Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2006/Candidate statements/Questions for Phil Sandifer/David Levy


 * Last December, you deprecated (id est deliberately broke) the if template (which was protected at the time). According to David Gerard, the decision was based upon a conversation that occurred at #wikimedia-tech.  (This, of course, is undocumented.)
 * For some reason, you requested that users "please fix the page to exclude this template," thereby instructing them to remove the dependent templates from articles instead of editing them to use qif in lieu of if (a process that already was ongoing). I raised this concern at Wikipedia talk:Avoid using meta-templates, and you replied without addressing it.  I reiterated this point (and asked some specific questions), and you didn't respond.
 * You subsequently claimed that "if was shot on sight, and turned out to be wholly non-harmful, aside from the database lock that editing it caused." Once again, I replied by raising the above concern in question form.  Once again, you didn't respond.
 * Around the same time, I expressed an additional concern regarding the ambiguity of the developers' supposed stance against the use of meta-templates and expressed my desire to hear from them [1 ]/[2 ]. I also clearly stated that I fully supported the developers and merely wanted their position to be made clearer [3 ]/[4 ].
 * Seemingly in response, you posted this message, in which you claimed that "the devs have, point blank, said to use meta-templates less" and that they "were perfectly clear." You also declared that the further use of meta-templates constituted "grevious [sic] vandalism" and that you would "respond accordingly."
 * I replied by stressing the aforementioned fact that I fully supported the developers and merely wanted their position to be made clearer. My comments included the following: "I don't intend to ever use such template syntax again, until a developer explicitly states that it's okay to do so.  I want at least one of them to issue a statement of greater specificity, not because I hope to find some wiggle room, but purely in the interest of setting the record straight.  If it truly is their belief that all conditional templates should be eliminated for the time being, I want this to be made known in unambiguous fashion (thereby erasing any doubts regarding the policy's legitimacy)."
 * Four days later, you strongly opposed my request for adminship, claiming that I "was one of the most active supporters of ignoring the devs on the meta-templates issue." In the end, Netoholic himself was the only other opponent.
 * I replied both on that page and on your talk page by attempting to set the record straight and respectfully requesting that you "reexamine my involvement in this situation." Your only reply was this message, in which you did not address the flagrantly false nature of your RfA vote.  I responded on your talk page by quoting some of my comments from Wikipedia talk:Avoid using meta-templates and reiterating the fact that you'd "misrepresented my stance on this issue."  I later posted this follow-up (in which I cited a specific problem that arose from the ambiguity) and one final plea.  You never replied, so I thanked you for voting and moved on.
 * In January, Brion Vibber (lead MediaWiki developer) posted an interesting message at Avoid using meta-templates. While certainly not endorsing the use of meta-templates (which undeniably had significant flaws), he noted that "there's no known evidence that moderate usage of meta-templates has any noticeable impact on server performance" and criticized those who had attempted to "divine meaning from things other people have said rather than just asking for details."  (Keep in mind that my argument in favor of asking the developers for details instead of attempting to interpret one developer's vague remarks led you to strongly oppose my request for adminship.)  He also stated the following: "I'd like to ask that anyone fighting against ugly, fragile meta templates at this time do so based on their ugliness and fragility. Please don't go around claiming 'the developers' laid down the law and said nobody can use meta-templates because they hurt the servers; that just isn't true."  Brion also commented on the talk page, explaining that he "put a box on the page because there's been a lot of hysteria based on the false belief that there is an order from on high."  Additionally, he announced that the hack widely implemented by Netoholic as a replacement for meta-templates was harmful.  (It turned out that it actually broke pages in some browsers and screen-readers used by people with visual impairments.)
 * Feeling vindicated, I posted this message on your talk page. I didn't expect much, but a simple, one-sentence apology would have meant a great deal to me.  Instead, you replied with this bit of rudeness.  I responded by posting a recap/summary .  You never replied again.
 * In March, you and I engaged in another dispute (this time pertaining to my block of Netoholic, which was unrelated to the above). I documented this in great detail at the time, so I'll link to the archived discussion.  (You might want to read that in its entirely.)  You became involved when you unilaterally lifted the block without attempting to contact me (in violation of our blocking policy).  In the discussion linked above, you cited my "history of conflict" with Netoholic as the primary basis for overturning the block.  I than noted that one could just as easily cite our (yours and my) history of conflict as a reason why you shouldn't have intervened.  You replied with the following: "We have a history of conflict? Huh. Because I honestly have no clue who the hell you are past an awareness that you really dislike Netoholic."  (For the record, I've never disliked Netoholic.  I've only disliked some of his actions.)  I found it odd that you remembered my past conflict with Netoholic, but somehow forgot that you were directly involved in the very same conflict.  Nonetheless, I accepted your word.
 * Though it might seem as though I've held a grudge, I truly haven't. I do, however, have a good memory, and I can't honestly say that our interactions would lead me to support your ArbCom candidacy.  If you have any thoughts on this matter, I'm sincerely interested in reading them.  Thank you for your time.  &mdash;David Levy 12:03, 5 November 2006 (UTC)