User talk:Ummit

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Archives 2 Colbert Props 3 Parable of process cruft 4 Reference desk 5 Sorry, but I can't do this any more 6 Reference desk 7 Personal attacks and double standards 8 Priorities 9 Appreciation and concern 10 Friday 11 Peace award 12 Escalation 13 Re Paris Metro 14 Good observation! 15 RFA? 16 By all means... 17 WT:RD 18 Pastafarian Award 19 Absinthe ... 20 WP:RD/M#Death

[edit] Archives

2005 2006

---

[edit] Colbert Props

Thank you for rationally addressing the issue over the Colbert incident. That was a class act. Somnabot 21:03, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Parable of process cruft

This works great IMO and is just what we needed. I've tidied it a bit, but it actually describes the career arc of several admins ... - David Gerard 11:36, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reference desk

Do you think your comment here is useful to a reference desk, which is designed to direct people to information? Please remember that wikipedia is not a chat board. Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:29, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, yes, of course I thought it was useful, otherwise I wouldn't have written it! And while it's true that Wikipedia is not first and foremost a "chat board", certainly some of its non-main-namespace discussions do get rather chatty, and I don't see anything intrinsically wrong with this. (Finally, my view of the Reference Desks are that they're to find answers, which may or may not best be done merely by directing people elsewhere.) —Steve Summit (talk) 16:43, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

The Refrence Desk is not a debate society. Your readdion of this was not appropriate. Please remove it at your nearest convience. Thank you. Hipocrite - «Talk» 19:11, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

It was not my comment, so it is not mine to delete. —Steve Summit (talk) 19:24, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I deleted it. You readded it. Please do not readd comments in the future if you are unwilling to vouch for them. Thank you. Hipocrite - «Talk» 20:14, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I will ask you in turn not to delete the good-faith, on-topic comments of others. —Steve Summit (talk) 20:31, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sorry, but I can't do this any more

Steve - just to let you know that I'm am going to leave the RD guideline and RD talk page discussions. I just can't deal with Radiant and Hipocrite any more. Every time I interact with them I end up feeling disgusted and soiled. I am going to find some far corner of Wikpedia where the air is clean and the water is pure and I can leave their poison far behind. Thought you wrote an excellent summary on THB's RfC. Keep up the good work, and thank you for all your help. Gandalf61 21:06, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the note, and I do understand. You won't believe me when I say this, but Radiant, at least, is not the evil bully which I do fully realize he seems like to you. (Hipocrite I'm less sure of.) I say this not to suggest that you should be buddy-buddy with him, or to suggest that you should now think me some kind of coat-turning sell-out, but just as a reminder that, in complicated situations like these, there are more perspectives than are dreamt of in all our philosophies, and it's impossible to comprehend them all -- though in time we can begin to. So enjoy your respite, and take care. —Steve Summit (talk) 21:36, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reference desk

I noticed some of your comments, particulary at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Vote_stacking_on_MFD. I disagree that there was a consensus-based attempt to make a useful guideline that was them barged in on. There were attempts to have a small group of people vote things into "rules." I suppose part of this IS the vote-versus-discuss conflict, but that's not the whole story. Some of the people shouting "we're pro-consensus" did some things that were actively harmful toward gaining consensus. Anyway you seem like a reasonable type so I thought I'd give you my two cents. There's a lot going on there, and there was rudeness and foolishness on the part of many people, of course. Ned Wilbury 22:04, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Understood. Thanks. (I've been trying to qualify my descriptions of my understanding of what happened, because I know my understanding isn't complete.) —Steve Summit (talk) 22:11, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

You continue to make good points- thanks for giving helpful input in a tough situation. One thing I have seen is this: it's already accepted practice to remove off-topic stuff from talk pages. I don't think this happens often- it shouldn't NEED to happen often, but it does happen. Generally, people are first given gentle reminders about the purpose of talk pages. I think this works more through a set of social expectations than throught exact rules. Anyway, just wasn't sure if you were aware of this or not, or whether it would matter to you. Ned Wilbury 19:42, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. And in fact I wasn't aware that this is "accepted practice" -- it always bothers me when I see it, anywhere.

I hate asking this, because it makes me sound like a rule-mongering policy wonk that, believe me, I'm not, but: is this "accepted practice" documented anywhere? Because if it's not, and if others (like me) can reach the opposite conclusion, this may be a big part of the misunderstanding and disagreement. —Steve Summit (talk) 19:47, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I would take a look at Wikipedia:Refactoring_talk_pages#Prune specifically and Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines in general. The first bit has a sentence that says "Following Wikipedia's talk page guidelines, an editor is encouraged to remove any content that is not appropriate." But, as you said, this can easily come off as rude, and so caution is advised. In practice, fairly wide latitude is given to people who are TRYING to say something useful. As is unfortunately common here, different pages will say different things about this- good judgment is needed. Ned Wilbury 19:52, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Personal attacks and double standards

Hi - I'm responding here rather than on the refdesk talk page, because I don't want to head off the main line of discussion. I take your point that 'two wrongs don't make a right' - but my point was that StuRat, in particular, has tended to warn Clio about personal attacks, while completely ignoring or even supporting Loomis's far worse attacks. Hence 'double standards'. There's a history here - and as far as I remember, you weren't involved in the earlier parts of it. Yours, Sam Clark 14:28, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I gathered it might have been something like that. Thanks for the additional perspective. —Steve Summit (talk) 14:35, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Priorities

This was maybe getting a bit long for Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/guidelines. Some of what we're looking at here is different priorities. Some editors give free speech a higher value than the improvement of the ref desk. Some editors do the opposite. To see this in action, check out Wikipedia_talk:Reference_desk#Lines_I_suggest_be_removed. Friday (talk) 18:05, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Appreciation and concern

Hi Steve. First of all, I really appreciate your efforts to mediate on the reference desk issues; you're absolutely right that we need discussion and concessions on both sides. However, your basic proposal seems to be:

1. People shouldn't post inappropriate comments
2. If they do, nobody has the "right" to remove them

I just don't see how that's a solution, and I also don't see how it's consistent with the wiki process, which as I never grow tired of linking is a Foundational Issue. We need another way, and it will ultimately involve people realizing to some degree that they are on Wikipedia, and that "Wikipedia is not a forum for unregulated free speech". If the goals of the reference desk are to welcome new users, answer their questions, and involve them in Wikipedia—and we can agree that those are at least a subset of the goals, right?—then (in the non-ideal world in which we live) it has to be possible to remove content that interferes with those goals. If people insist on taking offense at the very concept that there are limits to what they should type, then I don't see how avoiding offending them is possible except by abdicating my allegiance to the goals. Your input on this problem would be great. Thanks, SCZenz 02:21, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. It's not a "proposal"; it's just an idea. I am probably attaching more importance than I ought to to the desire to not have things deleted merely because they're inappropriate, and while I'm not willing to change my mind yet, I do at least recognize the conflict.

My biggest objection (and not just with you, but with several others who have been making the same claim) is to the notion that "the wiki process" gives one carte blanche to delete anything, anywhere, which one feels does not help the project. My feeling is that this is only one part of the wiki process, and that the right to delete is not as absolute as some would make it sound.

Please understand that I am not defending anyone's right to post absolutely anything they want, nor asserting that no one has the right to delete anything, ever. There's a fine line, here, which is difficult to define. And, for what it's worth, I too have occasionally been annoyed by excessive banter and joking on the Reference Desks, and long before this recent brouhaha broke out.

—Steve Summit (talk) 02:36, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps we've not been explaining ourselves clearly; it's hard to get all the caveats of a subtle situation into everything you say. Obviously you can't have a carte blanche to change anything, anywhere. Instead, common sense, precendent, and sometimes specific written rules have to be used. On articles, anyone can change anything if it improves the article; it's only if consensus is against you that combative editing becomes inappropriate. On talk pages, Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines says that "off-topic comments are subject to removal." On the reference desk, lacking (as of yet) specific guidelines, I think making the page more consistent with its goals is the best guide for which edits are appropriate. Of course we shouldn't go around removing anything we don't like, and yet if something is clearly harmful and doesn't contribute in any way... well, there shouldn't be any objections to removing it. Obviously there is a line to be drawn somewhere—but the fact that a few users will object to anything being removed, no matter how boorish or unhelpful, makes me believe more and more that action has to be taken with or without their consent. My current strategy is to solicit reasoned advice before removing anything from the talk pages, but I think it's fair to accept only advice based on Wikipedia policy and the goals of the reference desk. -- SCZenz 02:49, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Friday

THere is currently a call to bring User:Friday back for re election as admin on his talk page. Your comments are welcome!--Light current 00:24, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Peace award

Congratulations. --Dweller 12:33, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Did you see this? --Dweller 09:23, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Escalation

Steve, I was so impressed with your description of a typical skirmish between an inexperienced (arent we all in some ways ) user and the general community including the admins. I think it summarises the problems exactly. I would encourage you to publish this as an essay or something so that everyone can read it. It may be useful also to refer some people to it in future prevention of such escalation.8-)--Light current 13:51, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. That was a first draft of something I've been meaning to write for a while. I will be doing something more with it. —Steve Summit (talk) 13:58, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re Paris Metro

Agreed! It is looking in excellent shape. Wish I could say that was more down to me! Polocrunch 14:12, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Good observation!

This is exactly true, no matter how well-meaning we all may be. When ever you notice this, please do speak up- any good editor will appreciate someone leaving them a note (or even email) saying "Pssst! Your intentions are good, but you're causing needless strife when you do things like >whatever<". I have greatly valued your input as a sensible voice of moderation in this whole unfortunate debacle, so I hope you keep it up. Friday (talk) 03:59, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RFA?

You seem to be a sensible, experienced editor, but I see no admin actions in your log. If you've not been given admin access yet, what would you say to an adminship nomination? Friday (talk) 04:06, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I must decline for now, but I'm flattered by and do appreciate the suggestion. Thank you. —Steve Summit (talk) 13:57, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] By all means...

...lift whatever you find useful from my comments. Feel free to smooth any rough edges, too; I was working in a bit of a hurry when I drafted them. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 00:05, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WT:RD

Nah, I'll leave it since you tagged it so well! I was just feeling so damn discouraged that I thought my comment would just add fuel. Thanks for restoring, I think that it should be there.  :-) --hydnjo talk 22:46, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pastafarian Award

Hello Steve Summit. I found your insightful elaborations on building a spaghetti bridge interesting and appetizing. I prepared myself some pasta and decided to award you one Flying Spaghetti Monster for your answer at the Science Reference Desk. ---Sluzzelin 23:13, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Heh, this gave you away. :) ---Sluzzelin 20:23, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Absinthe ...

{snicker, chortle)  :) JackofOz 23:10, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP:RD/M#Death

Per your comment on my comment: When I was 3, a grandfather I did not know well died. I said to the grandfather I did know well that maybe distant relatives died, but my local family that I knew and loved wouldn't would they? He told me clearly that all of us would die in time, including me, and that it was just part of life. That eliminated a lot of doubt and denial. Edison 19:04, 24 March 2007 (UTC)