Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Date delinking/Workshop

This is a page for working on Arbitration decisions. The Arbitrators, parties to the case, and other editors may draft proposals and post them to this page for review and comments. Proposals may include proposed general principles, findings of fact, remedies, and enforcement provisions—the same format as is used in Arbitration Committee decisions. The bottom of the page may be used for overall analysis of the /Evidence and for general discussion of the case.

Any user may edit this workshop page. Please sign all suggestions and comments. Arbitrators will place proposed items they believe should be part of the final decision on the /Proposed decision page, which only Arbitrators and clerks may edit, for voting, clarification as well as implementation purposes.

Motions and requests by the parties

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

3)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed temporary injunctions

Mass delinking injunction

1) Propose that all editors cease mass linking or delinking of dates until the conclusion of this arbitration.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Posted at the Proposed decision page. Wizardman 02:19, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Shouldn't be a big deal, there's no damage to the encyclopedia if these activities are halted until a decision is reached. —Locke Cole • t • c 00:13, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Cross-posted from User talk:Newyorkbrad#Clarification requested on the proposed temporary injuctionA few months ago (September), Lightmouse wrote a javascript tool that can help delink dates AND convert them all into one format. It is not a fast-working tool at all; it would take at least 10 minutes to do maybe even 20 articles. And that's working quickly. I sometimes use this while reading articles and doing some generic gnoming. Would the use of this be against temporary injunction 1.1? NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 03:45, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I didn't specify script or bot in my original proposal, but 1.1 does mention scripts/bots/tools/otherwise. It was my intent that this injunction cover large scale edits as well as smaller scale edits. FYI: Lightmouse's script (unless there's another one) is one of the major tools used by parties of this case to engage in these mass delinkings. —Locke Cole • t • c 04:04, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

The injunction applies to mass delinking. If you are doing 2 articles every minute for any extended period of time, I would view that as concerted push to delink articles. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 04:11, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

But say, one article every 15-20 minutes (which is roughly how long it takes to read military history articles) would be OK then? NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 04:15, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I doubt that would raise an eyebrow. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 04:25, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm a bit perplexed about all this. From my observations, Lightbot has been delinking dates for ages (long before the autoformatting deprecation), and no fuss was ever made. Originally, of course, it left the "autoformatting" dates alone. Now we have agreed (everyone accepts this now) that autoformatting is no reason to link dates, and so naturally there is no longer any reason for the bot to leave those alone. Nothing else changed - no other new class of date has been found to require linking. So the bot is just continuing to do what it's always done, but now in accordance with the new policy on autoformatting. With the greatest respect to Locke, I would suggest that he has become rather tied up in this issue, and is now being motivated to obstruct the work of the bot (and other automated tools) not by properly thought-out reasons, but by the personal animosities - and gut conviction to "stop date delinking" - which arose during the debates on autoformatting (which are now over). Locke, is there any chance you could engage in an amicable manner (maybe you've already tried, I don't know) with the delinkers, to iron out the real (but fairly minor) technical problems that exist with the delinking process, rather than continue with this all-out confrontational approach? Perhaps offering to drop the arbitration case in return for good-faith dialogue? I know there has been wrong behaviour in the past (on both sides), but we ought to be making peace now and moving forward. --Kotniski (talk) 08:09, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

The date links at issue are primary bare year dates (eg [[2009]]), which are not considered by date autoformatting. The RFC at MOSNUM resulting in such year links should be made selectively but neither always nor never. Thus, any bot that strips year links may be stripping a year link that should be kept. --MASEM 13:54, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Can you give an example of a class of year links that the RFCs have decided should be kept?--Kotniski (talk) 14:08, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

That's part of the rub - we know there's some (the RFC says this), but the exact qualification of when hasn't been made (and a related is, when one should use a year-in-field link (2008 in sports) instead of a bare year). In other words, the push to remove dates as soon as the RFC passed without analyzing all of the results was not appropriate to do until it was clear exactly what links should be removed. --MASEM 14:13, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Again, I don't follow the chronology. If it's now bare year links we're talking about, then bots and human editors have been removing these for ages, without the least controversy. It certainly wasn't something that began after the RfCs ended. What might have begun recently is the removal of autoformatting links, but that isn't controversial any more. And if people genuinely want to change the long-standing standard that bare years are not linked, we would expect to be hearing proposals as to what classes of years are to be linked. There have been such proposals - none of them got anywhere, and there seems little sign of any others. The only cases where linking has been shown to be appropriate have been oddities like year 0, years as topics on dab pages, and the like - and of course the big exception, links within date articles, which I trust the bots are not touching anyway. So practically speaking, the number of year links that the bots are removing but which would normally find consensus to be kept is extremely minuscule and can easily be dealt with by human correction, as has happened (I hope successfully, if not we can work it out) with 2000 at MM.--Kotniski (talk) 14:45, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Until the last few months I have not witnessed any bots removing bare year links, though that's not to say that it didn't happen, I'm just not aware of anything of the same scale and negative feedback that what is happening now. (eg this arbcom case fell out of this discussion) Once the effort was made to remove all date linking (both date autoformatted links as well as bare day/month and year links), that created questions on if there was any consensus for how bare-year links were made, and thus that's why I included the question in the RFC (as I recall, I cannot remember seeing anything in MOSNUM or elsewhere stating when bare year links should be made) But, importantly, the RFCs established that not all bare-year links are bad - what classes haven't been discussed in full so there's no way a human (much less a bot) can determine which is which. That needs to be discussed, and that hasn't happened yet, particularly when you get someone like Greg L involved who believes the year pages are a mess of trivia. The lack of discussion post-RFC and pre-bot runs is what is an issue here. --MASEM 15:22, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I can assure you that all these things have been dicussed, ad extreme nauseam, mostly at WT:MOSNUM (see archives). The volume of discussion to date, particularly after the two RfCs, is surely sufficient to decide anything we want to know about what the community thinks without having any more of it. The failure of anyone, throughout all this, to successfully make a case for any particular group of year links is surely ample proof that any individual act of delinking is considered by the community at worst to be not harmful (though of course you'll always get a few people jumping up and down now and then when you do something on this scale).--Kotniski (talk) 16:17, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't doubt that the issues have been discussed in great depth on MOSNUM well before August 2008 - the problem is that they were only discussed on MOSNUM, so when the time comes to implement a process that affects nearly every WP article, a localized consensus is a weak case to support that. When I came into the process as "neutral" (as least, as I saw my participation) in August 2008, the "consensus" being used by Tony et al to push date autoformatting deprecation was about a dozen editors (all regulars of MOSNUM), and Tony's counterevidence of the lack of feedback when he applied his monobook script to various FA pages across a dozen-some projects. Is that sufficient to launch the wiki-wide change? There's no set answer, but personally I don't think so, my experience with WP:FICT tells me that any significant change to policy or guideline really needs an open RFC to verify a significant global change. Certainly the issue at the time was that there was place that could be pointed to to say that the deprecation has strong consensus (for or against) outside of MOSNUM. Which is why I felt an RFC was the right approach, and thus eventually got to it end of November. It confirmed one and for all that DA should be deprecated.

But now we're on a different issue, when and how date fragments are to be linked. If there's past discussion and/or consensus of the limited cases when they should, it has not been brought up. The RFC above set that there is to be some limited linking but the exact cases of when or how was not explored in depth as to prevent bloating the RFC. There are users looking for any consensus (for or against) bare date linking and none can be pointed to beyond the RFC preliminary recommendation. While bare year links are not as predominate as autoformatted dates, its a large enough issue to affect many articles on WP. Thus, as it was for date autoformatting, there needs to be a better discussion before any steps to automate the removal of such dates en masse.

And no, this isn't necessarily an attempt to prevent any MOS changes without going to Vogan levels of bureaucracy. Tony et al should continue to make changes to MOS that they see fit via local consensus but if these are met with significant resistance, it is time to open up for larger discussion. --MASEM 17:07, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Linking of date fragments is partly a secondary effect of autoformatting links. Some editors were told "all dates must be linked". Other editors just copied the house style from what they saw. If the primary source of date linking (autoformatting) is removed, there will be less reason for the secondary effect (date fragments). A way forward would be to eliminate a major cause of links where there is little disagreement i.e. removal of autoformatting. Lightmouse (talk) 17:50, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

That's certainly what happened with me when I first started editing. But Masem, if there were any new class of date that was desired to be linked, then that would surely have come out the discussion. The absence of anything like that is surely evidence that the "sometimes" means just isolated cases - even if it were a few percent of the total, the bots are still doing far more good than harm by removing all links. The few that people want can be put back any time - and will be all the more valuable by not being mixed up with a lot of distracting, unwanted links.--Kotniski (talk) 18:25, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I have no problem trying to work with MOSNUM regulars, but they appear to have a problem working with me (and others who disagree with them). Hence why we're here. There's nothing stopping meaningful (good-faith) dialog from occurring outside of this arbitration. —Locke Cole • t • c 00:33, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Lightbot does not yet have approval to remove autoformatting. But it could apply for approval to do it. Would you (User:Masem and any other reader) support Lightbot removing autoformatted links? Lightmouse (talk) 14:32, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Well of course, that's the one thing that has been agreed now.--Kotniski (talk) 14:45, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I see no reason not to concurrently apply for it since the RFCs clearly showed that they can be removed (this is more about bare links for years and day/months), though likely this injunction will prevent it from being run until the case is decided. --MASEM 15:22, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

There are a few people around talking about a yet to be created 'son of autoformatting' coming Real soon now. From what I understand, they oppose removal of autoformatting because they want to recycle the links from the old broken version for their newer better version. The approvers will reject an application if it gets bogged down with such talk. Lightmouse (talk) 15:19, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, LM. Best not to go there yet. You'll be on a hiding to nothing. As a result of these battles, LB has taken a lot of flack although you have demonstrated that it has been working faithfully according to its permitted scope. I believe that "son of DA" has been one important plank of the strategy to stymie date-delinking all along. Ohconfucius (talk) 05:27, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Template

2)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

3)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

4)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed final decision

Proposals by Septentrionalis (Pmanderson)

Proposed principles

MoS a guideline

1) The Manual of Style is a guideline; it is not binding on editors.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Strongly support. Too often the MoS is used as a hammer to beat editors into submission. —Locke Cole • t • c 17:56, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Oppose because at the top of each MoS it says just this, and has done for a long time. Why waste ArbCom's time by asking it to reiterate what already exists? This is redundant, and worse, weakens all policy and guidelines that have not yet received some kind of stamp of approval by ArbCom in this way. Bad move, IMO. Tony (talk) 17:38, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed. Reformulation of Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Jguk#Principles: "The prescriptions of Wikipedia's manual of style are not binding," Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:23, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Shorter Tony: it's true, we already say it, and therefore I oppose it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:05, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Support. Even if the Manual of Style had "I am a policy, not a guideline" language, there would still be the fundamental and insurmountable problem of the specific (local article consensus) prevailing over the general (Manual of Style). Tennis expert (talk) 19:14, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Guidelines are consensus

2) Guidelines are intended to collect what we currently agree on. Their wording should reflect the current consensus of Wikipedians on a subject; where there is none, they should be silent or explain there is a disagreement.

The authority of guidelines consists of the persuasiveness of the reasons given in them and the strength of the consensus which supports them.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Oppose the making of such a statement for the same reason as above (weakens all policies and guidelines that haven't been "reiterated" by ArbCom. This is redundant, and reflects Anderson's three-year campaign to weaken the role of the style guides. It's so vague as to have no meaning in the real conduct of business, anyway. Tony (talk) 02:42, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed, per above and WP:PRO. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:54, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

There are disagreements about almost anything. Much of the value of guidelines comes from the fact that they say something rather than nothing (to prevent multiple, essentially identical disputes from breaking out in other places). Stability and uniformity are both (up to a point) beneficial to the project in themselves. So this statement needs to be carefully qualified.--Kotniski (talk) 13:25, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I would say instead, "The persuasiveness of guidelines depends upon the reasoning for them and the strength of the consensus that supports them." Tennis expert (talk) 13:30, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Anderson's three-year campaign to render style-guides weak and ineffectual has failed dismally; this is not the place to try to perpetrate the same pet peeves you pursue on the talk pages (where you're free to do so without the bounds of civility). The relevance to this case is flimsy at best. Tony (talk) 17:41, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

My PoV is that making them consensus is making them effectual. Making them a ratification of Tony's prejudices has brought them into well-deserved contempt, and so made them ineffectual. The resulting frustrations may mitigate Tony's behaviour. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:46, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Bot approval

3) Bots and their tasks should be approved by consensus.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:23, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Support. Consensus should apply to bot operations like any other edits. Tennis expert (talk) 19:13, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Consensus is not necessary for each specific case though (at least, not if it means consensus among the few people actually discussing the matter at BAG, who may not represent the will of the community as a whole, which is best expressed through clear and stable policies and guidelines). --Kotniski (talk) 13:29, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

If MOSNUM represented consensus, it wouldn't be protected. If Kotniski thinks there is a wider consensus for Lightbot, he is welcome to provide evidence; until then, this is conjecture. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:03, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Opposed bots

4) Bots to whose activities there is repeated opposition should stop doing them. whose activities are opposed by multiple established editors should stop.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

• Not acceptable, as "multiple" needs to be a sizeable number, and not just four or five. Also, this rule should not be subject to consensus, per se, but per the WP:BAG. Ohconfucius (talk) 06:07, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

• Wikipedia works on consensus, not majority voting. —Locke Cole • t • c 14:36, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

"Multiple editors"? That's two or more. Um ... Tony (talk) 02:44, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed. Wording could be improved.

This wording would allow one objector to ask twice and force a stop. This is called a "blocking minority". I'd rather not see that enshrined in an ArbCom decision --RexxS (talk) 03:53, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I congratulate RexxS on the skill of his Wikilawyering. ArbCom is free to rephrase (oft repeated?), if they do not find my wording clear; but the danger is non-existent. ArbCom does not act by precedent precisely to avoid such things as reading this as "twice", even if some future Arb were fool enough to do so. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:37, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

"Repeated" is subjective. Perhaps it should read "opposition from multiple established editors"? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:35, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Done. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:38, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Opposed here should mean opposed with good reason, based in policy or on genuine problems that are coming to light. Opposition of the type "I don't like it" mustn't be allowed to count.--Kotniski (talk) 13:31, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Not material here. All of the objection to Lightbot was based on policy or guideline. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:08, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

As Tony said above, multiple editors means two or more editors. Maybe "a considerable number" is what you are looking for here. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:34, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Bot tasks

5) Bots should be set to well-defined non-controversial tasks which have consensus to be done.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Oppose. Bots are already subject to considerable controls. Allowing one or several editors the ability to trash a bot simply by branding its function as "controversial" would effectively reduce the role of bots on WP to the utterly anodyne and trivial. Bots have an important and expanding role in sparing editors the manual labour of housecleaning and achieving consistency throughout the project. May I remind everyone that WP's site-wide consistency is one attribute that places it above most other google hits. It's part of the brand, the identity. Much of that consistency (and, indeed, good style) concerns millions of tiny details. There will always be petty disputes about these, but they should not be allowed to stub out automation. Let's keep in mind the advice in this video (around 30 mins in) of a WikiMania address by researcher Dr Bill Wedemeyer, Faculty of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, Michigan State U., who conducted an extensive study of the quality of (mainly) scientific articles on WP. To paraphrase to point: increasingly sophisticated automation is the key to the application of our style guides. Tony (talk) 03:01, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed. (added non-controversial because it comes into discussion below.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:23, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

This seems the same as 3). "Non-controversial" needs qualification; many good things on WP are controversial, and we harm the project and its editors by laying down blanket rules which may mean such things can't be done in the most efficient way.--Kotniski (talk) 13:34, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I leave it to ArbCom to decide we want bots doing controversial edits. I don't. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:09, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

MOS editing

6) WP:MOS and its subpages may be edited by local consensus, like other pages; but when guidelines which affect much of Wikipedia receive significant opposition, the question should be discussed more widely.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Strongly support. Had this been recognized and accepted earlier much of this dispute could have been avoided saving months of wasted time. —Locke Cole • t • c 17:59, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose just on the grounds of the language, the practicality, and because it's redundant. ArbCom's decisions should not involved vague concepts that are neither enforceable nor practical. What is "much of Wikipedia"? Where would the boundary lie between "significant" and non-significant opposition; "discussed more widely" might be definable in solid terms, but the current system whereby dissenters can launch and widely advertise RfCs etc serves this purpose already. This sounds like sour grapes to me. Tony (talk) 03:07, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed. From Masem's comments above. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:26, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Support.--Kotniski (talk) 13:35, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

This is too airy-fairy for a proper judgement. Too many of the items cannot be well-defined (what is "much of WP" or "significant opposition"?). It will lead down the same push-and-pull path that exists now. This is pointless instruction bloat that will change nothing. Methinks this comes down to the seeking of approval to bulldoze anything Anderson, Cole et al. don't like on this basis. Recipe for a breakdown and chaos. Tony (talk) 17:45, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Not legislation

7) Wikipedia's policies and guidelines are descriptive, not prescriptive. They represent an evolving community consensus for how to improve the encyclopedia and are not a code of law. Editors and administrators alike should seek to uphold these rules only when doing so would produce a better result for the encyclopedia, never simply because they are "rules". Insisting that something must (or cannot) be done simply because of policy is a form of wikilawyering.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

• No, all style manuals in the world are both: a mixture of prescription and descriptive. It is idle to propose that one or the other be exclusive. This seems like forum shopping by Anderson, who sees cracks in the system through which he can slip his favourite little agenda items that fail on the talk pages. Why is it relevant to this case? Tony (talk) 17:48, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed. WP:NOT#LAW, quoted in full. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:40, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

• Tony asserts that a style manual cannot comply with this, which is policy. I'm not convinced that that's true; but if it is, then it follows that a style manual cannot be a guideline. Hence my proposed remedy below, making it not one. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:12, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Past consensus

8) A past consensus which is unchallenged is still presumed to be consensus. If a significant number of editors disagree with it, there is no consensus until a new "consensus develops from agreement of the parties involved. This can happen through discussion, editing, or more often, a combination of the two."

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Support. As shown in my evidence at least as many editors needed to dissent to the change showed up over the two month period following the consensus reached in August to make the matter a "no consensus". Still that discussion was held up as sacred and unchallengeable by proponents of the change whose only claim to fame from the two years of debate was that they simply outlasted the opposition. —Locke Cole • t • c 18:47, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Oppose: Redundant (see RexxS below), and who are "the parties concerned"? Sounds as though the agreement of the specific users who supported the previous consensus must be gained. Hmmm ... This unviable wish-list of Anderson's is cluttering up the process. Tony (talk) 03:12, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed. The quotation is from WP:Consensus. This is how our policies and guidelines actually evolve, and the way we have long since chosen to avoid policy warring; derived from the policy in the previous section.

Some arguments in other sections would imply that a gathering of three editors two years ago can establish a "consensus" which all must follow, even if the majority of a larger discussion now disagrees; this confounds our guidelines with legislation. We are not a legislative body, and we do not permit the original three to own the guideline until consensus is formed against them. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:07, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Denied. A full reading of WP:CON clearly illustrates how consensus changes. An old consensus is replaced by a new consensus when a change is accepted by a majority of the interested editors. There is no right for any group to declare "no consensus". To the point, this would lead to the situation where a group of editors, disliking a current consensus, could simply say "no consensus" in order to justify editing contrary to a documented consensus. The onus is on the dissenting editors to establish a new consensus. Wikipedia may not be a democracy, but it certainly is not an anarchy. --RexxS (talk) 05:37, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Not democracy

9) Wikipedia is not an experiment in democracy or any other political system. Its primary but not exclusive method of determining consensus is through editing and discussion, not voting. Straw polls should be used with caution, and are no more binding than any other consensus decision.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. WP:NOT#DEM, quoted in part. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:40, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Support. This essentially is what I have been saying all along. A consensus developed by editors for a particular article can prevail over a consensus that purports to cover all articles, as previous Wikipedia practice clearly proves. This is analogous to the legal principle that the specific prevails over the general and illustrates the fundamental problem with the Manual of Style, even if it were policy instead of being a mere guideline. Tennis expert (talk) 19:11, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that "straw poll" is an unclear term. If it intended to mean a call for votes on a talk page, then clearly they have no value at all. We all agree consensus is created by discussion, not voting. If it is intended to mean WP:RfC, then editing in denial of a consensus established there may be considered disruptive editing. RfC's are an established process, covered by the policy WP:Dispute resolution and accepted throughout the encyclopedia as a means of finding consensus, which should be respected. Breaching consensus is only permitted when to do so improves the encyclopedia. That is the absolute standard. This proposal would benefit from removing the last sentence. I understand the problem TE has, but would suggest this is not the correct venue to seek to change the statement "Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale." in WP:CON. --RexxS (talk) 06:02, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Tempest in a teapot

10) On each article, the advantages and disadvantages of linking dates are trifling. There is no rush to optimise; we have no deadline. The reason to act here is the annoyance, incivility, and waste of time produced by this dispute.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed, in response to Apoc2400's statement in Evidence. Where's the fire? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:18, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

ArbCom's powers

11) ArbCom can disapprove bots if that is best for the encyclopedia.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Since this has now been twice denied, on the grounds that BAG approves bots, and so ArbCom can't disapprove them, I thought I would ask ArbCom's opinion. The same argument would prove that ArbCom can't desysop admins, since bureaucrats create them, which is plainly false. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:21, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Why would ArbCom wish to take on extra powers? Bot approval, supervision, disapproval, etc. is devolved to BAG and that is spelt out in WP:BOT. ArbCom indeed does not desysop admins. If they request a desysop, a steward will perform the action. Similarly, an ArbCom request for disapproval of a bot would be carried out by BAG (and a bureaucrat would deflag the bot). Separation of powers is not a bad idea. To the point, I see that there is a dispute over Lightbot's approval. If you wish this to be debated here, would it be courteous to notify User:ST47 who closed the BRFA as approved? --RexxS (talk) 04:50, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Template

12)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

Lightbot's approval

1) Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Lightbot 3 is hopelessly vague; was not approved by a consensus; and has been opposed since.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

• Not acceptable Approval of Lightbot, as well as all other bots, are subject to the consensus of the expert group, WP:BAG. Oppose the opening up of bot approvals to general consensus would be unnecessarily bureaucratic, and risk clogging up the system for dealing with mundane repetitive maintenance tasks. Ohconfucius (talk) 06:24, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:23, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

No offense, but this wording is a bit vague. What parts of the BRFA was vague? What consensus opposed? Where has it been opposed since approval? MBisanz ^talk 05:14, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

See my evidence. The powers proposed for Lightbot were vague, amounting virtually to This bot can do anything about dates, linking, and metric units Lightmouse wants it to - and any other edits Lightmouse considers incidental. It was opposed before approval, by MZMcBride, BJ, and Belhalla (who are, I gather, bot experts, not involved in the present discussion) on these grounds of vagueness, by Gerry Ashton because Lightbot had too high an error rate, and by Tennis Expert and myself. I do not claim that we were consensus to oppose, since half the parties in this arbitration approved their own tool, but there was no consensus to approve. For the request to reconsider the approval, which was endorsed by Carcharoth among others, see Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Lightbot 3#Reconsideration. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:11, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Support. In constitutional law, this would have been an unconstitutional delegation of power because Lightmouse had essentially no restrictions on Lightbot's activities and then interpreted the RFA in whatever manner he believed expendiant. This should never happen again. Tennis expert (talk) 19:05, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Support, in part. The approval would allow it to make any changes to a date which its operator feels like doing. Even if WP:BAG is willing to certify a bot to do almost anything, the community appears not to be so willing. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:32, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

No consensus

2) There is no consensus to delink all dates

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Support. —Locke Cole • t • c 18:57, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Stop this circus. This is not the forum to decide this issue. Ohconfucius (talk) 06:25, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

• Tony’s RfC was quite clear that it is a rare date indeed that should be linked in body text. It was also clear that the community consensus is that bot operators don’t have to get pre-approval to have their bots implement edits that are in compliance with what is on MOS or MOSNUM. Further, bots are extraordinarily complex and difficult to write. If we were to place an onerous hurdle on bot operators like Lightmouse, where they had to have a hundred opinions from others to do this or that, they’d all say “phoey” and quite. We certainly don’t want that. Greg L (talk) 05:37, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:23, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Not helpful, since it obscures the fact that there is consensus that most dates should not be linked. --RexxS (talk) 04:14, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Bad faith, since the objection to bot removals being made here is that they can't remove only the useless date links, but must remove all (or none), as the next finding of fact says. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:40, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I see how you can reach that conclusion and will strike my comment as it can be interpreted in that way. I was merely trying to get across the point that if only one useful link exist on wikipedia, then your line of reasoning would still forbid using a bot to remove two million useless links. --RexxS (talk) 05:00, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Were I endeavouring to express myself with mathematical precision, or to a bot, I would be using a symbolic calculus.

• But Rexx's argument is fallacious. That is not my line of reasoning at all, If it were certain that there were only one useful link out of two million, there would be, almost certainly, consensus to remove all (and probably to guard that one); in that case, the bot would be enforcing consensus. My objection is, again, that there isn't such consensus. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 05:08, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

• But a what point does that line of reasoning come unstuck? 10 useful links; 100? 1000? What I really don't know - and suspect nobody else does either - is how many useful date links exist. If it is a very large number, then forbidding the bot is reasonable; if it is a very small number then using the bot makes sense. Until we have some idea of how many useful date-links exist. how are we to determine whether using a bot to remove the others is a good idea? --RexxS (talk) 22:32, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
  • It comes unstuck where there ceases to be consensus; I feel as though I have said that a hundred times to the same editor; what part of it is hard to understand? It's not my decision nor Rexx's, but a group decision; that's why we put things up for discussion. (How many useful links exist is a matter of taste; we could do worse than letting each set of editors make up their own minds on the matter.)

• I think we could do a lot better than letting each set of editors make up their own minds on the matter. That is precisely what has led to the current dispute. --RexxS (talk) 04:57, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

This sounds alot like a content decision, and arbcom generally doesn't make those. MBisanz ^talk 05:13, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

No, it would only be a content decision if ArbCom offered an opinion on whether dates should be linked. This is a finding of fact. -- Earle Martin [^t/_c] 12:10, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. I guess I'll say it again for the umpteenth time, deprecated does not mean removed as fast as possible. Mr.Z-man 18:53, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Support. Aside from the big problem of the "deprecated" language, the Manual of Style was and is a mere guideline. It is not authority to go around Wikipedia making mass changes to articles. Tennis expert (talk) 19:07, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

• • The "onus" for hiding a date from lightbot requires absolutely no change to Lightbot, just masking dates to be kept via templates. However, bots are expected to have certain controls in place to stop them if they go off kilter or the like per BAG, so there are certain requirements they have to meet. --MASEM 05:57, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment; as noted below, part of this dispute is that there is a disgreement as to whether there was even a consensus that autoformating was bad, and that there are presently matters where this is disagreement as to consensus. If there's isn't generally agreement as to consensus, then there is no consensus. But this may not be in the perview of ArbCom, even though it appears necessarily for semi-stability. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:39, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Not an AI

3) Lightbot does not possess the editorial judgment necessary to delink some dates and leave others.to determine whether a date-link is relevant to its context, nor can it determine when a link will be helpful to readers.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Indeed it doesn't, hence why delinking year links (when there is consensus for "sometimes" linking years) is inappropriate for this bot. —Locke Cole • t • c 20:35, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

• According to Lightmouse, there is 15 pages of code just for one task. None of us have the experience necessary to pass judgement on such an esoteric issue. As User:Dweller once wrote: “What consenting mathematicians get up to behind closed doors is their business, but please don't do it in public.” Greg L (talk) 05:40, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:23, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Support. The bot is not a human editor. Tennis expert (talk) 19:15, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment. The bots possesses just as much "judgement" as Lightmouse programs into it. It can avoid particular categories and links which are determined by a regex, as well as pages marked with a given template. That's plenty of "judgement" to delink some dates and leave others. Whether those are the correct (by consensus) ones is a different question. --RexxS (talk) 22:39, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

That's not the appropriate level to satisfy this FoF. His bot would need to be able to tell if a date link is relevant to it's context or not per the community-wide RFC, and since we can't even agree on what the consensus of that is, it's impossible for the bot to. —Locke Cole • t • c 22:43, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

If this FoF stated "Lightbot does not possess the editorial judgement necessary to determine whether a date-link is relevant to its context", then I'd agree with you 100%. But that's not what is proposed here, and the current wording of this FoF is patently untrue. --RexxS (talk) 23:44, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Done. Although this is again irrelevant; we're not drafting legal opinions, we're giving ArbCom ideas. If Lightmouse can create an AI, he's wasting his time here. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:50, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Poll results

4) Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)/Date Linking RFC shows consensus on two things: against the proposals to link all years and all dates. It is divided on whether to link some or none of them. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:44, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Support, though it also shows support for deprecation of date autoformatting (not entirely relevant here I imagine, but worth mentioning maybe). —Locke Cole • t • c 18:03, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Due to the heavy backspin, this one is a contender for the Award for Best Makeup. Ohconfucius (talk) 06:30, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed; there are seven voices for each all statement, out of a large poll (unfortunately unnumbered), but no other !vote is anywhere near so large. In particular, there are eighty voices for some system of autoformating, and it is not clear that MoS is warranted in claiming consensus to deprecate. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:44, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Template

5) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Bot Disapproval

1) Lightbot is hereby disapproved, and Lightmouse is barred from constructing, designing, or advocating bots to enforce any portion of WP:MOS or its subpages. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:23, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Much too strong. Evidence doesn't support this, at any rate (unless I've missed something). Your other proposals seem reasonable though. —Locke Cole • t • c 00:36, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

• Stop this circus: contender for award for Best Short Film - Novelty . Not a million miles from a motion to lifeban a hard-working and talented programmer. Ohconfucius (talk) 06:39, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
• No. Wikipedia needs bots and their operators. This proposal is just a mean-spirited ploy to get a backdoor win after having lost in a huge RfC. There are millions of dates that have to be delinked. That is far too big of a task to do manual. The proponents of this proposal know this. Greg L (talk) 05:43, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia needs bots which operate according to consensus, and operators who listen to complaints; but why does it need this bot, and this operator. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:15, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:23, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

added title --Rocksanddirt (talk) 00:34, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I may contribute something to this, waiting for feedback/permission. MBisanz ^talk 00:50, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Feel free to draft. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:52, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Support, except that Lightmouse also should be barred from transferring Lightbot (or the equivalent) to another editor. Tennis expert (talk) 19:17, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Support primary clause; neutral on secondary clause at this time. Even Lightbot approval #1 was too vague to determine whether its edits were within the scope. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:43, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Bot Disapproval

1.1) Lightbot is hereby disapproved, and Lightmouse is barred for one year from constructing, designing, or advocating bots to enforce any portion of WP:MOS or its subpages. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:23, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

• Stop this circus - It's an issue the proposer should take up with the WP:BAG, who are vested with autority to accept or refuse. Approved bots which carry out edits according to their defined scope and within policies and guidelines should not be unnecessarily impeded. Ohconfucius (talk) 06:55, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
• See my above post. This is a mean-spirited proposal to get a backdoor win after having lost an RfC. There are far too many links to fix them by hand. Greg L (talk) 05:45, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Revised. But I think Lightbot is the real problem. Given his habit of writing this bot can do anything I want specifications, I see no other way of keeping Light2bot from returning to the same stand. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:49, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

We got most dates linked for autoformatting, back around 2004, by persuading most editors that that was the right thing to do - at which point they went around linking dates when they found them unlinked. In a year's time, we should persuade most editors to unlink dates when they find them linked (presumably about half of them will make some exceptions for useful links). In time, this will reduce linked years back to what they were before autoformatting, and Lightbot will have no job to do. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:20, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I feel that this is a punitive measure—it's not Lightmouse's fault that his bot was approved. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:54, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

It is Lightmouse's fault that he drafted a request for approval which let him do whatever he wanted; it is also Lightmouse's fault that he ignored the protests on his talkpage. Let him find something to do for a year which will do less harm. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:09, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

This seems a strange proposal. The fact that so many people on all sides have acted improperly at one time or another in this dispute is rather evidence of systemic failings, not reason to punish anyone a long time after the supposed offence, adn we certainly shouldn't be picking out particular individuals to "suffer" sanctions (it would be the project that suffered anyway). Lightmouse doesn't seem to have done anything particularly disruptive anyway, he was just running a bot doing things that had never been controversial until very recently (when those who had lost the debate on autoformatting decided to move the goalposts just to keep the drama going).--Kotniski (talk) 13:45, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Sigh; so many misunderstandings, so little space. Most of us who oppose Lightbot also oppose autoformatting; this is a red herring. Lightbot's actions have always been controversial. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:29, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Cutting the Gordian knot

2) WP:MOSNUM is declared historic. It shall be tagged {{historic}} and kept protected; neither it, nor any of the material it now contains, shall be considered to have any more force than an editor's opinion, for all purposes including WP:WIAFA.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. I am quite serious; the abuse of MOSNUM is the fundamental problem here. It's not consensus (that's why it's protected); it's the center of innumerable edit wars, and it is of doubtful service to the encyclopedia. Let's get rid of it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:35, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

• I’m quite serious. I think that is galactically stupid proposal. Greg L (talk) 05:46, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
• I find most of this series of 'Academy Awards' amusing. This 'award' in particular is really quite droll, and is itself probably worthy of an award. My mind immediately associates this with Monument status: which one of the various monumental assaults led by the proponents to assault the Reichstag did you have in mind to declare historic?? MOSNUM, like plastic bags, is here to stay. You cannot uninvent them, and even if you could, they are so useful that someone will invent them all over. Ohconfucius (talk) 05:54, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

The service it does is evidenced by the amount of controversy is generates. Remove MOS, and that controversy is multiplied by the number of articles it applied to, as identical disputes break out all over the place. Even if it doesn't enjoy everyone's unanimous support (few pages do), even the fact that it says something often significantly benefits the project.--Kotniski (talk) 13:49, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

No, providing controversy is not a service; if that were evidence, the oft-deleted GNAA page would be the most servicable page we've ever had. (Most of the controversies are internal to the talk page, unlike this one; so it doesn't even show influence.) The argument that it keeps the notation cranks in a single pod is a good one, though; perhaps simply tag it historic, and make it an offense to remove it until publication or all of them agree, whichever comes first. ;-} Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:20, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Renaming MOS

3) WP:MOS is hereby renamed WP:WikiProject Style; its subpages are to become Project pages. They are neither policy nor guideline, and shall not be so tagged.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

• I think I will be ignoring the rest of these galactically poor proposals. He says he is serious. I’m not buying it. Greg L (talk) 05:48, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed, per suggestion by HJensen below. Since MOS behaves like an exclusive project, let's make it one. Since it does not express WP-wide consensus, but only the consensus of a handful of editors, let's acknowledge that. When and if they are consensus (or indeed English usage), they can win attention on their merits. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:48, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I shall be adding evidence on abuse of FA to win editing disputes shortly. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:51, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose This back door delisting of WP:MOSNUM as a guideline is much more original than repeating ad nauseum that "MOSNUM is only a guideline (so I don't have to comply with it)". So for me, it is a possible contender for Best Original Song. Ohconfucius (talk) 05:59, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

As above. Very unhelpful proposal.--Kotniski (talk) 13:51, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposals by RexxS

Proposed principles

MoS is a guideline reflecting consensus

1) The Manual of Style is a guideline reflecting consensus; it is binding on editors to the same extent as any other consensus is.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Oppose. This sounds like a finding of fact, and those require evidence. —Locke Cole • t • c 21:53, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed. Synthesis of Wikipedia:Manual of Style and Wikipedia:Consensus. --RexxS (talk) 01:42, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

WP:MOS states "This guideline is a part of the English Wikipedia's Manual of Style. Editors should follow it, except where common sense and the occasional exception will improve an article." WP:Policies and guidelines states "Policies and guidelines express standards that have community consensus." WP:CON states "This page documents an official English Wikipedia policy, a widely accepted standard that should normally be followed by all editors." Those three statements directly demonstrate the truth of the proposed principle (which is why it is not needed as a FoF). If you wish to deny any of those statements, get a consensus and change them. That is what we accept until they change. The intention is that this principle be used when considering the actions of editors who may edit contrary to the guidelines within MoS. --RexxS (talk) 05:20, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Strongly denied. In particular, WP:MOSNUM does not reflect consensus, and never has; it's protected now, and has been protected repeatedly in the past, for some of the lamest controversies in Wikipedia. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:40, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

The amount of edit warring and endless discussion is pretty clear evidence that this isn't true. Mr.Z-man 18:55, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Oppose. Then why does the MOS itself use the "guideline" language? Clearly, if it were intended to be binding policy, it would say that directly. Whenever Wikipedia intends for something to be policy, "policy" is used, not "guideline". Tennis expert (talk) 19:19, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Support. If a Manual of Style for a project should not be followed, then it should have a different name. Wikipedia is one big project, and it is detrimental if articles on literature use different styles than articles on biology, just because different editors feel like it. So a Manual of Style is a global thing to be followed by all.--HJensen, talk 21:37, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Renaming it would be an excellent idea. If the same handful of editors were to be making the same claims at WP:WikiProject Style, they would be greeted with the skepticism they deserve. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:42, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

We're in luck, there's already a WikiProject: Wikipedia:WikiProject Manual of Style. I have no objections to consistency, but I do have objections to needless rules-lawyering to force your (MOS) view on the rest of the community without consensus. —Locke Cole • t • c 21:50, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Ignoring all rules relies on consensus

2) The policy, WP:Ignore all rules is not applicable to overturn a consensus

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. "A rule-ignorer must justify how their actions improve the encyclopedia if challenged… In cases of conflict, what counts as an improvement is decided by consensus." --RexxS (talk) 01:42, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't see how this is material, since I have not seen anyone allege WP:IAR as justification. But if it means that IAR cannot be applied to a guideline claiming consensus, it is also wrong; all our guidelines claim consensus. But they can be ignored; a new consensus decides afterward whether the user who ignored them as justified - this may be as simple as nobody complaining. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:47, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I think I've seen IAR used enough times during the MOSNUM debates, et seq. The purpose of this proposed FoF is to establish this: When an action taken against consensus is challenged, if the challenged editor simply claims IAR, then that in itself is insufficient justification. The onus is on the challenged editor to establish a consensus for their action. --RexxS (talk) 23:57, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Of course it's insufficient just to claim IAR; that's one of Raul's Rules. But you share a common error with the MOSNUM regulars: that there must be consensus for any rule there isn't consensus against. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:21, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Bot approval requires consensus

3) Bots and their tasks must be approved by consensus

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

• As I’ve mentioned above, no. Greg L (talk) 05:49, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed. Unlike a human editor, the tasks that a bot may undertake have to be approved according to the rules set out by the Bot Approvals Group. --RexxS (talk) 01:43, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Stopping bots

4) Bots to whose activities there is a consensus of opposition must stop performing those activities.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Agree with Septentrionalis, much too weak. —Locke Cole • t • c 16:25, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed. A consensus of concerned editors should always be able to stop the bot’s actions. Wikipedia has mechanisms to create that consensus, therefore no single editor may take it upon themselves to force a cessation without establishing consensus. This may be over-ridden in the case of emergencies, as with any other editor, by an administrator blocking the bot. --RexxS (talk) 01:42, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

• Much too weak. If a bot is opposed by half the concerned users, it is no longer implementing consensus; but there may be no consensus to stop it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:44, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

• Bots have already been received consensus to do a task under the approval process (see 3 above). If 6 concerned users supported stopping the bot, and 6 concerned users opposed stopping the bot, then there is indeed no consensus to stop the bot. But you seem nevertheless to want to make the wishes of those wishing to stop the bot override the equal number wishing it to continue and the initial consensus? I can understand your view, but think it would be better to obtain consensus to stop the bot, bearing in mind that there was consensus in the original approval. --RexxS (talk) 04:07, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
  • This bot hasn't got a prior consensus. See the application. More voices opposed than support, by my count.
  • Bots should only be permitted to do what present consensus approves, in any case. That's why we permit them to edit; because almost all Wikipedians agree with the edits they do make. Permitting past consensus to cover present disagreement (especially when it is a small consensus to begin with, as all too often) will ensure us the evils that WP:Consensus is intended to prevent. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 05:03, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

• First, "Polls are structured discussions, not votes" - from the policy page WP:Consensus. Second, past consensus is still consensus until sufficient people disagree and change it - this has not happened in this case. Finally, this is a proposal of principle, to be read with (3) above; I was hoping that something general could be agreed, rather than saying anything about a particular bot. --RexxS (talk) 05:34, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
  • This is very...incomplete. To quote the same page further: Consensus develops from agreement of the parties involved... an effort to reach a compromise that everyone can agree on. Consensus happens when editors generally accept a decision, and it is our standard in order to encourage people to modify their positions until they find one that all concerned (or at least the overwhelming majority) will stop fighting against. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:47, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Septentrionalis and Locke Cole. With few exceptions, bot tasks should be non-controversial. A consensus opposing the task should not be necessary; merely lack of consensus for the task. Mr.Z-man 18:57, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Proposed findings of fact

Consensus exists on date delinking for autoformatted dates, bare years and bare months

1) A full reading of the two RfC’s of November–December 2008 establishes that consensus exists for the wording , as of 13 January 2009, contained in Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links)#Overlinking and underlinking and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links)#Chronological items.

Comments by Arbitrators:'

Comments by parties:

Do not support as the requests for comments do not support this assertion. —Locke Cole • t • c 16:23, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Comments by others:

Proposed. A determination on this issue will allow any other consequent issues to be decided with relative ease. I am uncertain whether ArbCom will feel able to decide this, but if they are, then the issues around bot approval and civility should be much easier to settle as they can be examined without this issue clouding that process. --RexxS (talk) 01:42, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

• The sections concerned say:
  • An article is said to be underlinked if subjects are not linked that are necessary to the understanding of the article or its context. However, overlinking[1] is also something to be avoided. A high density of irrelevant links makes it harder for the reader to identify and follow those links which are likely to be of value. Provide links that aid navigation and understanding; avoid cluttering the page with obvious, redundant and useless links
  • Items such as days, years, decades and centuries should generally not be linked unless they are likely to deepen readers' understanding of the topic.[3]

One small minority would still like autoformatting; another, louder, but still small, minority believes no yearlink aids navigation and understanding. A much larger contingent disagrees with both stands, and to them these are vacuous. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:54, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

• I was thinking firstly of "What generally should not be linked: dates (but see Chronological items below)", but your quotes are equally relevant. In my humble opinion, much more than a small minority would like some means of autoformatting as long as it was not confused with linking. Apart from within the infoboxes in date-related articles, I have found one link (on MM) that I believe satisfies the requirements and exceptions you quoted. I hope you can agree that there are more than the two stands you suggested, and I believe this proposal identifies a majority group who support a particular stance: the wording as stated. --RexxS (talk) 04:52, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
  • A reasonably sized minority would like autoformatting; few of them are willing to support the present mechanism for autoformatting. (I am not one of them; I would prefer a WP:ENGVAR solution of "leave date formatting alone unless there is good reason to change it." ) A plurality would like to link some dates on the rare occasions that they are useful to the reader. For us, this is vacuous boilerplate; but we nonetheless object to delinking everything. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:58, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Oppose. Consensus may exist that most date links are inappropriate, but there's no specific consensus for mass delinking, as there is a weak consensus that some date links, even outside of chronological and timeline articles, are appropriate. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:47, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Oppose per Arthur. -- Earle Martin [^t/_c] 17:30, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Proposals by Locke Cole

Proposed principles

Conduct of editors

1) Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other users; to approach even difficult situations in a dignified fashion and with a constructive and collaborative outlook; and to avoid acting in a manner that brings the project into disrepute. Unseemly conduct, such as personal attacks, incivility, assumptions of bad faith, harassment, disruptive point-making, and gaming the system, is prohibited.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. —Locke Cole • t • c 15:26, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

• Check mirror. Greg L (talk) 05:50, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
• Support: Looking so angelical, wearing a shining halo and gleam in his perfect white teeth, the proposer is my leading contender for Best Actor in a Leading Role Ohconfucius (talk) 06:43, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
• Um ... aren't these already policy and guideline requirements? Why is ArbCom's time being wasted in reiterating this? Tony (talk) 13:55, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

• It's not uncommon for common or agreeable principles to be restated. —Locke Cole • t • c 14:42, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

No, in fact it would undermine all policies that have not been "restated" by ArbCom. Policies are policies—or are they so tenuous that they have to be reinforced? Do we need a two-tiered system of those have have been re-uttered by ArbCom and those that don't have that special stamp? Who wants WPians to think "Oh, that one hasn't gone through ArbCom, so I'm not taking it as seriously"? My advice is not to create such a two-tiered system out of respect for the integrity of the policy system (which draws directly on one of the Pillars). Tony (talk) 15:54, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Support as a basic necessity. NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 22:43, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Support per NW. I think this one may be the most critical policy. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:49, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Support without reservation. --RexxS (talk) 00:00, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Support as the most basic of necessities. Also, I find it quite convenient that certain editors obviate the need for diffs when they directly post examples of their incivility right here in this section. It's refreshingly direct. - Dravecky (talk) 07:44, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia editorial process

2) Wikipedia works by building consensus through the use of polite discussion – involving the wider community, if necessary – and dispute resolution, rather than through disruptive editing. Editors are each responsible for noticing when a debate is escalating into an edit war, and for helping the debate move to better approaches by discussing their differences rationally. Edit-warring, whether by reversion or otherwise, is prohibited; this is so even when the disputed content is clearly problematic.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. —Locke Cole • t • c 15:26, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Support. And check mirror please. Greg L (talk) 05:51, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

• Stop this circus. The proposer is my leading contender for Best Actor in a Leading Role. Ohconfucius (talk) 06:44, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Support. The essence of the matter. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:24, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

'Support as a basic necessity. NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 22:43, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment: Again, I support the sentiment (who wouldn't?), but not the proposal that ArbCom should make pronouncements on what exists now: that policy/guidelines are to be obeyed. Such pronouncements, by being seen to be somehow necessary, will weaken the whole ship. These suggestions that ArbCom restate current policy/guidelines appears to be the only thing left for the complainants to do: railroad everyone into supporting a "motherhood" statement. Meta-comment: I believe that these suggestions should be excluded from future such pages (guideline in the lead?) as encouraging bad practice in ArbCom's decision-making and as bloating the page with redundant wish-lists. Tony (talk) 03:27, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment Why is such obvious statements proposals at an RfA? I thought this was about date delinking. --HJensen, talk 21:49, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Obiously support, but why are we restating policies and guidelines known by most established editors (and certainly those in this Rfar)? Dabomb87 (talk) 21:59, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Common sense

3) Not every aspect of Wikipedia activity can be exhaustively prescribed by written policy; experienced editors are expected to have a modicum of common sense and understanding, and to act in a constructive manner even if not explicitly forced to do so.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. —Locke Cole • t • c 15:26, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Agree. Ohconfucius (talk) 08:42, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Support. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:24, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Motherhood statements to which just about everyone in their right mind will sign up are not useful as stand-alone pronouncements by ArbCom. They are useful only in the broadest-picture lead to a more specific statement by ArbCom, but even then, are of questionable value in that context. Since what ArbCom is to decide has never been established (it should have been, in clear terms, IMO), this case is encouraging parties to put forward their own agendas. It's not surprising that they consist mainly of redundant statements of the existing or the obvious. Tony (talk) 03:40, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Role of bots and scripts

4) Bots are processes that modify Wikipedia content in a fully or partially automated fashion. Scripts are also computer algorithms utilized to automate or semi-automate certain types of editing. These tools are extremely valuable for the purpose of facilitating the making of multiple edits that would be unduly time-consuming or tedious for a human editor to perform manually. Approval from the Bot Approvals Group is generally required before an editor may use a bot for automatic or high-speed edits.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. —Locke Cole • t • c 16:02, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Opposed. Each type of tool is subject to its own approval process. This proposal violates WP:BURO. Ohconfucius (talk) 08:43, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

And was also copied verbatim from the final decision in Requests for arbitration/Betacommand 2. —Locke Cole • t • c 07:07, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

What about AWB usage? That has been abused just as much as scripts and bots, if not more so. Tennis expert (talk) 19:21, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

AWB would fall under "scripts," I'd believe. AWB might be better put under the Findings of Fact. NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 22:43, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

(e/c)I would also add that such edits should also be non-controversial. Mr.Z-man 19:23, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Proposed below as 4.1. Feel free to suggest rewordings. —Locke Cole • t • c 23:30, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Role of bots and scripts

4.1) Bots are processes that modify Wikipedia content in a fully or partially automated fashion. Scripts are also computer algorithms utilized to automate or semi-automate certain types of uncontroversial editing. These tools are extremely valuable for the purpose of facilitating the making of multiple edits that would be unduly time-consuming or tedious for a human editor to perform manually. Approval from the Bot Approvals Group is generally required before an editor may use a bot for automatic or high-speed edits.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. —Locke Cole • t • c 23:30, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Not quite strong enough in the last sentence. WP:Bot policy#Bot usage states "Operation of unapproved bots, or use of approved bots in unapproved ways outside their conditions of operation, is prohibited ..." and that's policy, not just a guideline. --RexxS (talk) 00:07, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Proposed as 4.2 below. —Locke Cole • t • c 00:10, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Role of bots and scripts

4.2) Bots are processes that modify Wikipedia content in a fully or partially automated fashion. Scripts are also computer algorithms utilized to automate or semi-automate certain types of uncontroversial editing. These tools are extremely valuable for the purpose of facilitating the making of multiple edits that would be unduly time-consuming or tedious for a human editor to perform manually. Approval from the Bot Approvals Group is required before an editor may use a bot for automatic or high-speed edits.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. —Locke Cole • t • c 00:10, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Suggest adding after the second sentence: "AWB is a type of script whose usage is governed by Wikipedia policy as set forth in the AWB rules of use." Tennis expert (talk) 10:24, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Responsibilities of bot operators

5) Like administrators and other editors in positions of trust, bot operators have a heightened responsibility to the community. Bot operators are expected to respond reasonably to questions or concerns about the operation of their bot. An editor who (even in good faith) misuses automated editing tools such as bots and scripts, or fails to respond appropriately to concerns from the community about their use over a period of time, may lose the privilege of using such tools or may have such privilege restricted.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. —Locke Cole • t • c 16:02, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Patent nonsense to suggest Bot operators are in any way like Admins. Ohconfucius (talk) 08:46, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

This is actually copied verbatim from Requests for arbitration/Betacommand 2 where it was part of the final decision. Restated here due to relevancy. —Locke Cole • t • c 07:04, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Strong support. Bot usage carries with it responsibility and accountability. -- Earle Martin [^t/_c] 17:33, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

You mean, this isn't policy? Strange. It should be. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:51, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I haven't checked WP:BOT lately, but even if this isn't there, this was a principle from Betacommand 2. So, in that sense, it already has the backing of ArbCom. If WP:BOT doesn't have language similar to this, perhaps it should be added on the basis of the prior decision. —Locke Cole • t • c 07:04, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

The first and second sentences are underinclusive because they do not include scripts. Tennis expert (talk) 10:25, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Fait accompli

6) Editors who are collectively or individually making large numbers of similar edits, and are apprised that those edits are controversial or disputed, are expected to attempt to resolve the dispute through discussion. It is inappropriate to use repetition or volume in order to present opponents with a fait accompli or to exhaust their ability to contest the change. This applies to many editors making a few edits each, as well as a few editors making many edits.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. —Locke Cole • t • c 18:06, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Pages are not owned

7) Wikipedia:Ownership of articles provides that Wikipedia pages are not owned by particular individuals or groups. Even on those pages where relatively narrow conventions exist regarding who may edit, the community at large is expected to enforce the convention, not the individual or group who, by convention, edits the page.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. —Locke Cole • t • c 18:06, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

This is particularly germane when a wiki-project has established a local convention that contradicts a community wide convention. Some input from any affected projects would hopefully be welcome. --RexxS (talk) 00:14, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Assume good faith

8) Editors on Wikipedia are expected to assume good faith in the absence of evidence to the contrary. This keeps the project in-line with our long-standing tradition of being open and welcoming. However, as oft-quoted from Jimmy Wales, "our social policies are not a suicide pact".

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. —Locke Cole • t • c 18:06, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Wikipedia is not Survivor

9) The goal is not to "outlast, outedit, outword", the goal is to create a free encyclopedia that anyone can use. Editors should not treat disputes like a game which can be "won" or "lost". Likewise disputes are not resolved (in a good manner anyways) by trying to wait out the other party. Reasonable discussion, good faith and compromise work best at resolving disputes quickly.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. One of the earlier proposals probably says this in a similar fashion, but this rolls some of them together I think. —Locke Cole • t • c 07:42, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

Delinking consensus (August 2008)

1) Community consensus for mass delinking was not established in the August 2008 discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers).

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. —Locke Cole • t • c 15:23, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Disagree: it was a consensus, albeit one with a relatively small number of participants. Ohconfucius (talk) 08:47, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Support. -- Earle Martin [^t/_c] 17:34, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Support. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:58, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Definitely true. Tennis expert (talk) 19:22, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment. I doubt that any uninvolved editor could read the archive of the discussion on the talk page, the discussion collection of quotes on Tony's subpage and the posts to Village pump, and conclude other than that a genuine consensus was reached, establishing that dates should be autoformatted. That much is certain. Reading the discussion referred to, there seems to be a presumption that dates would be delinked, but in the absence of any firm statement "Dates are to be delinked", this proposed FoF represents a valid stance. Of course, there is no agreed statement "Dates are not to be delinked" either. The nearest likely consensus from the recent RfC's would appear to be something like "Dates should only be linked rarely (or when they add value)". --RexxS (talk) 03:03, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

There is no discussion at the VP (just a notice and a response a week later by Tony declaring consensus). And that userspace subpage of Tony's does not count for anything except an interesting collection of quotes chosen almost exclusively by Tony. Which leaves the discussion at WT:MOSNUM of late August which asked about deprecating date links, not performing mass delinking. —Locke Cole • t • c 04:26, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

There was indeed no discussion at VP - I didn't mean to infer otherwise; merely that he had drawn attention there to the debate at MOSNUM. I do agree that your phrasing, "collection of quotes" is a better description of Tony's subpage than my use of "discussion" (only a few others edited the page), so I have struck accordingly. I assume that anyone reading that page will realise that Tony has assembled the quotes, but disagree that renders them valueless. Readers, I am sure, will be able to evaluate their worth in their context. --RexxS (talk) 04:48, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

If the quotes page is somehow convincing I'll happily create a page of my own with quotes expressing disapproval with date delinking. But I don't see the use in cherry picking comments out of context and saying they represent consensus. —Locke Cole • t • c 08:23, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Make the page - such a page would be evidence supporting your proposed FoF. Reading Tony's subpage does show a lot of comments in favour of the removal of date autoformatting, as well as his pov on those negative comments also reported there. I'm sorry you can't see the use in examining Tony's assembly of comments during August last. I think it does shed some light on the view that a consensus was properly reached on August 24, but each reader will need to make up their own mind. --RexxS (talk) 18:59, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Delinking consensus (MOSNUM RFCs)

2) Community consensus for mass delinking was not established in either of the Manual of Style RFCs.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. —Locke Cole • t • c 15:23, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Support Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:59, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Disagree If it is consensus in the MOS that dates should not be linked, then I think (by mere nature of the MOS as indeed a MANUAL OF STYLE) that all articles written before the emergence of that consensus should have dates delinked. No specific consensus need to be formed about that; it is a natural byproduct of the new consensus. Say, if consensus arises that all numbers should be written in letters, then it is, of course, implied that existing articles should adhere to this principle as well. Otherwise, any new consensus is meaningless, as it will only apply to new articles. The result is a stylishly completely inconsistent encyclopedia. So, delinking of dates in existing articles is an implication of the consensus of not linking naked dates.--HJensen, talk 22:01, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

A couple of things:

1. The consensus of the RFC only supports deprecation in the case of auto formatting. No consensus exists to delink all dates that may have been intentionally linked.
2. It is clearly wrong to think that a MOSNUM local consensus can impose standards on the rest of the community, especially standards which they wish to impose via automated or semi-automated means, without consulting the community in an RFC. If that were the case I could go to an article (any random article from Special:Random), suggest that all dates be linked, then start making bots and scripts to impose that consensus. That doesn't work of course, for the same reason the MOSNUM discussion from August doesn't work for what it's proponents are saying it does. The real problem here is that when objections were raised they were brushed off citing the August discussion as "consensus".

At any rate, this proposal is about the latter RFCs which still didn't establish consensus for mass delinking (but I get the impression your response was geared more towards the prior proposal). —Locke Cole • t • c 23:11, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

There is a rather strong distinction between a global consensus such as "Dates should not generally be linked" which applies to all articles, a local consensus such as "The article title should be the scientific or recognised medical name rather than the lay term" which applies just to medical articles, and an article-specific consensus such as "The reference, 'blah', is not a reliable source and should not be used". I refer anyone who is unsure about how consensus forms to re-read WP:CON:

• A user makes an edit; if it sticks, that edit has consensus;
• If it is reverted, then discussion takes place and whatever the result, that is the consensus;
• If there is no result, then the steps in dispute resolution are followed (WP:EA, WP:3O, WP:RfC, etc.) until consensus is established.

Consensuses that are global are collected together in guidelines; local consensuses affecting numerous articles are sometimes collected together, as in WP:MOSMED. Article-specific guidelines will usually be documented on the article talk page. To take your example, if you edited a large number of random articles, and your changes stuck, then you would indeed have a strong argument to have that consensus documented in MOSNUM. If that sticks, then go ahead and make the bots. You would have consensus. --RexxS (talk) 00:00, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Tony1 has been disruptive

3) Tony1 (talk · contribs) was disruptive when he created his own Request for Comment with the knowledge that another similar RFC was already prepared and about to be initiated.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. —Locke Cole • t • c 17:15, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Rejected. —Prescription from the doctor: 1) Check Tony’s block log. 2) Check Locke Cole’s block log. 3) Think—for two milliseconds—about the industrial-strength hubris it took for Locke to write this. 4) Laugh so hard and so long you can cure pancreatic cancer. Greg L (talk) 05:56, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

• Reject "Tony is evil": It's not 5 November (date link deliberate) , and Tony is not Guy Fawkes. Drop it, and look in the mirror, Locke. WP:RFC says: "All editors (including anonymous or IP users) are welcome to provide comment or opinion, and to assist in reaching agreements, by responding to requests for comment." - it means there is no monopoly on RfC. Ohconfucius (talk) 08:23, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

First and only comment: "disruptive" seems to be whatever goes against what Cole wants; same for "uncivil". Many of the diffs are like being assaulted with a feather. I was under the impression that the "detailed" RfCs were in a mess (they were, actually, and I've recently shown how they contaminated their own evidence); thus, as I said at the time, I felt we needed clear consensus on a few matters. I can't mind-read other people's intentions WRT to the preparation of RfCs; in any case, mine were very different from the set of so-called detailed RfCs.

Creating a frenzy of hatred here appears to be an attempt to remove me from the equation, and possibly to create the impression for arbitrators that chaos and rudeness abound at MoS, MOSNUM and lots of other places. Furthermore, it neatly links with a strategy to convey the impression that date-linking is creating chaos, against the clear evidence that complaints are rare given the thousands upon thousands of articles that have been date-audited. Tony (talk) 15:49, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

I'm afraid I can't support this one, exactly. It's possible he wasn't aware of the other RfC, as it was worked on primarily in userspace. It's certainly possible that he wasn't aware that the other RfC was almost ready. And it's certainly the case that he said the other RfC is too complicated to be interpreted. I think his RfC is disruptive per se, as "proposing" specific "straw man" changes, but not because of the other RfC. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:55, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

(see here: Community RFC development began): Masem initially made a section on WT:MOSNUM in which Tony participated, then Masem moved it to a subpage of MOSNUM later that day. Tony did not contribute to the subpage process (what little there was, really), but he most certainly was aware of the RFC since he made comments on the WT:MOSNUM portion of the discussion. The onus was on him to ensure his actions weren't disruptive. Finally, even after being made aware that the other RFC was less than 24 hours from being initiated he refused to back down from his RFC developed in a vacuum. Most of this is in my evidence, and I can add additional diffs showing his participation in the MOSNUM portion of the talk if that would help. —Locke Cole • t • c 00:05, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I never saw any problem with contributing to two simultaneous RfC's and I can't see how either disrupted the other. I would question the implication that any RfC prepared by a single editor is somehow less valid than one prepared by several - no RfC's are developed "in a vacuum" and it is the prerogative for anyone to call for a RfC. I think to AGF is a better course in considering Tony's action. --RexxS (talk) 00:37, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

It unnecessarily diluted contributors between two RFCs asking similar yet different questions. Further, it was created well after Tony was aware of an RFC asking these questions being in development. Finally Tony attempted to use his RFC as an excuse for why neither RFC would be widely promoted (defeating the purpose of creating the RFC in the first place). More importantly this finding of fact doesn't go to "intent", it goes to result. The result is indisputable: there was disruption caused by his posting of an RFC with similar questions that were carefully worded by him (or else there wouldn't have been a report on AN/I about the edit war regarding changes to it, nor two attempts by an uninvolved administrator to close the discussion early, etc). —Locke Cole • t • c 00:44, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

• Scarecrow. Locke, you say it with such conviction that someone who didn't know you might agree it's fact. I'm disputing it. Ohconfucius (talk) 08:49, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Tony1 has been incivil

4) Tony1 (talk · contribs) has been incivil to other editors, particularly those he disagrees with.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. —Locke Cole • t • c 17:15, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Tennis Expert, please make your own section at the Evidence page and link your diffs of behavior there. —Locke Cole • t • c 20:31, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Inane and irrelevant. That doesn’t have anything to do with what the community consensus is regarding whether bots can remove all those dates that the community obviously doesn’t want linked. Greg L (talk) 05:58, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Reject "Tony is evil": It's not 5 November (date link deliberate) , and Tony is not Guy Fawkes. Drop it. Ohconfucius (talk) 08:24, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

My little piglet has distorted just about everything on this "Get Tony Page". See, for example, Karanacs's point below on just the "animal" issue. Some of the other comments were in genuine concern after he announced he had retired; I am well aware of the pernicious effect WPian antics can have on people (having experienced hounding back in 2005), and was concerned for his health. However, he rather rudely rejected that explanation when he first started drumming out his complaints from the roof-tops. It's like being kicked in the teeth for offering concern. I do not intend to engage further in this subsection; no time for mudfights in the kiddies' playground. Tony (talk) 15:21, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Yes, he certainly has; by the same token, what you quote is really quite mild, especially for Tony. If ArbCom is interested in Tony's use of vulgarity and insult as negotiating tools on past issues, they should say so; but your evidence strongly suggests that Tony is improving. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:12, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I won't dispute you (you've been involved in MOS affairs much longer than I have), but even if this is improvement, it's still unacceptable wouldn't you agree? His incivility has actually kept progress from being made (the repeated remarks regarding discussion being a "waste of time" sticking out the most to me, followed closely by insulting editors for "not helping" by engaging in the actions they oppose). —Locke Cole • t • c 18:20, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, he has. Calling editors fanatics and pigs (among other things) and alleging that they have mental disorders (and doing so directly and by gossiping on various discussion pages) is the epitome of incivility. Tennis expert (talk) 19:25, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry to hear that. ArbCom will need diffs. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:51, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Accusations of having a major depressive disorder can be found here, among other places. Here are some examples of disparaging names Tony1 called me: "Tennis pest", "Tennis fanatic", "pig", "very eccentric". And those are only the ones I know about. Tennis expert (talk) 20:17, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Isn't "you're making a pig of yourself" different from saying "you are a pig"? Isn't "I'm concerned that he may have lost all sense of proportion—possibly a major depressive disorder?" different from an accusation of having a major depressive disorder (note the "may" and "possibly" in the quotes)? I think so. Why not stick to the central subjects here?--HJensen, talk 21:43, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Grant all HJensen would suggest; is this the sort of language and environment WP:CIVIL was written to encourage? I gather however that Tony thinks of this sort of thing as jesting, and he has certainly said much worse. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:11, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Tony1 has abused FAC/FAR

5) Tony1 (talk · contribs) has abused Featured article candidates and Featured article review to penalize editors not cooperating with his view of consensus regarding the Manual of Style and to gain quid pro quo in disputes.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. May need rewording, I might be abusing "quid pro quo" here. :P —Locke Cole • t • c 23:15, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Reject "Tony is evil": Clearly preposterous. Stop this circus Drop it. Ohconfucius (talk) 08:26, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

'Reject. No evidence provided, and my experience is that he does a lot of constructive things there.--HJensen, talk 16:56, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Date delinking/Evidence. There are three examples given (two by me, one by another presenter). Constructive work elsewhere is not an excuse for misconduct. —Locke Cole • t • c 17:09, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

So, potential misconduct here should help decide on the basic subject matter? Strange. I thought this was about date-linking and/or date-delinking. Should I start dig up what I feel has been incivility by others? Will that be relevant in settling the basic issue? No, I think not, so I definitely won't waste time on that. Stick to the subject.--HJensen, talk 19:49, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I am sticking to the subject: the behavior of Tony and others has directly harmed discussions trying to resolve this. I can't state it any more plainly than that. The arbitrators, in accepting this, stated an interest in looking at behavior, and that's where a large portion of my evidence and proposals have been focused. Some deals with the underlying dispute, but I'm uncertain how far ArbCom is willing to go (will they say one way or another that the RFC settled this, etc). —Locke Cole • t • c 20:42, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

There have been and still are red herrings in the petition and in this "workshop". The "harm" is yet to be proven. This is not the worst, but will show up what a frivolous complaint this whole shebang it is in reality. For me, User:Mbisanz posting citations (1 -principally the 'name and shame' remark- and 2), neither of which have any relevance whatsoever, and are an order of magnitude worse, and a serious contempt of the Arbcom process, IMHO. Ohconfucius (talk) 03:22, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Proposed remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Tony1 restricted

1) Tony1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is prohibited for six months from making any edit to pages relating to the Manual of Style, including talk pages and pages created that deal with the Manual of Style (deletion discussions, etc.), to be interpreted broadly. Should he violate this restriction, he may be blocked for the duration specified in the enforcement ruling below.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. —Locke Cole • t • c 17:32, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Rejected. —This proposal is a metric ton of weapons-grade bullonium. Further, this proposal is the product of an editor with an atrocious record (block log) of editwarring and incivility. It is totally absurd. I further request that as a penalty for this absurd proposal, that the arbitrators focus extra hard now on looking at the RfCs to determine just two issues:1) what is the community consensus regarding those millions of linked blue dates, and 2) what is the community consensus regarding requiring bot operators to get approval from others before they slave over their bots and all that code. Finally, when you render your findings and judgement in 100% opposition to this mean-spirited wikilawyering, I hope you coin a new verb (to be “Locked”) which means to have an outcome blow up in your face after pulling a mean-spirited stunt. Greg L (talk) 06:14, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Reject "Tony is evil": Tony's work for FA is acknowledged by many; he's not the piñata; an important element of FA is style. Stop this circus Acceding to it would be detrimental to the WP project, to my mind. Motions to censure Locke Cole will be posted in due course ;-) Ohconfucius (talk) 08:30, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

If this includes FA, it would be, for Tony, equivalent to a ban (or an invitation to spend all his time "Coordinating" his User:Tony1/AdminReview project). Do we want either? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:38, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Given evidence I've recently presented (the Lazare Ponticelli diffs) I'm tempted to suggest he also be prohibited from editing WP:FA and related pages, yes. He seems to have abused the FA process to take an editor to task for not immediately giving in to his MOSNUM demands, and that's a situation that's wholly incompatible with editing on Wikipedia. Especially considering the fact that the RFCs were still in progress (only a week and a half in to them I believe). —Locke Cole • t • c 20:46, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Your rhetoric really needs to be toned down. An "abuse" of the FAR process implies that an article that should not have been nominated was; this article was found to have serious deficiencies - and Tony brought those up on the article talk page before taking it to FAR. Karanacs (talk) 21:51, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Hardly rhetoric, his actions speak for themselves. I've since added a diff detailing changes made since the article was granted FA status, and the changes are minimal and minor. It's his behavior that's the problem here. —Locke Cole • t • c 21:58, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I must agree; the most likely story is that Tony nominated that article in vengeance, just as he threatened to "knock back" any article which used the {{E}} template (he thinks the spacing "squashy". But I do not support this measure, unless no other solution for the abuse of power here can be arranged. MOS and FA form an arrangement by which the petty can have their way in unimportant things, thus wasting the time which FA could use in real review. Whether Tony is an example of that is secondary; we should repair the opportunity of abuse, before deciding to punish those who have used it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:07, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure what kind of remedy could address this type of misconduct short of topic bans. Of course if he's topic banned from one it precludes him from using it in the other (or vice versa). So perhaps this remedy would be enough to discourage that kind of behavior? —Locke Cole • t • c 23:17, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Take "Follows the style guidelines" out of WP:WIAFA point 2; leave the specific points. That's the handle on Tony's club, and it's divisive and inflammatory. (Also, without it, Sandy won't have to run around after every little change to MOS; FA can decide which of MOS's thousands of sentences they want to enforce.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:31, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Pmanderson, you keep maintaining the view that FAC is full of MOS nitpickers and that nothing constructive besides MOS fixes come about? Can I see just one FAC where that is the case? Also, I strongly oppose removing the line about MOS; part of what makes FAs professional and our best work is their consistency in good writing and formatting. I also ask that Locke and PManderson reconsider their views on Tony's FAC/FAR contributions. While that date link may have been the impetus for the FAR, there were clearly other issues. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:48, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Since I did not say FAC "is full of MOS nitpickers and that nothing constructive besides MOS fixes," and don't believe it, I see no need to defend it. The chief problem with FA is that all its standards (except perhaps some purely mechanical ones) are applied inconsistently; for example, the original review of Lazare Ponticelli hardly considered the prose at all; thus permitting Tony to find some weaknesses when he looked. (Nevertheless, part of his criticism was purely captious.) Similarly, many FACs don't consider MOS issues at all, except when some reviewers wish to make a point of it.

Anybody who believes FAs are generally of professional quality has limited knowledge of their subject matters. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:02, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

The only thing surreal about the Lazare Ponticelli discussion is OhConfucius's depiction of them. There was a single edit, discussed off and on at MOSNUM, followed by two days of editing and discussion, which resulted in a stable compromise.

The bold part of OhConfucius' post are only predictable; there's one sort of editor who always screams about bullying in bold-face. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:15, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Anyway, if this outrageous proposal somehow passes, I will look forward to the reaction of FAC regulars when they are told that one of their best prose reviewers has been banned for some petty reason. I wonder how long the ban would last then. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:01, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Er, this restriction is only about being prohibited from participating in MOS discussions, not FAC. —Locke Cole • t • c 20:45, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh. I was commenting based on "I'm tempted to suggest he also be prohibited from editing WP:FA and related pages, yes." If you have since changed your stance, then forget about what I said. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:39, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Proposed enforcement

Enforcement by block

1) Should any user subject to an editing restriction in this case violate that restriction, that user may be briefly blocked, for up to a week in the event of repeated violations. After 5 blocks, the maximum block shall increase to one month. All blocks are to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Date delinking#Log of blocks and bans.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. —Locke Cole • t • c 17:33, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Question to Locke: can you remind me how many times you've been blocked? Ohconfucius (talk) 08:31, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposals by Masem

Proposed principles

Bots are useful and necessary for large-scale policy/guideline enforcement

1) Certain tasks placed on editors from policy and guideline are much better suited to the use of automated bots once they are approved by WP:BAG. This typically includes tasks that are enforced on the bulk of Wikipedia's articles (in the present case, date autoformatting), most which do not have active editors.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. Clearly a bot is needed for the work based on removing date autoformatting. This is exactly the type of task I'd not want to do manually. --MASEM 16:24, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Bots cannot make decisions that require human consideration

2) The average bot cannot make decisions that require human consideration. The ability to do such requires significant programming of algorithms and the use of artificial intelligence methods to simulate that, but even then there will be false positives and negatives.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

"Cannot" or "should not"? It doesn't make logical sense as currently worded. You seem to assume a distinct boundary between "decisions that require human judgement" and those that do not. How would you establish that boundary? Tony (talk) 03:47, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

It all depends on the task; in the case of MOS, how explicit and exact the rule. For example, a bot can be used to enforce "references follow punctuation" or "use nbsp between a measurement's unit and its unit" as there are either no exception, or what exceptions there are are spelled out and the bot can figure out that difference without looking at the meaning. Trying to determine whether to keep a year link, however, requires the bot to understand why the date was linked, and thus cannot be used. Basically, if there's any allowance of editor discretion, the bot cannot determine the right course of action 100% of the time. --MASEM 13:10, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Claiming that a bot can't be allowed to unlink dates because it can't know whether that link was intentional is completely empty, because a human editor can't know that either, short of a detailed scrutiny of the article's talk page and its archives - and how many articles have any discussion whatever on that subject? Almost all these links were made blindly and unthinkingly when an editor came along and linked all the dates for autoformatting, and no-one commented on it, or when other editors, mistakenly thinking it was the official style, linked all the bare years. A bot would simply reverse that mass linking process that's left us with vast numbers of valueless date links. The very small number that might really be useful can easily be put back. Colonies Chris (talk) 14:31, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

It could be done that way, or you could protect such dates before the bot is run to make sure any dates editors want to keep are protected. The latter is more towards the spirit of working cooperatively with all editors. --MASEM 14:43, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

And also note, I am not trying to prevent bots that operate on judgement calls to be run. It is merely to acknowledge bots are not human and can't make certain decisions. (This point is thus to justify the opt-out mechanism for such actions below). --MASEM 14:47, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I believe you are a party to this arbitration, CC, not an "other". In any event, you are essentially arguing in favor of the intentional introduction of errors into articles with the clean-up to be done by others coming behind you. That's irresponsible, disruptive, and counterproductive. Tennis expert (talk) 19:42, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Then I suggest you support my proposal below for a protective wrapper. Or are the conditions too onerous for you? Colonies Chris (talk) 21:53, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed. Bots are not perfect and cannot make judgment calls. --MASEM 16:24, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

ascertaining whether or not a date link is considered valuable shouldn't have to be a judgement call. it's been repeatedly pointed out that some method is needed for designating date links that someone considers valuable - until we have that, there's no way for human editors or bots to recognize them. Sssoul (talk) 13:58, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Bots should not be used to enforce policy or guideline under dispute

2) When a policy or guideline falls under significant dispute, and one or more of a bot's approved tasks (per WP:BAG) is the implementation of that policy or guideline, the bot should disable performing those tasks until the dispute is resolved. Users using semi-automated tools such as AWB and are aware of such disputes should consider avoiding performing the same type of tasks on large numbers of articles until the dispute is resolved.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. Part of the dispute here is the operation of Lightbot after the claimed August 2008 consensus was called into question by more than a few editors; In the same manner, editors should not be making the changes under contention if they know very well there's an issue, but as editor changes are easier to revert due to much lower numbers, it is not imperative they stop. --MASEM 16:24, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Proposed findings of fact

Consensus for Deprecation of Date Autoformatting

1) The deprecation of using MediaWiki's existing form of date autoformatting as of Jan. 1, 2009 (using double square brackets to enclose dates as to return linked dated formatted based on specific rules) has been affirmed by consensus through two separate but concurrent WP:RFCs (Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)/Date Linking RFC and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)/Three proposals for change to MOSNUM) held during the month of December 2008.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

No problem with this. Not sure if ArbCom will consider these though, given the whole content dispute side of things. But guidance here would be helpful. —Locke Cole • t • c 15:29, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed, should be obvious from the responses. Setting a date in case a MediaWiki patch that may change the linking behavior is ever applied, these results are understood to be true. --MASEM 15:11, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Consensus for Partial Use of Bare Date Links

2) Bare date links—those date fragments that are linked not to evoke date autoformatting but to link to chronological pages, such as day-month (e.g. March 1) , years (e.g. 2009), and year-in-field pages (e.g. 2008 in sports)— has been determined to be appropriate for limited conditions, but neither are never to be used nor to be be used for all such bare dates, by the same RFCs.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

No problem with this. Not sure if ArbCom will consider these though, given the whole content dispute side of things. But guidance here would be helpful. —Locke Cole • t • c 15:29, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed. Note that for day-month links, normal linking will still evoke date autoformatting, but it is possible to mask the date to have date autoformatting ignore it but still provide the useful link eg [[March%201]]. This fact is based on those types of links. --MASEM 15:11, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

There is a much stronger agreement against always using them than against never using them. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:48, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

The use of date autoformatting, and when dates are to be linked, are two distinct issues

3) The use of date autoformatting (per MediaWiki as of Jan. 1, 2009), and when dates should be linked, are two distinct issues. The former is about end-user usability and features, while the latter is in regards to interwiki-web building and providing relevant information germane to an article. Both issues must be considered in different lights, despite the fact that the date autoformatting methods does produce linked dates.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. I think a key point to remember is that these two areas regarding dates do not fall under the same umbrella, and technically, the former is the MOSNUM issue, while the second is more under MOSLINK, and unfortunately have been comingled due to both the behavior of the autoformatting system and the bots that are attempting to clean both at the same time as it is easier to clean both at the same time. --MASEM 15:18, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Proposed remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Bots enforcing policies and guidelines with some human discretion need to have some opt-out mechanism

1) Bots that are used to enforce policy or guideline that allows for some type of discretion by editors need to have some type of opt-out mechanism that editors can used to prevent the bot from making such changes. Editors should not abuse this opt-out as to keep articles significantly out of alignment with established policy or guideline, and standard dispute resolution processes should be performed to address editors that do use the opt-out feature inappropriately. Such opt-out mechanisms need to be tested, disclosed on the bot's page, and announced to the community at large prior to the large-scale operation of the bot.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. Note that I am well aware that there was a call at BAG to have all bots have a formal opt-out mechanism (after BetacommandBot fiascos), but this is not proposed a standardized way, only that there's some way to prevent the bot from making the change. In the specific case of Lightbot, all that has to be done is to make a template to protect the bare date fragments (see my FoF #2) that editors feel they need to keep, this requiring no change to Lightbot. --MASEM 16:34, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Template

2) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposals by User:Kotniski

Declaration of interest

I run a bot (unrelated to dates or linking) which has attracted controversy in the past.

Proposed principles

Civility

1) Civil behaviour is essential for the building of an effective and welcoming community. Incivility has no place in any discussion on Wikipedia and must be strongly deprecated by all parties, including bystanders. Neither inappropriate behaviour, nor protracted discussion about that behaviour, can be allowed to interfere with productive discussion of matters of substance. Administrators are encouraged to engage in firm dialogue at an early stage in any instance where there is a danger of this happening, and to take decisive action if warnings are ignored.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Waffle, perhaps, but this case certainly indicates a need to get this message across.--Kotniski (talk) 15:40, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Nature of policy

2) Wikipedia policy is defined essentially by what is customary, as modified by whatever changes have been explicitly agreed by consensus. For the avoidance of dispute, it is highly desirable that true policy so defined be accurately and currently reflected by the body of written "policies" and guidelines, and editors are encouraged to make efforts to ensure that this is the case in practice.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

This probably sounds like waffle as well, but it's supposed to be profound.--Kotniski (talk) 15:40, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

How about "what is actually [or usually] done in article space"? Then we avoid the next argument about what customary means. And we may want to distinguish policy from guideline; this case does not involve WP:V, which has more than custom behind it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:57, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't see the improvement in wording (policies can relate to much more than article space anyway). And I don't see a straight distinction between policy and guideline in this abstract sense (rules form a continuum in terms of their degree of ignorability); there may be value in the distinction between policy and guideline pages. I would like to think of a better word than policy for the unwritten concept though.--Kotniski (talk) 12:49, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

But if policies don't eventually relate to the content of the encyclopedia (or to editor behavior), they're not talking about anything we should care deeply about. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:02, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Disputes over consensus

3) Disputes about "what the consensus is" must not become protracted. It is unreasonable to expect people to play both advocate and judge in the same debate. If involved parties are not able to agree on what consensus has been reached, then the issue should be settled by uninvolved parties of good standing. It may be beneficial to develop procedures for resolving such cases.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

This seems to be the most profound systemic failing in this case. In most discussions consensus is pretty clear, but since there's no definition, genuine disputes can break out as to whether something has consensus or not, and if you think about it, we have no reasonable way of settling those disputes except by an enforceable system of arbitration. (The only alternative is to try to reach a consensus on what the consensus is, and ad infinitum.)--Kotniski (talk) 15:40, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

We should then revert to the definition of consensus implicit in WP:PNSD: we have consensus when we have a form of words that (almost) everybody will accept, or at least stop arguing against. Establishing consensus requires expressing that opinion in terms other than a choice between discrete options, and expanding the reasoning behind it, addressing the points that others have left, until all come to a mutually agreeable solution. This is why polling should be limited to demonstrating consensus, which has never existed over most of this issue. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:04, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Another critical point. Unless ArbCom can suggest guidelines as to determining consensus, this may very well happen again, although probably not on as large a scale. Of course, we would need a consensus that the claimed consensus has consensus… — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:00, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I've been mulling over the differences between how AfD, RfA and RfC are closed. Perhaps it is unworkable, but is there any chance that a mechanism could be created to allow very large RfC's (particularly Style RfC's, such as the recent two) to be closed by an uninvolved administrator who then declares what consensus, if any, has been reached? It's probably a can of worms and we might end up with "RFC Review", if we don't restrain ourselves, but is it worth considering? --RexxS (talk) 01:01, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Well yes, that's what I was getting at. Nothing wrong with such a review process either, that's effectively what it's come to here in this case, after going through a whole lot of unnecessary and damaging drama along the way. Why should we design efficient processes for deciding whether or not some minor manga character has crept over the notability threshold, but decline to make any formal provision for deciding disputes that might affect millions of articles? Indeed, no reason to confine this process to large disputes; even if it's something minor, better to get it settled than to let it rumble on generating doubt and possibly ill-will. --Kotniski (talk) 12:56, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Limitations on bots

4) Bots benefit the encyclopedia if the good they are doing (as defined, in case of doubt, by policy) clearly outweighs any incidental harm, provided that all reasonable efforts are made to keep that harm to a minimum. All bots (like all human editors) will do the wrong thing sometimes; both bot owners and affected editors must engage in civil and constructive dialogue to resolve problems as they arise.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Let's keep the overriding goal of improving the encyclopedia uppermost in our minds. We don't need any new restrictions on bots; policy or common sense tells us what's good, and bots are good for the encyclopedia (and should therefore be allowed to run) if they're doing more good (much more good, let's say) than harm. (I don't just mean number of good edits versus number of bad edits, of course.) Again, this is a call that someone impartial has to make, but in this case we already do have a process for that (BAG).--Kotniski (talk) 15:40, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

First, do no harm. This case itself is a sink of time and good will; it would not have arisen if some editors had not insisted on having their way, and used bots where no bot should have been used.

Hmm, it would also not have arisen if other editors... Anyway, this is a general principle; for application to this case, see below.--Kotniski (talk) 13:00, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

It is not clear whether the alleged good, slightly fewer links (and how many dates will one article have?) is greater than the harm of missing a useful link. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:12, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Again, see below for application to this case. The principle seems sound to me ("do no harm" is quite impossible, for doctors, wikieditors or anyone else, if it's taken anything like literally).--Kotniski (talk) 13:00, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Proposed findings of fact

Interest in keeping date links

1) There is no strong desire in the community for any particular class of date links to be retained, other than those defined at WP:MOSLINK#Dates (those appearing in articles about other chronological items).

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

In the very extensive debates that have now taken place on date linking, the absence of any strong push for any such class of links is ample evidence of the statement. --Kotniski (talk) 15:40, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Interesting wording. There is a definite desire to retain several classes of date links; NuclearWarfare's evidence contains most of them. I would add linking to April 23 from Saint George, and linking to August 10 when it means the events of August 10, 1792 (for which this is the customary and neutral name, like 18 Brumaire). Whether this amounts to strong desire is a verbal question, but linking birth and death dates had about 50% support here. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:27, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

OK, there are isolated exceptions certainly. But I think these can be dealt with by the processes described (they would probably have to be marked "to be kept" somehow anyway, since human editors would tend to remove them in time).--Kotniski (talk) 13:02, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

That depends on how we communicate with other editors. If date formatting had been dealt with by "agree to disagree" five years ago, these would stay as links somebody finds useful. We should prune date links back to what somebody finds useful, or we can start a crusade against them; the former seems prefereable, and if we do that, isolated year-links should be left alone. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:20, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Treatment of routine links

2) In line with current policy, it is desirable that the vast majority of date links (virtually all, in practice) be removed, except in chronological articles.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

That ordinary date links have long been routinely and uncontroversially removed in the process of article improvement is a matter of ordinary editing experience, even if it is contested whether that comes explicitly out of the RfCs. The customary exception (autoformatted dates) has been abolished by explicit consensus, and there is certainly nothing even approaching resembling consensus (or even a proposal) to start routinely linking dates - and virtually all the dates we have (except those in chronological articles) are just ordinary routine ones. --Kotniski (talk) 15:40, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

This proposal relates to article content, which is explicitly not under the purview of ArbCom, nor was it what this arbitration was requested for . I request that it be struck. -- Earle Martin [^t/_c] 20:06, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

There is nothing that explicitly excludes article content from the purview of ArbCom, although ArbCom have always - quite rightly - strongly preferred to have such judgements made by the community. This is a proposal within our workshop and Arbcom is quite capable of making their own decision on its merit. It is helpful to remember that ArbCom reserves the right to examine all aspects of a case, not being rigidly confined to the purpose you had had in mind when you called for it. It is better in this place to discuss constructively what is proposed. With that in mind, it is clear that one of the plaintiffs' arguments is that a bot removing valuable date-links causes more harm than the good gained by removing worthless ones. To be able to weigh that requires a determination of the relative proportions of valuable to worthless date-links. This proposed FoF, if true, goes some way to establishing some idea of that proportion. For that reason, it should be worth determining the veracity of this FoF. --RexxS (talk) 01:27, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Potential harm done by bots

3) Even if we are anticipating that some new class of dates may be nominated for linking, and even if editors wish to mark certain isolated dates as permanently linked (not to be delinked by bot), there is no actual gain in terms of human effort by asking delinking bots to hold off waiting for this to happen.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

This is obvious when you think about it; it is almost inconceivable that all the dates in an article are suddenly to be linked, so in any case it would require a human edit to bring it in line with the guideline, whether or not the bot had first visited.--Kotniski (talk) 15:40, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Not at all obvious. If such a date is unlinked by bot before any of these things is done, relinking it is a waste of human effort. Small in each case; but the trouble with bots is that they produce millions of cases. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:51, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

The human effort saved by removing the undesirable links, though, greatly exceeds that caused by making people put back the (far smaller number of) supposedly desirable ones (and there will be a net gain even within a given article in most cases).--Kotniski (talk) 13:09, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I didn't immediately see it as obvious. Nevertheless, on consideration, if editors need to mark "date-links-to-be-kept" in some way, the effort of doing that to a date which has been delinked is equivalent to the effort to mark a similar "date-link-to-be-kept" which is still linked. In fact, it spares the editor the effort of finding the date - if the page is on their watchlist! I do agree though with PMA, that the sum of all these efforts needs to be considered, even though I doubt it would run to thousands, let alone millions. Each one is a "nuisance" for some editor somewhere. --RexxS (talk) 01:37, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

And each date link that the anti-bot side would prevent the bot from delinking is a nuisance for an editor too - and there the number is much larger.--Kotniski (talk) 13:09, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Net contribution of bots

4) The good to be done by a bot that strips links from date items, in all articles except chronological articles, and respecting an agreed format for marking certain links as non-removable, vastly outweighs any harm it might do.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

This is hopefully now obvious; the number of links removed correctly certainly vastly exceeds the number removed incorrectly, and the human time and potential human error saved by having a bot carry out this task instead of human editors is enormous. It can be asserted, of course, that one harmful edit might have far greater weight than one good edit (as in the case of automated spelling correction, presumably), but in the absence of any clear desire in the community for any particular class of date links to be retained, it is hardly conceivable that any great weight is attached to the retaining of any particular link; in any case, not such as to outweigh the huge ratio between numbers of bad and good links. (Anyway, such allegedly harmful edits would eventually be made anyway, by humans in the ordinary course of article improvement.)--Kotniski (talk) 15:40, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Not at all obvious. In any case, this is an argument that there ought to be consensus to delink, which is probably beyond what ArbCom should decide. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:53, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

This seems obviously false to me, but I think we can find consensus that it's not clearly true. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:02, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

It's a conclusion from the foregoing statements - if those are not accepted, then this one might not be either.--Kotniski (talk) 13:13, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment. A determination on the truth of this FoF will also determine whether Lightbot takes on the task of date delinking in the future. ArbCom may indeed prefer to ask the community to decide the consensus on this. For this to be true, the number of valuable date-links likely to be removed needs to be small, probably no more than the order of hundreds. Many editors, myself included, suspect that to be the case. Other editors, whose opinion is worth at least as much as mine, disagree in good faith and estimate it to be tens-of-thousands or more. Please correct me if I am misstating anyone's views. --RexxS (talk) 01:56, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Only if ArbCom wants to make the content decision, and allow a bot to implement it.Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:34, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Well ArbCom could do nothing; presumably that would mean the matter gets handed back to BAG. --Kotniski (talk) 13:13, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Proposed remedies

Conditions for use of delinking tools

1) Willing editors are encouraged to make use of approved bots and other automated tools to remove links from date items in Wikipedia articles, provided they take steps to ensure that those tools do not affect articles covered by the chronological articles exception, and that they inform the editing community of a simple syntax in wikitext that can be used to produce a linked date which a bot will not remove.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

They're doing good (see above), so let them do it.--Kotniski (talk) 15:40, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Oppose, as above. No consensus to do this. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:22, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

To do what? Is there consensus to stop them? There seems to be consensus (from Tony's RfC) that separate consensus is not needed for bots to be allowed to perform specific tasks - that's presumably why BAG exists.--Kotniski (talk) 13:15, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Support, with the proviso that the syntax to be used to protect date links must require a reason to be supplied (see my suggestion below for a template). It's not acceptable just to be able wrap a date without specifying why, that would just be licensing anyone who doesn't agree with the MoS to opt out from it. Colonies Chris (talk) 14:01, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I believe you are a party to this, CC, not an "other". In any event, what "reason" would be acceptable and who would determine whether the reason is acceptable? Obviously, a bot cannot do it. Aside from these problems, the Manual of Style is just a guideline; so, claiming that people have to "opt out of it or comply" is erroneous thinking. Tennis expert (talk) 19:44, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

The reason to have a "non-removable" date-link in a given article would, of course, be decided when the edit making that link was done. Just like any other edit, if it sticks, then consensus is presumed, if it's challenged and reverted, discuss the reason for making it with those editing the article. I'm sure WP:OWN, ILIKEIT and IDONTLIKEIT would soon be abandoned in favour of reasoned argument.

Could you clarify what you mean by "the Manual of Style is just a guideline"? Surely you can't mean "... so I can ignore it"? Guidelines express standards that have community consensus and editing against consensus may be disruptive editing. Editing here is a collaborative process and respect for guidelines is part of that process. --RexxS (talk) 01:01, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Prevention of further disruption

2) The syntax referred to above may not be inserted disruptively, only in cases where there is an identifiable, unusual benefit in retaining the link on a particular date.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Just as a precaution - we don't want any more wars...--Kotniski (talk) 15:40, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Proposals by Tennis expert

Proposed principles

AWB rules of use

1) AWB's rules of use are binding policies.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

AWB usage: controversial edits

2) AWB's rules of use prohibit an editor from using AWB to make controversial edits. This means that AWB may not be used to make edits that there is even a possibility of someone disagreeing with (aside from when the AWB editor indisputably is in the right, such as correcting the spelling of a word).

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

This is Iridescent's interpretation of the AWB rule of use concerning controversial edits. Tennis expert (talk) 20:11, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Some words. "Correcting" the spelling of colour, or editing to jewellery to jewelry is controversial, and against WP:ENGVAR; but this is just narrowing the exception. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:32, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

AWB usage: insignificant or inconsequential edits

3) AWB's rules of use prohibit an editor from using AWB to make insignificant or inconsequential edits. The delinking of a full date or an individual year, month, or day is both insignificant and inconsequential. This means that AWB may be used to delink a full date or an individual year, month, or day only when combined with a significant or consequential edit.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

AWB usage: speed of edits

4) AWB's rules of use prohibit an editor from using AWB to make more than a few edits each minute. The purpose of AWB is to make supervised but repetitive editing tasks easier, not to increase the speed of edits or convert what is supposed to be a supervised editing process into an unsupervised one.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Not exactly accurate. The AWB rules of use states this:

• Don't edit too fast; consider opening a bot account if you are regularly making more than a few edits a minute.

which is an injunction not to edit too fast and a recommendation for those AWB-assisted editors regularly editing faster than a few edits per minute. It is drawing an unwarranted conclusion to say this is a prohibition on editors making more than a few edits per minute (however many "a few" might be), as the statement clearly contains advice for those editors. --RexxS (talk) 03:48, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

AWB usage: intentionally making errors to be cleaned-up later

5) An editor may not use AWB to make erroneous edits, even if the editor intends to correct those edits later or believes that another editor intends to correct them later.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

AWB usage: the obligation to clean-up errors

6) An editor who has made an editing error while using AWB is required to correct the error immediately after realizing that the error was made.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

AWB usage: handling of complaints concerning violations of the rules of use

7) An administrator may not close or otherwise adjudicate a complaint that an editor has violated an AWB rule of use if the administrator's own use of AWB has ever been similar to the complained-about practice. This would be a conflict of interest.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

There may be a point here about defending something only because you would have done it yourself. But I can't support this phrasing, which is much too broad. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:56, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

The six proposed principles above have merit. In this proposal, we should reflect on the fact that administrators have (by definition) the trust of the community. To assume that an admin who uses AWB would not be able to adjudicate fairly is a denial of AGF. It would really be better not to suggest enshrining that in an ArbCom principle, rather we should deal with any possible abuses by using existing procedures. --RexxS (talk) 03:29, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Proposed findings of fact

Lightmouse's use of AWB

1) Lightmouse used AWB often at the rate of more than one article per minute. For example, he edited 75 articles in 8 minutes using AWB on December 8, 2008, which is 9.38 articles per minute or one article every 6.4 seconds. On December 9, 2008, Lightmouse edited 197 articles in 26 minutes, which is 7.58 articles per minute or one article every 7.9 seconds. On December 10, 2008, Lightmouse edited 1,777 articles in 114 minutes, which is 15.59 articles per minute or 1 article every 3.9 seconds. On December 15, 2008, Lightmouse edited 75 articles in 19 minutes, which is 3.95 articles per minute or 1 article every 15.19 seconds.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

The AWB rules of use would require Lightmouse to consider opening a bot account. He already did. --RexxS (talk) 03:50, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Reedy's use of AWB

2) Reedy on September 24, 2008, used AWB to edit 162 articles in 61 minutes, which is 2.66 articles per minute or 1 article every 22.6 seconds. On August 8, Reedy used AWB to edit 193 articles in 24 minutes, which is 8.04 articles per minute or 1 article every 7.5 seconds.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

What does this have to do with anything? Reedy isn't even a party to this case. Mr.Z-man 04:29, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

The AWB rules of use would require Reedy to consider opening a bot account. It may be that TE wishes ArbCom to remind AWB users of that or possibly he may wish to draw a conclusion about Reddy's impartiality per the next proposed FoF. --RexxS (talk) 03:55, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Reedy's closing of a complaint about Lightmouse's use of AWB

3) Administrator Reedy on December 10, 2008, created an impermissible conflict of interest by improperly closing a complaint about Lightmouse's use of AWB and threatening to block the complainant. Reedy's own use of AWB was substantially similar to Lightmouse's; therefore, Reedy should have refrained from acting.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

As above, Reedy isn't a party to this case. Mr.Z-man 04:31, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Ohconfucious's refusal to correct errors made by him while using AWB

4) On December 12 and 15, 2008, Ohconfucius was notified by two editors that he had committed errors to 60 articles while using AWB. To date, Ohconfucious has neither denied that those errors were committed nor corrected those errors.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Unless policy has been violated, there is no rule which states that Tennis expert has to do anything Ohconfucius asks him to, and he certainly has not. The reverse also holds true. The work done was to ensure that all date formats are uniform. The proposer of this motion has failed to explain why the date format within any article itself, if left unchanged, would be in any way harmful to the interests of WP. Ohconfucius (talk) 08:55, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

I would hope that an editor who has the best interests of Wikipedia in mind would want to correct errors he or she has made, regardless of who notifies the editor about the errors. But I guess Ohconfucius is an exception. Tennis expert (talk) 09:56, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Now, such sarcasm is very incivil in my opinion. So should I dig up more of Tennis Expert's incivility? (I have felt his attitude towards me incivil several time, and he has felt that I was incivil towards him; this is so subjective.) No! This is not the point of this strange monster document, that appears to be a big "getting back at someone" rather than a productive forum for relevant discussions.--HJensen, talk 16:01, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

• Yes, judging by the motions of censure, Tony1 and Ohconfucius are public enemy number 1 and 2 respectively, and I appear to be catching Tony up in the hit parade ;-) Ohconfucius (talk) 17:35, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Proposed remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Compliance with the AWB rules of use

1) Lightmouse, Ohconfucius, Reedy, and every other editor who uses AWB to edit shall comply with the AWB rules of use.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Oppose, this is an ad hominem. Ohconfucius (talk) 16:17, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Again, Reedy isn't a party. Mr.Z-man 03:35, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Repairing errors made while using AWB

2) Not later than the fifth day after this arbitration decision becomes final, Ohconfucius shall repair all known errors he has made while using AWB, including the errors that have been listed on his discussion page by other editors.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

2.1) Any editor who makes an edit using AWB, is informed the edit is in error, and doesn't either deny the report nor correct the error, shall have his AWB flag revoked.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed modification. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:11, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

That's OK with me, although it probably should be added to the proposed principles list instead of being a remedy. Tennis expert (talk) 19:28, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

ArbCom shouldn't be setting policy. Mr.Z-man 04:33, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

There already is policy on this. It is in WP:Awb#Rules of use: "Repeated abuse of these rules could result, without warning, in the software being disabled." --RexxS (talk) 04:03, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposals by Earle Martin

Proposed findings of fact

Greg L has repeatedly been incivil

1) [[::User:Greg L|Greg L]] ([[::User talk:Greg L|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Greg L|contribs]]) has repeatedly been incivil to other editors involved with the date formatting discussions on WT:MOSNUM.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

If this finding is agreed upon I will leave it to the arbitrators to decide what remedies and enforcement are appropriate. -- Earle Martin [^t/_c] 20:16, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Support, but need more evidence/diffs to support this I think (but it's out there). —Locke Cole • t • c 20:39, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Done. -- Earle Martin [^t/_c] 20:47, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Support without reservation. —Locke Cole • t • c 20:49, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

• Indeed, Greg L is a poopy-head. Now let’s try to address the real issues here. Greg L (talk) 06:48, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Support. A defense that some have made concerning Greg L's behavior is that everyone knows he doesn't intend any of his incivility to be taken personally. Aside from the ridiculousness of that defense, it is factually false as many editors have expressed genuine offense at the incivility. Tennis expert (talk) 09:59, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

• Well… the trouble with that is it doesn’t pass most reasonable-minded editors’ *grin tests*. As with Locke’s proposals (regarding Tony and Lightmouse) to muzzle two of Wikipedia’s most valuable editors, this is all about an intransigent cabal trying to silence the most formidable road-blocks to those who chronically refuse to accept the community consensus. Note Locke’s block log. It shows an atrocious, chronic pattern of editwarring and incivility. That is why we’re all here wasting our time. Locke et al. were no longer getting their way by editwarring because there was a clear majority who would revert them, so he resorted to wikilawyering. And here we are.

  As for me? Well… same story. Except rather than editwar with you people, I influence minds by writing essays such as Wikipedia:Why dates should not be linked and Sewer cover in front of Greg L’s house. And in debate on WT:MOSNUM, I expose the absurdities of you guys’ arguments and make you feel foolish. Most unfortunate; but if you don’t want to be exposed for being foolish, don’t write foolish things. And don’t accrue the most atrocious block log in existence on this pale blue dot by editwarring and incivility. And cease with inane tactics like proposing that one of Wikipedia’s most respected and valuable editors should be banned for six months from the very place where he is needed most. Let’s see… Locke Cole (block log) for a *leader* on WT:MOSNUM and ban Tony from a venue that is a marketplace for the exchange of ideas. Gee… sorry, that’s not passing my *grin test* here. Greg L (talk) 17:52, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Ohconfucius has repeatedly been incivil

2) [[::User:Ohconfucius|Ohconfucius]] ([[::User talk:Ohconfucius|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Ohconfucius|contribs]]) has repeatedly been incivil to other editors involved with the date formatting discussions on WT:MOSNUM.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

See evidence here and here. Same comment regarding remedies and enforcement as for Greg L case above. -- Earle Martin [^t/_c] 12:43, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Lack of vocal disagreement is not an indicator that the activity has wide acceptance

3) Lack of vocal disagreement with year links being removed is not an indicator that the activity has wide acceptance, as has been suggested by some parties.

Some editors may agree; others may not know where to disagree. It is extremely difficult for the casual editor to find out where to discuss this issue when faced with a typical Lightbot edit; the edit summary is only "Units/dates/other", with no link to any policy documents, and its user page only links to its three requests for bot approval, which are filled with a mass of verbiage.

It is also possible that editors may have found their way to WT:MOSNUM eventually but were too intimidated by the atmosphere and/or scale of previous discussions on the topic to participate. Again, this cannot be proven or disproven from an absence of edits.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

The second possibility came to mind through my personal experience, when I almost left the discussion alone at first sight and had to force myself to participate. -- Earle Martin [^t/_c] 12:35, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Over the last few months I have unlinked thousands of dates. I'm not a bot, anyone can contact me at my talk page if they want, but only seven editors have objected there - and three of those were satisfied once I explained about the deprecation. There's no evidence of any widespread opposition to unlinking. It's reasonable to presume that if people don't object, that means they don't object. Colonies Chris (talk) 13:10, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

So what you're saying is, you've performed less date removals than Lightbot, and during that time you've received more complaints that you were unable to satisfy than those you were able to. -- Earle Martin [^t/_c] 13:27, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

No large-scale change will ever be entirely without opposition. In two of those four cases, I just chose to allow their revert to stand. And in the remaining two, the objection was in terms so immoderate ('trash', 'vandalism') that I think any change at all made without their prior permission would have been unacceptable. Colonies Chris (talk) 13:59, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Worth considering in this proposal: Wikipedia:Silence means nothing (the opposite essay being WP:SILENCE). And strongly agree with the conclusion made here, the atmosphere at MOSNUM is uninviting and adversarial. Not at all what one would expect. —Locke Cole • t • c 14:53, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

LC's opinion of the atmosphere at MOSNUM is completely irrelevant. My talk page is readily accessible, by a just a couple of clicks from the edit history of any article I've worked on, and contains no long heated discussions to put anyone off, and yet almost no-one chose to complain or object there. This is an excellent example of your habit of disregarding evidence that doesn't suit your case. Colonies Chris (talk) 16:26, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

It's not helping that you're doing the delinking with AWB, which most people trust: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]. But again, silence is not assent: Wikipedia:Silence means nothing. —Locke Cole • t • c 17:06, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Chris, I think that you're both radically overestimating the resourcefulness and creativity of most casual editors, as well as the interest in many random articles. This is also an example of where numbers speak louder than assertions, so perhaps we should do some edit counting to see what proportion of the issue your activities represent. -- Earle Martin [^t/_c] 17:14, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

I would caution against basing a FoF on an essay (Wikipedia:Silence means nothing) which reflects the consensus of 3 editors. The opposite essay WP:SILENCE is the consensus of only a couple of dozen editors. The accepted policy in WP:Consensus is "Silence implies consent if there is adequate exposure to the community." You would be better served by looking for FoF's consistent with that. --RexxS (talk) 07:36, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

My finding of fact is not based on any essay. Please do not make out that it is. -- Earle Martin [^t/_c] 12:30, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

You will find that building a consensus useful for ArbCom to consider is best done by not telling other contributors what to do, even if you include the word 'please'. Let's concentrate on what the proposal says and the accompanying commentary. Locke, above, clearly references that essay, and I was simply trying to be helpful in putting that essay into context. To establish the truth of your FoF, you will need evidence that shows how it complies with the policy "Silence implies consent if there is adequate exposure to the community." Hope that helps. --RexxS (talk) 16:49, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

No. The entire point of this finding is that editors at large may not know how to respond to these delinkings. What consent is implied by the silence of someone who doesn't speak your language? As the positive assertion in this case ("consensus exists") is being made by you, it lays the burden of proof upon you. Nothing said so far has demonstrated anything of the sort. -- Earle Martin [^t/_c] 17:20, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I can't accept you base a FoF on the belief that editors don't know how to react to an edit they disagree with. They revert - and it doesn't matter what language they speak - and then discuss. As I've said numerous times, that is the start of building a consensus where differences exist. If you want to construct an alternative means that denies WP:CON, then please provide some evidence why anybody, let alone ArbCom should take it seriously. For your second point, I do indeed start with the assumption that WP:MOS is what it says on the label: a documented set of consensuses, like all other guidelines. By definition, a guideline has consensus. If that consensus changes, then the guidance is changed. The two things go hand-in-hand. Now I do understand that you need to discredit the notion that there is consensus for the contents of MOSNUM in order to underpin your case. Otherwise the respondents in this case win by default - they would be editing in accordance with the consensus in MOS. But you have produced no evidence that MOS is not consensus. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, anyone is free to urge ArbCom to rule that consensus exists on MOSNUM in exactly the same way, by definition, it exists on all guidance. --RexxS (talk) 00:51, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Proposals by User:Colonies Chris

Proposed findings of fact

Incivility

The have been instances of incivility on all sides, but not beyond the bounds that might be expected in a heated debate. All parties are admonished to remain civil in their dealings.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Not supported by the evidence or the civility policy. Mr.Z-man 04:35, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Date unlinking

There is clear community support for the deprecation of date formatting and clear support for the operation of bots that bring WP into line with the MoS. There is very limited support for linking of certain dates or date fragments in special circumstances.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed remedies

A template is to be developed that will allow editors to wrap individual dates and date fragments in order to protect them from automated unlinking. The syntax of this template will require a textual justification to be provided.

example syntax: {{keepdatelink|date-fragment|because=xxxxx}}

The justification may be disputed by other editors in the same way as any other edit to an article. In particular, claims of a 'local consensus' in a subject area require clear evidence of such a consensus involving more than one habitual editor of articles in that area. A period of two weeks will be allowed for editors to apply this template to links they wish to protect. After that period, Lightbot and any other similar processes, whether automated, scripted or manual, will be allowed to proceed with delinking, on condition that they respect this protective tagging and continue to bypass chronological articles. Any further attempts to obstruct the operation of such processes will be considered disruptive behaviour.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Support, this seems like the most obvious solution and of the same ilk I've suggested several times; everyone gets what they want at the end of the day. --MASEM 16:45, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Lightmouse

Lightmouse is commended for his excellent work on improving the encyclopaedia, and on his unfailing politeness in the face of provocation and incivility, and his readiness to acknowledge and fix errors made by Lightbot and to correct Lightbot to avoid future errors.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

While I have found him to be polite, my (admittedly limited) experience hasn't been that he's corrected Lightbot (or his own AWB usage) to avoid future errors (see my evidence). Sarcasticidealist (talk) 17:26, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Proposals by User:MBisanz

Proposed findings of fact

Locke Cole - Edit Warring

1) Locke Cole (talk · contribs) has edit warred.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Locke Cole - Incivility

2) Locke Cole has been uncivil.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Tony1 - Incivility

3) Tony1 (talk · contribs) has been uncivil.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Tony1 - Edit Warring

4) Tony1 has edit warred.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Greg L.

5) Greg L (talk · contribs) has been uncivil.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Tennis expert

6) Tennis expert (talk · contribs) has edit warred.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Pmanderson

7) Pmanderson (talk · contribs) has edit warred.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Arthur Rubin

8) Arthur Rubin (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) has threatened to use administrative tools in a dispute in which he was an involved editor.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Not finished

Further findings pending permission to post additional evidence.

Proposed remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Locke Cole - Banned

1) Locke Cole (talk · contribs) is banned from editing Wikipedia for a period of 6 months.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Arthur Rubin - Warned

2) Arthur Rubin (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) is strongly warned that even the threat to use administrative tools in a dispute in which one is an involved administrator is prohibited under policy and will be viewed as a breach of policy by the Committee.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Tony 1 - Revert Parole

3) Tony1 shall for one year be limited to one revert per page per week, excepting obvious vandalism. Further, he is required to discuss any content reversions on the page's talk page.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Tony 1 - Civility Parole

4) Tony1 (talk · contribs) is subject to an editing restriction for nine months. Should they make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, they may be blocked for the duration specified in the enforcement ruling below.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Tennis expert - Revert Parole

5) Tennis expert shall for one year be limited to one revert per page per week, excepting obvious vandalism. Further, he is required to discuss any content reversions on the page's talk page.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Pmanderson - Revert Parole

6) Pmanderson shall for one year be limited to one revert per page per week, excepting obvious vandalism. Further, he is required to discuss any content reversions on the page's talk page.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Greg L. - Reminded

7) Greg L. is reminded to respect all policies and guidelines, in spirit as well as letter, when editing pages concerning editorial style. This applies in particular to matters of good faith and civility.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

UC Bill Reminded

8) UC Bill (talk · contribs) is reminded to abide by the civility policy at all times.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Additional

Pending permission to post additional evidence.

Proposed enforcement

Blocks and bans

1) Should any user subject to an editing restriction in this case violate that restriction, they may be briefly blocked, up to a week in the event of repeated violations. After 5 blocks, the maximum block shall increase to one month. All blocks are to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Date_delinking#Log of blocks and bans.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposals by User:Z

Proposed principles

Template

1) {text of Proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of Proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Analysis of evidence

Place here items of evidence (with diffs) and detailed analysis

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

General discussion

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others: