Wikipedia talk:Reference desk

Skip to the bottom

[edit]

To ask a question, use the relevant section of the Reference desk

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

Straw poll on primary goal in antivandalism efforts here

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

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

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

The most important thing is to minimize vandalism

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

• Weakly agree. —Steve Summit (talk) 11:39, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
• Weakly agree with the provision that it refers to obvious vandalism under WP:AGF. --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. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 12:12, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

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

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

• Agree. —Steve Summit (talk) 11:39, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
• Agree. --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. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 12:12, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
• Agree. 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! -Modocc (talk) 16:22, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
• Agree. Hey Deor! Happy new year! 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. StuRat (talk) 19:45, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
  • How many sincere users have been "slapped down" here? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:49, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
    • Quite a few, considering OP's even get slapped down for not including refs in their Q. StuRat (talk) 22:59, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
      • Do you have some examples? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 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." 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?" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:41, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

• Agree. All efforts to minimize disruption should always keep this in mind as a goal. --Jayron32 21:10, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
• Agree. By this I refer not only to avoiding long term semi-protection or Pending Changes, but also "filters" like the one mentioned a few topics below where some IP isn't allowed to ask a question about Judaism because it is "potentially unconstructive". I proposed an idea for an edit filter that isn't content-based, there was some small discussion of it, but if people don't think it's important enough to make that happen, it's not important enough to make some AI terminator drone happen either. Ultimately, establishing that Judaism is controversial on Wikipedia at the software-censorship level is a more meaningful triumph for anti-Semitism than any number of stupid not-really-a-questions by IP vandals. Wnt (talk) 23:58, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
  • 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. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 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! Wnt (talk) 13:19, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

• Comment I don't feel I have the right to vote, since I'm not a regular editor, but as a reader of Wikipedia I really value these desks. There is a very helpful and welcoming community here. I was pretty astonished to see such a huge length of page protection, which has already gone unchallenged for over a month. Surely vandals should just be reverted, blocked, and ignored, whatever the nature of their edits. Troll questions are no more or less awful than someone randomly damaging articles, and myself as a sample size of one, I don't find either significant. It is usually obvious and fleeting. Keeping this page locked for months at a time stops me as a reader from ignoring the trolls, which continues their disruption of Wikipedia. My two cents anyway. 94.12.81.251 (talk) 20:38, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Further comment: couldn't the nazi troll be formally banned, and any questions that amount to nazi soapboxing deleted on sight even if someone has already replied? 94.12.81.251 (talk) 20:44, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

We already do that. The troll is de facto banned; a formal ban decision won't change a thing. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:26, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Going by the comments here, some people object to removing a question that has received good faith answers, even if it was asked in bad faith. I just wondered if nailing down a ban might change that, and allow for the protection to be lifted on the understanding that the troll will get immediately shut down if they try again. 94.12.81.251 (talk) 22:30, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

• Agree. 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". HighInBC 16:28, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

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

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

This poll presents a False dilemma

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

• Support --Guy Macon (talk) 14:22, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Shouldn't that be a false trilemma? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:30, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Pure genius.... :) --Guy Macon (talk) 13:00, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

• Support - I agree with User:Stephan Schulz, but the number of qualifying statements in supporting various choices indicates that it isn't time for a straw poll that excludes nuanced discussion. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:18, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
• Support The most important thing is that we make an encyclopedia. The whole ref desk thing is getting further and further from that. New users can work on building an encyclopedia. There is a huge difference between vandalism and trolling too, and an area being soft on trolling is hard on the whole project. This whole poll is framed in such a way as to gain a bias response. HighInBC 16:26, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
• Support of course we want both to make the desks accessible to newbies and to keep the trolling/vandalism down. The big thing is not really trolling except with the obsessive cases, but questions that fall afoul of the guidelines based on the wikimedia disclaimer. μηδείς (talk) 19:13, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
• True - The missing choice is how to fend off trolls while still allowing sincere IP's and redlinks to use the ref desks. The core problem is a philosophical clash which shows no signs of finding a resolution. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:29, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
• Comment: This may well be a false dilemma, but, guys, unless you can offer those more nuanced solutions, for the purpose of this poll, you're begging the question! Of course we all want to minimize vandalism while maximizing open editing -- but this is a tradeoff. If we can't do both, if we can't have our cake and eat it, too, which way do we lean? Different people have very legitimately different opinions on that question, and that's what I was trying to gauge here. —Steve Summit (talk) 12:31, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
  • All kinds of solutions have been discussed, but talking about and doing are two different things. Instead of pre-empting something by saying "it won't work", how about trying something and seeing if it works (or not). Such as the flagged revisions or whatever it's called, as discussed farther up the page. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:12, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Pending changes was suggested above but was rejected by some users. Still worth giving a try, though. Well, I can't think of alternatives right now, all I know is that long-term protection isn't the answer. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 18:04, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

You guys will be happy to know that I've withdrawn my objection to giving Pending changes a try. :-) --Modocc (talk) 02:54, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

• The more nuanced solution is to use expiring semi-protection when it is really needed. Just like anywhere else on Wikipedia that has a troll problem. HighInBC 16:01, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

• The current ref desk vandal has been banned for more than 4 years and he's still going strong. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 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. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:13, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

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

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

Amen, brother. When I think about all the serious problems that would vanish overnight if registration were required for editing ... I slap myself and try to think about something else. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:11, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

The reason some of us cling to unregistered editing so strongly is that it is one of the bedrock principles on which Wikipedia was founded. I firmly believe that Wikipedia would never have grown into what it is today without it. (Now, I concede, it could be argued that the principle, though once vital, has outlived its usefulness. However, as I say, some of us still cling to it.) —Steve Summit (talk) 11:16, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Like a passenger on Titanic. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:25, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

• Comment: As too often happens here these days, one thread becomes many threads. How can we possibly hope to have a focused discussion and produce any worthwhile outcomes, while we constantly divide ourselves and in so doing conquer ourselves? I find myself less and less capable of even comprehending the issues, let alone participating in any resolution of them, when the discussions are spread among different threads all being carried on simultaneously. I find I come here, look, read, and go away dismayed, with nothing worthwhile to offer the many-threaded hydra. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 19:49, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

So what are you saying we should do differently in discussions? I introduce subheadings because I find it easier to read a series of paragraphs that way rather than introducing a series of paragraphs as threaded discussion, and because threaded discussion becomes hard to follow. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:31, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Seems we have diametrically opposed brain hemisphere functions, Robert. Variety is good. I don't want anyone to dance to my personal tune. I was merely introducing a new counterpoint to the Grand Eternal Fugue that is the Ref Desk talk page. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 01:02, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Short term protection: Semi-protection vs Pending Changes protection

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

Again with the short-term? How will that improve things when you're dealing with a troll who's been at it for like 4 years? You should set it up ongoing and see how it works. If it flops, we can always go back to reasonable-length semi's. (2 months seems excessive.) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:34, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Good, we agree that two months is excessive and I did take a look at the Humanities log and saw that semi-protection has been applied frequently for about two years now. So I can understand the frustration and desire by some to lengthen protections, but our policy should be consistent and not over-reactive and for our desks to be considerably kinder to IPs is a right step it seems. -Modocc (talk) 21:51, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Of the ones here who say we should be nicer to IP's, how many make an effort to defend the pages against the bad-faith IP's? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:17, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

• I do. —Steve Summit (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.. -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. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 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." --Modocc (talk) 23:38, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

• The key factor would be that if the troll waits it out and comes back, the next semi should be several days longer than the previous. The troll knows it can just wait it out for a few hours or a day. But at some point (we hope) the troll would get tired of waiting out increasingly long time periods. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:57, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

• Not really. Being flexible prevents rewarding the troll which will reason if they ramp up their game each time then we get months long page protections. Besides, none of the desks have required long term protection and there is no reason to start doing so per the consensus above. --Modocc (talk) 00:23, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

• Your theory is that the troll's real game is to get the ref desk shut down? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 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. --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. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 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. --Modocc (talk) 01:05, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

I just took a brief look into the pending changes talkpage archive, not long enough to get a complete handle on what to expect, but I did read that when it was going through the trial stage that it often timed out with large articles, that there was an increase in BLP violations than if semi-protection was in place and some editors actually used it to censor legitimate content (yeh I know what you're thinking, the minders will still mind regardless). Not at all great, but not insufferable, so at this point I'm of two minds and am very ambivalent as to whether or not it could work for us.. I suppose this is an important/but-not-so-important IP editing issue. Either way, I think I'll just have a lie down and try to enjoy a really hot cup a tea... and hope that this alternate universe sorts itself out. --Modocc (talk) 03:35, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

I'll point out too that if administrative wheel-warring is discouraging administrators from lifting the current three months long page protection on the Humanities desk then maybe this requires more than just local consensus (if we have that and I think we do from various editors, except from the administrator that imposed it) but an administrative discussion at WP:AN? And would this step not be even necessary had an indefinite semi-protection been applied in the first place? I wonder too whether or not if the admins at AN for whatever reason overrides the local consensus (because of other precedents perhaps) then even an airing out at WP:ARBCOM would help? To be frank, given that this is the Reference Desk which is supposed to help answer questions by unregistered readers and our editors alike, I find it unfortunate that we may even have to ask the larger community to get this consensus rock-solid, so would a RFC do? Or if you are an administrator, discuss this through the appropriate channels (email or whatever as you wish) and simply dispense with this drama inducing nonsense by following the above consensus? And while I'm on this tear... I shouldn't dare leave out Jimbo's (Jimmy Wales) input as the ultimate arbitrator in all things Wikipedia. --Modocc (talk) 05:24, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't think Pending Changes is useful and I don't want to see it on the Refdesk. It is a less than lethal weapon, which is to say, something that is marketed as an alternative to firing a gun at a criminal and used as a way to get people to shut up at political rallies. No, just no. Wnt (talk) 15:58, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Can we remove the Hitler question now?

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

Are you asking about WP:RDL#Hitler's Mein Kampf 2016 reprint asked on 14 January? It should archive in four days. -- ToE 15:42, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

No, there was a question on RD/M along the lines of "What good things did Hitler do for Germany?" It developed in a predictable manner and has now been deleted. Tevildo (talk)

(ec)No, it's the one that starts out asking about Hitler's "good" accomplishments. It's just a typical ruse by the Jew-hating troll to lead up to his Jew-hating stuff, and it's now removed; unless the busybodies continue to restore it. And do you realize that by even bringing this up here, it's further feeding of that troll? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:46, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. Here is the removal. -- ToE 16:04, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

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

It's a bit of a shame, really; StuRat actually provided references there. If it weren't for the trolling, we could preserve it for posterity. :-) Matt Deres (talk) 17:21, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

If StuRat has additional useful information on the subject, he could put it in the article. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:53, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

I wish we'd stop trying to infer poster's intent. Maybe that OP intended to troll us, or maybe they were just curious. I mean it is a sort of obvious question. If Hitler were simply pure evil as some narratives say, then he probably wouldn't have risen to power. And that raises the question of why people liked him and if he had any positive contribution. Oh well. FPAS again preventing us from AGF and providing references. SemanticMantis (talk) 16:29, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

When he started defending Hitler and talking about the Jewish bankers and such, he showed his true brownshirt colors. Now, are we going to keep feeding that troll? Or can we box this up now? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:11, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

I'd be happy to for us to remove followups from the OP that are not furthering the answering of the question. However, the original question wasn't unreasonable and neither were the majority of the answers to it. In many cases where leaders do extreme evil, they also do some good. The way Napoleon ruled France - or the British managed India - produced some nasty injustices - but also added to their respective cultures. Trying to hide that from subsequent history is non-productive. Removing perfectly valid responses to a reasonable question doesn't make sense to me. Removing this initial question on grounds of trolling alone is a slippery slope. When the question was asked, we did not attempt to guess the OP's motives - but instead gave (mostly) dispassionate, reasonable, answers - and that was the right thing to do. When the troll revealed him/herself as such, we could have restricted ourselves to removing inconsequential/off-topic responses and stayed well within our own guidelines. But judging the initial question on it's merits alone seems like a good approach to take. I don't believe we should set ourselves up as arbiters of who is a troll and who isn't without a good deal of prior discussion on this talk page. SteveBaker (talk) 17:31, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Banned users are not allowed to edit. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:24, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

As User:Antandrus/observations on Wikipedia behavior wisely points out in #65, "The only one hundred percent certain way to get rid of a troll is to close the browser tab." —Steve Summit (talk) 19:44, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Pretty hard to reach through the internet and close the troll's browser tab. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:13, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

I hope that's not what you thought #65 meant. —Steve Summit (talk) 22:20, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

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

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

Come on, it's plain obvious it's the same troll again. If removing this kind of rubbish requires consideration and debate first, then something is very, very wrong with this board and how it's run. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:21, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

(ec)It's best to delete it before anyone responds to it. In this case, notice how Davidthebusdriver (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) made 10 meaningless edits in order to get confirmed and get past any semi-protection, and then posted another stupid race-baiting question. He's blocked now, of course. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:23, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

Thanks, I hope we can all agree with this. I still think there are poorly resolved issues surrounding our (lack of) consensus on how to weigh intent, intuition, and AGF in declarations of trolling/banned user posts, but no need to discuss them here in this thread, and perhaps they can never be resolved due to reasonable differences in perspective, goals and values. If anyone wants to have a civil conversation on the topic, my talk page is open. SemanticMantis (talk) 15:09, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. Let me also add that, despite my somewhat harsh tone above, if someone is miffed because a golden gem of their prose got deleted, I'm sorry about that, it is indeed unfortunate, I'd be miffed, too. But it's all part of the program: Wikipedia simply is not the place for golden gems of prose that need guaranteed posterity. —Steve Summit (talk) 15:48, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

The discussion there doesn't look like the Refdesk's finest hour, but I think it would be interesting to see a discussion of Hitler's actual effect on the economy. For example, my perception is that a "jobs program" like the Autobahn, even if it technically 'improved' the economy, did so by reducing regular white Aryan Germans to the status of slave laborers. (Whether you can improve an economy by reducing the population to slave labor, as long as there's a lot of it, is itself a useful question to ask the Davos cogniscenti...) Wnt (talk) 03:40, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 January 2016

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

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

Semi-protected edit request on 22 January 2016

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

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

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

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

Archiving delay

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

Are the changes strictly about bots, or do they also plan to impact registered users eventually? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:06, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

The changes are not strictly about bots. As I understand it, the login path for normal, interactive users will likely be changing in visible ways, for example to introduce the possibility of two-factor authentication. See this message, which is about all I know so far, either. —Steve Summit (talk) 15:52, 22 January 2016 (UTC) [But please note I said possibility, not requirement. —scs]

Oy. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:57, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

The bot is barely working for the moment, though more than by luck than by design. Tonight's run has caught up and finished, and likely tomorrow's, too. If I can beat the cut-off and finish making the required changes before WMF finishes deploying the changes that demand them, we'll be fine, otherwise I may be back here asking for help/forgiveness again soon. —Steve Summit (talk) 02:21, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Welcome back Scsbot! I was just about to break out the helper scripts to aid the hand archiving process, but I'm glad to see you back on the job. Thanks for all the work you regularly do. -- ToE 03:25, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

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

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

Would that the overpaid WMF project managers were on their last legs. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:13, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

For native English speakers only: Would a native English speaker talk like this?

Moved to Language desk
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
(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"?)Jra2019 (talk) 02:59, 23 January 2016 (UTC

What is this guy doing?

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

Likely the same guy, answering his own questions, trying to make a point of some kind about Australia. Both should be blocked for WP:POINT. And this kind of thing could be prevented by protecting the archives, which there has been no consensus to do here. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:07, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

I reverted his additions to the Nov 23 archive, but they're very odd. I initially thought he was asking new questions there by mistake, but they're apparently signed contributions of someone else (and BB as well). Were those redacted contributions or something? Curious. Matt Deres (talk) 15:13, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't recall doing that, but you can zap it if you want to. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:22, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

It looks like he copied and pasted from a different archive into the Nov 23 entry. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:26, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, the question and answer were posted to the Humanities desk on Nov 23.[1] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:29, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

OK, this is it: The questions (along with my one response) were deleted soon after,[2] and the user who posted them, Likenunt (talk · contribs), was indef'd as a sock. So what this new ID Jobatten (talk · contribs) is doing is grabbing that deleted stuff and posting it to the archive. Jobatten and the IP are obviously the same guy, and socks of the sockmaster behind Likenunt. The subject matter suggests the banned user Bowei Huang. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:41, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

The subject matter, the geolocation, the style of question and the behaviour in messing around with the archives suggest Bowei Huang so I concur. I'm assuming their questions were deleted for the same reason and so they're trying to add them back. Ar least it's better than them deleting answers they don't like. Nil Einne (talk) 01:04, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Maybe the trolling questions shouldn't have been deleted in the first place, eh? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:18, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

• I think we need two things; an RfC to ask if archive tampering (ince they can't easily be put on a watchlist) is a matter worth taking action upon; then second, a proposal by the bureaucrats who can handle such matters, followed by a second vote on who to address the issue (protection, semiprotection, whatever) so we don't end up with a plurality of mehs preventing something from being done to stop this. μηδείς (talk) 23:24, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Sure, start an RfC, I think it would be good to assess the need, especially since the technical problems seem non-trivial. SemanticMantis (talk) 15:30, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't see the deletion of these questions as an essential action, and so their reintroduction into the archives doesn't really concern me. I don't see the need for any extraordinary response to this situation. Wnt (talk) 15:55, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

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

When is it appropriate to scold a questioner and say they must be a troll because the answer was easy to find by Googling? See [3] by Iridescent. The question of why cities used lead pipes for water is one that probably has occurred to lots of folks hearing about the troubles Flint. Michigan experienced from old lead pipes when the water chemistry was changed. A real-life reference librarian would likely be fired for similar scolding. If a question is scatalogical, racist, or gibberish it might well be trolling. If it is easy to answer, that does not seem a valid basis for a personal attack.Edison (talk) 20:58, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

I think it's better just to say something on the regular's talk page if you object to one comment. We do get a spate of ask-anythng type questions when school gets back in on Jan 19th, I could see that bothering some. There's also the fact that we very unwisely removed the suggestion to try a search engine, and that the inquirer let us know where they have already looked. Reinstating those guidelines can't hurt. μηδείς (talk) 23:17, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, I think it's good form to do a little googling before asking, but it is by no means required. I'd give User:Iridescent a WP:TROUTing for being rude; and remind them they are free to ignore any question. User:ScienceApe may be young, naive, or just capricious, but they've been around for a while with the same consistent and acceptable behavior. Really, googling is often what gets people into trouble with bad refs, and I have no problem with our desks serving as a way to point people to RS rather than random junk. Theoretically we can do better, and we can also help people learn to find refs themselves in a way that isn't "just google it". SemanticMantis (talk) 15:36, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

More then once over the past few years there have been laments that the Reference Desks are in decline, that among other things there are fewer and fewer good questions to answer any more. Now, from the point of view of someone who loves to show off their knowledge and/or provide high-quality, well-referenced answers, the question "Why do they make pipes out of lead?" is an excellent question. There is just no good reason we should in any way be discouraging questions like that.

There seem to be two objections to questions like the one about lead pipes:

• "The answer could easily be found by Googling." So what! The answer to any question can theoretically be found by doing enough Googling and other research. But some people are better at doing research than others. Some people need help with their research. We here are (or at least, we claim to be) people who are both good at research and enjoy doing it pro bono for others. And it is not possible to draw a hard line between questions that are versus aren't so "obviously" easy to answer that they're inappropriate to ask. (Even if there were such a line, there is currently precisely zero language in our Guidelines to suggest that "obvious" questions are not welcome here, much less that asking too many of them might lead to sanctions against you.) As always, if someone asks a question that you're not interested in answering, just don't answer it.
• "The questioner might be a troll." But there comes a point at which the all-out jihad against trolls becomes more disruptive than the trolling itself, and that point is certainly on display at these the Wikipedia Reference Desks. If "Why do they make pipes out of lead?" is trolling, then I for one would much rather have the trolling than the endless bitter futile recriminations about the trolling. —Steve Summit (talk) 16:16, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, Google provides an answer easily. We all know that Google is of a divine nature, that we hold these rights to be self-evident, that Google has the right to know everything you think of and wonder about, even down to building their cookies into Firefox before (and after) you've cleared or refused any other cookie on behalf of the NSA, etc. [4] Only Google (certainly not Wikipedia) has the right to serve up whole chunks of copyrighted textbooks to aid your researches, provided it is according to their random and holy will. Let all take a moment to do one of their five daily prayers to the company. But then let us, however timorously, suggest that maybe, for the particularly curious, it might be interesting to see if users come up with any other explanation beyond that which Google tops its results with, supposing that perhaps the questioner in his sinfulness has failed to establish a sufficiently well-personalized profile of his interests with the company. Wnt (talk) 16:54, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

First, any plain trouting, if necessary, belongs on the user's talk page. The Ref Desk talk page is not the Berating Regular Users Talk Page. That being said I have asked plenty of googlable questions here myself, mostly because the search terms are far too broad, or because I want the filter of the few score of regulars here who really do seem to know just about everything between them. I'd still argue we need to restore the "have you used a search engine" and "link to any sources you've accessed in relation to your question" guidelines. μηδείς (talk) 20:22, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

User talk page trouting universally leads to "No, you are completely wrong to question what I wrote." Consensus must come from a talk page or other common venue. Edison (talk) 01:55, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Right now, it would be progress if we could get people to stop using the Reference Desk itself as a page for berating people with weird policy arguments. Wnt (talk) 03:08, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

I agree, even though I might be guilty of that myself at times. If you notice, maybe it's time to start trouting :) SemanticMantis (talk) 14:43, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Self-trout for complaining about the scolding in the Ref Desk page itself initially before contacting the editor on his talk page,and coming here. Edison (talk) 15:17, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

• I have said many times that neither the reference desks or the reference desk talk page should ever have any personal comment or criticism of another editor, and that we should enforce that rule with an iron fist. Such comments should be on the user's talk page if the problem is minor, and at ANI if it is major. Just look at the history here. Has this sort of behavior ever had a positive outcome? You would have to do a lot of searching to find an example. This page and the refdesks themselves should be about content, not about users. Can we at least try it my way as a strictly time-limited experiment? (Sarcasm:) of course we can't. What we are doing now is working so well, no possible change could possibly improve on the Utopia we have created... --Guy Macon (talk) 19:08, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't know if it's that simple. If someone is giving bad info and no refs in response to a question on the ref desk, it is probably a good thing to point that out on the desk, lest OP or other readers mistake some of our WP:OR wild guesses for something more reliable or expert in nature. It's true that it's unprofessional for us to bicker with eachother on the ref desks, but it's also true that it's unprofessional to "answer" the way some of our users do. So I'll stop commenting on other's lack of references on-desk the day all our respondents learn how to properly reference their claims (or prove them from first principles, as sometimes applies on the math desk). SemanticMantis (talk) 21:07, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

There are ways to point out an error without attacking the user who made it. A simple "that's not correct" followed by the correct information should suffice. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:40, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I was speaking of criticism of the post/info, not trying to justify personal attacks. SemanticMantis (talk) 15:39, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

If they take the approach I suggested, it can be posted right there in the section. Attacking each other in front of the OP is really bad form, and simply pointing out an error in a neutral voice should get the point across without showing somebody up. If that's inadequate, take it to a user's talk page, or to here if necessary. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:24, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Edit request

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

Semi-protected edit request on 24 January 2016

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

Yet another semi-protected edit request

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

• Altitude is a bad idea, as it's more likely to be interpreted as altitude above sea level than above the base of the building. --76.69.45.64 (talk) 17:35, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

•  Done. And we really need to revisit this "prevent all unlogged in editing forever because of three people". --Jayron32 18:03, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

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

Special:RecentChangesLinked search for recent changes to archives

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

• Wikipedia:Reference desk/Computing/Links to all archives
• Special:RecentChangesLinked/Wikipedia:Reference desk/Computing/Links to all archives

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

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

Where do I raise this issue?

I've noticed that the misc desk is now semi-protected (again, still, whatever) [6]. The humanities desk is still under semi-protection as well. I'm finding this situation very disruptive, but only an admin can change the protection status. Admins themselves seem to be in some disagreement on the issue.

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

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

The right place from a perspective of where we are supposed to discuss this sort of thing would be, in order, a discussion here, an RfC here, a discussion at AN (not ANI), an RfC at AN, (optional; use only if there has already been an arbcom case) an arbitration enforcement request, an arbitration case. Steps that have already been tried can be skipped, but at each stage there should be a complete list of links to previous discussions. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:12, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

I believe that if we could demonstrate good consensus here (on this talk page) on our preferred course of action, that most/all admins would respect our decision. —Steve Summit (talk) 20:08, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes. in the list of steps I posted above, if at any stage there is a consensus, the problem is solved and you skip the rest of the steps. Unless the local decision goes against some policy, the admins will help us by issuing blocks to anyone who refuses to go along with the consensus. The problem is that we have never reached a consensus on what to do, and are unlikely to do so anytime soon. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:27, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

We already have a de facto policy of limiting protection duration on community pages to a few hours to a few days such as with ANI (here is its protection log) verses the lengthier protections which are sometimes placed upon articles. Thus, I think the protection policy talkpage would be the best place to reach a consensus of what can be written into policy and guidance (Wikipedia:Rough_guide_to_semi-protection) that can be duly applied here. -Modocc (talk) 15:07, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

@Modocc: Yes, thank you! That rough guide is very useful. SemanticMantis (talk) 15:47, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

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

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

We have discussed this particular problem a few times and have discussed similar problems many times, all without arriving at a consensus for a solution. The suggestion that you (Baseball Bugs) have made in the past have seemed sensible, but they didn't gain consensus either.

In my personal opinion (which of course will fail to attain consensus) there is an underlying problem that fuels multiple problems like the racist troll. This can be easily be shown to be highly probable by the fact that not only the troll we are discussing but all the other trolls have equal access to the help desk but do not disrupt it in any major way.

So, what do the help desk and dozens of other forums on Wikipedia do right that the reference desks do wrong? First, they do nothing to suppress the trolls, because everyone on the Internet but us knows that responding to a troll in any way leads to more and more trolling. They either answer the question or ignore the question, with zero attempts to control the behavior of other people. If someone becomes too disruptive, they take it to ANI, where the admins have a lot of experience dealing with even the most persistent IP hoppers. This doesn't work for us because ANI has rightly concluded that we as a group have decided to respond to and feed the trolls.

So again I ask, can we please agree to try the following as a limited-time trial experiment?

• No personal comments on the refdesks or on refdesk talk of any kind. Not to trolls, not to regulars.
• Make all personal comments on the user's talk page on at ANI.
• Decide to follow WP:TPOC.
• Ask ANI for help as needed, referencing the fact that as an experiment we are no longer responding to trolls here.

If there appears to be support for the above (which I predict there will not be) I can polish it a bit and run an RfC. If the consensus holds (which I doubt) we can then ask ANI to block any regular who refuses to follow the consensus. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:19, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

The blatant racism spouted by that troll would not be tolerated anywhere else on Wikipedia. Why should it be tolerated on the ref desk? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:42, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Because the actions you call "not tolerating" are making the situation worse and encouraging increased trolling? It's as if you wrote "setting buildings on fire would not be tolerated anywhere else. Why should it be tolerated in my home town" after someone pointed out that it would be better to do nothing and let the firefighters work rather than "helping" by pouring gasoline on the fire. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:21, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Banned users are not allowed to edit. Doing nothing allows them to edit. That is the wrong answer. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:31, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

And how are your efforts to "do something" working out for you? Has the trolling stopped?

Did I say do nothing? I said do nothing on the reference desks. Instead go to ANI and let them handle it. "Doing something" here on the refdesks is like trying to put out a fire with petrol. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:39, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Reporting the troll to ANI is a waste of time and only feeds the troll. AIV with minimal fuss (and hopefully no comments here) is the way to go. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:32, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

To decline to semi-protect certain desks for months on end, to pursue other avenues against the troll instead, is not, repeat not, "tolerating" him or his racism. I cannot make this point strongly enough.

To say that just because he is particularly vile and particularly persistent, we somehow have no choice but to degrade the utility of the desks (against the stated wishes of almost everyone else) is not only to tolerate him but to empower him. But we do have a choice, and I thank SemanticMantis for calling the question. —Steve Summit (talk) 19:55, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Until you all are willing to actually do something, semi-protection remains the best option. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:58, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

I'd prefer to just keep reverting him and blocking his IPs. I can only keep up so long as one person however, periodically I have to do things like have sex with people who love me. Since the person who does this kind of trolling obviously doesn't have that specific restriction on his time, he tends to be more persistent than I am. Still, I think that since several of us admins live in different time zones, and are thus presumably having sex (and other less interesting demands on our time) at different hours of the day, I think we can all keep up without protecting the desks against our sexually inactive antisemite. Just my feelings on the matter; I think persistent direct action in the form of reverts and blocks is better than protection. --Jayron32 06:23, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

That's your opinion. I do not believe it is the consensus here. (And your words Until you all are willing to actually do something are not helpful.) —Steve Summit (talk) 20:01, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

That's your opinion. But the consensus here, as usual, is to do nothing new or different. Until such time (if any) that there is agreement, page protection is the only method available. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:29, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Not true. Wikipedia has ways to solve problems even when there is no agreement. Just follow the list I gave in the section above, one step at a time. And semi-protection is not the only tool available. There are edit filters, range blocks, pending changes protection, etc. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:39, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Why not try the pending changes? Or are you paralyzed by "no consensus"? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:32, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Support: I think that giving referenced, AGF answers or ignoring is best practice for 99.9% of questions we receive, see here for a good example just today [7]. SemanticMantis (talk) 19:53, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, that was a good example, but it was unfortunately followed by this and this. Sigh. -- ToE 03:28, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

That was the Ohio State University troll. SIGH. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:38, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

The point being that we don't have to lower ourselves to their level and start trading insults on the desk. -- ToE 13:30, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

I agree I should have said it in small print. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:51, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

One point I should make: the main problem at the moment - certainly, the reason that RD/M is locked - is not trolling or vandalism (although it goes on, of course), it's apparently legitimate postings by banned users (well, one particular banned user). This person is extremely persistent, and manual removal of their material makes the desk virtually unusable both for IP and logged-in editors, due to the near-continuous edit conflicts it generates. If we follow the above suggestions and don't take any steps other than ignoring them, we're unilaterally lifting their ban, which we don't have the authority to do. If there's a technically feasible alternative which will allow legitimate IP posting without minute-by-minute intervention being required, we should consider it, but I don't know whether such an alternative exists. Tevildo (talk) 20:49, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

That's it exactly. Banned users are not allowed to edit. Some editors here not only don't care about that rule, but also they enable the banned user. And that's why there is never consensus on what to do. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:26, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

There is of course a fundamental contradiction here:

• Banned editors can't edit (in that they're not allowed to).
• Banned editors can edit (in that they're technically able to).

Given this fundamental contradiction, we will never have an ideal solution.

• Some editors believe that we must prevent editing by banned edits by any means necessary, no matter what the cost.
• Some editors favor a more balanced approach, even if that means some edits by banned editors may occasionally leak through.

But I disagree with these statements:

• "Why should [blatant racism] be tolerated on the ref desk?" Again, not semiprotecting forever does not equate to tolerating.
• "If we follow the above suggestions, we're unilaterally lifting their ban." False. A banned editor is banned. If we revert most of a banned editor's edits, but a few (for whatever reason) stand, we have not lifted the ban. (And no one is suggesting merely ignoring them.)
• "Some editors here [...] enable the banned user." If it were the case that the banned editor had mostly stopped editing, but then some enabling-style behavior gave the banned editor impetus to edit again, this argument might have some validity. But as been stated repeatedly, we've got some vandals/trolls/whatever that are so perniciously persistent that nothing (or so it is said) short of protection will stop them. But if that's true, then it's not possible to enable them any further; they're already maximally enabled.

Finally, Bugs, I wish you would stop making it sound like anyone who disagrees with you on these points is soft on, or is supportive of, trolls and vandals. There's a lack of good faith on your part there; I'm pretty sure most of us are fully against trolls and vandals. (I know you and I disagree pretty strongly, but for my part, I'm trying not to say things like "Some people want to destroy the desks in order to save them" any more.) —Steve Summit (talk) 21:48, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

You do not assume any good faith on my part, so don't expect to be treated any better. And most of your complaints immediately above are incorrect. You talk about "consensus". I talk about trying something, and you won't try it. If you won't try, then you're doing nothing, and hence continuing to enable the troll. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:04, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Can I clarify something? What, exactly, is the proposal from the "anti-protection" side to deal with (non-vandal, non-trolling) banned users (in practice, Vote X)? It would appear from Steve's posting that we should let "a few" of their edits stand. I assume this isn't a correct interpretation. WP:TPOC states that "Removing prohibited material such as ... violations of ... banning ... policies" is acceptable, so, interpreting that literally, we'd go back to the position where Vote X posts as fast as the rest of us can delete, and the board becomes unusable. What is the proposal for dealing with this particular problem, not "vandalism" in general? Tevildo (talk) 22:25, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

My belief as to the proper way of dealing with vandalism / banned edits (including the kind you're talking about) is simply:

1. Revert.
2. If after X minutes or Y reversions you're getting tired, enlist an admin to (semi)protect the page for up to Z hours.
3. Repeat as necessary.

What we're arguing about, I believe, is the values of the thresholds for X, Y, and Z. In current practice, on the Reference Desks, X and Y are typically lower and Z is much higher than I at least am comfortable with.

But of course different people have legitimately different opinions on what X, Y, and Z should be. The appropriate values may also change over time. (The appropriate values are also certainly different for different kinds of pages which suffer different kinds of vandalism. Barack Obama is pretty much semi'ed forever, and I don't think anyone's complaining about that.)

When I refer to the possibility of some vandalism "leaking through", what I mean is that if X is relatively large, and if the number of people doing the reverting is small, there is a higher probability that, before the page is protected, some of the vandalism may remain visible for a significant period of time. (It will certainly get reverted eventually.) But if you want to add another variable to the model, let W be the average amount of time that a given vandalizing edit will be visible. As X goes up, W tends to go up, too. Earlier I said "Some people believe that we must prevent editing by banned editors by any means necessary", and those people tend to favor reducing W to an absolute minimum, too.

I guess you could say I'm more of a eventualist on vandalism reversion than some people here. —Steve Summit (talk) 22:55, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

I would amend that idea the following way: Revert once and see if the troll puts it back. If he does, don't get into a revert war; take it to AIV and wait for the troll to be blocked. Then revert again. Often an admin will see it and will simply block and revert. For us peasants, revert-report-revert works in the short run. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:03, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Tevildo asks "What is the proposal for dealing with this particular problem, not "vandalism" in general?" My proposal is that we all face reality, admit that what we have done in the past has not worked, admit that we cannot agree on what to do in the future (which probably won't work anyway) and turn the problem over to the administrators. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:04, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

This approach has recently resulted in an ArbCom referral, with two administrators being officially reprimanded but no real practical progress. (Not an uncommon result of ArbCom referrals, but that's a different issue). "The administrators" are not a monolithic entity with a fixed, universal set of opinions. There are plenty of things that administrators can do - how are they to decide what to do? Tevildo (talk) 08:04, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

The usual way is:

1. A discussion here (done, no consensus) If there is no consensus, go to the next step.
2. A well-crafted and neutrally worded RfC here listing all of the suggested solutions from all of the previous discussions. (not done. we have had RfCs, but not as I just described) If there is a consensus (which I doubt), report anyone who refuses to follow the consensus at ANI. If there is no consensus, go to the next step.
3. A discussion at AN (not ANI) explaining that we have a problem and cannot reach consensus on how to solve it. If there is a consensus among the admins, they will implement it. If there is no consensus, go to the next step.
4. A well-crafted and neutrally worded RfC at AN, listing all of the suggested solutions from admins gathered from the previous step. If there is a consensus among the admins, they will implement it. If there is no consensus, go to the next step.
5. An arbcom case, starting with a list of the steps that that have already been tried.

I would add one thing that isn't actually required but really helps. Instead of posting an RfC straight away, post a proposed RfC on a subpage and work with the other editors here to improve it, then post the resulting RfC. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:44, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Since we are indeed discussing the issues here now, I'd ask everyone participating to carefully read and consider Wikipedia:Rough_guide_to_semi-protection that Modocc provided for me above. I was previously unaware of this document, and I see no reason why we shouldn't see what happens when we try to apply it to our case.

It is my stance that our pages do not meet the criteria for semi-protection, based on the rough guideline. We do have valuable contributions from IPs (recall that questions are very valuable too, without them we have no purpose!), and vandalism/trolling edits are not above the 5% threshold that is the estimated average for any WP page. Seriously, I find it hard to believe that any troll or vandal has made 5% of of the edits that are made onlyby the set of myself, Baseball Bugs, and StuRat, let alone our whole community of regular contributors.

Now, forget about what I think, let's try some numbers: I counted the edits in the 72 hours prior to the protection. I got 15 troll/vandal/banned edits, and 148 total. So that puts us at a rate of 10% bad faith edits, well below the WP average (ETA above the average for that window.) Disclaimer:I counted manually and quickly, I likely made some errors. Also, in fairness, there was one chunk of time where the ratio was 8/39, indicating there was a brief period of concentrated bad-faith edits. If anyone would like to propose better actual statistics for our desks, or even just methods for gathering them, I'd be grateful.

My conclusion is that, on a scale of days to weeks, our bad faith edit count is well below the WP average, and below the need for semi-protection, and certainly below the need that demands semi-protections that last longer than a few days. SemanticMantis (talk) 16:26, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

You might want to check your maths. 15 out of 148 are how many percent? Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:22, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Oops, corrected. I made a typo and then reasoned off of it. I gave up counting after 72 hours, but I still think the weekly rate is not far from 5%. SemanticMantis (talk) 21:11, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

P.S. Are there any administrators reading or posting in this thread? Otherwise it is indeed quite useless. Because as long as one administrator wants to put in long-term semi-protection, then only other admins can change it, and in my experience admins try not to revert or argue other admins, even if they disagree. Hence we have the situation where one person effectively has authoritarian control over protection status at the ref desks, and that is why I started the thread above in the first place. SemanticMantis (talk) 16:52, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Since administrator action is required regardless of any changes to policy or this essay (which I think should be revised especially its last section regarding protection duration), I'd take our concern to AN. FWIW, I'd like to see the policy guidance tweaked, but I'm far too busy to see it through myself though; for I think we are seeing the raw end of an unfortunate double-standard, for I seriously doubt that administrators would permit escalating the protection duration of ANI to weeks on end no matter how frequently it gets attacked. --Modocc (talk) 17:21, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Here are my coments. First, User:SemanticMantis considers the frequent semi-protection of the Reference Desks to be very disruptive. I respectfully disagree. I am not one of those who is particularly concerned about the rights and privileges of unregistered editors. (In my opinion, giving them nearly the same privileges as registered editors was a mistake more than a decade ago that is not likely to be changed, but we don't need to worry about keeping the Reference Desk open to unregistered editors.) It is far more important to preserve the use of the reference desks by registered editors, and, since we have a long history of quarreling with each other about how to deal with trolls, using semi-protection as Troll-Be-Gone is helpful. I didn't always agree with User:Guy Macon that nothing is accomplished by arguing with each other at this talk page, but I do now. We should reserve this talk page for productive discussions about the reference desks, not unproductive ones. Also, as noted, report the trolls at WP:AIV, not at WP:ANI. Action is quicker at AIV. The fact that the troll is not a vandal in the strict sense is not important. They are an editor whose objective is to damage Wikipedia. I think that semi-protection should be longer, not shorter. Good-faith unregistered editors can always either make edit requests, or, better, register accounts and then make edit requests that will count toward the 10 edits in 4 days. To those editors like SemanticMantis who think that semi-protection is disruptive, what do they propose be done about troll posts? Ignore them? That is fine, but some editors won't ignore troll posts, but will delete them, which is also fine, or will delete them and the responses, which results in quarreling and is exactly what the troll wants. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:01, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Hey, I started out asking for other places to go, only chiming back in when it was clear some people wanted to discuss. But since you asked, I tend to agree with Guy - trolls/vandals/etc don't bother the help desks, and I think his proposed reasons are compelling. Also I see the ref desk as a public service. If a user doesn't want to help the IPs, they don't have to. Me, I like to help the the young, the old, the ESL speakers, the public computer users, and other "random" sorts that show up as IPs. If you want a walled garden for questions and answers that requires registration and may have heavy moderation, there are tons of other options. Reddit, StackExchange, Quora, Facebook, Yahoo, etc. You don't have to like it, but WP is a place where everyone is supposed to have equal rights. Honestly, I'D rather have an open desk with more deletions than a closed desk. SemanticMantis (talk) 21:11, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

As I said, I disagree about the deletions. First, some editors have been too quick to delete questions that may not be troll questions, and that results in editors quarreling, which is exactly what the troll wants. Second, sometimes not only the troll post but the replies are deleted, and that annoys the replying editors, and results in quarreling, and that is exactly what the troll wants. We have shown that we don't work together effectively at dealing with trolls, so I see it as better to lock the trolls out. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:14, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

I think you may have misunderstood what I wrote regarding ANI for I did not bring it up as a place to report trolling. Instead, what I meant was that ANI is also frequently attacked by trolls and it is also frequently semi-protected, but the periods imposed there are always temporary from simply a few hours to few days (the term temporary is actually per policy BTW). It is only the rough guide (an essay) that states that semi-protection can be tried for weeks or more at a time and I don't think that time frame would be considered temporary at ANI or at any of the other community venues such as at the Village Pump. -Modocc (talk) 23:35, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

semi-protected edit request

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

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

 Done. Tevildo (talk) 08:10, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

I removed a spam post

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

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

Chart system

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

Semi-protected edit request of the hour

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

Basically this is because if the letter really only extended down to touch the baseline at a single point, then there would be whitespace between the bottom curve and the baseline on both sides of that point. This creates the optical illusion that the bottom of the letter is higher than it really is, so it looks as if the bottom is too high. (Similarly with the top of letters like O and C: it would look too low, making the whole letter seem too small.) See baseline and this page. --76.69.45.64 (talk) 06:13, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

 Done. And I feel you; If I didn't think certain admins would wheel war over it, I'd have removed the protection long ago. C'est la guerre. --Jayron32 06:18, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Jayron, people above are arguing that there is no consensus about this, but there is - see up the page. The option chosen (with no oppose votes) was keep the desks open to unregistered editors. As you have pointed out, there is a problem with one administrator who doesn't accept consensus and the Arbitration Committee who have no interest in intervening. But you haven't taken the next step in the chain, as outlined above, which is ANI. The discussion at ANI will either confirm this consensus or not. If it does, you simply unprotect, and if an administrator goes against that consensus you block him. 86.143.178.64 (talk) 13:22, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Many following this discussion may be perplexed as to the reason for the continual removal of good faith posts and consequent protection. Does this administrator have nothing better to do, you may be asking yourselves. The answer is that he is heavily WP:INVOLVED. An IP removed the erroneous information that -- made a mistake in fixing the origin of the Christian era [9]. This was because neither of the cited sources supported the claim. It was made clear that -- made the origin to coincide with the beginning of a calendar cycle, in much the same way that the Islamic calendar runs from the new year of the year in which the Hegira occurred, not the actual date of the Hegira itself.

Jc3s5h reverted because the explanation was not referenced [10]. References were supplied [11]. Jc3s5h came back with the edit summary --never made any mention of a 512 year cycle [12]. This is true as far as it goes, if only because there is no 512 year cycle – the only thing I know of about the number 512 that is noteworthy is that it is two to the power of nine. To meet this objection a direct quotation was provided from -’ Liber de paschate sive cyclus paschalis [13].Doug Weller then reverted under edit summary This is original research without a source mentioning Common Era [14]. WTF? Of course -- didn’t mention the term because it was not coined till centuries later by someone else.

The IP removed the false claim and added sources [15]. Jc3s5h then reverted under edit summary 4 BC is not the "accepted" year of birth of Jesus, although it is one possible year [16]. In that case, why did he not remove the sentence which reads 'In 1835, in his book Living Oracles, Alexander Campbell wrote: "The vulgar Era, or Anno Domini; the fourth year of Jesus Christ, the first of which was but eight days", and also refers to the common era as a synonym for vulgar era with "the fact that our Lord was born on the 4th year before the vulgar era, called Anno Domini, thus making (for example) the 42d year from his birth to correspond with the 38th of the common era … "'?

The three editors then polished up the wording, consensus being reached with Jc3s5h’s final edit [17]. However, fourteen minutes after consensus was reached Doug Weller decided to "unleash the dogs of war" as one editor put it [18] and here we are.

mobile version has no TOC

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

Semi-protected edit request on 30 January 2016

Please add the following section:

New verb discovered?

Overheard in Roman Road market this morning (which is in Bow, an east London suburb)

Woman 1 - It's raining.

Woman 2 - I know. I'm gonna have to sheet up.

Woman 2 is a stallholder in the market. The operation they were discussing is drawing a large tarpaulin, known as the "sheet" or "cover" (which the trader keeps for use in wet weather) over the top of the stall to keep out the rain. When I worked in the market we would have described this as "putting the cover on" or "putting the sheet on". I popped into the library (or "idea store" as they call it) which is along there, consulted a few dictionaries, and found no reference to "sheet" being used as a verb. Has anyone come across this construction?

Please add the following comment to "Portuguese question".

Portuguese, whether European or Brazilian, has a predilection for the definite article: thus o meu livro, "my book". And what we call the auto da fe (something to do with the Spanish Inquisition) is the Portuguese version of the phrase. In Spanish it's auto de fe (no article).

86.143.178.64 (talk) 13:22, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 January 2016

Please add the following comment to "Does ISIS have a corresponding religious identity?"

For the origins of Daesh see [19], [20] and [21]. The last two pieces discuss the role of the caliph. As for the treatment of non - Muslims, there is a theoretical protocol for Christians, but unfortunately Yazidis are regarded as "devil worshippers". Being a Muslim is a spectrum, for example the Druze are right on the edge. 86.143.178.64 (talk) 13:22, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Another straw poll?

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Putting a strict limit on it would delight the trolls, as they would know exactly how long they have to wait to resume their foolishness. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:21, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
  • They can find that out now just by looking at the page history, so this probably isn't a major consideration. Tevildo (talk) 17:29, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
    • Certainly. And when it's only a few hours, it works out well for them. When it's a number of weeks, it puts their patience to the test. Restricting the length does nothing except feed the trolls. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:31, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't think the length of semi-protection is really the issue; imposing a maximum period will just result in semi-protection being lifted then re-applied very quickly when that period expires, if we maintain the de facto status quo on our response to "prohibited" (to use the term from WP:TPOC) postings. What we need to decide, or at least attempt to decide, is how to respond to such postings - if semi-protection isn't acceptable, what are the alternatives? Tevildo (talk) 17:28, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Some editors continue to bring up a Q&A site called "StackExchange". I don't know how it works or how to get to it. But if the ref desks were to consist solely of external links to that site, the trolls would become their problem. And it is claimed they have low tolerance for trolls or flaming. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:34, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

I think, first, that yet an other straw poll on strict time limits for semi-protecting the Reference Desk is not a good idea, second, that any wording of a straw poll that starts off with a time limit is not a good idea, because it implies that keeping the Reference Desks free for unregistered editors is more important than keeping the desks from of trolling, and, third, long periods of semi-protection are likely to be necessary until the WMF can respond to the idea of User:Newyorkbrad and take legal action against the trolls rather than playing Whack-a-Mole with them. As I have said before, I understand that some editors have said that, because it is extremely important to keep the Reference Desks open to unregistered editors, we should follow a policy of prudently deleting or ignoring the troll posts. However, we have already seen repeatedly that we, the Help Desk regulars, are not capable of a prudent response to the trolls other than to lock them out, because we do not have a consensus on how to deal with them, and therefore we quarrel, which is exactly what the trolls want. I do not favor any straw poll of any sort, because a straw poll is not binding and just leads to arguments both during it and after it. I might be in favor of properly worded RFCs about dealing with the troll, even though such efforts have been inconclusive in the past, as long as the RFC were not on the length of the semi-protection but on how to deal with the troll posts, as long as the RFC doesn't infringe on extended semi-protection. That is my opinion. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:15, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

• Regardless of the issue at hand, I will offer this advice. First, conduct a poll on whether the status quo is okay, or if a change needs to be made. Only then conduct a second poll, offering alternative changes, if the preliminary "a change needs to be made" faction wins in the first vote. If you offer 8 options up front, no option will win. For those old enough to remember, there was something like 80% support for rebuilding the Twin Towers after 9/11. It was pretty much a forgone conclusion, but various vested real-estate interests and office-holders beholden to their lobbyists didn't want so much real estate to go on the market so soon.

Hence the Port Authority, at the behest of one of its board members, held a contest between 8 different options, one of which was rebuilding, and the second of which was something like the current design. The other six options were all spoilers, meant to take votes away from the option to rebuild. Behind closed doors, it was decided that the predetermined "Freedom" tower would be built, because the "foot prints" of the North and South Towers was declared "sacred ground". The fact that they could simply built East and West Towers, caddy-corner to the former towers was ignored, and an "admin" decided for the current building even though 80% of the electorate voted otherwise.

So please, first ask if the system is broken, then offer a few simple alternatives to fix it. User:Medeis

\

User:Medeis - In my opinion, we nearly all agree that the system is broken. Maybe you disagree, because you may think that your policing of the Reference Desks keeps them working, but most of us disagree. We know that you are acting in good faith. You are probably doing the best that you can. I think that most of us agree that the system is broken, but we disagree so completely as to how it is broken that it is inconceivable that a poll will find how to fix it. It will be difficult enough to fix it with a true RFC. I think that the appropriate fix is one that is beyond our capabilities, and that is to ask the WMF to take action to suppress the troll. I think that the second-best action is long semi-protection, because that merely results in grumbling about the semi-protection, rather than the hostility resulting from efforts to fix the system. So in proposing the first RFC, on whether the system is broken (and, please, no straw polls), we need to be very careful how we define brokenness. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:44, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for signing the above for me, Robert. I wouldn't have bothered to add the advice on how to avoid logjam by dilution if I thought the system wasn't broken. I do neither the majority, nor the plurality of the troll-patrolling here, just as I don't find that I compulsively have to answer every question posted. Of course the problem with a self-appointed parliament of the whole is that no precedent stays in place. At one point removing material by a troll was supposed to be done with notice here, then it was decided that simply brought the troll more pleasure in the drama, and that material should just quietly be deleted. If the question is, are trolls a problem that require addressing, my answer is yes. Since I do not semiprotect, or have the ability to set up a pending-edit filter or so forth, that's not something I'll opine on now. μηδείς (talk) 01:12, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

• Support narrower polls and discussions here, both in this case and in general. It's clear lots of us have lots of feelings, and this is all rather complicated. It can be very counterproductive to go off on huge (old, well-trodden) tangents in the middle of an otherwise simple thread. I have been guilty of that behavior too, but I've noticed it and I've been working on it :) SemanticMantis (talk) 15:25, 1 February 2016 (UTC)