User:SemanticMantis/sandbox/AN discussion

Request for administrator comment on protection status of reference desks

• Many reference desks are semi-protected, and have been for some time now. This has generated much disruption and disagreement among regular reference desk users. This post is to solicit admin attention on the matter, with an aim to help bring about a community supported consensus. I seek here to only resolve the issue of long-term semi-protection (LTSP henceforth). It is my opinion that community consensus is against LTSP for the ref desks, and this enacting this potential consensus needs administrator support.

• This move was done seemingly unilaterally by FPAS. Here [1] [2]is some discussion of FPAS and Jayron (the only involved admins I know of, if there are others, I think we need some of their words too). Jayron indicates disapproval of the long-term semi-protection (LTSP), and fear of WP:WW.

• Here [3], we see a straw poll indicating loose consensus that the most important thing is to keep the ref desks open, while acknowledging that protecting against trolling/vandalism is a necessary process. However, focus was lost, some arguing ensued, and protection status was unchanged.

• • Modocc made a good point there: "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?" -- but nothing came of it until now.

• Later it was asked whether to conduct another poll [4], and only one user bothered to answer the question, and the rest was lots of frustrated argument. This indicates that discussion and consensus building has broken down, since even a simple "should we conduct a poll?" question could not be clearly answered.
  • In the ensuing discussion an IP made a good suggestion

"Did you ever stop to think that permanent semi-protection is EXACTLY what the troll is aiming for - indefinite disruption to new users without having to lift a finger, meanwhile painting the regulars as assholes who slap down newbies at the first hurdle? Finding proxies takes effort. Thinking up stupid questions (or even just copy/pasting them from Yahoo Answers) takes effort. But semi-protection means the troll can go off and watch tv or whatever his actions continue to cause disruption in his absence. From the trolls perspective, short protection lengths or no protection at all are annoying because it means he has to keep 24/7 watch over the desks to keep up the disruption, and will eventually burn out. 205.202.35.226 (talk) 19:00, 2 February 2016 (UTC)"

• Wikipedia:Rough_guide_to_semi-protection was brought up. The current long-term semi-protection may or may not be within these guidelines, and they may need clarification.

• Lots of IP users have been turned away.
  • list some edit requests - They were just removed [5], but I have restored them, because they are material evidence in this issue.

• It is said that banned user "Vote X" Wikipedia:Long-term_abuse/Vote_(X)_for_Change is the reason why the desks are semi-protected. It does seem the user can be rather persistent. It is also pointed out that many of the edits they make are not problematic in content, merely that they are from a banned user. Other edits are indeed harmful and disruptive.

• User:Robert McClenon's summary of the main opposing viewpoints:

I think that we can summarize the positions on trolling and semi-protection into three categories. First, there is the idealistic position. Second, there is the pragmatic position. Third, there is the despairing position. The idealistic position is that we should keep the Reference Desks open to unregistered editors, and that, due to trolling, we need to adopt a consistent sound approach to how to deal with trolling. The pragmatic position is that the idealistic position has been tried and has failed, and that extended semi-protection is sometimes necessary. The despairing position is that perhaps the Reference Desks are themselves a failed experiment and should be shut down, leaving users to go to other Reference Desks that perhaps do a better job of dealing with trolls. ... Robert McClenon (talk) 18:46, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Points against long-term semi-protection

• Turns away IP askers, who make up a large portion of our patrons.
• Turns away IP responders, who aren't as numerous, but some are very good
  • most IP users don't know about edit requests, and those too are now unavailable [6] because the talk page is semi-protected.
• Goes against WP:5P3, WP:HUMAN
• This means the bad faith users have successfully and long-term disrupted the function of the ref desks with out even having to do much. E.g. "The trolls win"
• Protection status and duration is fully public, all Vote X (or anyone, really) has to do is post three times on a certain day, and they will effectively close the desks from the public for another three months, provided the expressed opinions and intentions of the protecting admin don't change. Thus, allowing these otherwise unusual LTSP would likely result in near-perpetual closing of the ref desks to IP users.

Points in favor of long-term semi-protection

• Puts a stop to many arguments/discussions over what IP posts may or may not be in bad faith -- because none are allowed. This can be seen as less disruptive than the prior state of affairs.
• Presents a final solution to Vote X and other IP-hopping ban evaders.
• Frees up the time of users who would otherwise be reverting trollish posts
• ?

Issues that are perhaps not best discussed here now (too big, affect all of WP, not ref desk specific)

• Disagreement as to whether anything was "broken" before
• Disagreement over how to deal with trolling in general
• Disagreement over whether IPs should have full user rights
• Disagreement over when and how to apply WP:AGF
• Disagreement over whether banned user posts may or must be removed
• Any specific behavior of any specific user. This is about policy and consensus, not airing of grievances.
• Other potential solutions e.g. pending post approval, etc.

Discussion about this proposed discussion

• pronoun choice :First person, as though I (SM) am the sole speaker? Second person/Group authorship, if anyone else wants to co-sign?

• Is it more professional not to name names (ie avoid finger pointing) or does omitting names just make it more confusing to understand?

• should this be an "official" RfC? Or just a post for discussion on AN?