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.

Seven (7) Day Archiving

Can we switch to (a minium) seven-instead of five-day archiving on all desks? I know for a fact that certain users of ours can only get access weekly at cafes. Seems rather odd to archive their questions before they can se the answers. μηδείς (talk) 17:40, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Agreed, though not super strongly. Threads are effectively exhausted anyway after a few days, so they would only be reading, not posting. Still, that seems like a good thing in itself. IBE (talk) 00:11, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Threads used to be kept visible for up to a week through the transclusion process. Why was that approach abandoned? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:27, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

See discussion here: Wikipedia_talk:Reference_desk/Archive_105#archiving_changes_imminent. I see you may not have been around then, although you are present on what was probably the same page a couple of weeks later. 86.146.28.105 (talk) 20:16, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

I somehow failed to notice that. The thing is, though, I'm pretty sure transclusion was done as a creative alternative to having a week's worth online. It was thought that the page would load faster and you could still get to see a week's worth. Now that the transclusion approach has been trashed, we're back to needing to go the full week online - and some are already getting worried about having too much on the page! Can't have it both ways, y'all! ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:48, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

• I'd just like to clarify that I do have in mind a specific long-time user who can only access the internet weekly at this point. I am sure that must aplly to lots of potential users. An "archived at the end of the eighth day policy would help in that case. Also, I don't think any of the current five-day archival threads are causing paper shortages at this point. μηδείς (talk) 20:43, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

If there is a good-faith fellow-editor interested in using our assistance and eager to learn (and I think I know whom Medeis meant) to whom an eight day period would be of significant service, then I'd suggest we implement it, unless the greater sizes hamper the desks' usability for other editors, of course. That wouldn't be the case for me, and I'm not very high-tech, but I am ignorant about how it might affect other people interested in using the desks. ---Sluzzelin talk 20:53, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Mobile device users might have a problem, although it should not be huge. My China Mobile internet is about as sucky as it gets sometimes (slow and cranky), although I usually use a PC. The mobile is usually only for Google translate. If you used it for WP, it might get very annoying, esp if the mobile site wasn't suitable for some reason. IBE (talk) 00:18, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Mobile devices (and people on slow connections) are my concern as well. The science desk is usually the outlier; it tends to have longer response and also is more likely to have graphics inserted into it (there are currently three); it's not app-breaking, but a 60% increase in size is probably going to create performance issues for some people. I don't doubt that we have users that can only access us once a week, but I also don't doubt that we have users with slow connections and/or metered downloads. Are there any suggestions for how we can cater to both groups? I've long been partial to total transclusion as is done at places like WP:FPC; we could keep the translcuded days small for dial-up users while less frequent visitors could always visit the transcluded subpage to get their follow-up. It's an awfully large-scale change, though. Matt Deres (talk) 15:38, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

One suggestion would be to keep the titles up on the "live" page, but not the actual answers. Then at least they can quickly click on the topics. Something would have to alert a casual user like me that I'm going to load a page from the archives if I click a topic from the "live" page, but that shouldn't be hard. It's quicker than looking up the archives for a list of questions, and it's really speed and convenience that we are talking about here. As a side note, I suggested a while back that we should do a single page that contains all the question headings for all the ref desks, so clicking the topic on this "central" page would take you to that page. In the case of an archived question (eg. 7 days old), it would just take you to the archives. This might help a lot of people as well, in terms of convenience. IBE (talk) 16:02, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

The big problem for my friend, about whom Sluzzelin's presumption is most likely correct (but whom we should not even attempt identify for various valid reasons, including policy ones) is an inability to check for answers or followup questions more frequently than once a week whether with my help or alone. I somewhat understand the phone concern. But don't such users have actual computer access at home, work, or school? I have never sent a text myself, so it is hard for me to see how serious a problem mobile internet telephony really is. 02:22, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

10% of Americans only have broadband access on their phones. That's just Americans. The use of smartphones is taking off in other countries with lower standards of living where people don't have home PCs. I'd pull up those figures too but I'm on my iPad right now and it's not as easy to do the typing and pasting and such. (First world problem) Dismas|^(talk) 03:07, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

I personally really don't know how to address or even look at this. I learned BASIC when I was 12, typeset the college newspaper with Pagemaker on a MAC, had a beeper, spent ten years directly programming people's switch-to-domicile phone service using legacy Bell systems, typeset prestigious magazines on 40 year-old powerhoses, and now in semi-retirement use wikicode fairly well, but feel entirely ignorant of the underlying issues. I am fairly certain I have clarified the position of the user whom I think we should accommodate. I hope people more experienced than I can make a rational decision. μηδείς (talk) 04:10, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Would going back to the transclusion process fix this problem? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:10, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

If you go back to the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Reference_desk/Archive_105#archiving_changes_imminent and look at the tables you'll see that, no, it would not.

It's been a very long time since any of the desks kept a week's worth of history (transcluded or otherwise). At peak volume, the popular desks would be difficult to use at that size. Today, with volume dropping off, it might be workable.

I hope I don't sound too insensitive, though, when I suggest that before making such a change, I'd really like to hear from the editor who actually needs it. We've got a systen that's evolved over many years to meet the complicated, often contradictory needs of thousands of people, and I'd be reluctant to make a significant change to it just because of what one person claims one other (unnamed) person would like. —Steve Summit (talk) 18:20, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Not at all insensitive, I also assume many have guessed, but there are very good personal and policy reasons not to out this user. If anyone has any concern they can email me, and I have emailed Steve. As I have tried to emphasize, this is a matter I think we should consider, especially given he declining volume in the 5 day threads. And I realize there may be technical reasons why it would be a bitch to do. μηδείς (talk) 19:34, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

If there are technical or other concerns about doing this, and if the user does have access to the internet every week, they could also check the archived questions and feel free to re-post the thread, or start a new one, linking back, for follow-ups. As long as it's clear it's no one exploiting our willingness to assume good faith (little ponies and stage fencers come to mind, but this isn't about them) I don't think anyone will mind (and our most ardent censor is already on the side of said user with limited access anyway :-). ---Sluzzelin talk 19:45, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

The reason for stopping transclusion seems to be that some editors found it confusing when they thought they were editing the live page and were actually editing the archive. That confused me too - once. It's not a problem. You should go back to the old way and that should resolve the issue. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:50, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Let's consider the Humanities desk. Before transclusion was abandoned in January, the Humanities desk kept 5.5 days of history, on average. Since that change, the Humanities desk keeps 5.5 days of history, on average. As I understand it, Medeis is requesting that all desks keep 7+ days of history. So how does reinstating transclusion address the issue? (Yes, it would be perfectly straightforward to increase the history period to 7 or 8 or more days, but it would be equally straightforward to do so with or without transclusion. Am I missing something?) —Steve Summit (talk) 20:39, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

It is claimed that too many days visible causes the screen to load too slowly on hand-helds. Is that also true if the data is transcluded? If so, that shoots my theory. How about this alternative? Provide visible links to recent archives. That should fix the page-loading problem and also make it easy to get to recent archives. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:55, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Transclusion does not affect the load time when viewing. (I'm sure of this for conventional browsers, and mostly sure for mobile.) Transclusion mostly affects the load time when editing. —Steve Summit (talk) 00:55, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

The user does not necessarily have internet access, let's say, every Saturday. They can go to a cafe, or use, on occasion, a third party to contact me via email for free, and only email. Not internet access. If a question is relayed to me and posted on Saturday the 1st, and a request for clarification is posted in the thread on Thursday the sixth, and relayed by me to the third party email and received by and responded to (not always so quickly possible) on Saturday the 8th, we've got Sunday the 9th as the sole day for users to respond to the clarified question, assuming these questions will be archived on the end of that day. The user is looking at three options: brief free email access to me no more frequently than once a week, email access to me at almost 6 hrs wages per MB, or 1 hour of censored internet access at 9 days wages per hour. I think it is reasonable to make this user's access easier if it is not an actual huge problem for other users, something again upon which it is impossible for me to comment. μηδείς (talk) 20:05, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree with the proposal to increase the archive time to 7 days. Especially since the question volume is going down slightly.

However, I would also like to suggest that if it's costing someone two-weeks' salary to ask the Ref Desk a question, they're probably not going to get their money's worth. 74.113.53.42 (talk) 15:26, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

You misread me somewhat. The user has access to an hour at an internet cafe for the price of 1/3 of a mnths salary. They can also email me at 2 days wages per MB when they have the money. They can also send emails limited to about 600KB for free, but using a friend's access, and only once a week at best, meaning a question refered to me and answered within the week will be useful, but most questions require follow ups, in which case a "archived at the end of the 8th day" setup is all that would really work. Users may have noticed I have posted several questions on this editor's behalf.At this point acess before July will be difficult and infrequent. μηδείς (talk) 22:28, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

• Can we simply institute an "archive at the end of the eighth day" policy? Note the specific user who would benefit from this is active when possible, but won't have regular access until September.

There don't seem to be any real issues. No threads are so long at this point it will proves a difficulty. in fact we are spending much more time blocking trolls. If there's no serious opposition, will someone who can, please make this change? Otherwise, I will gladly post an RfC if necessary. μηδείς (talk) 03:04, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

We don't need an RFC, but (IMO) we do need a stronger consensus than has been demonstrated by this thread so far. --Steve Summit (talk) 09:22, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Completely off topic, you were asked in the old thread "What's a 'botherd'?", to which you replied

Shepherds herd sheep, botherds herd...

Would the answer be boots? SpinningSpark 11:33, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Banned user

[1] is a banned user right? Geolocates to Perth, signs with a name just before the IP sig, and [2] looks very familiar. I think the procedure is to just delete the comments and leave an edit summary explaining why, but I can't remember if that is correct. I also don't remember the user's previous name to put it in the summary. Katie R (talk) 14:37, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Some people believed Floda, Keit, and Wickwack to be the same person, and needed to be banned. I personally felt that that user or users caused less problems here than many account-holding editors with long residence. The Perthians will usually provide solid references if asked, and seldom say anything that is patently false (again, unlike some others here.) So I'm inclined to ignore the ban, unless a specific response is disruptive. Search the archives on the talk page for previous discussions here if you'd like more of the background. See also the 84... IP that some people think represents a person that has been banned in the past. Again, I don't care, as long as they play nice. I personally come here to share references, to learn, and to teach. As long as respondents aren't actively interfering with my ability to do so, I don't care about what they did in the past. SemanticMantis (talk) 16:06, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

I was around during all that, I just couldn't remember the details, and like you I don't care enough to delete it in most cases. The diff I linked is one of the more problematic ones because of the attitude towards Steve, and is what made me recognize the OP. That sort of attitude rather than friendly corrections gets people into defensive mode and can throw off conversations, but Steve doesn't seem like the sort of contributor to get sucked into that anyways. Katie R (talk) 16:48, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

The general (possibly unofficial, these days?) policy is that if you can tell from the edits that it's a banned user, you can feel free to unsummarily undo any and all edits they make, without even identifying who they are (just say they're a banned user, in your summary: if they push back, you can identify them to an admin). But, if they're not causing any trouble, and don't explicitly identify themselves, you can also choose to let it go, and hope they quietly rehabilitate themselves. So you can absolutely remove any of their edits that you don't like, for whatever reason, no questions asked. I think we'd all support you in that. And you can also quietly leave them be, and not alert the more tendentious editors to their presence. It's entirely up to you. 86.146.28.105 (talk) 18:21, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree with 86. Per WP:DENY, WP:Topic ban and Wikipedia:Editing restrictions, you're free to delete contributions from Wickwack. And yes, it's clearly Wickwack who has been hanging around like a bad smell, replying regularly and even getting help with Japanese translations despite the topic ban. But such deletions aren't required. I think most of us have been ignoring Wickwack because it's clear they're not going away and deleting their contributions wastes more time than it's worth, particularly since they doesn't seem to be troling. (I can't speak for others but I recognise the majority of Wickwacks many contributions before I even reach the signature.)

Although Wickwack seems to be resurrecting one of the historic identities, I haven't seen any sign so far that they are repeating the problems that earned them their topic ban, namely pretending to be different editors and using these different identies to reenforce each other's claim. (Which is a blatant WP:Sock violation, not to mention thorough dishonest, I regularly make jokes about the ethics of Perth or Australian engineers to an engineer I know as a result. I think Wickwack brought up engineering ethics before themselves but I guess those lessons didn't stick.)

In terms of the Steve Baker thing, IIRC one of the reasons Wickwacks blatant socking emerged was because people were concerned about the way they were interacting on the RD. But it wasn't the reason they were banned per se. Either way, I will definitely defend any deletions of Wickwack's contributions if it comes to it. (Just as I will for other banned users who are sticking around like Cuddlyable3.)

Speaking of banned users, if anyone does want to waste a bit of time with that sort of thing, there seems to be a new User:Bowei Huang sock which is probably worth chasing up at some stage (based on their history).

Of course banned users are welcome to actually try and reverse their ban so their contributions aren't randomly deleted. In the specific case of Wickwack, there's been a general feeling since the ban itself that Wickwack would be welcome to register one account and stick to it. Heck even if they were to adopt one identity on the reference desk and stick to it always even without an account, I suspect they may have been able to convince the community to accept them back. I don't know if things have really changed much despite their continual blatant ban evasion, although this could happen if they continue to annoy people. However they've shown no interest even when it was suggested. (As I believe I mentioned before, their comments from before the ban regarding their reasons for not wanting an account suggests they could be a historic or even current problematic editor/account somewhere on en.wikipedia. Although if it was historic, realisticly all the logs would have long since expired and AFAIK no one ever identified them with anyone else so it seems unlikely a CU request would have ever been successful.)

P.S. For clarity, I should mention I'm using the term 'banned users' widely to include those are almost definitely defacto banned based on multiple blocked accounts or whatever.

Nil Einne (talk) 21:46, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Wickwack is from that part of the world. In terms of socking, when it's difficult to demonstrate for sure, sometimes the optimal path is to judge the contribs of a given "suspected but not sure" as standalone. That is, are they outrageous enough on their own that it doesn't really matter whether it's a sock or a new user? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:56, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

That's seconded, and thirded, from me. (I'm using the votes of my various sockpuppets ;).) IBE (talk) 04:59, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Right. >:) Jut to clarify, I'm not saying we shouldn't go after banned users. Only that sometimes the effort can exceed that of simply evaluating a given user's edits and taking standalone action. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:31, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Regardless of how this is resolved, perhaps all the involved parties could agree to bicker somewhere other than on the actual reference desks? I think it's safe to say that if every answer is followed by a lengthy meta-discussion, then we're just going to confuse/discourage the people who are asking questions in the first place. Allowing all this infighting to spillover from the talkpage is certainly less than desirable. (+)H₃N-Protein\Chemist-CO₂(-) 12:27, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

A significant number of recent questions on Language desk seem to have been asked by accounts subsequently blocked for sockpuppetry

At least User:YeastyTrains, User:Bg4u, User:KieraCameron2077, User:Wpytgdp... AnonMoos (talk) 01:34, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

It might be a good time for a friendly admin here to put a short-term semi on the page. I've also put in a request at WP:RFPP. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:06, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

It's been done, but the disease seems to be spreading to other desks. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:08, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

It hasn't "spread", they've been doing it unsubtly for a few days across all desks. I figured we were all giving our most boring responses and letting them get quietly blocked, without any of the exciting discussion that they so desperately want to provoke. 86.146.28.105 (talk) 18:39, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Just to be a little more specific, in case this wasn't obvious: they want people pointing out that they are a sock. They want people pointing out that they are banned. They want that sort of attention. When you do that, especially on the public-facing pages, you are giving them the exact thing they are trying to achieve. There is a reason we have WP:DENY. 86.146.28.105 (talk) 18:43, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

The IP below geolocates to Venezuela, which is one of the sources of recent vandalism and socking. Checkusers won't do anything about IP's, so a friendly admin will have to keep zapping them as they come along. But what about the questions? Some of them are obviously fire-starters, while some others are inane but harmless. So what's the solution? Don't give any answers at all? Or semi the pages for a few days? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:50, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

They have failed to get any of the arguments they have aimed for: we have generally given boring answers, and engaged politely with each other. We have all been smart enough to spot them. They have been swiftly blocked as they popped up, and no disruption has been caused. So, if you see questions you want to remove, remove them: that is the policy for blocked users. If you want to leave them up, to receive boring, polite answers that potentially build the wiki, do so. No need for hats at all. This is the same as always. 86.146.28.105 (talk) 18:57, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

No rants, no hats, no airs, none left unblocked. And that's a winner! ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:29, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

• Not sure, but I think Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Honkshreader is related to the recent spate of throwaway accounts trolling the ref desks with inane questions. --Jayron32 02:02, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Those new accounts pretty much stopped once the Venezuela proxy was blocked. And for what it's worth, the recent ref desk troll was operating from there as well. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:27, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Alas, it looks like there's a fresh crop; there are lots of new users asking goofy questions across several desks now. AlexTiefling (talk) 11:05, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I think we need to do it across all desks for a week or two. IBE (talk) 12:24, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

The trouble (at least on the Misc desk) is that the questions (mostly) aren't inane at all...they are actually kinda interesting. It would have been nice to get the boost in question traffic if they'd been posted by a non-blocked non-sock of some evildoer. It's tough to get a response back from CheckUser in time to spot the sock before an answer pops up on the desk. If we are to WP:AGF, then it's going to be difficult to do much more than answer questions efficiently and without rancor...which is what we should be doing anyway! Jumping on every account name that posts to the desk as their very first post is likely to scare off genuine first-time Wikipedia posters...and every one of us was exactly that at some time in our distant past. SteveBaker (talk) 14:26, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

The checkuser(s) must know something we don't, and that's why they keep issuing these blocks. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:10, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Thankfully the admins have put at edit filter in place to block any new account from editing RD, so we won't be seeing any more of these drive-by trolls. 201.243.206.13 (talk) 16:31, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Very funny, as you're yet another of those Venezuelan troll accounts. However, as a wise admin once pointed out, there are many of us and only one of you. Knock yourself out. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:15, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Speaking of checkuser, am I the only one who beleives that this poster is a previously banned user engaging in exactly the sort of behavior that got him or her banned? APL (talk) 23:53, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

It's not a typical drive-by, but it looks fishy enough. It geolocates to Norway. Was there a Norwegian user banned, some months back? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:34, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

It certainly sounds like Cuddlyable3. Matt Deres (talk) 00:37, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, Cuddlyable3 was banned for being a grammar Nazi. Was Cuddly based in Norway? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:41, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

JustAnotherUploader (talk · contribs) is obviously either Cuddlyable3 or a troll with good knowledge of Cuddlyable3's activities. I've asked for it to be blocked, although any friendly admin who happens to see this could do the honors. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:26, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes. Matt Deres (talk) 17:47, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

halp

Hi why am I banned from the language page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.203.253.237 (talk) 10:40, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

The reference-desk pages have recently been subject to an attack of vandalism. To prevent further disruption, the language desk has been semi-protected (no editing by unconfirmed users or users without accounts) until 07:25 UTC on June 3—that is, less than two days from now. You can wait till then, or if you don't want to wait, you can post your question here, and I'll copy it to the language desk. Deor (talk) 11:06, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

The other alternative is to create an account and 'confirm' it by providing your email address and responding to the confirmation email. That unlocks the page and lets you edit it normally. SteveBaker (talk) 14:30, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

He's already been doing that, and they've all been blocked so far. He's another incarnation of that Venezuelan IP troll. Just in case you hadn't noticed. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:17, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Missing archive pages

The latest archive page of the Mathematics desk is dated 22 May. The active page has a few empty date headers at the top. Has content been deleted without archiving or is there another problem with the archiving system? Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 11:37, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

I just did three days' worth of archiving. I saw neither (a) activity on the Mathematics desk nor (b) error messages relating to the Mathematics desk. So I think that desk's just been particularly light on traffic. —Steve Summit (talk) 16:53, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Question (how to edit an article)

How do I edit article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.243.129.48 (talk) 00:38, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Answer. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 00:40, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Namely, click the "Edit this page" tab at the top of the article, then make your changes, then click "Preview" to see it's what you wanted to do and haven't made any mistakes, then click "Save". -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 00:42, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

I do not see any "Edit this page" tab at top of article, he says "View Source"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.243.129.48 (talk) 00:43, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

It might be just "Edit", that's how it appears to me. BTW, I added to the question title to make it useful. StuRat (talk) 01:17, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

I've corrected the spelling of your allegedly useful addition. Its usefulness is now beyond doubt. :) -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 02:45, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

"View source" is what the tab reads if the article is protected in such a way that the person viewing the article cannot edit it (i.e., semiprotected from IPs and nonconfirmed users or fully protected from everyone who's not an administrator). What article is it that you're trying to edit? (This question is more appropriate for the help desk, by the way.) Deor (talk) 02:14, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, and since the Ref Desk has just been semi-protected, I suspect they were trying to edit that. In this case, they need to register in order to edit. (Is this enough, or do they need a certain number of edits, too ?) StuRat (talk) 02:46, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

The OP here is the Venezuelan IP troll, who knows full well that the pages have been semi'd. Don't encourage him. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:50, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Protection

There have been occasions when this very talk page was semi'd. Should we have an unprotected talk page somewhere, to allow for such a circumstance? If you agree, I can set one up quickly. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:52, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Unprotected talk page

Semi-protected edit request on 9 June 2014

In the section about the hair curler, add the following text after User:Spinningspark's initial reply, complete with link: "The technical term is conductive polymer." 24.5.122.13 (talk) 09:27, 9 June 2014 (UTC) 24.5.122.13 (talk) 09:27, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

That's not really what I had in mind. That article is about intrinsically conductive polymers, which, according to that article, are not usually thermoplastic. I was thinking of a regular polymer loaded with carbon or silver. But by all means post the information (along with this reply). SpinningSpark 11:23, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

 Done. Deor (talk) 13:37, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protection defeats entire purpose of "reference desk"

I recently stumbled upon the reference desk seeking to pose a legitimate question on a very arcane topic for which I am unable to find an answer within many other forums.

I understand that this area has experienced vandalism recently but in it's present state very few will succeed in using this feature due to the protection. For example, the protection requires that those who pose a question have a minimum number of edits. I have a small handful of edits and could make a few more edits to meet that minimum but that creates a misguided motivation for editing the Wiki. If a questioner wants an answer bad enough the reader will likely be tempted make trivial or sloppy edits to meet the minimum. I was tempted to do just that myself but resisted.

Allow me to point out the stated mission: "The Wikipedia reference desk works like a library reference desk. Ask a question here and Wikipedia volunteers will try to answer it." As I'm sure you are aware and will agree, the desk works nothing like a library reference desk in its present state.

Rather than just complain I have tried to think of an answer to the current problem. Unfortunately, I lack experience in the Wiki itself and in matters of IT and cyber-vandalism so I cannot be much help except for one suggestion. Just because this reference desk is associated with a Wiki, does the desk itself necessarily need to be a Wiki? Would it help to 'think outside the Wiki?'

I don't imagine I have been much help but I remain motivated because my question festers and I am fairly certain this reference desk is my last hope of finding an answer. At the very least I hope I have presented a new perspective of an outsider with a legitimate question looking in.

Edit: BTW I have read here that users with verified accounts should be free to pose questions but I possess such an account and am still prohibited from posing my question.

Rldioxin (talk) 15:51, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

@Rldioxin: Actually, you do not yet meet the autoconfirmed condition as you only have eight edits. However, I have now manually given you the "confirmed user" permission so you should be able to edit the page. The Ref Desk could be moved outside Wikipedia but that would not solve the vandalism problem. Most sites won't let you post at all until you register and confirm your e-mail. SpinningSpark 16:14, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the confirmed status.

"The Ref Desk could be moved outside Wikipedia but that would not solve the vandalism problem."

I was thinking more in terms of filtering or screening questions before they appear on the Wiki. Yes, there is great importance and merit in allowing the encyclopedia to be freely, immediately, and publicly edited but it seems to me that the reference desk is something different, is questions about knowledge rather than the encyclopedic knowledge itself. A fine distinction but distinct nonetheless. Where is it written that a reference desk must operate under the same protocol as the encyclopedia? Again, just wondering if there is a solution outside of the box. Rldioxin (talk) 17:33, 9 June 2014 (UTC) Edit:forgot the sig.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Rldioxin (talk • contribs) 17:30, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Couldn't agree more. The disruption being caused by Baseball Bugs holding the desks hostage in his one man "war against the trolls" far outweighs whatever good he is trying to accomplish. I don't see any discussion or consensus about this page protection. It's kind of scary how little oversight there is to prevent one person summarily deciding to lock out thousands of innocent editors on a whim 190.206.104.192 (talk) 16:26, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

You caused it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:15, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

The blame lies anywhere but with the person who actually requested the unnecessary page protection, ie YOU. Your attitude is the Wiki equivalent of blaming an act of rape on the womans outfit instead of on the rapist. 190.206.104.192 (talk) 18:30, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

You're right that the blame lies anywhere but with me. In this particular case, you and your endless socks are the assailant, Wikipedia and its sincere editors are the victims, and the sincere admins are the policeman trying to rein in the assailant (you). ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:30, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

The block is perfectly appropriate. Bugs has done and can do nothing on his own, and I'd love to see some diffs of how he's ruined the project. Actual researchers are quite likely to have registered acounts. The propblem is just for those poor oppressed trolls who have to keep re-registering after getting blocked. There's been no drop in quality, and the quality control efforts should be commended. μηδείς (talk) 17:36, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Without intending any offense to Rldioxin, may I ask if the regulars (I'm not sure I count as one any more) have determined whether he's a troll not to be fed, or a reasonable person whose reasonable question may be answered? --Steve Summit (talk) 17:45, 9 June 2014 (UTC) [Retracted; see below. 22:14, 9 June 2014 (UTC)]

Yikes. The discord and paranoia around here is scary. Thanks but no thank. I'm out. Rldioxin (talk) 17:55, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

We can all say whether we think a user is a troll. Action requires admin judgment, and while that's usually too slow in the eyes of some of us it works. What really strikes me is a continued permanent ban on the ref desks, but no ban on registered users here, regardless of autoconfirm. That allows real people to take one simple step, which will eventually bore and tire trolls. And it will mean a heck of a lot less arguing between regulars over troll questions on the ref desks themselves, which is the real problem. In other words shift the trollground from realspace to metaspace. μηδείς (talk) 18:59, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Unlike some others, I have no desire to go through other users' edit histories before I respond to a question. Rldioxin seems to have asked a very reasonable question here [3], which I have started to provide refs for. SemanticMantis (talk) 19:37, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Based on behavior, I don't think Rldioxin is part of the sock farm. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:28, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Many people ask many questions here. Many of them get reasonable answers from reasonable editors. The idea of protecting the reference desk is absurd. Super high profile articles like Obama or 9/11 or whatever are clearly candidates but since the reference desk isn't normally exposed to our mainspace readers (thankfully), there's little-to-no reason to protect it, undermining the entire purpose of it. If people don't like the questions that some people pose, those people don't need to try to provide answers, or could work elsewhere. If a question is so patently absurd that it's obviously disruptive, it should be removed or hatted. If a question has already generated reasonable discussion then it should be allowed to continue. Arbitrary censorship is exactly what Wikipedia is not about. Don't forget, this chat board isn't the mainspace. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:51, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

To anyone who might wonder... according to the admins, the recent flare-up is the work of a user who is banned from Wikipedia altogether. Site-banned users are not allowed to edit anywhere on Wikipedia, regardless of any alleged quality of their comments. We had this very same discussion a year or two ago, about a (presumably) different banned user. If the editor is sincere and wants to get un-banned, there are proper channels he can go through. If not, he will continue to sock and IP-hop, and derive endless glee out of watching the ants scramble here. I don't care for socks, but I have to admit it was kind of morbidly funny yesterday when he posted something under one user ID and then reverted it under another ID, thus tricking a sincere user into re-reverting, i.e. re-installing the troll's original entry. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:26, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

I really do hope the semi-protection is lifted in the next few hours. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:30, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree Judith. For what it's worth, in the mainspace this kind of protection is only afforded to the higher profile pages which are likely to have regular readers of encyclopaedic articles stumbling across, not a chat board where, seemingly, anything including humorous and often offensive discussions take place. It's worthwhile that all remember that this is a page which depends on questions and answers and nothing more. It's not an encyclopaedic article which 99.995% of our readers will even randomly stumble upon, let alone go looking for. The hyperbolic reaction to this kind of trolling has done nothing beyond exacerbating the situation, after all, we have WP:RBI for a reason, should any particular post genuinely be considered vandalism, most of which of the latest spate is not, it's just juvenile ramblings (ironically). The Rambling Man (talk) 20:52, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

The admin who semi-protected all the ref desk pages set it to expire on the 14th, and told me that "if it continues, we'll continue the semi'ing for a while." So if the troll ceases his activities, it can be unprotected. It's up to the troll. It's the troll who's holding the ref desk pages hostage. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:44, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Leaving the fate of the desks in the hands of a known troublemaker hardly seems like a logical course of action. 201.243.96.209 (talk) 20:55, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

(e/c) Why are we giving the trolls such power? I thought the idea was to deprive them of power. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:56, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

You know the best way, don't you Jack? It's to ignore them. Not pander to them by creating a disruption to this "service" which anyone should be entitled to use. It's like giving in to terrorists. Very weak. Of course an IP can just create a bunch of accounts whenever they like, or grab a new IP by reseting their router, so the idea that this "semi-protection" will somehow "protect" the ref desk is absurd. The best course of action is to take the high ground, revert, block, ignore, and get back to offering the "service" this desk was intended to deliver to all editors, both registered and anonymous IPs. Any other approach is a wilful disruption to the desk and deeply unhelpful to the project. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:06, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

201, just above Jack, is of course that same troll. The idea of semi-protection is to choke off the site-banned user, and it's worked to some extent, as the troll has had to try harder. He creates a new user ID, creates a series of bogus updates via his various IP socks, then gets autoconfirmed by having his new ID revert those bogus IP entries. So at least he has to make a greater effort. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:03, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

I should also point out that it was various admins who first brought this problem to light, a week or two ago, as a bunch of newly-created users were being blocked as being socks of a banned user. Since the time-honored RBI axiom did not work, the next step was semi-protection. I have no authority to either impose or revoke bans or protections. Anyone with any complaints about the handling of the persistent troll can bring those admins into the discussion. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:15, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

(e/c) So what about the 99% of IP users who are not trolls, such as Rldioxon? Why should they, and even some registered users with low usage, suffer for the sins of the 1%? These ways of dealing with the perceived problem always produce the very disruption the trolls are seeking, by way of interminable debates here that never, ever produce a solution that actually works for the greater good. Far better to do nothing at all, i.e. just ignore them (to the extent possible), as TRM says, than this cure that's a lot worse than the condition it's supposedly treating. Can we at least just try that approach for, say, a month and see what happens? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:18, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree that the debates feed the troll. If everyone would strictly enforce the rule that banned editors are not allowed to edit, there would be little or no debate. Meanwhile, we have so far had ONE sincere request here for a question at the ref desk. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:23, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Up above I wrote a poorly-conceived comment which I have now retracted.

In answer to Rldioxin (to whom I have since apologized), and in agreement with several other posters here, yes, semi-protection absolutely defeats the purpose of these desks. It should only be used as a last, desparate resort, on rare occasions, and for durations measured in hours. Is the current protection really for a week or so? That's terrible. If that's truly the best we can do, we should shut the desks down and admit defeat.

Someone said something to the effect of, "it's not our fault it's protected, the admins did it." False. The admins did it because someone here called the situation to their attention and requested it. Or because no one has said, "a week is way too long. Let's shorten it." (I'll do that now, if necessary.)

In a post which most of you probably didn't see (because Bugs deleted it, because it may well have been from a troll), the question was asked, "Are the desks in decline?" And the answer is, yes, they clearly are, and part of the problem is, as Rldioxin put it, all the preposterous discord and paranoia.

I'd say more, but I have some work I have to do, and also half of what I'd say would involve mentioning the names of some editors who would then get all huffy and defensive and sidetrack the discussion with their recriminations. But I will say this: the problem is unquestionably us. Trolls, like terrorists, successfully exploit the autoimmune disorders which typically lurk in organisms like this one. The actual damage caused by the troll is comparatively minor; what's far worse is the damage we willfully inflict on ourselves in response. This is not an easy problem to fix, but we are currently not doing a good job of it. --Steve Summit (talk) 22:14, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that comment was from the troll, and is irrelevant to the discussion. And you're bringing it up again counters the RBI theory. This problem will continue as long as banned editors are enabled. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:25, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

And, to no surprise, the troll has followed Summit to the page of the admin who protected the pages. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:43, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

I haven't followed closely enough here to be certain, but I think in general that the choice of protection is very unfortunate and an extreme measure for the reference desk to take. It's indeed a place intended to be an open to ask research questions, which new and unregistered users will undoubtedly have. Some amount of vandalism is inevitable on this project, and even when frustrating, shouldn't result in this kind of draconian measure unless the vandalism is extremely disruptive. Otherwise, we can just monitor, moderate, and delete it. I would recommend unprotecting this page, as even 4 days of SP seems like going too far. Cheers, Ocaasi ^{t | c} 00:06, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

No one has been inconvenienced except the troll. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:17, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Now, Bugs, that's patently false. --Steve Summit (talk) 06:34, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Right, if everyone who's commented here wants to keep a lookout, I am happy to unprotect. So folks, I'll do that and everyone can keep a close watch and see how we go, and if any unwanted stuff lasts longer than a minute or two we can rediscuss. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:28, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

How to handle this going forward

Consensus seems clear here. Thanks for the input! --Jayron32 19:37, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The only way to stop the troll is if we all agree to delete his questions and all responses as soon as anyone figures out its him, even if the responses are in good faith. It does no bit of good to let our pride get in the way here. If we want him to go away, we can't leave up memorials to the times he successfully suckered people in. If someone deletes a question and good faith responses, please don't put it back simply because you thought you came up with a really well-crafted good faith answer. If we want the troll to go away, we need to make a concerted effort to agree to stop making it worth his while. --Jayron32 00:45, 10 June 2014 (UTC) I don't understand this. Even if this is a "troll", if the questions being asked aren't utterly unreasonable and answers provided are helpful, what's the issue? Censoring the troll will simply make it continue, that's obvious, because it will know it's disrupting Wikipedia. And I keep seeing people asserting that the user in question is "banned", can someone point me to that discussion/decision please? Don't forget "Love your enemies. Be kind to those who hate you." The Rambling Man (talk) 07:37, 10 June 2014 (UTC) The trolling is just something we have to put up with and some of them are quite entertaining. Better here than in the articles. (Don't tell them that). Britmax (talk) 07:55, 10 June 2014 (UTC) Definitely true, this is an encyclopedia and the vast majority of our visitors are here to look at articles, not to use the reference desks, keeping trolls away from mainspace is actually very good for Wikipedia. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:01, 10 June 2014 (UTC) I agree with TRM and disagree with Jayron here. If someone with ill intent asks a reasonable question and gets good faith answers with references -- why should anyone care if somewhere a troll is snickering in delight? Part of why I respond here is that the archives can be useful to many people outside of the OP and regular readers. We can never really know intent of anyone, anywhere. I also think that deletion can encourage some trolls to try again; it creates a nice adversarial atmosphere. SemanticMantis (talk) 17:31, 10 June 2014 (UTC) Have fun with this one then. You asked for it, and you got it... --Jayron32 18:53, 10 June 2014 (UTC) Why not do something useful Jayron and answer the question or do something else constructive around Wikipedia? There certainly seems to be an element of censorship going on here, first there's the "Venezuela troll" who is allegedly "banned" (but I have yet to see any evidence of this "ban"), then an IP editor from the US has a post removed, then an IP editor from China is responded to with an emoticon. None of this is good, good for editors, good for people asking questions, good for Wikipedia. Is it time to bring the Reference Desk to a close if this is how it operates? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:17, 10 June 2014 (UTC) Let me quote: "If someone with ill intent asks a reasonable question [...]" (emphasis mine). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:13, 10 June 2014 (UTC) I agree. I had a very level-headed conversation relating to this topic just today loosely related to how Iran may have stolen Israeli military equipment, retro-engineered it and then used it against Israel. The question deserves more than a pathetic emoticon answer. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:17, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protection edit notice points to the wrong place

The semi-protection edit notice still contains a link to the now defunct WP:New contributors' help page. It should surely point to the Teahouse, if anywhere? --ColinFine (talk) 21:17, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Will this question be rejected?

I want to ask why some people like European Spanish but not Latin American Spanish. Will this question be removed if I ask it? --66.190.99.112 (talk) 18:46, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

It would be pretty hard to answer. First, who says they do? Second, how likely is there to be some kind of survey of which version of Spanish people "like" or don't? Also, is there really only one dialect of "European" Spanish? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:29, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

So is that a yes or a no? 200.84.141.43 (talk) 19:35, 12 June 2014 (UTC)