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.

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

Moved to Language desk
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
(Let's say A and B are friends in their late twenties, and A is a pessimist when it comes to dating and relationships.) A: She only loves you for your money, obviously. If you told her you sold your car and quit your job, she'd be gone in a minute. B (being sarcastic): Sure, I'll take your word for it. You're a self-proclaimed authority on dating, aren't you? You made me realize that every woman I've ever met or fallen in love with was either a sociopath or a gold digger. (I got mixed responses the last time I asked native-English speakers if this conversation sounded natural to them. Some said the wording is so archaic and stilted. Others said it's fine the way it is. What are your thoughts? If you were A, and B told you that, would you say "well, I didn't expect a 21st century native English speaker to say that"?)Jra2019 (talk) 02:59, 23 January 2016 (UTC

RFCs on Semi-Protection

The RFC on semi-protection has run for 30 days but has been archived. I have posted a formal request for closure to Administrators' Noticeboard, Requests for Closure. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:13, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Closed. Convenience link: Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/Archive 122#Concrete proposal ―Mandruss ☎ 00:22, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

It was closed as No Consensus. I had thought that there was consensus. If anyone feels strongly enough that there was consensus, they can request closure review. I won't ask for that. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:34, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

I don't see much of a consensus view emerging. The "yays" out!voted the "nays" - but there wasn't remotely a consensus. I strongly support your closure conclusions. SteveBaker (talk) 14:32, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Maybe you should have closed it yourself? Too late now. My understanding is that there is no requirement that the closer has to be uninvolved. SemanticMantis (talk) 17:18, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, there is a requirement that the closer of an RFC should be uninvolved. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:36, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

That's not how I read WP:Requests_for_comment#Ending_RfCs, but it's entirely possible that I'm reading it in way that contradicts practice. I thought it meant formal closure via request for closure usually involves a previously uninvolved admin, but that any of the involved editors can also close the discussion if they think they see consensus. Also in this case I think the closer may not have followed this: "The desired standard is rough consensus, not perfect consensus.", from WP:Closing_discussions#Closure_procedure Especially for the second proposal, I think that we clearly had a rough consensus. SemanticMantis (talk) 17:52, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

The whole RFC seemed to disregard the fact that a local consensus does not override a larger one. I suggest those who wish the protection policy be different in regard to their little corner of Wikipedia address the protection policy itself. We try not to have special rules for special places. HighInBC 16:31, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

I did say that those who think that the Reference Desks should never be semi-protected, and some editors have expressed that view, should address the protection policy. The purpose of this RFC was to clarify what the consensus was for application of the protection policy. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:36, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your insight Chillum. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:33, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Your words seem to disregard the clear rebuttal to that idea that was clearly articulated in the RfC. I suggest those who wish to criticize our discussions about how to run the reference desks would get more respect for their words if they spent any notable time volunteering at the reference desks. SemanticMantis (talk) 17:18, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

User:SemanticMantis - To whom are you replying? Robert McClenon (talk) 17:36, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

My comment "Your words..." was in response to User:HighInBC, indented one indent more than their comment, per WP:INDENT. It gets confusing because they did not follow WP:INDENT, in that they used no indent, though it's fairly clear they are replying to your note on closure. That is problematic, because then all one-indent responses become responses to HIBC, and nobody is able to reply to your opening statement unless they put in the comment above HIBC's. So I was left with a few poor options 1)changing HIBC's indent level or 2) guessing at how to indent so as to cause least confusion. I chose option 2) this time, apparently the wrong choice :) SemanticMantis (talk) 17:45, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

I read the rebuttal SemanticMantis. I disagree with it. The fact is that the proposal wanted to make restrictions that are not supported by the protection policy and represent a significant departure from our best practices. HighInBC 17:50, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Ok, fine, but why talk about it now? Just to kick at a past proposal while it's down? You had 30 days to !vote or discuss as you saw fit in the RfC. SemanticMantis (talk) 17:57, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

I just noticed it now. My comments were more related to this thread right here where the closure was questioned. HighInBC 21:00, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

I don't want to get in to this discussion (as some may know, I ended up not really participating in the RfC) but while it would be a bad idea to have extensive discussion about the RfC it doesn't mean some resonable commentary is unwelcome. Besides what HighInBC has said, it's worth noting that future RfC should hopefully be informed by the previous RfCs. In particular, since the RfC was closed as no consensus (rather than consensus for or against) there may be even more impetus to attempt a future RfC to resolve the issues and try and achieve consensus. That being the case, it would help if all possible participants understand the problems that are seen by the differing parties.

While I don't think HighInBC has said anything particular new, it seems clear that there remains a fair amount of disagreement on the issue of local consensus so it's likely to be something that would need to be considered carefully for a future RfC.

Another thing is that I think consensus was closer (I'm not saying there was definite consensus) if only regulars at RD are considered. I believe the RfC was added to the normal places for simple RfCs. If this hadn't happened it may be there would have been less participation from non regulars and perhaps consensus was more likely. But even if that happened, it's perhaps fair to say it's unclear what this would have meant if disputes arose about following the RfC.

Nil Einne (talk) 14:12, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, learning from that RfC is good, and perhaps my tone was too harsh. Sorry to User:HighInBC, and maybe they can participate in the next RfC, or help at the reference desks in the future. I do wonder why they reject Tevildo's explanation of why the proposal would not violate WP:LOCAL, it seemed very clear to me that there was no problem there.

Maybe I've been going about this all the wrong way, and we simply need a few more admins around the desks who don't like long-term protection... maybe I should become an admin; might be easier than gaining consensus on keeping our doors open ;) SemanticMantis (talk) 14:57, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Well, I'm an admin who hangs out around the desks and who opposes long-term protection of them (and I expressed that opinion in the RfC), but I don't see how that helps. I'm certainly not going to take up arms against another admin about the necessity or length of particular instances of protection. I'll express my opinion to the admin, as anyone may do, but I don't think that anyone wants to see a wheel war. Deor (talk) 15:08, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Next Steps

There has been discussion about a future RFC. It isn't clear to me what would be different about a future RFC, except a different closer who is looking for rough consensus rather than nearly perfect consensus. I thought that the RFC that we had was a good one, and reasonably stated the two issues about semi-protection, its length and its reasons. I would suggest that anyone who thinks that the close was incorrect should request closure review at WP:AN. I think that the close was incorrect, but I personally will not request closure reversal. I recommend against any future straw polls, which accomplish nothing. We need either another RFC, but I am not sure how it should be different, or the same one, or nothing. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:42, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Other than another RFC, I will again point out to "idealists", who think that the Reference Desks are a special service to unregistered editors and should therefore never be semi-protected, that they have two ways forward. First, they can start an RFC on the Protection Policy to state that the Reference Desks are never semi-protected. (I will !vote against it.) Second, they can propose, as was discussed, an alternate design for the Reference Desks. The disadvantages to any alternate design have been discussed. However, I am not an "idealist". I don't think that we have a duty to provide a special service to unregistered editors (who can always register). (The fact that some unregistered editors know beyond knowledge that their privacy is better protected by editing anonymously rather than by using a pseudonym is not important.) Robert McClenon (talk) 15:42, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Again with the nonsense about "idealists" who think the desks should never be semi-protected. The big problem is not occasional short periods of semi, but too frequent and too long periods, too often combined with semi of the talk page which lakes it hard for IPs to ask questions, and a willful failure to add the appropriate protection template, again obstructing IP editors. DuncanHill (talk) 15:48, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

There are two different positions on semi-protection. There are editors, such as User:DuncanHill and me, who think that the periods of semi-protection have been too long and too frequent, and there are "idealist" editors, such as User:SteveBaker, who think that the Help Desk should never be semi-protected. I agree about the need to add the semi-protection template. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:02, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

As I have commented before - I strongly object to you continually labeling me as an idealist. I'm 'NOT an idealist when it comes to solutions to this problem - a pragmatic solution that stops most of the trolling and thereby makes semi-protection unnecessary is plenty good enough for me. I don't think we can or should even try to block the rules and mechanisms that allow semi-protection. I want to make it so unnecessary that it would never have to be used in practice - even though it would be allowed in theory. SteveBaker (talk) 16:36, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

As to occasionally semi-protecting this talk page, that is occasionally necessary (unless you are an "idealist") because, when the Help Reference Desk is semi-protected, the troll moves on to here. An alternative would be to delete the troll posts and block the troll, but the troll may IP-hop or use throw-away accounts. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:04, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

We need to stop just asking the same question in different ways. There was no good consensus on HOW to semi-protect the reference desk because (I believe) most of us don't want it semi-protected AT ALL. Since (as has been explained) we can't override the wider Wikipedia rules that allow semi-protection with a consensus !vote - an RFC on "Do we want semi-protection at all" isn't going to help. A 100% consensus for "NO! Over my dead body!" wouldn't help us an iota in the face of an admin who is troll-hunting and winds up here in pursuit of his/her prey.

What we NEED is for people to start thinking about other approaches. WP:RD is a wildly different thing than almost any other place within Wikipedia...so we need a new solution. I've proposed a couple of ideas - and, quite honestly, I'm horrified at the lack of discussion about them. We need people to start thinking about ways to separate out question asking from answer giving - to provide a filter between the asking and the publication of the answers.

I don't pretend to have a completely thought-through solution (in part because I'm not down-and-dirty with the inner mechanics of transclusion, bots, sub-pages, reviewed versions and other tools that we have in our toolkit here) - what I do have is a strong belief that if people here put their minds to it - we could come up with a way to cut out 99% of the trolling and thereby render semi-protection unnecessary (except, perhaps in some dire emergency) so we don't have to try to buck the system and prevent it. I'm not talking about a 100% solution - and I'm not talking about demanding changes to the MediaWiki software - neither of those things are possible. I'm looking for a 90% or better solution that works with existing mechanisms and a bit of human input.

So I'm begging, pleading - with people here to use their (clearly gigantic) brains THINK about ways to engineer our way out of this situation.

SteveBaker (talk) 16:29, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

If User:SteveBaker doesn't like being called an "idealist", I am willing to let him provide a different term. However, I disagree with his willingness to describe himself as a "pragmatist". Pragmatists, in my terminology, are those who are willing to work within the existing system, that is, by the use of semi-protection, and who don't see the need for a special approach for the Reference Desks. It may be that the reason why we don't brainstorm about special solutions may be that some of us don't see the need for a redesign. Some of us see semi-protection as a sometimes necessary evil, rather than simply an evil. I disagree with Steve when he states that there was no consensus at the RFC because most of us don't want it semi-protected at all. I for one see occasional semi-protection as unfortunately necessary to control trolling. I do think that the length of semi-protection has been excessive at times, but I don't object to semi-protection. If Steve wants to provide different terms for different views on the Reference Desk, please let me know what he proposes, and I may be willing to use them instead. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:31, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

I agree that there are ways in which the Reference Desks are different from the rest of Wikipedia, but I don't think that a new solution is needed. I am aware that some editors think that the Reference Desks are different because they are an outreach to unregistered editors and must serve them almost all the time. I just don't hold that view. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:31, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

My advice would be that those editors who think that the current situation is unacceptable, and that a new solution is needed, they should start by offering a new RFC, asking whether a new design for the References Desks is needed so as to ensure that unregistered editors are not locked out by semi-protection. While the RFC is running, anyone who thinks that a new design is needed can brainstorm solutions. (I don't think that there will be consensus that a new design is needed, but I may be mistaken.) Draft and publish an RFC as to whether a new solution is needed. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:31, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Fixing IW link

I want to fix our interwiki link to the Russian RefDesk. The page we currently point to is closed, but this page [1] is where it now forwards. Actually, the link goes all weird when I paste it, though it does work correctly. The title is supposed to say Википедия:Форум/Вопросы. Weird how it fixes itself for the mouse-over... Anyway, I was going to update our side, but I seem to have gotten lost amongst the transclusions. If someone can find the link, could they also please fix it? :) Matt Deres (talk) 02:24, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Help or hinderence?

Does anyone else wonder sometimes whether BBs comments are a help or a hinderence to the working of the reference desks?--31.109.183.147 (talk) 00:49, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

This has been discussed several times before. I don't think a new discussion is likely to be helpful to the working of the reference desks, since previous discussions strongly suggest there's no consensus (or perhaps a consensus against) any actual restriction and I don't think the've been any particular recent highly problematic examples. Nil Einne (talk) 14:15, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

31.109.183.147:

Dear unregistered user, I understand that "you know" who BB is; a registered user who (I guess) behaves like a Wiki-Librarian - he's been helping out for far too long. Please register to discuss further. -- Apostle (talk) 20:23, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

When you say too long, do you mean FAR TOO LONG?--31.109.183.147 (talk) 01:07, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

User:Bonupton

Does anyone else think a lot of Bonupton (talk · contribs)'s recent RD contributions qualify as "requests for opinions, predictions or debate"? I don't want to bring it up with them when I'm not sure if others agree. --71.119.131.184 (talk) 05:08, 16 March 2016 (UTC)