User talk:David Vasquez~enwiki

Archive through November 5, 2004

Please vote at Software and features, to approve an exciting new feature that allows users to control whether or not they receive campaign message.

Template:ArbComElection

Don't let the insiders control this election. Please vote!

China Collaboration of the Week

You showed interest in taking part in China-related topic development. I have just set up a China Collaboration of the Week. Please add one, or several, nomination(s) and tell others about it. You may access it via the COTW page at Wikipedia:China-related topics notice board/ZHCOTW or through the shortcut WP:ZHCOTW. --[[User:OldakQuill|Oldak Quill]] 11:21, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Candidate Endorsements page organization

They only have to click on one extra link to see what you have to say, and you can say whatever you choose there in your user namespace. Please review the associated talk page if you want to understand the reasons for this, but currently we have reached a compromise format and I do not plan to change it. --Michael Snow 00:08, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The reason your endorsements are not on the individual candidate subpages is because I was copying from the version someone else had reverted back to, which didn't include them either. Presumably that's because yours were added to the different incarnation on the "Discussion" subpage. I'm sorry I forgot about that, and feel free to add them back in.

There's nothing dishonest about my comment; it is absolutely true. This format is far more useful because it allows people to decide what they are interested in reading. When only one page is overwhelmed with endorsements, your comments are probably less likely to really get read, as nobody will care much what you have to say mixed in with the jumble of other endorsements.

If you think excerpting is so important, why don't you try incorporating an excerpt in the text after the pipe character for the link to your endorsement page, like maybe the names of the users you endorse? What is "wiki-like" is creative problem-solving, not reactionary insistence on perpetuating flawed systems. --Michael Snow 00:34, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the piping suggestion. I went ahead and made that change. --DV 01:00, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Based on VeryVerily's edit summary (rv - why does this one user get to put commentary here?), I'm hopeful that what disturbed him was partly the unusual prominence the piped version had when it was the only one on the page. Now that it's not, and Johnleemk has commented in support on the talk page as well, maybe that can establish more acceptance of this compromise. --Michael Snow 06:08, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Re: Votes for arbitration

Dear David, my apologies for accidentally blundering onto the "Requests for arbitration" page with comments I was not entitled to put there. In my defence I can only say that I had been asked to comment there (a message sent to my User Talk page requested I do so), andI misunderstood the title of the pages. I had assumed that "Requests" meant that 'ordinary' Wikipedians were requesting that a page go on to a further stage where it would be looked at by administrators - the page title didn't suggest to me that it was final vote on arbitration. Sorry again, Grutness 18:48, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

No need to apologize for an innocent posting in the wrong place. I've posted a suggestion on your user talk page. --DV 01:37, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Your questions

My response is on User talk:Mirv/Arbitration election. —No-One Jones ^(m) 02:46, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Your questions

In response to your questions, 1) I do not agree that Shorne's actions warrant blocks or a ban; and 2) I would not have blocked Shorne from editing communism-related articles for the length of the arbitration proceedings.

Because I am closer to the individual contributors who actually get things done around here, I think that I am better able to see the relationship between behavioral problems (e.g., repeated reversions) and the systemic problems in Wikipedia that engender and encourage the methods certain users approach conflict. Repeated reversions are inevitable when you lump together so many users whose worldviews diverge so starkly, such as Shorne and VeryVerily, and allow them to freely edit articles on subjects as emotionally charged and contentious as communism and nationalism. Because the dispute resolution process is so slow and cumbersome, repeated reversions are often the only method of dealing with conflict when dealing with someone who insisted on their point of view. If Shorne and VV were to be banned this minute, their disputes would just give way to revert wars between a new set of users working on these articles.

Because I have actually worked with both Shorne and VeryVerily, I can see them as "revert warriors" while understanding their merits as contributors. Both are incredibly knowledgeable and intelligent; both are prolific editors. (I have my own biases that lead me to believe that one has a better grasp of modern history and contemporary politics and a more compelling point of view than the other; but this is irrelevant to my objective understanding of what both of them have the capacity to offer our community.)

First, I would favor drafting a finding of fact that acknowledges their committment to the project and their merits as contributors. I would make it clear that the community did not view them as 'problem users' but rather as two contributors locked in a difficult political and personality feud in need of arbitration to establish a modus vivendi that would allow both of them to coexist as editors.

I would favor this instead of something that comes across as a 'sanction'. Trolls and vandals should be banned and blocked; but the best approach to disputes and repeated reversions is establishing a workable framework that allows all parties involved to coexist as editors. For example, I would favor a remedy requiring either of them to justify their changes on the talk page before reverting; if this not obeyed, a temporary block could result. If they cannot have a reasonable discussion with each other, they should be forced to foster a discussion between a different set of users pertaining to the merits of their competing versions.

If you want me to elaborate on the proposed remedies that I'd favor, please let me know.

Thanks,

172 04:19, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I just saw the latest note on my talk page. Thanks for giving me the chance to respond. Please post additional questions and comments if you have any. 172 05:34, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Not at all, David. I would ideally have liked to vote privately, but seeing as I've had to give my vote in public, I might as well go all the way! Cheers, Tannin 08:33, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

My pleasure, David. Cheers, Tannin

Arbcom voting template

It's a template - you can edit it at Template:ArbComElection, and insert it using {{ArbComElection}}. [[User:Rdsmith4|User:Rdsmith4/sig]] 15:11, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I don't think it needs to be protected - if someone vandalizes it, someone else will revert it soon enough. Policy does not allow pages with no history of vandalism to be protected. [[User:Rdsmith4|User:Rdsmith4/sig]] 16:13, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The Campaign Begins

Salve, David Vasquez!
Thanks for sending me the campaign banner. I will indeed post it on my user page. As someone who has campaigned for public office I can attest to how hard it is to get any attention. Once I ran for an office people weren't aware even existed! Good luck on your own campaign. Ave atque vale! PedanticallySpeaking 18:11, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)

I'm not running for office, but I am running something of a "get out the vote" campaign!

Cheers,

--DV 18:26, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Salve!
Your "small world" comment reminds me of the best "small world" story I know. My cousin, who lives in Richland, Washington, is very active in her professional organization and travels to all the conventions, etc. One day she's sitting at O'Hare waiting to change planes and strikes up a conversation with her seatmates. The usual stuff, what do you do, where are you headed, that sort of thing. She asks where they're from. Richmond, Kentucky they tell her. Richmond, Kentucky! Why my cousin teaches at the university there. Really? What's his name. She tells them. Why we've known him for years! In O'Hare airport? There's a cafe in Paris--the name escapes me at present--that supposedly if you sit there the entire world will pass you by eventually. Perhaps O'Hare is the same way--certainly Frankfurt would be. I've heard that if Jesus Christ himself returned to Earth he'd have to go through Frankfurt. Ave! PedanticallySpeaking 18:32, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)

Election thoughts

I was quite surprised to see that you haven't listed a candidate statement. Perhaps I misunderstood you before? I thought you wanted to run for the ArbCom, and were interested in getting information out about your campaign? Maybe you only want to campaign for others? If so then I *really* recommend that you get their permission first, as your actions seem to me highly likely to actually damage their reputations rather than help them.

There's something else that is puzzling me. I read over your endorsements, and the thing that is interesting to me is that you seem to have a concern about "insiders", and yet you endorse 3 people who are quite clearly "insiders" while giving a negative evaluation of someone who is very much thought to be a troublesome revert warrior by the majority of "insiders" that I know.

I really wonder if you don't have some mistaken ideas about who the insiders are, and what they are like. This would help me to understand why you're using rhetoric that seems so at odds with the reality of the situation.

--Jimbo Wales 19:38, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I posted a reply back on Jimbo's talk page. There are some very simple issues to resolve here. I appreciate the references to other election staffers from Theresa Knott. --DV 22:39, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I'm sorry I've upset you

David you seem very upset by my comments on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2004/Candidate_statements/Endorsements#Election_Campaigning_-_What_is_the_Spam_Threshold.3F the endorsement talk page]. Please let me reassure you that it was not my intention at all to belittle you or or make you feel like you're not "grown up" enough to be involved. I certainly was being serious and I was not trying to wind you up. I've replied on bith Jimbo's talk page and on the endorsement page, but both pages are very busy and i don't want to risk you not seeing my comment. This has all been a terrible misunderstanding. Please accept my apology for any anger I caused you, I assure you it was not intentional. Theresa Knott (Tart, knees hot) 20:30, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I posted a reply interleaved with Jimbo's and your previous one back on Jimbo's talk page. Thanks for the references. --DV 22:40, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Another "get out the vote" banner goes up!

Done. [1] Thanks for the tip! 172 21:12, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Done. :) -- [[User:Ran|ran (talk)]] 23:50, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)

Martin gets organized

Regarding "get out the vote" stuff. I've moved some stuff to Wikipedia talk:Spam/arbcom elections for starters. I'm not trying to marginalise this issues - more centralise it. I find it hard to follow discussions when they're spread out over several different pages: it becomes easy to miss some criticial point of view. Also, people often resort to making the same point in several places, which dilutes the overall signal/noise ratio. I've left pointers from the old locations, and in other appropriate places, such as the top of Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2004.

May I suggest that you:

1. Move any other conversation you know of on this point to the same place, so we can see everything people think about it at one glance.
2. Have a look at reworking the page to remove a few bits of duplication that have cropped up where you've posted the same thing to multiple places.
3. If you feel it is appropriate, publicise the page further.

Thanks, Martin 00:05, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Spam is in the eye of the beholder

Thanks for your reply, I respect what you're trying to do. Anyway, I gave a few more rambling thoughts on that page, although I fear they probably don't form the most coherent point. :) Shane King 04:36, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for your vote

Although I'm a bit confused. You stated that you want Talk pages to remain an open forum, yet you are voting against allowing users to receive campaign messages on their user talk pages?

Could you clarify your position so I can better understand your perspective?

Thanks again for taking the time to vote on this proposal.

--DV 11:12, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I'm not voting against users getting campaign messages. I'm voting against a mandatory "tag" for deciding whether one wants them _or_not_. I think that one should have the opportunity to post campaign messages to any talk page, subject only to the de facto rules for talk pages. — David Remahl 11:18, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

---

Hi again, DV. I'm afraid I can't agree with your proposal. You'll see my reasons on the poll page (hope I didn't mess your tidy poll up too much). I'll add a little more detail here, so that you can see where I'm coming from. One of the reasons I have less time for the 'pedia than I used to is that I now administer a couple of special-purpose wikis for community groups here in Australia, with a third one on the drawing board. In doing this, I've had to learn a good deal about the software that makes Wikipedia (and my wikis) possible — and trust me, it is not a simple task to install it or administer it. Above all, each wiki requires a great deal of hand customisation (at least it does if you want the job done right) and every time the software changes, I (and countless other wiki webmasters around the world) groan and shudder at the work involved. Sure, each change is for the better - well, mostly - but each change also requires a phenomenal amount of work - not just from people like me, but also from the developers, who must code it, test it, debug it, and deal with all the emails from users who don't understand how to drive it!

For a change to be worthwhile, it really needs to be a change of broad usefullness. If at all possible, it should not require a change to the database format - as if it does, the upgrade hurdle is much, much higher. (Despite the best efforts of the development team, the MediaWiki database update procedure remains horribly complex and far from risk-free. Data loss is a constant fear.) The addition of the categories code is a good example of an excellent change. It is broadly applicable to almost any wiki, is very easy for users to understand (uses can simply ignore it if they please), it is a general-purpose feature enhancement that benefits almost everyone, and, if there is no need for it in a particular circumstance, it adds no extra complication to speak of. The proposed election messages mod, in contrast, would be a highly specialised one with (I imagine) no broad general-purpose use. This is exactly the sort of "just one extra feature" that we should strive to avoid.

If peope want to complain about election messages, let them complain. The candidates are not stupid: they will soon work it out. And if they are stupid .... good! I want to know if someone is stupid before I vote for him!

Best regards,

Tannin 12:55, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

PS: I'll take this oportunity to recognise the excellent work you are doing on the election. Although I disagree on this particular point, in broad I soppurt and applaud it. - T.