Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:05, 11 January 2016

• WT:RD

• Misplaced Pages Reference desks
  • Computing
  • Entertainment
  • Humanities
  • Language
  • Mathematics
  • Science
  • Miscellaneous
  • All
  • Archives

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130 131, 132, 133

RD Guidelines 1 2 3 4 5

This page has archives. Sections older than 10 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

Protection of ref desks

All, this morning we had a minor blip of attacks from a determined IP-hopping vandal on the Miscellaneous desk. The desk was at no point protected but it was unusable, as the IP vandal changed addresses every minute or so and continued to attack the board. I noticed that the Humanities desk is semi-protected until late-March 2016. This very talkpage is protected until 29 December. It seems we have a very inconsistent approach to this across the Ref Desks and associated talk pages. Is this deemed to be acceptable, that IP visitors can edit some desks and not others? And some are protected for a few days, while others may need protection for three or four months? The thread above, I believe, is an attempt to forewarn the concept of long-term semi-protection across all such pages. Is that was is required here so that "genuine" editors can participate here, and IPs are effectively banned? The Rambling Man (talk) 14:44, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

A couple of ideas, one new, one old:

(1) March seems excessive, and the 29th might not be enough. To fix the inconsistency, when protecting one, set a standard such as 5 to 10 days, and then protect them all at once, for the same amount of time, so the troll doesn't get to jump to other desks to continue the havoc. That protection would also extend to this page.

(2) Create a separate, non-protected page for the sole purpose of requesting the posting of questions, to be used whether or not the pages are protected.

←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 15:35, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

I feel your characterization of the preceding thread is inaccurate. I can only speak for myself but I certainly did not say or intend anything about long-term semi. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:55, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Really semi-relevant to the point being made, but if you insist on derailing this, then that's your play. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:58, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

I wish I had a clue what I'm insisting on derailing, but I'll cease forthwith. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:04, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

I wish you had a clue too. Thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:05, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't have a clue either as to what User:The Rambling Man says that User:Mandruss is derailing, but I would suggest that implying that an experienced editor doesn't have a clue (in general) is uncivil. I am aware that a few editors think that civility in Misplaced Pages is optional. If so, please show me the policy that says that civility is optional. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:54, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Unless the vandals are using bots, one or two determined refdesk regulars can undo vandalism as fast as a vandal can introduce it. I'm not sure we have enough determined refdesk regulars any more, but my preference would be for more manual vandalism removal, and less (much less) semiprotection. —Steve Summit (talk) 16:17, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Today's vandal wasn't using a bot, but as noted above, it rendered the desk unusable for over an hour. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:20, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Does ClueBot or one of the other antivandalism bots watch the RDs? If not, should it? —Steve Summit (talk) 18:03, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

It might do, but it doesn't do more than revert a couple of times. Once the psycho-anon changes IP addresses, it starts all over again. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:05, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

My understanding is that ClueBot and the like reliably detect blatant vandalism (which the recent spate certainly was!) and revert it almost instantly. Whether the same or different vandalism was or wasn't performed recently by the same or a different IP is immaterial. Is my understanding incorrect? —Steve Summit (talk) 18:10, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

No, that sounds right, but once it's reverted a couple of times, it's no use. And if the signbot gets involved, more issues arise. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:12, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

When the vandal is just as determined as the regular is, you end up playing pingpong with the IP-hopping vandal... until such time as an admin notices it and semi's the page yet again. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 16:54, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

First, I agree that there is too much inconsistency in the protection of the reference desks. Often they are not protected long enough, and occasionally they are protected too long (although I personally would favor long semi-protection in general). When one desk is protected, I would suggest that they all be protected. Otherwise the trolls or vandals just move around in a game of Whack-a-Mole. I disagree with Bugs idea of creating a special page for non-protected edits. The good-faith unregistered editors can register, and the trolls and vandals will just use it for their mischief. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:09, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

There is no particular need for "consistency" between the various ref desk pages, as long as the problems on each are different, which is the case. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:59, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

We tried an edit filter for a while, but that also became a game of whack-a-mole as they tried to get around it, making it little more effective than just blocking the IPs. Sam Walton (talk) 21:02, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

I personally think that, although no solution is ideal, Bugs' second proposal has the best balance of advantages and disadvantages. It means that IP users will still be able to use the desks, and that vandals won't be able to disrupt them, as happened this morning. The open page will still be liable to vandalism, but we won't need to deal with it "real-time" to keep the main desks running. Tevildo (talk) 23:41, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

@Sam Walton: Semi-protecting this page really makes me wonder where the buck stops. I think the edit filter approach can work, but it must be an open source edit filter. No more "trust me, I have a secret formula" security through obscurity. The filter I want is simple: it should allow non-autoconfirmed editors to add text to this page, but not change or remove it; each edit must be a single continuous block of added text and it must contain a four-tilde signature or it will be rejected. That can be an upfront policy and there's no getting around it. Added text is not nearly as much a problem as deleted text because everyone sees added text and can decide how to handle obvious abuse, whereas the deletions require people to look at the history. Wnt (talk) 16:27, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Come to think of it, I'll add that the signature must be at the end of the added text, save for a few characters of whitespace. This is to deal with the problem that Abe says "I am an analyst for SuperCo --Abe" and Bozo makes it "I am an analyst on this case. --Bozo /n I am a lunatic looking to write ads for SuperCo --Abe". People expect a signature to work backward and so that is what we must demand of the IPs. Wnt (talk) 16:36, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Very good suggestion and well worth implementing across the ref desks wholesale. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:55, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

I would also support this - indeed, can we extend the signature requirement to logged-in users? Tevildo (talk) 18:25, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

It's far from a solution that would make protection or other edit filters superfluous, but it would probably be some help. I'm not sure it can be implemented technically though. Edit filters have to be stated in terms of regular expressions. Are those criteria evaluated before the replacement of ~~~~ with the actual signature, or after? If the former, the filter would be easy to set up; if the latter, not so. (Also, no, it wouldn't be right to enable it for logged-in users too: regular editors do sometimes have to make edits without a signature of their own – e.g. refactorings of scussions, or reinstating postings that were removed accidentally or by a vandal.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:54, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

I was afraid it might require new code to do this, but if the idea has enough support we can request it. I think that established editors can be trusted to refactor their own comments here; imposing this restriction on everyone would make a talk page into almost a sort of lab notebook, which is more formal than we generally need. Wnt (talk) 12:34, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

@Future Perfect at Sunrise: I took this to WP:VPT; we'll see what they say. Wnt (talk) 22:16, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 January 2016

This edit request to Misplaced Pages:Reference desk/Language has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please post this answer on the Language Desk under December 30, the question about Jamais mon amour. Thanks!

More likely than it being a translation of an English song, it refers to a French song. If you google the phrase, all the first hits are lyrics sites for the song Jamais mon amour by the French singer Castelhemis.184.147.121.46 (talk) 00:12, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

184.147.121.46 (talk) 00:12, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Done. Tevildo (talk) 09:43, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Many thanks.184.147.121.46 (talk) 13:43, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Three months?

The Language desk has been semi-protected since December 23. The block will expire after 3 months. This on the grounds that in one contributor's opinion "keeping this page open to IPs is simply not worth the trouble".

I say harrumph, and also, "no consensus here for that". --76.69.45.64 (talk) 19:29, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

FWIW, I agree (with the lack of consensus, that is). But others seem to believe that we have to destroy the desks in order to save them. —Steve Summit (talk) 19:38, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

That's a funny one. So are you volunteering to watch them 24 x 7 in lieu of semi-protecting them? Or do you figure that's somebody else's job? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 23:12, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Bugs, that is a thinly-veiled personal attack, a lack of assumption of good faith, and it is not funny. —Steve Summit (talk) 01:58, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Retract your ridiculous comment about "destroying the ref desks" and I'll retract my response. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 06:25, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

That's a fair point. Some people feel we have to redefine the Reference Desks as we have known them in order to save them. —Steve Summit (talk) 14:45, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

I agree that this "cure" is worse than the "disease". StuRat (talk) 20:01, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

IPs can leave an edit request at WT:RD. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:36, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Here's what happens when you try to ask a question on a protected desk, if you don't have an account here.

(1) You see the usual top of the desk, "Welcome to the language reference desk" etc, and click the blue "Ready? Ask a new question!" button. (i.e., your first impression is that your question is welcomed and invited.)

(2) Clicking, you get "Permission error. You do not have permission to edit this page, for the following reason: This page is currently semi-protected so that only established registered users can edit it." (Which is probably incomprehensible jargon to someone new.)

(2b) However, that page also has a "What can I do?" section, with a new blue button "Submit an edit request". (Note that the instructions say this isn't for asking questions, but only for "if you have noticed an error or have a suggestion for a simple change". It may not be clear you can still go ahead and ask your question, or maybe people won't read all this and will just click the button anyway. It certainly isn't welcoming.)

(3) Clicking, you get a new section on this talk page. The entire top of the screen is warnings and lengthy instructions, and includes a big yellow banner reading "Please do not ask knowledge questions on this page. This talk page is where the reference desk itself is discussed. To choose an appropriate reference desk to visit, click here." (Clicking "here" takes you back to the main desk splash page.)

184.147.121.46 (talk) 12:56, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

You realize that not displaying that potentially misleading "click here" you're mentioning in point (3) would require having edit attempts on protected pages tracked, it is not practical. The rest is only normal routine. Otherwise I'm also presented with that rude yellow red-banner "Please do not ask", presently, so you did it all right. --Askedonty (talk) 15:01, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

What I mean to say, is that normal routine is not at all user-friendly for the good faith newcomer/reader. Can the wording in (2) be improved, or the step bypassed while the desks are protected? Can the yellow banner in (3) be removed while the desks are protected?184.147.121.46 (talk) 16:10, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Why not encourage ref desk regulars to become reviewers and then give pending changes protection a try? -- ToE 01:10, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Unfortunately, pending changes are visible, which kind of defeats the purpose. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 01:16, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

No, I don't mean flagged revisions. Have you read (at least the lead of) WP:Pending changes? -- ToE 02:14, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Try a test and see if it works. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 06:25, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Bugs, try setting your preferences to the defaults. It looks like you have set them to make pending changes visible and are now assuming that everyone sees what you see. --Guy Macon (talk) 10:41, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Forget it. Just implement it and see if it fends off the IP's and redlinks successefully. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 12:09, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

The Reference Desk is found when you click the "Help" link in the left sidebar, where it is advertised with this wording:

If searching Misplaced Pages has not answered your question (for example, questions like "Which country has the world's largest fishing fleet?"), try the Reference Desk. Volunteers there will attempt to answer your questions on any topic, or point you towards the information you need.

That is, it is presented as a service for readers, not a service for the people who are writing the encyclopedia (that service is Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request). "Fending off IPs and redlinks" fundamentally changes the nature of the service. 184.147.121.46 (talk) 13:08, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

That service does not implicitly extend to trolling IPs and redlinks, which is the problem being discussed here yet again. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 17:27, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

But it's a fair point. Very few of the approximately 4 billion IPs (not counting V6) do troll. What is the threshold for disruption we accept? We don't ban the sale of gasoline despite arsonists, or cars despite "average" drivers. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:12, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

The bottom line is how much time you and your fellow admins want to spend dealing with the trolls. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 18:29, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

What's complicated is that there are three different costs -- three kinds of disruption -- we're juggling here:

• If there's unblocked vandalism, we waste significant amounts of volunteer time reverting it
• If vandalism goes unreverted, the appearance of the desks to visitors is diminished
• If we protect the desks, unregistered editors can't easily ask or answer questions

Now, various of us have very different opinions as to which of these costs we're more or less willing to bear. —Steve Summit (talk) 20:51, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Pending changes protection stops vandalism just as well as semiprotection does, but allows unregistered editors to easily ask and answer questions. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:18, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Pending changes protection says that autoconfirmed and confirmed users "can edit; changes go live immediately (if no previous pending changes remain to be accepted)". Thus anytime IPs edit at nearly the same time confirmed users do when a question gets posted the confirmed user may get "pended" too, which would likely be more of a problem for us and the OPs than even the IP and even more so for everyone than the present occasional hassle of an edit conflict. Perhaps this is why it says "Pending changes protection should not be used on articles with a very high edit rate, even if they meet the aforementioned criteria. Instead semi-protection should be considered." Of course most of us can become reviewers, but it will still take significant time for reviewers to read the queues, thus needlessly slowing down the question and answer process. Thus simply keep the length of semi-protections short as possible for everyone's sake. --Modocc (talk) 22:50, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Define "short". ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 02:15, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Anything more than four days would be long, but long enough for a hot button topic to be archived or died out. So in comparison, short would be anything from two days to a few hours. And in the opposite direction, anything more than a week would be far too long. --Modocc (talk) 02:27, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Any length of time that the trolls feel like they can just "wait out" and then resume their mischief, is too short. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 06:44, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

The refdesk threads get archives after 1 week at the earliest, and the particular vandal in question here has been known to continue edit-warring persistently over the same threads for weeks, whenever they can. Protection time need to be measured in terms commensural to the known persistence of the vandals, and in this particular case that persistence can only be measured in months. Anything shorter just won't work. We've tried it; how many more times do people need to learn it doesn't work? When protection was lifted yesterday, the trolls were back within a day, one of them in less than an hour. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:57, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

The threads frequently do get archived at one week and some threads may have already been active several days so a five day block would suffice. In any case, simply reapply semi-protection when that happens. As for "working", what makes you guys think the troll(s) will go away in three months when this has been happening for years? --Modocc (talk) 14:27, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Future Perfect at Sunrise, are we protecting the archives at all? I removed some of that trolling a couple of weeks ago; I really see no reason not to protect them. Drmies (talk) 16:59, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

kiss kiss kiss = xxx

This edit request to Misplaced Pages:Reference desk/Humanities has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

How come, kisses in letters were/are abbreviated as xxx / x x x ? The oldest mentioning I find in 1937 Any games with pronounciation? Why not kkk ? Play It Again, SPAM (talk) 09:00, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

P.S. Why do I have to go through this hassle although I'm a registered user?

Even though you're a registered user, you're not autoconfirmed and thus still affected by semi-protection. You need ten edits and an account older than four days to become autoconfirmed. clpo13_(talk) 09:18, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Although someone closed this edit request as answered, the query was not acually added to a ref desk. I've posted it on the Miscellaneous desk. Deor (talk) 10:45, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Straw poll on primary goal in antivandalism efforts here

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

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

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

The most important thing is to minimize vandalism

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

• 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 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 Misplaced Pages'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 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 Misplaced Pages 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 carrots→ 19:49, 6 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)

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 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 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 18:04, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

• The more nuanced solution is to use expiring semi-protection when it is really needed. Just like anywhere else on Misplaced Pages 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 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 Misplaced Pages in the first place. That has never been satisfactorily addressed, and probably never will be. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:13, 6 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 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 01:02, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Math Reference desk and med/legal comment.

All of the reference Desks have Misplaced Pages:Reference desk/header at the top. Thus all of them have "Do not edit others' comments and do not give any medical or legal advice." However of all the desks, the med/legal part seems least suitable for the Math Reference desk. Feelings?Naraht (talk) 17:11, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

It doesn't matter. Not giving medical or legal advice is still good advice. I see no need for different headers. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:15, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

I agree that a single boilerplate for all desks is fine. While you wouldn't expect to see requests for medical advice on RDMA, we do occasionally get things like Long term level of drug in blood based on halflife. -- ToE 18:55, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

OK, thanx.Naraht (talk) 21:12, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 January 2016

This edit request to Misplaced Pages:Reference desk/Humanities has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please add this answer to "Donald Trump and foreign reporters" on the Humanities Desk, thank you. 184.147.121.46 (talk) 17:40, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Try "Trump Mexican reporter", "Trump Canadian reporter", etc. , , . 184.147.121.46 (talk) 17:40, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Modocc. 184.147.121.46 (talk) 18:58, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

When did Medeis and Baseball Bugs appeal and have their Reference Desk ban lifted?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

As a point of honour, I would like to point out that this matter is four years old, and that it involved problems between myself and User:The Rambling Man which somehow spilled over into the otherwise uninvolved User:Baseball Bugs. Bugs and I are diametrically opposed on just about everything, except our respect for America and the WP process. See my talk page to find where both this spurious RD ban was reversed, and to see where TRM's request that the IBAN between himself and me was mutually voided, at TRM's request.

Pardon my bile, but none of us is joined at the hip, and this recurrent "Medeis and Bugs" meme is popular with trolls (by which I do not mean Elmer) but otherwise abhorrent. μηδείς (talk) 19:40, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

And we're all getting on swimmingly, so quite why Elmer Clark felt the need to stir a hornet's nest and then patronisingly state that we should all try and refrain from this sort of conduct in the future. Who do you think you are? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:22, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

I wasn't referring specifically to the dispute between you three, I was referring to poor-quality/abusive responses to questions like the one I quoted. Clearly that problem has not been resolved. I'm glad to hear that everyone is getting on swimmingly now, though. -Elmer Clark (talk) 22:05, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

What do you mean "Clearly that problem has not been resolved"? What are you talking about? Who are you? The Rambling Man (talk) 22:15, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Farbeit from me ever to agree with TRM, but I do so agree. This seems like some sort of revenant licht, looking for fresh meat, and nothing to do with ITN, ITN/RD, or the Ref Desks. μηδείς (talk) 22:22, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

The problem of Medeis giving unhelpful and abusive answers to questions. That problem has clearly not been resolved, as proven, for example, by the question I originally linked to. Who I am is a frequent reader and occasional contributor to the Reference Desks who is having my experience made worse by these sorts of posts. Do I need more "cred" to bring up an issue related to an established user's problem behavior? Blatant violations of WP:AGF are a problem, and it doesn't matter who is committing them or who is pointing them out. -Elmer Clark (talk) 22:38, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

I, too, am glad to hear that we're getting along swimmingly, but Elmer's complaint (which I would agree with) was that this edit was unnecessarily harsh towards the OP. The original question was a reasonable one about usage; there was no need to label it tendentious, take umbrage at the political leanings of the citation, or dismiss it as a request for opinion. —Steve Summit (talk) 22:51, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Also, just to address your last point, which I missed before - I only mentioned Baseball_Bugs because he was also part of the same sanction I was inquiring about. I would have mentioned the Rambling Man also, but I hadn't noticed him posting here recently and assumed he was just still banned. Besides that, none of what I'm saying applies to Bugs, and I was unaware that you and he even had such a reputation. -Elmer Clark (talk) 22:50, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

If you have a real issue (which it looks like you actually don't in any way, shape or form), then WP:RFC or WP:ANI is the place to go. This odd dragging up of historical issues is beyond me. Whoever you are is really irrelevant, I only asked because I've never seen you or anything you have contributed to Misplaced Pages in the past ten years and was curious as to your motives. I assume you're trying to improve the Ref Desk, but when did you last actively contribute to anything positive for our readers of the encyclopedia we're striving to create? It looks like you've fallen into the classic "assume makes an ass out of you and me" syndrome. A little bit of reading would have saved you looking so foolish. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:55, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

TRM: He no longer has a real issue, that's why he hatted his own thread. If you want to blame someone for the fact that we're still arguing, blame Medeis for ignoring the hat and reopening the draammaa. (And blame me, too, for falling for the bait.) —Steve Summit (talk) 23:14, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

This seems unnecessarily harsh. It's true that I'm an infrequent contributor, but don't the impressions of readers matter too? I brought this up because I was tired of seeing responses like the one I linked to distracting from questions being answered and making the reference desk environment more hostile (which, incidentally, is part of why I'm so inactive - I was quite a bit more active on the desks 5+ years ago). That sort of thing harms readers like me as well as contributors. I was aware that Medeis (along with two other users) had been indefinitely banned about two years ago pending an appeal to the community, with posts like that being at least a contributing factor in the decision. Since that was the last word posted on the relevant AN/I page, I assumed that that ban had indeed gone into effect and Medeis and Baseball_Bugs had at some point appealed and been reinstated. Ban reinstatements on Misplaced Pages are often conditional - for example, on not continuing the problem behavior. That's why I wanted to see the record of the "appeal to the community" and the ensuing reinstatement - if it did indeed say that Medeis was unbanned from the Reference Desk on the condition of not continuing to make unhelpful and abusive posts, then I wanted to report this (as well as other examples from the past few months) as violations of that condition. But it turns out that the ban was never actually enforced to begin with, so there's no such recourse. I still hope, however, that instead of making me look "foolish" this will help Medeis to see that certain of his/her contributions are seen as very unhelpful and detrimental, including by casual, uninvolved readers like me, and encourage him/her not to make posts like that in the future. -Elmer Clark (talk) 23:07, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Maybe, but none of this is doing anyone any good at all, in fact it's the opposite. You've made yourself appear unprepared and that's a bad thing. Making assumptions without adequately researching it is a bad thing. If you had simply asked the question in a neutral tone, rather than "the frankly absurd and acceptable (sic) conduct" outburst with which you initiated your post, perhaps things would have worked out differently. Right now it seems that you need to go back to whence you came and look at your own behavioural issues. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:16, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

He hatted his own thread, hours ago. What more do you want him to do? —Steve Summit (talk) 23:20, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Explain his bizarre outburst. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:22, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

• If he thought better of it and retracted it, he doesn't have to.
• He did explain it.
• It wasn't bizarre: the edit he complained about was, if not absurd, certainly harsh and unacceptable.

—Steve Summit (talk) 23:28, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Medeis's conduct with regard to that question was absurd and acceptable (whoops!) regardless of the facts behind the reference desk ban. And I made a good faith effort to find the discussion myself before asking here, but it was in a very hard to find place - it was in the main WP:AN archives, when the whole incident itself had played out in WP:AN/I and this talk page. Sorry if you saw this as a "bizarre outburst," but I saw it as trying to do something about what I saw as legitimate behavioral issues making the reference desk worse. I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree if you think how Medeis acted there was no big deal, or was some rare exception, but I think WP:AGF is on my side. -Elmer Clark (talk) 23:24, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Feel free to condense this discussion which doesn't appear to be heading in any direction to assist anyone with anything. Serious issues such as bad editor behaviour are dealt with elsewhere. If you have an ongoing issue with Ref Desk contributors, start a new discussion at ANI. In the meantime, do some homework before coming at us all guns blazing. WP:COMPETENCE is required. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:29, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

When I saw the initial question here, I wondered what the OP was on about. I quickly concluded (assuming good faith) that the OP's information was out of date. Medeis and I and also TRM were briefly banned from the ref desks, two year ago. This thought was reinforced when he said something about going to WP:RFC/U which apparently isn't even in use anymore. As to Medeis' reaction to the question about "8 to 2", I suppose it was because Coulter is a polarizing figure, and the OP (Dismas?) mentioned Coulter by name, so Medeis might have thought it was a shot at Coulter specifically. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 00:40, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

I know it's the new year, but I just checked my calendar and thankfully confirmed I didn't get stuck in a time warp. It's 2016, not 2018. As Baseball Bug said above, the banning (which appears to have) resulted in this thread/original question happened two years ago. That's quite a long time ago, but also not four years. Perhaps the problems with lead to the brief ban started four years ago, but um, that isn't a good argument in favour of it being ancient history if 2 years later it lead to that brief ban, whatever honour was involved. Nil Einne (talk) 18:00, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

• Is this a chronic hysteresis? Can we rehatten this? The issue began in 2013, led to an iban in 2014, was amicably resolved in 2015, and it is now 2016. Is this a chronic hysteresis? If the OP wants to take me to ANI for saying it is tendentious to bring up a WP:BLP for ridicule for not using a simple fraction, than so be it. Is this a chronic hysteresis? I only posted here because my name is in the header, hence I feel entitled to defend my honour. Were my name removed, I'd be happy with the entire thread being hatted. Is this a chronic hysteresis? μηδείς (talk) 05:15, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

What this is is sternly berating the uninitiated. Elmer Clark has learned his lesson; he will not be back here to trouble us again. —Steve Summit (talk) 16:50, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Elmer has been here for over ten years. I'm not sure that could constitute "uninitiated". Incompetent perhaps. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:11, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Nearly 11 years now, but a sporadic editor. Not "uninitiated", but perhaps insufficiently active to be aware of everything. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 19:21, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

And if anyone calls you on the bullying and intimidation: never admit it, much less apologize; either bully and intimidate your critics, or dodge the question by quibbling over terms. —Steve Summit (talk) 20:57, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Go ahead and archive it... after you've read hyperbole. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 20:05, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Indeed, a guy made a mistake; he seemed to be a charming individual by acting like some kind of prefect. "This needs to stop."? It stopped about two years ago. Competence is expected from editors who have been around since 2005. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:41, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

TRM, I understand that you were involved in the issue two years ago and so are taking this personally, but in the interests of accuracy, we must observe that while Elmer did refer to that stuff two years ago, the request about needing to stop was motivated by a questionable edit that occurred a few days ago. —Steve Summit (talk) 20:57, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

No, I'm not taking it personally at all, after all the opening thread didn't include me at all. But it is fascinating that I've now been threatened with a block because i reverted your inserted comment which was clearly one that I was entitled to respond to, hence my suggestion a new thread be opened. Funny how many uninvolved parties suddenly became involved. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:34, 10 January 2016 (UTC)≠

Actually, I didn't know that Medeis has had previous sanctions on the Reference Desk before. He is currently harassing me with dubious accusations and threatening to have me "indefinitely blocked" . Can I ask for some intervention on the matter? Yanping Nora Soong (talk) 04:42, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request

In Misplaced Pages:Reference desk/Humanities#Texas Rangers, this item

The only "specific state" restriction I'm aware of at the federal level is that the president and vice president cannot be residents of the same state. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:27, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

is currently unanswered. If it hasn't already been said, someone please post this response (appropriately positioned and indented):

• There's no prohibition on the president and VP being residents of the same state; it's just that if they are, they need to get elected without any electoral votes from that state. If it was a small state and a popular candidate for president, that wouldn't be much of a hindrance. --76.69.45.64 (talk) 19:38, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

• Technically true. Nonetheless, when the major parties choose their candidates, they always make sure to have them come from different states. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 20:00, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

 Done

User:Medeis' disruptive behavior

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Medeis keeps harassing me on the basis I keep asking "homework questions" and puzzlingly reverts my questions to the desk on the basis that I'm asking both homework questions and asking professional advice. Even if they are homework questions (they are not), I think my questions are reasonably well-thought out and I'm not asking anyone to do my intellectual work for me, I'm just trying to solve a problem. Also, I don't think my organic chemistry questions are requests for legal advice, financial advice, or medical advice, which is AFAIK what the restrictions on professional advice is supposed to cover. It does not restrict asking questions at a "high level" -- simply because it solicits advice a professional chemist (or a professional photographer, or anyone reasonably skilled at their art) might use. He went so far as to threaten to have me indefinitely blocked a few days ago (on my talk page (). I have opened a discussion on Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents on this matter. Yanping Nora Soong (talk) 04:30, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Section link: WP:ANI#User:Medeis has some sort of vendetta against me on the Reference Desk: Science board.2C and keeps harassing me. -- ToE 05:20, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request – What does the media in the Arab world report about the New Year's Eve sexual assaults in Germany?

Could someone kindly add the following information to the above Query on the Humanities RefDesk?

Indirect Reporting, but the following appeared on the BBC Website last week:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-35251167

Hope this is of help. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 185.74.232.130 (talk) 14:37, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

 Done. Thanks! --Jayron32 14:49, 11 January 2016 (UTC)