Wikipedia talk:Reference desk

Skip to the bottom

[edit]

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

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

Straw poll on primary goal in antivandalism efforts here

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

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

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

The most important thing is to minimize vandalism

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

• Weakly agree. —Steve Summit (talk) 11:39, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
• Weakly agree with the provision that it refers to obvious vandalism under WP:AGF. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:50, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
• Agree with the same provisions as Stephan. However, I am opposed to any form of long-term semi-protection (short-term protections of at most a few days are acceptable for me if necessary, though). Pending changes isn't perfect but I would very much prefer it over semi. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 12:12, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

• Agree. All efforts to minimize disruption should always keep this in mind as a goal. --Jayron32 21:10, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
• Agree. By this I refer not only to avoiding long term semi-protection or Pending Changes, but also "filters" like the one mentioned a few topics below where some IP isn't allowed to ask a question about Judaism because it is "potentially unconstructive". I proposed an idea for an edit filter that isn't content-based, there was some small discussion of it, but if people don't think it's important enough to make that happen, it's not important enough to make some AI terminator drone happen either. Ultimately, establishing that Judaism is controversial on Wikipedia at the software-censorship level is a more meaningful triumph for anti-Semitism than any number of stupid not-really-a-questions by IP vandals. Wnt (talk) 23:58, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Having to post the question here is not a horrible handicap. FYI, the one who posed that question in the first place is now blocked, though the responses continue. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:24, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

• I am referring to the section below by User:185.74.232.130, who is not blocked. And "having to post the question here" is moronic. I mean, we should have a special page set aside where users can ask these questions, what was it called ... oh, yeah. The Refdesk! Wnt (talk) 13:19, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

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

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

We should not allow trolling at the desks

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

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

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

This poll presents a False dilemma

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• The current ref desk vandal has been banned for more than 4 years and he's still going strong. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:31, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Two Related but Conflated Problems

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Short term protection: Semi-protection vs Pending Changes protection

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

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

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

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

• I do. —Steve Summit (talk) 22:30, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
• Per WP:VOLUNTEER, "There is no minimum or maximum anyone can contribute". That includes anyone that is reverting and preventing either bad-faith or incompetent edits of course. And in most cases, reasonable incentives and hospitality can get better results than angry mobs wielding large sticks although some of us do have mops.. -Modocc (talk) 22:40, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

• We want to avoid a situation where someone opens the door to the henhouse and expects others to shoot the foxes. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:31, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

• I agree. Thus per Wikipedia:Rough_guide_to_semi-protection indefinite protections can be temporarily lifted by any administrator and reapplied of course. The present application of semi-protection policy is flexible on this. Specifically, "The only way to determine if ongoing semi-protection is still necessary is to remove the protection and see if the vandalism resumes at previous levels. For this reason, all pages that are indefinitely semi-protected can have their protection removed from time to time. The administrator should monitor the page after removing the protection." --Modocc (talk) 23:38, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

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

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

• Your theory is that the troll's real game is to get the ref desk shut down? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:32, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

• If I wasn't clear above, I am certain that protection (whether it be Pending changes or Semi) should be primarily used to stop any of their game(s) short term. It should not to be used for long term prevention, especially here. --Modocc (talk) 00:42, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

• "Short term" won't stop it. The troll just waits until it expires, and starts again. It needs to be long enough that the troll's waiting period grows annoying to him. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:51, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

• Protection is not meant to annoy them, and any such annoyance won't likely apply to the known excommunicated banned users that are likely to come back anyway regardless of the time frame. Anyway, the reason I started this subthread is that I do think that for the benefit of good-faith IPs that have absolutely nothing to do with the bad-faith trolls, applying short term pending changes is an option we should try out when it is called for. --Modocc (talk) 01:05, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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.

---

turns out it was quashed on second opinion here
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I bring this up in light of, among other recent things, the frankly absurd and acceptable conduct shown by Medeis at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Language#Have_you_ever_heard_.22eight-to-two.22_used_for_.22eighty-to-twenty.22_or_.22four-to-one.22.3F, where (s)he complained about a user's question (that two other users had had no trouble answering), bickered with him when he responded much more reasonably and patiently than Medeis had any right to expect, and then had the gall to close the tangent thread that (s)he had started with a message that implied the questioner had inappropriately/deceitfully edited the question. The question had indeed been edited, but only after two of us had managed to answer it just fine, and not in a way that remotely justified any of Medeis's behavior. If no one else has a problem with the question but you, the problem is probably with you, not with the question. If this had been an isolated incident, I might simply have ignored it, but the fact is that this sort of arrogant and disrespectful behavior is the rule rather than the exception with this user. This is something I've noticed personally as a frequent reader (but infrequent contributor) of the Reference Desk, and more importantly, something that the community at large has taken note of, with the result that Medeis was indefinitely banned from the Reference Desk pending an "appeal to the community." Since both (s)he and Baseball Bugs are again posting, I can only assume that appeal took place, but I've been unable to find the record of it. I am particularly interested in whether there were any stipulations relating to not continuing the problem behaviors. As I said, I'm quite inactive on the Reference Desk (and Wikipedia as a whole), so I am very reluctant to insert myself into this sort of "drama." But the bottom line is that I remember when I could read this desk and expect to find people giving their best efforts to provide answers to questions, even unclear/poorly written/ignorant ones, rather than a parade of complaints about how questions are asked, bad jokes, and closures and hattings. Seriously, just take a look at some archives from ~2010 or so...it's like a whole other world. And it seems to me like it's a very small number of users driving this, and Medeis above all. If his/her appeal was indeed approved pursuant to not being a problematic presence the Ref Desk again, then I think the ban needs to be reinstated. This needs to stop. -Elmer Clark (talk) 04:53, 7 January 2016 (UTC) This Talk page is intended for the discussion of the operation and improvement of the Reference Desk. This is not a noticeboard, and not the place to discuss your opinion and/or complaints regarding other editors, especially if you have not notified them of the discussion. WP:ANI is that-a-way. General Ization Talk 04:57, 7 January 2016 (UTC) I mean, I suppose, but I felt like it was very much a Reference Desk-related discussion and figured it was much more likely someone here would have a link to the appeal discussion (I'm primarily looking for that rather than just complaining - sorry, I realize that may have been lost in all that). It also seemed sort of...I don't know, stab-in-the-backish/deceitful/"snitchy" to go straight to the administrator's noticeboard rather than bringing it up with "the reference desk community" first. But if others also feel that this belongs there then I'll move it. -Elmer Clark (talk) 05:02, 7 January 2016 (UTC) And thank you for reminding me to notify Medeis! I certainly meant to immediately, but it just slipped my mind, and I apologize. -Elmer Clark (talk) 05:07, 7 January 2016 (UTC) You appear to be a sporadic editor, so you may have missed it. It was probably almost 2 years ago. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:26, 7 January 2016 (UTC) Do you have a link to the archived discussion page? -Elmer Clark (talk) 05:27, 7 January 2016 (UTC) No, but I would assume it's in this talk page's archive somewhere. Look in maybe January or February of 2014. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:29, 7 January 2016 (UTC) Ok, thanks, I'll poke around. I didn't realize that it referred to the reference desk community specifically. -Elmer Clark (talk) 05:31, 7 January 2016 (UTC) If you don't find it there, you could check the ANI archive for around the same time period. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:32, 7 January 2016 (UTC) It's definitely not in the RD talk archives, so I'll look there. -Elmer Clark (talk) 05:37, 7 January 2016 (UTC) It's referenced in the talk page history at 11:54, 24 January 2014 (UTC). ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:41, 7 January 2016 (UTC) Ah, thanks, I missed it the first time over (if anyone else is wondering, the relevant section is here - turns out the ban was "vacated on appeal," so to speak). I'm satisfied with that, and will not take any further action, although I would kindly encourage Medeis (and everyone else for that matter) to try and refrain from this sort of conduct in the future. I'll go ahead and close this, but if Medeis wishes to respond (s)he may feel free to reopen it or just respond to my talk page message instead. -Elmer Clark (talk) 05:57, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 [un]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.[1] 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 ^{What's up, Doc?} 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 ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:21, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Summary: A guy made a forgiveable mistake and was excoriated for it with unacceptable bullying and intimidation tactics, and kept his head nevertheless. Somebody please archive this example of Wikipedia at its most wretched. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:46, 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 ^{What's up, Doc?} 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)

The discussion above 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.

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" [2]. Can I ask for some intervention on the matter? Yanping Nora Soong (talk) 04:42, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request

In Wikipedia: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 ^{What's up, Doc?} 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 ([3]). I have opened a discussion on Wikipedia: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)

The discussion above 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.

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)

Request to add Query answer- being Bot-blocked

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

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

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

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

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

Jesus. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:07, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

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

The reviewers in question may not have been exercising NPOV; I find Maccoby's arguments compelling if not conclusive.

"Paul" is quoted as claiming many things in the New Testament (which was compiled and extensively edited by his followers), some of which are contradictory and some of which run counter to non-biblical (i.e. Jewish) sources from the period. If he was a Pharisee, why did he work as an "enforcer" for the Chief of the Saducees (the High Priest) - this is akin to a senior Sunni cleric employing a Shia to enforce Sunni law. "Paul" employs various standard Pharisaic judicial forms of argument, and gets more of them wrong than right. I said "most of. . . Yeshua's original followers and family", not "all of them."

Read Maccoby's The Mythmaker: Paul and the Invention of Christianity (1986) and make up your own mind.

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

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

@SemanticMantis: I'm being told by two people at ANI here that people who just ask questions on the Refdesk are "WP:NOTHERE", unless they do actual article development. So I think 87.81 here may be wiser than us for staying as IP, unless and until he feels like focusing on articles. It's unfortunate since you don't get pingbacks. Maybe we can repurpose this space as a Jewish Refdesk. Wnt (talk) 12:19, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Well, that's unfortunate. Librarians who work solely at real reference desks don't get told they are not librarians... Then again, you need a master's degree to be a reference librarian, and I get the feeling we could do with more participation on the ref desks from people with actual expertise and advance degrees (I know there are a handful of us, but I'd like to see more). Anyone who says that edits mostly to ref desks make a user NOTHERE deserves a TROUTing :-/ SemanticMantis (talk) 15:43, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

SemanticMantis and Wnt: thank you both for the continued assistance, and the concern. As I've mentioned a couple of times before when asked, although I've been Editing here for around 10 years now, (mostly on the Refdesks, somewhat on Article Talk pages, occasional mostly minor copy-editing on Article pages – I used to be a professional non-fiction editor), I haven't wanted to Register thus far because to me, it would be a commitment to expend considerable time learning much more about the workings, policies and procedures "under the hood", which time I don't currently feel able to give – I do have a demanding full-time job, and usually dip in when at Work in my lunch break (like now) or after clocking off.

(I'm a bit "all or nothing" – I can never join a club or similar organization without wanting to take an active role in helping to run it or at least to contribute effort.)

I feel no pressure to register in order to run up Wiki stats and a reputation, because I feel that all contributions, by anybody, should stand or fall purely on their individual merits.

Related to what SemanticMantis asks and Wnt suggests, I do indeed avoid involving myself in controversies because of the occasional adverse attitudes shown by some towards IP Editors. (The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.74.232.130 (talk) 15:42, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request

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

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

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

Semi-protected edit request on 14 January 2016

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

People who write on the theory of history (possible redirect Category:Theories of history?) seem to use the term. Some possible references:

[4] defines it as "things happen and constrain what can happen next" - and suggests another possible redirect: Path dependence

[5], however, (1865)defines it as "events, which instead of being causes, are merely the occasions on which the real causes act."

[6] (too involved for me to understand, but the term does appear)

[7] (can be requested at Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request if you don't have a New York Times subscription) (1880) defines it as "great events that have sprung from little causes". Causality? 184.147.121.46 (talk) 16:08, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Ah thanks! I saw this after I already made a redirect to Arbitrariness. I will move your post to the thread and perhaps reconsider. SemanticMantis (talk) 16:51, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

 Done

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

Semi-protected edit request

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

Article 1 of the Covenant does say that, but there is no Article X, and the text that Scicurious says is there is not in Article 10 or any other article. Perhaps Sci meant to replace X with an actual section number after finding the wording, but was unable to do so and forgot to delete that part of the posting. In fact it seems that the nearest thing to that wording is in Article 17, which refers to states that are not members of the league, not to ones that are.

As for the United Nations, see India and the United Nations#History. I can't cite a source because I don't remember where I saw this, but I've read that the Soviets objected to the membership of Canada as well as India, and demanded that if the other great powers wanted those two admitted, then in compensation they should be able to have two of their member republics admitted as separate members, and this compromise was accepted. (Canada progressed to independence through a series of stages from 1867 to 1982, but was independent in most ways by the 1920s.) --76.69.45.64 (talk) 08:29, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

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

Can we remove the Hitler question now?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Semi-protected edit request on 17 January 2016

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

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

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

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