=704982771&oldid=704981948 This small edit] fixes it for me on my display - I don't know if this is the problem you mean or whether it fixes it for you though. ({{re|Russell.mo}} - I think we're pretty good about answering questions, so long as the OP takes a moment to ask them specifically and coherently...) [[User:Wnt|Wnt]] ([[User talk:Wnt|talk]]) 20:41, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
::<small>I thought it was a technical question, that will change WP template. I guess I did not understand the English again. Sorry {{=2|cute}} -- [[User:Russell.mo|Apostle]] ([[User talk:Russell.mo|talk]]) 20:49, 14 February 2016 (UTC)</small>
::Wnt - looks good here, thanks. I've done the same to RD/L and RD/M. [[User:Tevildo|Tevildo]] ([[User talk:Tevildo|talk]]) 21:03, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

== Semi-protected edit request on 15 February 2016 ==

{{edit semi-protected|Wikipedia:Reference desk/Language|answered=yes}}
<!-- Be sure to state UNAMBIGUOUSLY your suggested changes; editors who can edit the protected page need to know what to add or remove. Blank edit requests WILL be declined. -->
<!-- Begin request -->
Question: Correct word? 14 Feb 2016.
The grammatically correct way to resolve the who or which dilemma is to use both. A bid sniper is a person who, or software agent which, performs auction sniping. Slightly pedantic and fussy - but fully in accordance with grammatical rules.
<!-- End request -->
[[Special:Contributions/81.131.178.47|81.131.178.47]] ([[User talk:81.131.178.47|talk]]) 14:15, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

:{{done}} [[User:SemanticMantis|SemanticMantis]] ([[User talk:SemanticMantis|talk]]) 15:28, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

== Semi-protected edit request on 15 February 2016 ==

{{edit semi-protected|Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities|answered=yes}}
<!-- Be sure to state UNAMBIGUOUSLY your suggested changes; editors who can edit the protected page need to know what to add or remove. Blank edit requests WILL be declined. -->
<!-- Begin request -->
Under the Humanities RefDesk Query "Multiple viewpoint novels", please add the following:
Another well-known variation of the technique is the 1973 trilogy of plays by Alan Ayckbourn with the collective title [[The Norman Conquests]], which portray the same events taking place in a house (and garden) over a weekend, but with each of the three set in a different room (or the garden). {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} [[Special:Contributions/185.74.232.130|185.74.232.130]] ([[User talk:185.74.232.130|talk]]) 14:50, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
<!-- End request -->
[[Special:Contributions/185.74.232.130|185.74.232.130]] ([[User talk:185.74.232.130|talk]]) 14:50, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

{{done}} [[User:SemanticMantis|SemanticMantis]] ([[User talk:SemanticMantis|talk]]) 15:29, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

== "What Is Different?" ==

Two questions have been asked about the Reference Desk about “What is different?” The first is how is the Reference Desk different from the [[WP:Help Desk|Help Desk]. The second is how is the Reference Desk in 2016 different from the Reference Desk in 2008. I will try to provide partial answers to both, with more confidence that I have the first partly answered. [[User:Robert McClenon|Robert McClenon]] ([[User talk:Robert McClenon|talk]]) 03:28, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

===How is the Reference Desk different from the Help Desk===

The first difference that I see has to do with the ideas and ideals of the regulars. The Help Desk regulars are committed to Wikipedia as a whole, and see the Help Desk as a way to assist users in editing and using Wikipedia. This also applies to the [[WP:THQ|Teahouse]] regulars. The only real difference is that the Teahouse is oriented to experienced editors advising new editors, while the Help Desk is oriented to experienced editors advising any editors, and the Teahouse regulars make it a point to be friendly. However, the Help Desk regulars focus on Wikipedia and on its policies and guidelines. They have no special dedication to the Help Desk; they see it as a way to help Wikipedia in general. [[User:Robert McClenon|Robert McClenon]] ([[User talk:Robert McClenon|talk]]) 03:28, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Some of the Reference Desk regulars have a passionate commitment to the Reference Desk, as a special mission of Wikipedia, and some of them see it in particular as a service to unregistered editors. I will call them the IP outreach regulars, just because I need a term for them. As a result, some of them are upset by any semi-protection of the Reference Desks. This dedication to the unregistered editors, while meaning well, has odd side effects. Trolls see that semi-protection of the Reference Desks will upset and annoy the IP outreach editors by causing the Reference Desks to be semi-protected. At the same time, Wikipedia policy does demand that troll attacks be dealt with by semi-protection. The problem is that the ideal of the IP outreach editors that the Reference Desks should never (or almost never) be semi-protected cuts against global Wikipedia policy. Then, further, in order to minimize the need for semi-protection, some of the IP outreach editors try other strategies for combating trolling, but strategies that have not achieved and will not achieve consensus, such as aggressive deletion of troll posts, or a Deny Recognition strategy that includes the berating of other registered editors who do not recognize trolls, and so respond to them as legitimate unregistered editors, or who choose to answer the trolls as if they were legitimate unregistered editors. So the first difference between the Help Desk and the Reference Desk is that the Help Desk is simply a sub-community within Wikipedia, but the Reference Desk is a community with its own values that sometimes cut against those of Wikipedia. [[User:Robert McClenon|Robert McClenon]] ([[User talk:Robert McClenon|talk]]) 03:28, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

The second difference results from the first. Because trolls see that they can annoy the IP outreach editors by causing semi-protection, trolls are tempted to troll just in order to cause semi-protection and watch the quarreling about it. [[User:Robert McClenon|Robert McClenon]] ([[User talk:Robert McClenon|talk]]) 03:28, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

So, because some Reference Desk regulars have decided that the Reference Desk is special, and should be unique in Wikipedia (in terms of focusing on unregistered editors), the Reference Desk is special, and chaotic. [[User:Robert McClenon|Robert McClenon]] ([[User talk:Robert McClenon|talk]]) 03:28, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

If a troll targets the Help Desk from IP addresses, the Help Desk will be semi-protected for a few days, and the Help Desk regulars will say little about it, and the troll will go somewhere else. If a troll targets a Reference Desk from IP addresses, the Reference Desk will be semi-protected, and the Reference Desk regulars will quarrel about how to deal with it, and the troll gets what they want, disruption. [[User:Robert McClenon|Robert McClenon]] ([[User talk:Robert McClenon|talk]]) 03:28, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
[[User:Robert McClenon|Robert McClenon]] ([[User talk:Robert McClenon|talk]]) 03:28, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
:I think you're making too much of this recent example. I will admit to being very vocal in my objections recently. But, like Modocc above, I ''never'' complained at all about any semi-protection until I became aware of this unprecedented '''three month''' semi-protection. Do you have diffs of regulars objecting and complaining to 0-48 hour semi-protection? I don't recall ever seeing that, but sometimes I also go several months without looking at the talk page. [[User:SemanticMantis|SemanticMantis]] ([[User talk:SemanticMantis|talk]]) 15:00, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
::It is true that I didn't see complaints about one-day or two-day semi-protections until the excessive three months. However, now I am seeing statements that the Reference Desks should never be semi-protected, even for two days, and I am responding to those statements. I agree that the three months is excessive, and is contributing to further attempts by other editors to change the behavior of other editors. However, I am responding to the statements that the Reference Desks should never be semi-protected. Any effort to impose such an exemption from policy should be at the policy talk page, not here. [[User:Robert McClenon|Robert McClenon]] ([[User talk:Robert McClenon|talk]]) 18:02, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
:::I think it's safe to say that "the Ref Desks should never be semi-protected" is a minority view. Note too that such a position is nowhere stated in the RFC currently running, the only formal RFC that's been held here in recent memory. —[[User:scs|Steve Summit]] ([[User talk:scs|talk]]) 18:15, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
::::True, but there were complaints, to be sure a minority, that never semi-protecting the Reference Desks should have been one of the options. As the RFC is worded, it refers to a two-day maximum, and there are a few responders who opposed that, such as myself, because we said that five days should be the maximum. [[User:Robert McClenon|Robert McClenon]] ([[User talk:Robert McClenon|talk]]) 21:16, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

I think the main difference is the help desk doesn't get ''borderline'' questions, and as you say they are designed to help WP contributors more than the general public. The help desks are also not usually in the business of discussion amongst responders, and incremental improvement over the course of a few days. For example we get many questions that start out with no refs, then a few refs, then a disagreement and another ref etc, and sometimes all of that is important to getting a sense of an answer, especially for nuanced and subtle questions. I think all of these differences are ok, and I also think it's ok if we get a little more trolling than the help desk. [[User:SemanticMantis|SemanticMantis]] ([[User talk:SemanticMantis|talk]]) 14:59, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
:The main difference is our Nazi Troll and Vote X haven't yet gotten FPAS to semiprotect every ref desk for two full months. Once they do that, they'll move on to the Help Desk and Teahouse and T:MP with their shit until FPAS feels the need to semiprotect THOSE for two full months each. Eventually, the two of them will collectively shut down any place for casual readers to drop in and ask questions. The thing is, they wouldn't be able to do so except for the singular, personal vendetta of a single person who has decided that their way to stop them is the only way. They're playing him like a fiddle to do their work for them. --[[User:Jayron32|<span style="color:#009">Jayron</span>]][[User talk:Jayron32|<b style="color:#090">''32''</b>]] 03:04, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
::I partially disagree. The bit about the the singular, personal vendetta is spot on, but the Help Desk and Teahouse don't have the cadre of dedicated troll feeders that we do, so such lengthy semiprotection won't be needed there. --[[User:Guy Macon|Guy Macon]] ([[User talk:Guy Macon|talk]]) 03:36, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
:::At least until they move over there, and then when FPAS follows them to stop them, it'll be three months there too. --[[User:Jayron32|<span style="color:#009">Jayron</span>]][[User talk:Jayron32|<b style="color:#090">''32''</b>]] 03:38, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
::::Good point. I hadn't thought of it that way before. Without naming names, clearly the Troll Feeders will follow the Trolls if the Trolls start trolling somewhere else. --[[User:Guy Macon|Guy Macon]] ([[User talk:Guy Macon|talk]]) 16:21, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

===How is the Reference Desk different from in the past===

I am guessing at how the Reference Desk is different from in the past. However, here are two thoughts. First, there were always trolls, but there were fewer vengeful banned editors, because there were fewer banned editors. Second, there either were no IP outreach editors, or there were fewer editors who focused on IP outreach, and therefore who were deeply upset by semi-protection. The trolls have caught on to the ability to annoy the Reference Desk regulars, especially those with an IP outreach mission. That is my theory.
[[User:Robert McClenon|Robert McClenon]] ([[User talk:Robert McClenon|talk]]) 03:28, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

:One admin at his discretion decided to increase the protection lengths last year on the basis that a few days and then weeks were "not working". When the Humanities desk gets trolled again, by his discretion, but based on his recent prior record, he will ramp it to another three months unless we come to some understanding that this is unwarranted. AFAIK, this protection length is unprecedented for these desks and so your theory is wrong. --[[User:Modocc|Modocc]] ([[User talk:Modocc|talk]]) 03:52, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
::I agree that the length of semi-protection is excessive. However, you have not disproved my theory. The fact that the <del>Help</del> Reference Desk regulars get so wildly outraged by overly long semi-protection encourages trolls to pull on the chains both of aggressive administrators and of IP outreach editors to get them to snipe at each other. That supports my theory. [[User:Robert McClenon|Robert McClenon]] ([[User talk:Robert McClenon|talk]]) 04:05, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
:::You said "Help Desk regulars" when I think you meant us, but we are just as cool. The current trolls have been around longer than just the last few months and the semi-protections were infrequent, so there weren't many complaints or anything like the current mutiny so your theory is a red herring. --[[User:Modocc|Modocc]] ([[User talk:Modocc|talk]]) 04:20, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
::::It is true that the trolls have been around for a while. However, this, in my opinion, changes little. It is true that the recent semi-protection has been too long. However, what I have seen is that the amount of outrage at semi-protection has increased. Please provide evidence that the amount of trolling has not increased. Both FPAS, who is an aggressive semi-protector, and Ian Thomson, who is not an aggressive semi-protector, have provided considerable evidence of increased trolling. Outrage at the semi-protection is a self-fulfilling prophecy. Because the troll likes to see the outrage, the troll, who might troll anywhere, targets the Reference Desks, where semi-protection causes complaining, and results in bizarre idealistic schemes to make it unnecessary. Please show me some consistent argument, rather than mere assertion, that we are not dealing with a self-inflicted condition by inviting the trolls. [[User:Robert McClenon|Robert McClenon]] ([[User talk:Robert McClenon|talk]]) 06:17, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
:::::Sorry , but the burden for your cycle of outrage theory is upon you to show with diffs. For example, I did not raise any complaint about the semi-protections until the three months Humanities desk protection went into an effect. Any diffs I did otherwise? In fact, this would be true of most editors here especially those that have weighed in at the above RfC and agree with keeping these desks more open. Even those that oppose explicit restrictions likely ask for reasonable discretion. Furthermore, there is already a de facto consensus to keep heavily edited community pages such as ANI open to IPs because they are [[WP:HUMAN | contributor]]s too and because of that even though ANI gets more trolling than we do the admins do not dare impose weeks long protections and/or wheel-war over it. So your theory that it's just us that are overly concerned, idealistic, upset, affected by concerned trolling, self-defeating or otherwise wrong to express our differences and effect change in this is just pointless and accomplishes nothing. -[[User:Modocc|Modocc]] ([[User talk:Modocc|talk]]) 14:21, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
::::::ANI does not get protected very often, but trolling in front of the admins is a rather foolish thing to do. Here, they can get away with it. The obvious solution is to try the patience of the troll. Protection for a few hours is useless. Three months is too long. What should happen is that anytime one of desks gets trolled, a week of semi-protection should be placed on all of them. Once that week is up, if the troll starts again, put another week on. At some point the troll is likely to get tired of having to wait it out for week after week. ←[[User:Baseball Bugs|Baseball Bugs]] <sup>''[[User talk:Baseball Bugs|What's up, Doc?]]''</sup> [[Special:Contributions/Baseball_Bugs|carrots]]→ 14:38, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
:::::::Bugs, there are administrators watching this page "so trolling in front of the admins is a rather foolish thing to do." Thus perpetual semi-protection is precisely what they do not do at ANI and what we don't want done here. Also, you obviously have not looked at [[WP:ANI | ANI]]'s [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27+noticeboard%2FIncidents block log] or you wouldn't be asserting that "ANI does not get protected very often".--[[User:Modocc|Modocc]] ([[User talk:Modocc|talk]]) 14:44, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
::::::: The problem is if the troll sees the semi-protection as disruption (as MANY people here see it). In which case the more semi-protection there is, the happier and more trollish the troll becomes. The assertion that the troll-joy comes from the debate is likely to be true also - but even if we stopped discussing it, the ability to block IP edits at will is a power we really only want admins to have...but this idea passes that control over to a troll who can now impose semi-protection at will using the admins as his/her tool to disrupt (and ultimately, IMHO, destroy) the Ref desks. [[User:SteveBaker|SteveBaker]] ([[User talk:SteveBaker|talk]]) 14:49, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
::::::::The ref desk started as a spinoff of the help desk and has grown to what it is now. If it had stayed part of the help desk, the help desk would be dealing with the trolling. And I think you overestimate the importance of the ref desk to the general public. Most any question asked here can be asked on Google. ←[[User:Baseball Bugs|Baseball Bugs]] <sup>''[[User talk:Baseball Bugs|What's up, Doc?]]''</sup> [[Special:Contributions/Baseball_Bugs|carrots]]→ 15:34, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
:::::::::Bugs, can I ask you a question? Why do you spend time here? You don't give references very often, and now you think that most of our questions can be answered with google?! I don't want to get in to that-- what I'm curious about is why you are specifically here at the ref desks, so active, so often? I really want to know. I'll give my answer, even though I think it's obvious to anyone why I'm here: I like to help people, I like to learn new things, and I like to find and share references. But after several years, I'm still not sure why you're here. Please understand I don't want to fight or argue, I'm just genuinely curious, and maybe your answer will help me understand your position better. Feel free to comment on my talk page if you think this is too off-topic. [[User:SemanticMantis|SemanticMantis]] ([[User talk:SemanticMantis|talk]]) 15:42, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
::::::::::That's an exceedingly good question - and one I've often wondered about. Why ''is'' Bugs is here? Personally, I'm with SemanticMantis. I like to help people (and I often answer questions on other, more specialized, forums too). When someone asks an interesting question - it causes me to dig into parts of the encyclopedia I might otherwise not visit...often I find things to fix or improve...the number of times I find a missing article has been asymptoting towards zero over the past few years - but it happens. I learn a lot - and it drives lateral thinking, which is useful. [[User:SteveBaker|SteveBaker]] ([[User talk:SteveBaker|talk]]) 16:15, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
:::::::::::The reasons you two give for being here are in line with the reasons I'm here. ←[[User:Baseball Bugs|Baseball Bugs]] <sup>''[[User talk:Baseball Bugs|What's up, Doc?]]''</sup> [[Special:Contributions/Baseball_Bugs|carrots]]→ 16:34, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

===Summary===

By focusing on the special mission of the Reference Desk to serve legitimate unregistered editors, some Reference Desk regulars have made it harder to serve legitimate unregistered editors by providing an incentive to illegitimate unregistered or banned editors.
[[User:Robert McClenon|Robert McClenon]] ([[User talk:Robert McClenon|talk]]) 03:28, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Comments? [[User:Robert McClenon|Robert McClenon]] ([[User talk:Robert McClenon|talk]]) 03:28, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

:Very insightful stuff. I would like to see an example of the help desk being shut down for several days to curb trolling. ←[[User:Baseball Bugs|Baseball Bugs]] <sup>''[[User talk:Baseball Bugs|What's up, Doc?]]''</sup> [[Special:Contributions/Baseball_Bugs|carrots]]→ 03:56, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
::What do you mean by shut down? Do you mean semi-protected, or fully protected? If the Help Desk were semi-protected for several days, the Help Desk regulars wouldn't complain. Trolling by registered users is dealt with not by full protection, but by blocking the trolls. Only at the Reference Desk do the regular editors think that semi-protection is shutting down the site. [[User:Robert McClenon|Robert McClenon]] ([[User talk:Robert McClenon|talk]]) 04:02, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
:::Yes, I was referring to "the Help Desk will be semi-protected for a few days", which I presume no one at the Help Desk has any problem with? But if the Ref Desk(s) get semi'd for a few days, complaints begin to rumble. ←[[User:Baseball Bugs|Baseball Bugs]] <sup>''[[User talk:Baseball Bugs|What's up, Doc?]]''</sup> [[Special:Contributions/Baseball_Bugs|carrots]]→ 14:31, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
::::Bugs, here's the protect log for the help page [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=Wikipedia:Help_desk]. As you can see, they ''do'' semi-protect, but the longest period I see is under 48 hours. I admit I've complained vocally and recently about a ''three-month'' semi-protection. I'm not aware of any ref deskers complaining about 0-48 hour protection, unless you'd like to share some diffs? [[User:SemanticMantis|SemanticMantis]] ([[User talk:SemanticMantis|talk]]) 15:36, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
:::::Yes, it appears that they simply ''deal with it'' rather than fussing about it. ←[[User:Baseball Bugs|Baseball Bugs]] <sup>''[[User talk:Baseball Bugs|What's up, Doc?]]''</sup> [[Special:Contributions/Baseball_Bugs|carrots]]→ 17:04, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
::::::Exactly. At least the two most recent semi-protections of the Help Desk, by the way, have been due to trolls complaining about the semi-protection of the Reference Desks. As Bugs notes, the Help Desk just deals with it, by reverting and semi-protecting. The archive of [[WT:HD|the Help Desk talk page]] shows no complaints about semi-protection. They just deal with it. However, they don't have the idea that the Help Desk is an outreach mission to unregistered editors and must be kept open to them. [[User:Robert McClenon|Robert McClenon]] ([[User talk:Robert McClenon|talk]]) 17:10, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
:::::::Bingo. ←[[User:Baseball Bugs|Baseball Bugs]] <sup>''[[User talk:Baseball Bugs|What's up, Doc?]]''</sup> [[Special:Contributions/Baseball_Bugs|carrots]]→ 17:17, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
::::::I see two problems here. First, there are complaints about short-term semi-protection. Some editors have said that we should never semi-protect the Reference Desk. Notice that a few of the responders to the RFC supported the limitation to two days only because it didn't include ''never''. Second, three months is too long. However, the complaints about short-term to medium-term protection (granting that three months is long) encourage trolls to cause semi-protection. Also, the trolls did attempt to spill the semi-protection controversy to the Help Desk, but were just reverted and semi-protected, because the Help Desk regulars see the Help Desk as part of Wikipedia, not as something "special" that needs different policies. [[User:Robert McClenon|Robert McClenon]] ([[User talk:Robert McClenon|talk]]) 17:15, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
:::::::A few hours is not long enough here, and 3 months is way too long. The earlier proposal to set 2 days as the ''maximum'' should be revised to set 2 days as the ''standard''. ←[[User:Baseball Bugs|Baseball Bugs]] <sup>''[[User talk:Baseball Bugs|What's up, Doc?]]''</sup> [[Special:Contributions/Baseball_Bugs|carrots]]→ 17:18, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
::::::::I like that idea and I'd like to see whatever language is accepted written into the guidelines and/or policy. I disagree with SteveBaker's view that "No semi-protection at all" should be an option, but at least he is entitled to advocate this position even if its not supported by others here. --[[User:Modocc|Modocc]] ([[User talk:Modocc|talk]]) 18:29, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
::::::::I'll add that the language would need to be generalized to provide some guidance for other boards too and the restriction can be tweaked such as "...shall <s>only</s> be protected for a [standard] maximum of 48 hours at a time, and shorter protections should be tried first during periods of heavy abuse. [If an administrator at their discretion imposes longer times for any reason (such as not enough administrative attention to ongoing problems or they become difficult to handle) then they should defer to administrators that reduce the time to the 48 hour standard.]" This in whole or in part could be added to the [[WP:Rough guide to semi-protection | rough guide]]. --[[User:Modocc|Modocc]] ([[User talk:Modocc|talk]]) 18:50, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
:::::::::Before casting anything in stone, I think the short list of admins who monitor the ref desks should agree to try it as an ''experiment''. ←[[User:Baseball Bugs|Baseball Bugs]] <sup>''[[User talk:Baseball Bugs|What's up, Doc?]]''</sup> [[Special:Contributions/Baseball_Bugs|carrots]]→ 18:51, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
::::::::::Based on what I've seen in the ANI block log, I could find many instances of two and three days but only one or two instances of a five day period. Thus, I also suggest a broadening of the suggested standard maximum to: "...a standard maximum of 48 to 72 hours...". --[[User:Modocc|Modocc]] ([[User talk:Modocc|talk]]) 19:15, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
:::::::::::It's not just a matter of duration - frequency of application also matters. In the end, our users mostly care about the probability that at any given moment, they'll be able to ask a question - and perhaps respond with a followup with in 24 to 48 hours if it's needed to fully answer it. It's pointless to impose (say) a 48 hour limit on protection without also stopping it from being applied 15 times per month! [[User:SteveBaker|SteveBaker]] ([[User talk:SteveBaker|talk]]) 17:48, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
::::::::::::{{re|SteveBaker}} It's not completely pointless because the troll might get tired. I mean, if a couple of trolling posts get the desk locked down three months at a time, then it's light work for him to keep it serviced year after year. But if he has to come on here every other day he might get bored and forget to do it. We need to realize that the admins and the trolls here are fundamentally on the same side, with the same goal, and indeed... they may well be the same person. [[User:Wnt|Wnt]] ([[User talk:Wnt|talk]]) 13:00, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
::::::::::Since the essay needs revision I've cautiously tweaked it some to better reflect on-going practice [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Rough_guide_to_semi-protection&diff=705327627&oldid=704046347]. It's a start, but we need to add further guidance delineating how different pages are to be treated. --[[User:Modocc|Modocc]] ([[User talk:Modocc|talk]]) 21:26, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
:I'd argue that the long-term semi-protection is what's preventing me from serving legitimate unregistered users. I take your point, in a sense you are invoking [[proximate and ultimate causation]], and looking toward a hypothetical latter while glossing over the former. My retort is that when someone has thrown up a needless barricade in my path, I don't choose to engage with philosophy of land use development and public works, I try to remove the barricade. [[User:SemanticMantis|SemanticMantis]] ([[User talk:SemanticMantis|talk]]) 15:04, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

== Another semi-protected edit request ==

Please append to [[WP:RD/L#Grossepelas]] with an appropriate placement and indentation:

I searched for "grossepelas" in the full [[OED|OED Online]]. No hits. I then tried "pelas" on its own. It found a word "pela", but this is the same for a certain Chinese insect or the white wax that it secretes, so I don't think that's relevant. Of course if the word is badly misspelled this approach would not be helpful.

I googled for "grossepelas" and got 10 hits: one was this thread, and all of the others were in either German, French, or Portuguese. I did not try to figure one what they were about, but in every case "grosse" and "pelas" were separate words (or for the German hits, "pelas-" was actually the beginning of a longer word that happened to be hyphenated). I doubt that any of them are relevant either. --[[Special:Contributions/69.159.9.222|69.159.9.222]] ([[User talk:69.159.9.222|talk]]) 00:46, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

:{{done}} &#8213;[[User:Mandruss|<span style="color:#775C57;">'''''Mandruss'''''</span>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:Mandruss|<span style="color:#AAA;">&#9742;</span>]] 00:50, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

::Thanks, that was fast! --[[Special:Contributions/69.159.9.222|69.159.9.222]] ([[User talk:69.159.9.222|talk]]) 01:09, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

== And another semi-protected edit request ==

Please append to [[WP:RD/L#Words about size in English]]:

*Some large dictionaries provide usage information that helps distinguish similar words like this. In my ''[[Random House Unabridged Dictionary]]'' from 1978, it says:

:::'''Great''', '''big''', '''large''' refer to size, extent, and degree. In reference to the size and extent of concrete objects, '''big''' is the most general and most colloquial word, '''large''' is somewhat more formal, and '''great''' is highly formal and even poetic, suggesting also that the object is notable or imposing: ''a big tree'', ''a large tree'', ''a great oak'', ''a big field'', ''a large field'', ''great plains''. When the reference is to a degree or quality, '''great''' is the usual word: ''great beauty'', ''great mistake'', ''great surprise''; although '''big''' sometimes alternates with it in colloquial style: ''a big mistake'', ''a big surprise''; '''large''' is not used in reference to degree, but may be used in a qualtitative reference: ''a large number'' (''great number'').

:And it says:

:::'''Little''', '''diminutive''', '''minute''', '''small''' refer to that which is not large or significant. '''Little''' (the opposite of ''big'') is very general, covering size, extent, number, quantity, amount, duration, or degree: ''a little boy'', ''a little time''. '''Small''' (the opposite of ''large'' and of ''great'') can many times be used interchangeably with '''little''', but is especially applied to what is limited or below the average in size: ''small oranges''. '''Diminutive''' denotes (usually physical) size that is much less than the average or ordinary; it may suggest delicacy: ''the baby's diminutive fingers''; ''diminutive in size but autocratic in manner''. '''Minute''' suggests that which is so tiny it is difficult to discern, or that which implies attentiveness to the smallest details: ''a minute quantity'', ''examination''.

:I would add that there are some specific senses where only one of the synonyms is used. For example, a lower-case letter may be called a "small letter", but not a "little letter".
:--[[Special:Contributions/69.159.9.222|69.159.9.222]] ([[User talk:69.159.9.222|talk]]) 01:08, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

::{{done}} A nice contribution to the answers too. --[[User:Modocc|Modocc]] ([[User talk:Modocc|talk]]) 01:32, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

== Full protection on ==

Misc desk is now fully protected, and not even the basic courtesy of a protection template. Fucking shitty admin action. [[User:DuncanHill|DuncanHill]] ([[User talk:DuncanHill|talk]]) 17:34, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

I see that was a mistake by FPAS, who changed it 18 minutes later. To his credit, this looks like a short protection consistent with what was asked for in the RFC. [[User:Wnt|Wnt]] ([[User talk:Wnt|talk]]) 17:54, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

::Yes, he admits that the full protection was a minor error. I thank FPAS for limiting the semi-protection. I am not optimistic that the Miscellaneous Desk will be open for very long, but FPAS has given the troll a chance to go somewhere else. [[User:Robert McClenon|Robert McClenon]] ([[User talk:Robert McClenon|talk]]) 18:05, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

:::This is an example from what FPAS is "protecting" me from. {{cquote|:::::The smell of gum trees after rain ... Can anyone explain why the leaves give off that delightful smell? Here in London it's been raining for most of the year so far but the leaves of the trees we have here never give off any delightful odours. [[Special:Contributions/78.149.195.161|78.149.195.161]] ([[User talk:78.149.195.161|talk]]) 18:13, 18 February 2016 (UTC) }}

:::I don't need that kind of protection, and I think FPAS has a real problem with this need to assert authority and control over harmless posts. Oh well, ''[[Give 'Em Enough Rope]]'' as the saying goes. [[User:SemanticMantis|SemanticMantis]] ([[User talk:SemanticMantis|talk]]) 18:45, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

::::That's not how I read it. To my mind it's more a white knight complex, the idea that only they and those who support them are capable of dealing with the problem. In other words, not a thirst for power but simple arrogance.<br />I've found this to be quite common among editors with 8+ years here, but few of them have admin rights. Like benevolent kings or pet owners, they are very paternalistically taking care of us. It's clearly at odds with everything Wikipedia is about, and it should be stopped, but I wouldn't begin to know a realistic way of making that happen. &#8213;[[User:Mandruss|<span style="color:#775C57;">'''''Mandruss'''''</span>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:Mandruss|<span style="color:#AAA;">&#9742;</span>]] 19:30, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

:::::I'm afraid you're right Mandruss, and since FPAS' actions have been sanctioned by Arbcom and those who disagree are accused of "proxying for sockpuppets", there's little hope that this behaviour will cease. [[User:The Rambling Man|The Rambling Man]] ([[User talk:The Rambling Man|talk]]) 19:32, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

::::::[[User:The Rambling Man]] - Your comments are unhelpful. [[User:Future Perfect at Sunrise]] was formally admonished by the ArbCom for inflammatory and uncivil language. You were formally admonished by the ArbCom for incivility also. When you say that FPAS's actions were "sanctioned by ArbCom", that is ambiguous because the word "sanctioned" is not only ambiguous but is an auto-antonym. However, you seem to be using this talk page only to snipe at FPAS and to snipe at the ArbCom. If you don't have anything constructive to say here, either answer questions at the Reference Desk proper or edit somewhere else. [[User:Robert McClenon|Robert McClenon]] ([[User talk:Robert McClenon|talk]]) 21:50, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
::::::: No, I shall continue to make such observations as I see fit. You will not censor me. [[User:The Rambling Man|The Rambling Man]] ([[User talk:The Rambling Man|talk]]) 07:17, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
::::::::[[User:The Rambling Man]] - Both you and [[User:Future Perfect at Sunrise]] were admonished by the ArbCom for incivility. You are being uncivil and are not being constructive. I am not censoring you. I am reminding you that the ArbCom cautioned you, and you seem to be ignoring that caution. Unfortunately, conduct at the Reference Desks almost certainly will go back to the ArbCom. Do you have anything constructive to say about semi-protection or about the Reference Desks in general? [[User:Robert McClenon|Robert McClenon]] ([[User talk:Robert McClenon|talk]]) 21:34, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
:::::::::I'd suggest you stop attempting to bait me. You are not helping yourself nor are you helping progress this problem to any kind of valid solution. I have already stated that the current ownership of the desks is inappropriate and inadequate in solving the problem. My position stands. In the meantime, I suggest you try to work on improving Wikipedia for our readers for a change. [[User:The Rambling Man|The Rambling Man]] ([[User talk:The Rambling Man|talk]]) 21:42, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

:::::Oh, you know I hadn't thought of that. I guess that's more charitable, isn't it? Still a bit sad, and I expect more from our admins. We don't yet have an article at [[White Knighting]] or [[Whiteknighting]], but here's some interesting coverage at urban dictionary [http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=white+knighting], and rationalwiki [http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Whiteknighting]. The (always intentionally offensive) ''encyclopedia dramatica'' [who can't be linked] says, among other things, that this kind of 'defense' makes "the defender look pitiful, and making the entire situation one big clusterfuck" [[User:SemanticMantis|SemanticMantis]] ([[User talk:SemanticMantis|talk]]) 19:42, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

::::::There are more details of this devil than I care to share, but the entire so-called "protection" edit or the rationale [of your example from the science desk] was [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Science&diff=705642701&oldid=705642569 this action] which is just one of a sequence of removals of a banned user's edits that I haven't the time or need to address as being proper here (go ask FPAS if you have a problem with his actions). In any case, I've read walls-of-text above complaining about the all too frequent complaints of obvious troll and banned-user whacking, so to everyone I extend a silly [[WP:TROUT]]ing and a piping fresh hot cup of tea (which I hope is better than the house brand). Since ANI hasn't been shut down, its my hope we can toss our emptied cups and deescalate most of the fruitless finger-wagging. --[[User:Modocc|Modocc]] ([[User talk:Modocc|talk]]) 21:28, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

:::::::How would something on the science desk justify protecting the miscellaneous desk? [[User:DuncanHill|DuncanHill]] ([[User talk:DuncanHill|talk]]) 21:38, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
:::::::: It would help if you could be bothered to actually look at the edit histories before you complained here. The reversals of the Vote X edits had nothing to do with the most recent protections; both of those were because of the nazi troll (on both desks). [[User:Future Perfect at Sunrise|Fut.Perf.]] [[User talk:Future Perfect at Sunrise|☼]] 21:41, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
:::::::::It would be helpful if you knew how to semi-protect instead of full-protecting. It would also be helpful if you bothered to explain yourself instead of taking the patronizing attitude you so often do. You're angry with me right now because I called you out over your own ballsup. [[User:DuncanHill|DuncanHill]] ([[User talk:DuncanHill|talk]]) 21:46, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
:::::::::[[User:Future Perfect at Sunrise|Fut.Perf.]], Duncan queried me regarding what I wrote which was ambiguous without actually complaining about it and he did complain initially about your mistake before you fixed it. I didn't mean to imply that the semi-protections were due to the Vote X reversal nor was I complaining about it although it may have appeared that way. My head is spinning now. -[[User:Modocc|Modocc]] ([[User talk:Modocc|talk]]) 22:57, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
::::::::It doesn't, I used [[scare quotes]] with regards to SematicMantis's science desk example which applied only indirectly. Thus, to clarify, I've added a bit more to my post so it refers to that part of the discussion. --[[User:Modocc|Modocc]] ([[User talk:Modocc|talk]]) 21:56, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
:::::::::Yes, I was mistaken, I apologize for mixing in a not-as-relevant issue. I apologized to FPAS on his talk page, and he told me I was not allowed to speak to him, then deleted my comment where I apologized. Granted I was also criticizing him at the same time, so I'm not surprised. Seeing what a helpful and constructive ball of cheer he is, I will try to console myself from the loss of the pleasure of his discourse. [[User:SemanticMantis|SemanticMantis]] ([[User talk:SemanticMantis|talk]]) 23:32, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

== Protected edit request on 18 February 2016 ==

{{edit protected|Wikipedia:Reference desk/Miscellaneous|answered=y}}
<!-- Be sure to state UNAMBIGUOUSLY your suggested changes; editors who can edit the protected page need to know what to add or remove. Blank edit requests WILL be declined. -->
<!-- Begin request -->
Please put a protection template on [[Wikipedia:Reference desk/Miscellaneous]]. If it is to be editable by admins only, then at least they could do the rest of us poor saps the courtesy of that. [[User:DuncanHill|DuncanHill]] ([[User talk:DuncanHill|talk]]) 17:37, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
<!-- End request -->
[[User:DuncanHill|DuncanHill]] ([[User talk:DuncanHill|talk]]) 17:37, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

:{{not done}} It's currently semi. See the last page-log entry. &#8213;[[User:Mandruss|<span style="color:#775C57;">'''''Mandruss'''''</span>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:Mandruss|<span style="color:#AAA;">&#9742;</span>]] 17:43, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

::Was full when I asked. I've added the template, as apparently this is too complex an operation for any admin round here. [[User:DuncanHill|DuncanHill]] ([[User talk:DuncanHill|talk]]) 17:46, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

:::I agree it should always have a template when there is any kind of protection, but that issue applies to every page on the site. Those of us who care are permitted to add or remove those templates as appropriate. When I do that, I see it as just doing what little I can to help out, sort of like adding "unsigned" templates. Admins are never going to change their behavior on anything just because we think they should. &#8213;[[User:Mandruss|<span style="color:#775C57;">'''''Mandruss'''''</span>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:Mandruss|<span style="color:#AAA;">&#9742;</span>]] 17:50, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

== Semi-protected correction request ==

In my last edit to [[WP:RD/L]], please strike out the confusing non-word "qualtitative" and insert the correct "quantitative". Solly aboul thal, folls. --[[Special:Contributions/69.159.9.222|69.159.9.222]] ([[User talk:69.159.9.222|talk]]) 18:14, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
:{{Done}} [[User:Tevildo|Tevildo]] ([[User talk:Tevildo|talk]]) 18:23, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
::*Thanks. --[[Special:Contributions/69.159.9.222|69.159.9.222]] ([[User talk:69.159.9.222|talk]]) 05:53, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
:All words were once used for the first time. ;) &#8213;[[User:Mandruss|<span style="color:#775C57;">'''''Mandruss'''''</span>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:Mandruss|<span style="color:#AAA;">&#9742;</span>]] 18:24, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
:(But that one has already been used about 380 times on the web alone. You'll have to be more creative.) &#8213;[[User:Mandruss|<span style="color:#775C57;">'''''Mandruss'''''</span>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:Mandruss|<span style="color:#AAA;">&#9742;</span>]] 18:33, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
::I wonder how many of the 380 are supposed to be "quantitative" and how many are supposed to be "qualitative"! --[[Special:Contributions/69.159.9.222|69.159.9.222]] ([[User talk:69.159.9.222|talk]]) 05:53, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
:::I propose "qualtitative" adj. - possessing the quality of quantity. This is more clear with examples: "there are 10 people in the room" is a ''quantitative'' statement, while "there are happy people in the room" is a ''qualitative statement'', and "the number of people in the room" is a qualtitative notion :) [[User:SemanticMantis|SemanticMantis]] ([[User talk:SemanticMantis|talk]]) 21:15, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

== Semi protected editing request ==

With regards to [http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/news/article-3390519/I-buy-Royal-Mint-commemorative-coins-bulk-credit-card-gain-airmiles-cash-bank-s-refusing-accept-them.html this story] about Royal Mint legal tender coins that cannot be spent in any reasonable way, and are thus pretty much worthless unless you are in debt to a court in which case the "legal tender" provisions activate; can you give me a definitive list of UK coins that retailers and banks have to accept by law for normal transactions, not just "legal tender" settlement of debts? Thank you <small><span class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:RoyalMintQuestion|RoyalMintQuestion]] ([[User talk:RoyalMintQuestion|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/RoyalMintQuestion|contribs]]) 20:37, 18 February 2016 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
{{done}}, posted at humanities desk. [[User:Future Perfect at Sunrise|Fut.Perf.]] [[User talk:Future Perfect at Sunrise|☼]] 21:01, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

== Semi protection editing request 2 ==

The Royal Mint is [http://www.royalmint.com/aboutus/news/the-new-1-pound-coin introducing a new £1 coin in 2017]. Please can you tell me if the current £1 coins will still be legal tender after this date. Thank you. [[User:RoyalMintQuestion|RoyalMintQuestion]] ([[User talk:RoyalMintQuestion|talk]]) 20:43, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
{{done}}, posted at humanities desk. [[User:Future Perfect at Sunrise|Fut.Perf.]] [[User talk:Future Perfect at Sunrise|☼]] 21:01, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

==Debate @ Humanities: "Is a viable Palestinian State a possibility?"==
How come we righteously shut down people who try to get us to engage in speculation and debate - because it's against the rules, after all - but when they ask a question that can be answered with a simple Yes or No answer (see the first 2 responses), we (some of us, anyway) happily provide all the speculation and debate one could ever wish for, and there is no shutting down to be seen?

Whence this double standard?

Does the rule read: "'''<u>We</u> engage in our own speculations and debates whenever it suits us, but if <u>you</u> try to start a debate or to get us to speculate, we'll come down on you like a ton of bricks'''"? -- [[User:JackofOz|<font face="Papyrus">Jack of Oz</font>]] [[User talk:JackofOz#top|<span style="font-size:85%"><font face="Verdana" ><sup>[pleasantries]</sup></font></span>]] 21:20, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

:It would be helpful if those who [[WP:OWN|own]] the desks would publish their list of approved debaters. [[User:DuncanHill|DuncanHill]] ([[User talk:DuncanHill|talk]]) 21:40, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

:Jack, I addressed your question a couple of days ago on this page. "The rules for the desks are whatever those then present wish them to be, and they will vary with a period of days or hours as that mix changes." The desks are largely a place for certain editors to engage in stimulating conversation; i.e., forums. It's been that way since I arrived on scene, nobody seems to care much, and it's why I don't wear a responder hat much on the desks anymore. &#8213;[[User:Mandruss|<span style="color:#775C57;">'''''Mandruss'''''</span>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:Mandruss|<span style="color:#AAA;">&#9742;</span>]] 22:38, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

:Yes there are double standards, and the enforcement seems to depend on who cares the most, makes the most noise, and is [[WP:BOLD]] enough. You yourself technically have the option to remove all or part of the post, including responses that are speculative and debate-y in nature, if and when you think they are violating our guidelines. You have to also be prepared for some users to not like it though. I have consistently and repeatedly advocated for sanction/removal of our ''responses'' rather than ''questions''. That is also right there in our guidelines, that say: "Generally speaking, answers are more likely to be sanctioned than questions." [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Guidelines/Medical_advice]. That is specifically about medical advice, but I see no reason why it shouldn't apply to egregious speculation or debate. The way I see it, if we're going to argue with each other, we might as well do it in a way that doesn't interfere with our patrons as much. Anyway, if you, or anyone else doesn't like the way things are being done here, and chooses to remove ''responses'' to better meet our guidelines, I will fully support your right to do that in general, with [[WP:BRD]] being used for specifics. [[User:SemanticMantis|SemanticMantis]] ([[User talk:SemanticMantis|talk]]) 23:51, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

== Nazi troll ==

Can we do something a bit more effective against the Nazi troll? [[User:AlexTiefling|AlexTiefling]] ([[User talk:AlexTiefling|talk]]) 23:10, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
: Only semiprotections, or asking a CU to see if a rangeblock is feasible on their underlying IP range. [[User:Future Perfect at Sunrise|Fut.Perf.]] [[User talk:Future Perfect at Sunrise|☼]] 23:15, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
::What else can be done about trolls? [[User:Robert McClenon|Robert McClenon]] ([[User talk:Robert McClenon|talk]]) 21:12, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
===Does the troll have a name?===
Does the racist anti-Jewish troll have a name, either a blocked or banned user name, or the name of a long-term abuse file? We know who Vote (X) for Change is, and we know who Wickwack is. Does this particular troll have a username or case file, or are they just the racist anti-Jewish troll? [[User:Robert McClenon|Robert McClenon]] ([[User talk:Robert McClenon|talk]]) 21:12, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
:Soft Skin, apparently. See GAB's post below. [[User:Tevildo|Tevildo]] ([[User talk:Tevildo|talk]]) 21:17, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
:Soft skin (lowercase s on second word). Just clarifying so name is easier to locate. [[User:EvergreenFir|'''<span style="color:#8b00ff;">Eve</span><span style="color:#6528c2;">rgr</span><span style="color:#3f5184;">een</span><span style="color:#197947;">Fir</span>''']] [[User talk:EvergreenFir|(talk)]] <small>Please &#123;&#123;[[Template:re|re]]&#125;&#125;</small> 21:22, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
::Thank you. So anti-Jewish throwaway accounts (and the recent anti-Jewish trolling has been from throwaway accounts, not from IP addresses) can be reported as socks of Soft skin. [[User:Robert McClenon|Robert McClenon]] ([[User talk:Robert McClenon|talk]]) 21:24, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
:::The LTA page is at [[Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Ref Desk Antisemitic Troll]]. [[User:Future Perfect at Sunrise|Fut.Perf.]] [[User talk:Future Perfect at Sunrise|☼]] 21:26, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
:I guess Soft skin is as good a name as any, although the editor has been bothering the RD for longer than September of last year. I always thought the anti-semitic troll was the same editor as the racist Toronto editor. I mean the one who talked about Negresses and how blacks have low IQ and are criminals and stuff, not Donmust90 who AFAIK wasn't the same editor. <p>But I now think I'm mistaken. The geolocation and WHOIS info are diff (diff ISPs) even if both are Canada. I don't think it's that they moved or changed ISP since I found stuff that appear to be from the Toronto troll that post-date stuff from Soft skin/the Alberta troll. Also the anti-semitic troll (the IPs in the ranges I looked at) seem to concentrate on anti-semitic stuff (how Jews control the world or the Nazis are hard done or evil Jewish plots involving homosexuality or abortions or whatever) with the occasional mention of the plight of the white rac. Whereas mentioned the Toronto troll was on blacks. <p>One thing I did learn; it seems the anti-semitic editor is the same as the editor who's been asking all those questions about oral sex disease risk or something else related to sexual health. I found [[Special:Contributions/199.7.159.81]]. And it seems [[User:Whereismylunch]] was blocked as a sock of another identified master of the anti-semitic troll. Not naming here because of the name but there are about 12 blocked accounts from 2014. <p>I also found what appears to be another IP albeit already blocked [[Special:Contributions/24.207.79.50]]. I saw that due to this edit [//en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Science&diff=prev&oldid=626437802]. This IP is a diff ISP and seems to geolocate to BC, but it seems clear from that it's the same as the sexual health editor. <p>Frankly I don't know what to make of [[Special:Contributions/199.7.159.55]]. It associates the 24 IP with the 199 Sexual health IP again at least in 2014. The 2015 stuff in 199.7.159.55 is a little odd but I guess they just happened to get the IP again. (It obviously could be diff people, but the earlier stuff strongly suggests the sexual health editor is the same as the anti-semitic editor.) <p>P.S. There was another editor who seemed to sometimes post anti-semitic and bigoted stuff about black people way back when (as well as anti GM rants, polychotomous keys, some sorting algorithm they developed and a bunch of other stuff). But they were from Florida and AFAIK haven't been here since 2010. I'm fairly sure this isn't the same editor as either Toronto or Alberta/BC. <p>P.P.S. I forgot to mention it's obviously possible the Toronto editor is the same just that they have access to yet another ISP with diff geolocation details. But I didn't notice of Alberta/BC posting racist stuff about blacks. Nor for that matter Toronto being particularly anti-semitic although I think Toronto has used quite a few more ranges than I looked at. The one case I found seemed to be more positive about Jewish people or at least Ashkenazi Jews than being anti-semitic. Although the sexual health stuff does suggest Alberta/BC has been careful to avoid posting both the anti-semitic stuff and sexual health stuff while editing without an account from the same IP despite 1 slip up so it seems they possibly have tried to maintain distinct identities. <p>[[User:Nil Einne|Nil Einne]] ([[User talk:Nil Einne|talk]]) 20:52, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

== SPI notice ==

Just a general PSA: please report any incidents of racist/Nazi socking [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Soft_skin here]. These guys come in batches. Thanks, [[User:GeneralizationsAreBad|GAB]]<sup>[[User talk:GeneralizationsAreBad|Hello!]]</sup> 00:58, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

== Should Refdesk guidelines address conspiracy, contributory infringement or related issues, and if so... how? ==

I feel like it's opening Pandora's box to broach the question, but my nose is telling me the box is already cracked. I'm not going to give any specific examples where this issue comes in play - every time where I've been suspicious, I have convinced myself that discussion was in good faith - even so, intuition tells me that the hostile attention paid to the Refdesk will eventually include the official variety.

Currently, the Refdesk guidelines do not in any way address questions that, if asked and answered, might get the two parties into the cross-hairs of the US federal government. For example:

* ''"I tried to do a one-pot meth synthesis but nothing precipitates. What am I doing wrong?"''

* ''"I'm trying to go through Turkey to Syria to join the fighters. How will they try to stop me?"''

* ''"Where do I pirate Game of Thrones?"''

(Well, technically I think a link policy addresses the third - but only as a link. If someone says ''"Go to [[Pirate Bay]] and type......"'' I don't know where things stand.

Now it should be obvious that '''nobody''' should ask these seriously, as a matter of self-interest. Unless, that is, the person asking imagines (most likely incorrectly) he has perfectly concealed his real IP address, or imagines (absolutely incorrectly) that being a troll will protect him from a conspiracy charge for something he doesn't really intend to do, or (most relevantly) he is a government agent in the first place.

It also appears that these questions can be rephrased in ways that cannot be seen as anything but legitimate scholarship, for example:

* ''"I read most methamphetamine is being made by a synthesis in a soda bottle. How can you do a whole reaction in a soda bottle?"''

* ''"How are foreign fighters trying to enter Syria via Turkey actually caught? Don't they blend in with hundreds of thousands of other visitors?"''

* ''"Is Game of Thrones still being pirated? Where? Why hasn't the company been able to stop it?"''

We can't afford to give up on the second category of questions, because so much of what goes on in the world is defined by illegality that we would be left unable to comment on most matters of current political significance. Yet we could have someone targeting us for trouble, and we shouldn't let ourselves be Pearl Harbored. I think for us one of the more important questions is going to be, how sure do people have to be that there is a criminal purpose before it counts as conspiracy (or contributory infringement, or some such thing) to offer assistance? What happens when you think someone might have criminal intent or might not and you honestly don't know which? Can we take an assurance of a legitimate purpose at face value, and have any kind of reassurance from it? And what do we do in the instance where someone asks the first type of question, then comes back (perhaps even as an IP "sock") and asks the second kind of question? And then there's the international aspect - Wikipedia may be under US law, but what about when a responder lives in a second country and the provocateur lives in a third? Like I said, Pandora's box. ''Definitely'' a question our guidelines against legal advice prohibit from being answered on the Refdesk. And yet, I feel like our policy is going to need to answer it. How do we protect our people without letting ourselves be dragooned into somebody's censorship army? [[User:Wnt|Wnt]] ([[User talk:Wnt|talk]]) 19:14, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

:In my opinion, we can discuss this, and it might be interesting, but ultimately this is ''no concern of ours''. WMF has lawyers, who are experts who get ''paid''. We may be experts but we're not acting as such, and we certainly don't get paid. If any of these issues were seen by WMF to pose significant legal risk to WMF or WP, then we simply wouldn't have a reference desk. WMF and WP don't especially care if some user chooses to post dumb incriminating stuff here, we just remove it along with any other unwanted content, and perhaps provide records later to comply with court orders. This also gets back to the perennial misunderstanding here of what [[disclaimer]]s are. These are ''not'' normative guides to conduct, they are legal instruments designed to limit or avoid liability for WMF. Have a good careful look through [[:Category:Wikipedia_disclaimers]], and perhaps some of your concerns will be lessened. [[User:SemanticMantis|SemanticMantis]] ([[User talk:SemanticMantis|talk]]) 17:16, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

==Discussion at [[Template talk:Editnotices/Page/Wikipedia talk:Reference desk#Template-protected edit request on 18 February 2016]]==
[[File:Farm-Fresh eye.png|15px|link=|alt=]]You are invited to join the discussion at [[Template talk:Editnotices/Page/Wikipedia talk:Reference desk#Template-protected edit request on 18 February 2016]]. [[User:Ahecht|Ahecht]] ([[User_talk:Ahecht|<span style="color:#FFF;background:#00f;display:inline-block;padding:1px 1px 0;vertical-align:-0.3em;line-height:1;font-size:50%;text-align:center;"><b>TALK<br />PAGE</b></span>]]) 19:17, 20 February 2016 (UTC){{Z48}}<!-- [[Template:Please see]] -->

== Semi-protected edit request on 21 February 2016 ==

{{edit semi-protected|Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities|answered=yes}}
<!-- Be sure to state UNAMBIGUOUSLY your suggested changes; editors who can edit the protected page need to know what to add or remove. Blank edit requests WILL be declined. -->
<!-- Begin request -->

During segregation, especially during the 50's/60's, did many white southerners 'dislike' or 'hate' coloured people? Would it have been possible for coloured and white people to be friends on a personal level, or was there animousity? I am struggling to get into the mindset of segregationist white southerners during the 50's/60's. Thanks. --[[User:Finderoomertæs|Finderoomertæs]] ([[User talk:Finderoomertæs|talk]]) 20:15, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

<!-- End request -->
[[User:Finderoomertæs|Finderoomertæs]] ([[User talk:Finderoomertæs|talk]]) 20:15, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
:{{done}}. [[User:Deor|Deor]] ([[User talk:Deor|talk]]) 00:10, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
::Congratulations! You have now posted a question from an already-indef'd user. ←[[User:Baseball Bugs|Baseball Bugs]] <sup>''[[User talk:Baseball Bugs|What's up, Doc?]]''</sup> [[Special:Contributions/Baseball_Bugs|carrots]]→ 01:01, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
:::Thank you for pointing that out, Bugs. I'll clearly never be able to show my face in public again. (Perhaps if you concerned yourself more with the quality of your own contributions here and less with the identities and motives of others, everyone, including you, would benefit.) [[User:Deor|Deor]] ([[User talk:Deor|talk]]) 08:24, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

== Semi-protected edit request on 21 February 2016 ==

{{edit semi-protected|Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities|answered=yes}}
<!-- Be sure to state UNAMBIGUOUSLY your suggested changes; editors who can edit the protected page need to know what to add or remove. Blank edit requests WILL be declined. -->
<!-- Begin request -->
Where can I submit a question asking for the citizenship of a person in the U.S.? My grandmother lives in the U.S. and is unsure of the citizenship of those wanting to rent her apartment in Nebraska. How can you know of the citizenship of a person?. Thank you. --[[Special:Contributions/190.50.126.207|190.50.126.207]] ([[User talk:190.50.126.207|talk]]) 23:36, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
<!-- End request -->
[[Special:Contributions/190.50.126.207|190.50.126.207]] ([[User talk:190.50.126.207|talk]]) 23:36, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
:{{done}}. [[User:Deor|Deor]] ([[User talk:Deor|talk]]) 00:05, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

== Semi-protected edit request on 22 February 2016 ==

{{edit semi-protected|Wikipedia:Reference desk/Language|answered=yes}}
<!-- Be sure to state UNAMBIGUOUSLY your suggested changes; editors who can edit the protected page need to know what to add or remove. Blank edit requests WILL be declined. -->
<!-- Begin request -->

<!-- End request -->
[[Special:Contributions/129.45.14.131|129.45.14.131]] ([[User talk:129.45.14.131|talk]]) 11:40, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
:{{NotDone}}. No text in request section. [[User:Tevildo|Tevildo]] ([[User talk:Tevildo|talk]]) 12:25, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 15:56, 22 November 2024

Skip to the bottom
Shortcut

[edit]

To ask a question, use the relevant section of the Reference desk
This page is for discussion of the Reference desk in general.
Please don't post comments here that don't relate to the Reference desk. Other material may be moved.
The guidelines for the Reference desk are at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines.
For help using Wikipedia, please see Wikipedia:Help desk.


Unreadable in dark mode

[edit]

Unfortunately I have no solutions to offer, but Wikipedia:Reference desk is nearly unreadable in the new dark mode - the very light grey text in the white boxes just vanishes. Thought I'd at least note it here in case anyone knows of a fix. 57.140.16.8 (talk) 15:00, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It all looks normal to me. Where is this "dark mode" option you're talking about? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:10, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)/Archive_214#Dark_mode_for_logged-in_users_on_desktop_coming_this_week! @Baseball Bugs 97.113.14.140 (talk) 03:47, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like that's where complaints about this thing should be taken. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:58, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have no complaints about the tool; seems to be working as intended, but this page isn't set up to render usefully using it. But hey ho. 97.113.14.140 (talk) 12:13, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think you should take this question to the Village Pump. Either that, or don't user Dark Mode. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:03, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Good advice. I tried it once. I didn't like it. (Sex, that is. I also didn't like being reasonable, or the new Wikipedia dark mode.) -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 22:08, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Jdlrobson and Izno! Looks great now. 57.140.16.8 (talk) 13:29, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Great! 🐸 Jdlrobson (talk) 08:26, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Humanities and header hatnote

[edit]

Last week, Mod creator decided to add a hatnote to the humanities desk, and then PrimeHunter decided to remove it a few days later. Here's the content:

"WP:RD/H" redirects here. For the template header used in all areas of the reference desks, see WP:Reference desk/Header.

Neither adding nor removing was discussed, and lack of discussion was one reason given for its removal. So, let's start a discussion...is this header a good idea? I'm leaning toward "no", thanks to the reasons given for removal, but I can understand the reasoning for adding. Nyttend (talk) 22:55, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with the removal, there is no reason to have that at the top of the page. --Viennese Waltz 14:15, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No; the template is way further down the ladder. While pageviews are not infalliable, the comparison – on a logarithmic scale, you'll note – is pretty damning. If someone is looking for WP:Reference desk/header they probably know how to find it. Cremastra (talk) 19:24, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bots

[edit]

Do the bots really edit pages or something else because I saw from the citation bot literally remove and replace the same information with the same words Avyanna.Owam (talk) 11:45, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Where did you see that? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 07:19, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fake Desi media content querant

[edit]

Looks like the Californian troll who pretends to be a poorly comprehending fan of Indian subcontinent media, with poor English, has now got themself an account. (If I was sufficiently motivated, I'd link the thread several months back where they crowed in perfect English about successfully fooling us.) Should something be done about this? {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.1.211.243 (talk) 07:51, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure I follow. The last couple of times they've posted on Ents from an IP address, it's geolocated to India. --Viennese Waltz 09:05, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The issue has been sorted, the account has been indefinitely blocked. --Viennese Waltz 13:24, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Reference_desk&oldid=1258959349"