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.

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)

• Disagree - Any injunction or prohibition of the use of Lightmouse's script will make life harder for those of us who edit articles for FA and GA. Delinking by script is the easiest way of determining whether the date format is being used consistently throughout an article. Since we are concerned that the general reader will see a mishmash of date formats (since most readers do not have a date preference set, nor even know that is possible), it is important for article editors who edit with the general reader in mind (Wikipedia's readership in the general public) to be able to easily address this issue. —Mattisse (Talk) 21:44, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

  Would Mattisse care to rephrase his post? As put, it rests on two premises, neither doing him or FA much credit.

  1. That a vital part of determining whether an article is one of our best is checking that it never ever wavers from April 7 to 5 May.
  2. That Lightbot is the indispensible tool for such a task.

• THe first is a matter of taste; but I do not share it. It ranks internal date consistency with or above neutrality, accuracy, verifiability, and clarity; if this is indeed widely shared, it may explain why FA gets so little of the last four. I am not convinced that we should tolerate massive disruption for the convenience of the minority who call themselves reviewers, and have produced this situation.

• The following three methods of checking for this vital element occur to me after a moment's thought:

  • Turn off date preferences. Read through the article. (Mattisse does read through the articles xe reviews, doesn't xe?) Note which format the dates are in. If you don;t a discrepancy, it's likely to escape the reader too. (If you do notice one, put in on FAC as a sample, and have the nominator check through.) At least, this will give a predominant format for later.
  • Turn off date preferences. Search the text for the names of the months; you can even reduce the last five to ember. See which side the figures are on.
  • Leave the preferences off. Look at the printable form of the article; cut and paste it to a sandbox. Turn your preferences on to the predominant format; look at the new printable form, and cut and paste again over the sandbox. Do a diff.

  I'm sure there are more. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:07, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

• You could consider the experience of general readers. They may not have your priorities. They may be confused by the dates as I was for a long time. I do have my preferences turned off. I see the mess. I am just not willing to go through it all by hand. —Mattisse (Talk) 23:24, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

• I should like to turn dating preferences off myself; they were always a suboptimal idea, and we now have a better one, on the ENGVAR model. That said, we disagree about what is a mess; your argument implies that an honest, well-written article with two dates (at, say, opposite ends of the article) in different formats is a mess; I think there is much more mess in the ill-sourced POV rants which are not in English (but all their dates and dashes are "correct", and they have nice, pretty, fraudulent, footnotes) which pass FA regularly. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:45, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

  You need to take into account the context. If the dates are solo wikilinks, then what you propose would be fine. It is in the context of other wikilinks that date wikilinks become confusing, as frequently they are adjacent to other wikilinks. There is no point to them, for example July 15 starts off with:

"1099 - First Crusade: Christian soldiers take the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem after the final assault of a difficult siege."

Somehow I doubt that the First Crusade started on July 15, 1099. There are no references on these pages. (And the situation is made worse by misleadingly piped links.) —Mattisse (Talk) 18:37, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Greg L incivility injunction

2) Greg L (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is subject to an editing restriction for the duration of this arbitration. Should he make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, he 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, he shows no interest in conforming to community standards of conduct despite this RFAR. See [1] [2] [3] [4], for examples from today (two weeks after the acceptance of this RFAR). —Locke Cole • t • c 01:41, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Reject this and Greg's proposal. I thought that Rfarb was for settling disputes, not throwing successively harder punches at each other. We are not children. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:36, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

It's for dispute resolution, including behavioral issues arising from those disputes. His continued incivility is a problem at MOSNUM and needs to stop. Also, why would you reject this? Assuming he's not incivil then he won't run afoul of this injunction. —Locke Cole • t • c 04:40, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Tweaked to add additional examples. Also, these comments of his are being made during an attempt to find a reasonable resolution to this dispute and are unhelpful at moving towards that. —Locke Cole • t • c 08:59, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Oppose: It's a fruitless tit-for-tat arms race to see who can muckrake the most with diffs. It makes arbitrators' tasks more difficult. Please stop. Tony (talk) 14:22, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

The incivility makes it difficult to have serious discussions that don't get bogged down in heated arguments. Please stop. I'll stop when Greg stops being incivil. Sounds reasonable to me... —Locke Cole • t • c 18:21, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I invite everyone to move away from ad hominem issues (even if about you). Please focus on what Wikipedia editors should do about date links. Lightmouse (talk) 10:09, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I give up. How many of these copy and pasted comments did Lightmouse make? We heard you. This is verging on disruption. -- Earle Martin [^t/_c] 01:52, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Earle. LM made have done a few too many, but going around in a copycat fashion with your rejoinders smacks of trying to make a point. I'm glad you give up. Ohconfucius (talk) 01:56, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I gave up when I noticed he has pasted this message EIGHTY BLOODY TIMES. Otherwise I'd have replied to every single one of them. I am now going to remove all following instances of the message as gross disruption to this arbitration. Arbitrators, please take note. -- Earle Martin [^t/_c] 02:02, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

But when you make repeated copy and pastes it's making a point, right? Lightmouse is quite right: the title of this page is "Requests for arbitration/Date delinking". Civility has nothing to do with it, and only serves to make the job of arbitration insanely more difficult. If people feel they have been treated without civility, they should take it elsewhere so that those of us who are keen to follow a debate on date delinking have a chance. Personally, I despair at the mentality of someone who continues to trawl through history after history in order to scare out every last skerrick of "proof" that someone verbally poked their tongue out at someone else. If that sort of "industry" were applied to working on the issues of date linking, the problems would have been sorted by now. (I'll go and have a nice relax now—which, since I'm at work, will hardly be noticed.)  HWV258  02:10, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

"Civility has nothing to do with it" - I suggest that you look at the statements made by ArbCom when accepting this case. I'll save you some time, here are quotes:

• "There is... a broad range of alleged behavioral issues surrounding these circumstances" - Vassyana
• "Date delinking is only the latest incarnation of MOSNUM problems" - Rlevse
• "Accept... [to] address any user conduct issues" - FloNight
• "when the topic focus causes large, repeated threads... This invariably means there is a behavioral problem" - Coren
• "I agree that the issue for ArbCom here is behavioural" - Roger Davies
• "I support just keeping it to the date delinking conduct issues" - Wizardman
• "I do agree with those who have stated that this case should most emphatically be about the behaviour here" - Carcharoth

-- Earle Martin [^t/_c] 03:10, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I believe Earle should restate the comments of Lightmouse he removed (here, here, and here (for example), and he should then invite LM to remove same himself if he fails to justify them - although the justification would IMHO be patently obvious. Ohconfucius (talk) 03:06, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't think so. Removing spam from this page manually was amazingly tedious. -- Earle Martin [^t/_c] 03:10, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

For sure it is a thankless task, and I for one will not thank you for being "Spamguard". I would revert you to make a point, but although I may be occasionally foolish, I'm not vindictive, nor am I that juvenile or anally obsessed. Ohconfucius (talk) 03:16, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

If those quotes are correct, then the mockery of WP "arbitration" is complete. At least someone should have the decency to rename the page to Requests_for_arbitration/Incivility_arising_from_the_issue_of_date_delinking. Let me get this straight: decisions are going to flow from this arbitration to do with date linking, but it seems the decisions are going to flow against the side judged to have the person(s) who made the "rudest" comments in the lead-up to the proceedings? A sad day for all sides.  HWV258  03:29, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

• One, just one aspect of this process that is seriously unsatisfactory for all parties and the arbitrators is the failure to require the original filer(s) to define the scope of the hearing and to identify the desired remedies. Without that, we've all been in the dark ever since as to whether it's about cream-bun fights and poking tongues out at each other, or date-linking, or bots, or what the hell. All parties deserve to know this before the Evidence page. Tony (talk) 15:03, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Ohconfucius incivility injunction

3. Ohconfucius is banned from making uncivil comments here, at WT:MOSNUM, and on the talk pages of participants to this RfAr, until a "permanent" ruling is made. Clear violations (examples below) to result in an immediate block, even by involved admins.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Actually, many of the 'circus' comments are still there, and I stand by them -because it is what this has turned into. Some instances were removed in the same vein that another's comments which were removed by Earle Martin, for fear of being labelled disruptive. The "Rain on my Parade" comment was in response to obvious baiting by Tennis expert. Ohconfucius (talk) 03:07, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed. He has not made any constructive comments, and has made non-constructive comments referring to "academy awards", making a "circus" (since redacted), and, mostly recently, 'Don't Rain on My Parade'. Others have made non-constructive comments, but have not restricted their comments entirely to WP:BAITing Locke and TE. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:08, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Given the recent examples of continuing poor behavior such as the "read all about it" message posted to several users' talk pages, I strongly support this proposal. -- Earle Martin [^t/_c] 13:33, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Very strong oppose. TE throws around the "incivility" card against anybody who disagrees with him. He doen't realize how incivil his own actions appear to others, including his hateful behavior on this page. I have been extremely offended by the way he has treated me (accusing me for "tag-team edit warring"—it is so far out, and the evidence so weak to be laughable: 14 MOS-consistent edits over 2 months). But I don't take him to an ArbCom for that. As I have pointed out before, incivility is an extremely subjective concept, and there has been nothing here that resembles what I would see as true incivility (as I read the policy).--HJensen, talk 14:11, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

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:

Reasonable to have a principle relating to the Manual of Style. For those who have limited familiarity with the structure of final decisions: the committee identifies the principles on which it bases its decisions in this way. Many decisions begin with a principle starting with the words "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia". While it may seem obvious, often part of the issue before the committee is that editors sometimes lose sight of that fact. Risker (talk) 16:19, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

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)

Support. A sound basis for building further conclusions on, and nothing we didn't know already (per Septentrionalis, below). -- Earle Martin [^t/_c] 00:05, 1 February 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)

Comment/Oppose. I think in general Wikipedia should have a Manual of Style (building on consensus), which is binding except in well-argued exceptions. This is on which a coherent encyclopedia is founded. Whatever consensus has emerged among a few editors on particular articles should not override general rules. If we allow for this, we just get a random collection of, well, randomly styled articles. This would be very detrimental for the credibility of Wikipedia.--HJensen, talk 20:28, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Support, Guidelines are intended as just a guidebook to norms of style and behavior, which should mostly be followed under normal circumstances. However there will always be sensible exceptions and reasons to do otherwise per WP:IAR. This probably needs to be made clearer to people. G-Man ^? 21:27, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Support - this is wholly in line with the underlying ethos of Wikipedia. Deb (talk) 23:24, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Support - MOS general principles: "An overriding principle on Wikipedia is that style and formatting should be applied consistently within articles, though not necessarily throughout the encyclopedia as a whole. One way of presenting information may be as good as another is, but consistency within articles promotes clarity and cohesion. The Arbitration Committee has ruled that the Manual of Style is not binding, that editors should not change an article from one guideline-defined style to another without a substantial reason unrelated to mere choice of style, and that revert-warring over optional styles is unacceptable. Where there is disagreement over which style to use in an article, defer to the style used by the first major contributor." Because the MOS is not binding on editors and because the consensus for a particular article is binding on editors, the local consensus logically prevails over the MOS whenever they conflict. Tennis expert (talk) 10:17, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Comment - Once more TE makes the mistake of equating "local consensus" with a guideline. The policy at WP:CON is clear: "Consensus among a small number of editors can never override the community consensus that is presented in Wikipedia's policies and guidelines." The ArbCom ruling he quotes above does not show that MOS is not binding; it shows that editors should not change an article from one guideline-defined style to another guideline-defined style. A "local consensus" is not another guideline-defined style. Guidelines are collections of community consensuses (by definition) and prevail over any "local consensus" wherever they conflict. It is very unwise to attempt to misuse that ArbCom decision to give yourself carte-blanche to make your own styles. It is clearly disruptive editing to maintain a singular view of style against an established guideline. --RexxS (talk) 18:14, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

From the ArbCom decision: "The prescriptions of Wikipedia's manual of style are not binding." Couldn't be more clear. And once again RexxS ignores Wikipedia precedent that a consensus concerning a particular article (or group of articles) or concerning a specific issue prevails over a general consensus like the Manual of Style or WP:UE. Finally, if the MOS were as mandatory as RexxS claims, it is appalling that Wikipedia would allow articles to reach Good Article status without complying with the MOS. I would rather not assume that our best editors don't care about quality. Tennis expert (talk) 19:14, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

There is no such precedent: much as TE would wish one. ArbCom decisions are not precedents. More importantly, WP:Five Pillars states "Find consensus,"; WP:CON says "Consensus is ... part of the Fourth pillar of Wikipedia code of conduct"; WP:PG says "Policies and guidelines express standards that have community consensus". That couldn't be clearer - There is the foundation on which guidelines rest: they are community consensuses and I've already demonstrated that "Consensus among a small number of editors can never override the community consensus that is presented in Wikipedia's policies and guidelines". So please feel free to quote chapter and verse on an ArbCom ruling saying you are free to edit against the community consensus that is presented in Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. It is accepted that consensus can change, but that is when another consensus replaces it, not simply when TE decides to make up his own rules and call it "local consensus". When TE gets one of the articles he owns to GA, he'll be in a position to comment on the process. --RexxS (talk) 01:14, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I've got to say, I agree with TE here. The prior ArbCom decision regarding the MoS makes clear that prescriptions within are not binding on the rest of the community. In that sense I view them as suggestions more than anything. Also agree with compliance with the MoS should not be a requisite of FA/GA selection. —Locke Cole • t • c 01:28, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

That's because RexxS is engaged in selective quotation. The fragment he follows by ellipsis continues Policies have wide acceptance among editors and are considered a standard that, with rare exceptions, all users should follow. They are often closely linked to the five pillars of Wikipedia. Guidelines are considered more advisory than policies, with exceptions more likely to occur.

Policies have only the rarest exceptions; guidelines are advice. That's why we use two words for them; they are not the same thing. Policies, not guidelines, are linked with the Five Pillars; policies are what we must do to be Wikipedia. Date linking or delinking does not come close to that category. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:33, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Septentrionalis has referred us to the differences between policies and guidelines. He quite accurately demonstrates that the fundamental difference is one of of degree: "Guidelines are considered more advisory than policies, with exceptions more likely to occur." But he then construes "more advisory" to mean "advice". Advice is something that can be taken or left, at the user's discretion. The thing that policies and guidelines have in common is that they express community consensus - and that cannot be taken or left at will: guidelines are more than advice. If users were free to chose which guidelines they wanted to follow, and reject others because they are "only advice", the project would soon descend into chaos. And yet that is what this proposal would mean if left unqualified. Far better would be to acknowledge that guidelines are binding as far as the consensus they represent is binding. --RexxS (talk) 02:27, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

This is the sort of response characteristic of one side of this discussion: the project would soon descend into chaos, the sky is falling. Nonsense; hysteria. If editors were to choose not to follow some guideline, it would cease to be consensus, that's all. We are volunteers here; if we choose not to do something, no-one can make us; if a significant number choose not to do something, it stops being what Wikipedia does. There are some things Wikipedia cannot cease to do while being Wikipedia; we call them core policies. Neither linking nor delinking dates counts. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:05, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Of course, I could say that this response is also characteristic of one side of the discussion: avoid addressing the facts and try to shift the focus to the editor. Instead, I will add that I resent being tagged as "one of the sides". This is not a battleground. Try to build consensus here. Please address the very real concerns that your proposal raises: at present you seem to want a wikipedia where an arbitrarily small group (perhaps even one?) editor can edit as they feel, unconstrained by guidelines, simply by saying the magic words "no consensus". That's not the wikipedia that the rest of the community will tolerate. We are indeed all volunteers and we need to find ways of getting along. The very idea that we can pick and choose which community norms we respect is patently absurd. My advice: focus on that word "significant" and try to express how it may be realised in the process of changing consensus. Simply leaving it in the air for any renegade to seize upon as justification for editing against consensus will not do. --RexxS (talk) 17:26, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

How curious. RexxS proposes to sanction "violating community norms" on datelinking, when our long-established norm on such matters is that guidelines are not violated by making exceptions. For this see the link to the Jguk case above; for that matter, see {{guideline}}. Should we do by him as would to others, and ban him for violating the norms of the community? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:20, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Smoke and mirrors. Septentrionalis knows that "any exceptions to the rule should leave the rule intact". He knows that editing against consensus is sanctionable. And yet what he is proposing would be to allow any editor to edit disruptively under the shield of "guidelines don't apply when I choose to call my edit an exception". I won't descend to the level of calling him "hypocrite", as he did to me in his edit summary. Despite the insult, I still believe that we will make progress here by remaining civil. As for the suggestion of sanctioning me? Well, he knows how to start an RfC or make a report to AN/I. My albeit short record on wikipedia will stand scrutiny. --RexxS (talk) 20:03, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Editors such as TE (and now others) are arguing from a situation they would like to be in place—and not the situation that is in place. Guidelines should stand unless a compelling local argument can support their variance—there's nothing wrong with that as all sides can be left tired but happy after suitable discussion. In this case: the original date-delinking happened under the sanction of community-based consensus, however the blind reverts made by TE (e.g. here) had no basis in community consensus. Only one "side" in this whole degrading debacle has acted in the security of improving WP in a consensus-driven way. I still ask the dual questions of: with what justification did TE make the eight reverts in the above example; and where is the evidence that TE was representing the tennis-article community (or any other) in making those reverts?  HWV258  04:44, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely not. There has never been and still isn't consensus for mass delinking. Please cite a source for this claim or stop it. As for guidelines vs. policy, again, we wouldn't make this distinction if there weren't some difference: and in particular with style guidelines, they are not prescriptive and certainly shouldn't be actionable by bots. If the editors of the MoS want it to do these things they think it does, they need to get the community to support them in making it policy, not guideline. But that's the trouble: I sincerely doubt the community would invest that kind of power in something so frequently disputed (I wish this situation with MOSNUM was the only dispute to ever come out of MOS, but one need only look at CE/AD, and elsewhere to see the kinds of problems these pages have caused). —Locke Cole • t • c 06:03, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Ah yes, the old "if I say it in bold it's 'really' true" philosophy to debating. The MoS supported the deprecating of date linking so, in good faith, and by being bold, dedicated and hard-working editors took up the challenge to remove the millions of unnecessary date links throughout WP (the use of scripts being necessary as the task was too large to be done manually). After months of that work (with little or no unresolved contention) further basis for consensus was provided as (from Wikipedia:Consensus) silence implies consent if there is adequate exposure to the community. The task of manually restoring the necessary date links is insignificant in comparison to the task of manually removing the unnecessary links. The editors involved should be commended for their actions, however we are still waiting for TE to explain under what consensus or guideline his eight reverts here were made.  HWV258  23:01, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

The consensus for the Don Budge article ever since it was created in 2003 was to link dates. And then the date delinkers came along to delink the dates and ignored WP:BRD in their frantic rush to force compliance with the Manual of Style recommendations. I noticed how you conveniently skipped over the whole problem of what "deprecate" means. Tennis expert (talk) 23:22, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps they were encouraged by the simple fact that so many date-delinking edits (about 100,000 in November 2008 alone) met with little or no residual contention. I now question what right the 2.5 editors now perpetually blocking the creative initiative (undertaken in good faith) have to oppose the wishes of the tens-of-thousands of editors who implicitly issued their consent (from Wikipedia:Consensus: silence implies consent if there is adequate exposure to the community). Are you now suggesting that your reverts here (all eight of them) were justified? Are you sure that you yourself engaged in enough of the "D" part of WP:BRD? Thank you for using the phrase "compliance with the Manual of Style recommendations" ("frantic rush to force" is however unnecessarily pejorative).  HWV258  23:43, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

What RexxS does not understand is that a consensus for Wikipedia to make a recommendation about a style issue does not automatically convert the recommendation into a requirement. The consensus simply prevents editors from claiming that Wikipedia actually has a different recommendation. So, a consensus about a recommendation (guideline) is not equivalent to a consensus about a requirement (policy). Tennis expert (talk) 21:53, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

TE's comment above is untrue. The difference between policy and guideline is not the difference between requirement and recommendation. It can be assumed that as no quote supports the assertion, it is simply an inference that TE has incorrectly drawn. Here's a simple counter-example: WP:POINT is a guideline - try breaching that guideline and see whether it is a recommendation that you can ignore if you choose. TE and others want to establish a right for any editor to ignore guidelines at will. The community will not tolerate that. --RexxS (talk) 03:15, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

• Cole, you can say "absolutely not" until you're blue in the face, but sooner or later you'll have to face up to the overwhelming consensus that became evident through surveys and feedback in a number of places during August and subsequently. Would you like links? You know very well where it all is. Pit this against the almost total silence of the community and readership when dates are delinked, and the third RfC that showed that explicit consensus is not required to achieve compliance with a style guide via a bot or script, and you look like you're shouting into a well. Tony (talk) 11:47, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

• Fascinating as your attempts to interpret these results to your liking may be, the facts are this: the community was asked if they supported deprecation, not go out with fire and kill all date links. Further, the RFC ending December 25th made clear that such links whose only function was auto formatting were deprecated, but it left the door open for other date links to be made. Again, no consensus exists now, or has ever, for mass delinking of dates as was performed by Date delinker, etc. —Locke Cole • t • c 12:24, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

"Fascinating" ... is that an attempt at sarcasm? Please desist, if that is the case. The 3rd RfC concerned the necessity of gaining separate consensus for the bot-assisted compliance with style guides: it was resoundingly rejected. The third of the so-called "detailed" RfCs funnelled people into the "sometimes" category in a way that has long been discredited as a methodology. It is not credible. Tony (talk) 13:19, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

So is it safe to say we can distill your remarks down to this: I like these results, but I don't like 'these other results? Because that's the message I'm taking away from these exchanges of ours. That you're only interested in the results if they support your position, but as soon as something disagrees with your point of view it's "not credible"... —Locke Cole • t • c 14:11, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

How interesting,. That's exactly the attitude you take to my evidence of community acceptance of date delinking. You don't like it, so you belittle and ignore it. Colonies Chris (talk) 14:26, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

• Cole, may I add to Chris's comment that if you were able to take me to task on specific aspects of my analyses, I'd be happy to engage with you, and possibly to be won over if it were the case that you found substantive problems or weaknesses. My invitations to this effect have been met thus far with silence, aside from general swipes such as you proffered above. This is telling circumstantial evidence that you have nothing to rebut. I repeat my invitation now. Perhaps, just perhaps, I've identified what in retrospect are self-evident flaws in those "detailed" RfCs; which points in particular do you maintain are purely products I concocted to suit a particular POV? Or is it that in the rush to develop those RfCs at the last minute, no one thought to analyse how contaminated their results were likely to be? I'm interested, because they appear to me to be a lesson for WP as a whole about how not to construct an RfC. Tony (talk) 14:58, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

• • Tony, that's just absurd. Your RfC did not and could not possibly provide evidence of consensus unless your "proposals" were voted down. That fact was mentioned by several editors, including some who generally agree with you that date links are rarely appropriate. There were some flaws in the detailed RfC, but mostly the fact that it was not detailed enough. Greg's RfC, although it doesn't have all the flaws yours did, has significant flaws; primarily, it assumes that your wording for the MoS had consensus at some point. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:10, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

• Support Speaking as someone who has been part of Wikipedia for over 6 years, this has always been how the MoS has been understood: a guideline, not policy. If the MoS is seen as policy, binding on all Wikipedians, then it makes the MoS into a means by which a small group can modify the rules of Wikipedia without the larger community noticing until it is too late. No matter how well-intentioned the present group is, seeing this as anything more than suggestions or best practices will give the cranks & tendentious editors a skeleton key to shove their unencyclopedic content into Wikipedia. -- llywrch (talk) 19:41, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose Wikipedia needs an at-least-somewhat binding style guideline, otherwise stylistic dispute will continue to keep taking up considerable amounts of time and energy that could otherwise be directed toward writing the encyclopedia. ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 17:23, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Stylistic debate takes up time and energy because we have a Manual of Style which language cranks think they can use to make their notions binding. Without one, they would have to infest each page individually, which would daunt even such prodigious wastes of time as these disruptive fools. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:32, 15 February 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)

The value of the MoS is not primarily that one way of placing a comma is a Good Thing and the other a Bad Thing, but that an established, sensible, if slightly arbitrary choice of style is made and presented consistently through the project. The consensus of Wikipedians is not on the fine detail of the MoS, I believe, but that a bunch of typographers, librarians and lint collectors please put together a sensible MoS that we all endorse - in a few circumstances there are vociferous minorities that make it hard to get any one style agreed, but by and large the MoS is accepted by those editors who even know of its existence. Rich Farmbrough, 09:43 14 February 2009 (UTC).

In short, only a minority know of its existence; of that minority, significant numbers dispute a given point. Rational editors will consider its advice; when - as usual - it is semi-literate and provincial nonsense, they will ignore it - and all those who appeal to it against evidence and usage. Septentrionalis PMAnderson

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)

That's rather novel: Consensus does not equal, nor does it imply, unanimity. Ohconfucius (talk) 02:27, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

The novelty here is unanimity, which Ohconfucius has introduced into a proposal which does not contain it. I can assume literacy or good faith, but not both. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:02, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Support. In fact, this is essential. Deb (talk) 23:26, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Irrelevant, this already happens in effect. The reason BAG was formed it that even in the "bot community" there were too few interested in these tasks too gain timely approval. Unfortunately leaving ot to BAG has mean other interested parties, such as myself,have found less reason to read the bot pages. Nonetheless BAG and the "bot community" have several times asked for other methods of task approval to be proposed. The crux is there will always be a bot clique just as there's a AfD clique, a stubsorting clique and an RFA clique. Doesn't stop others getting involved. Rich Farmbrough, 09:26 14 February 2009 (UTC).

This is not intended to be a change of policy; it is a reiteration of what we agree upon, so we can decide whether it has always happened. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:46, 15 February 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)

Support the general idea, but the wording does need some work, as expressed above. Mlaffs (talk) 05:11, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Pause may be appropriate. But again this is something that has already been looked at on the bot pages. And it's generally easy to stop a bot, many will stop on the leaving of a talk page message. This is really best passed over to BAG. Rich Farmbrough, 09:48 14 February 2009 (UTC).

Bot tasks

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Tony, do you have any statistics concerning the relationship between consistency and search ranking? The assertion seems somewhat counter-intuitive; since most linkage occurs on a per-topic basis rather than against an entire class of articles, it seems likely that the presence of links to an article would be based on the quality of that article, regardless of superficial consistency with other, unrelated articles. Kirill 04:26, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't believe that consistency has been key to Google rankings; this site has had inconsistent formatting since I joined it (in 2004), and some of our inconsistencies are entrenched in widely-known guidelines (e.g. WP:ENGVAR). Because bots have the ability to drastically change the landscape, I think that they should be non-controversial. Is there an existing policy or guideline citation for this principle, Septentrionalis? Cool Hand Luke 18:54, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, MBisanz. I would support a finding like this, citing Wikipedia:BOT#Bot requirements. Cool Hand Luke 19:31, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

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)

Response to Kirill and Luke: I appear to have made a statement here in which I didn't think through the wording well, in "WP's site-wide consistency is one attribute that places it above most other google hits". I concede that consistency is unlikely to cause high rankings directly; however, it may well have played on Google's decisions to implement search algorithms that favour it. I can't prove that, of course. All the same, I strongly believe that consistency lends authority and trust to a body of text, whether a single document or 2.6M articles. Tony (talk) 14:21, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Strong support. This is important. As a side note, "authority and trust" are things in the mind, and should not be confused with PageRank. -- Earle Martin [^t/_c] 02:30, 1 February 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)

Hate to disagree with anyone, but I am almost 100% sure that consistency has nothing to do with Google ranking. Back in the days when I used to write cartloads of articles (without knowing much about consistency from Tony's point of view), I would regularly see my articles pop up on Google within a day or two, while I was still searching for more info to include. —Mattisse (Talk) 02:19, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

@CHL, the only such policy I am aware of is Wikipedia:BOT#Bot_requirements:

In order for a bot to be approved, its operator should demonstrate that it:

• is harmless
• is useful
• does not consume resources unnecessarily
• performs only tasks for which there is consensus
• carefully adheres to relevant policies and guidelines
• uses informative messages, appropriately worded, in any edit summaries or messages left for users

I believe the policy has generally been interpreted that a bot task must have community consensus to run, even if it may be somewhat controversial (such as the various image removal bots), but generally the two coincide to where it is a rare exception. MBisanz ^talk 19:04, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I have not read through bot policy, but Mbisanz's quote seems fairly close to this PP; stirring up controversy is causing harm. In general, one could distinguish between the image removal bots, which had consensus and were serving an imposed necessity of avoiding copyright breach, and non-controversial bots, which presumably have consensus, because nobody minds them. The essential claim here is the absence of consensus. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:25, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Again this is how bot approval is already handled. The above proposal would lead to more wiki-lawyering of the kind that we have already seen from some editors who launch anti-robot campaigns on the basis of one or two disputed edits. Rich Farmbrough, 09:54 14 February 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:

Tony1: concepts are often necessary to reach holdings in ArbCom cases. Take a look at some of the principles from Highways 2—I think some of them could be adapted for this case. Cool Hand Luke 19:11, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

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)
• 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)
• WP is not the European Union, and subsidiarity does not belong here. If this is allowed, it will lead to a fragmentation of WP into an infinite number of projects, many of which will seek to apply their jurisdiction to areas of overlap, leading to inevitable conflict and edit wars. Ohconfucius (talk) 02:31, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment to Luke: unsure what "holdings" are; if there are precedents for the pronouncing of existing policy (rather than citing particular parts of it to support judgements), I believe arbitrators might consider not doing so—I can't see the point, and again, there's the potential for weakening community faith in policies that do not recieve such "reinforcement". Tony (talk) 14:26, 29 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)

Again a good idea in principle, but perhaps a better approach would be to have stable versions of the MoS and make monthly proposals out of the changes to air via Village Pump/Signpost? Because the changes we have recently seen in MoS have been very significant (on an MoS scale), and not aired at all (outside MoS), such as a reversal on the usage of p.m./pm - vitually every article with a 12 hour clock time became uncompliant overnight, as they had all been made compliant with the previous version. Rich Farmbrough, 10:01 14 February 2009 (UTC).

That is why such changes are entirely improper; where there is disagreement MOS should describe the disagreement or say nothing. Least of all should it do so without discussion outside the narrow confines of MOS. It is too late, I suppose, to restore the previous healthy variety; but the waste of time and effort on pm/p.m. should never be repeated. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:02, 15 February 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:

This is somewhat over-simplified; the endless stream of editors showing up to disagree with NPOV doesn't mean that said policy doesn't enjoy consensus in the interim, for example. One might better define "significant number" in terms of the number of individuals involved in the original consensus; ten objections need not necessarily undo the existing consensus of a hundred editors, and so forth. Kirill 04:31, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

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)

Rejoinder to Kirill: I believe that if ArbCom is able to agree on a more fine-grained definition of consensus, this would no longer be redundant; it's a precarious task to try to define it more closely, though, especially through this choppy, discontinuous process. Tony (talk) 14:30, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Support. If opposition emerges, consensus is no longer present. -- Earle Martin [^t/_c] 03:05, 22 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)

And when, in between, the old consensus is denied by editors about as often as it is confirmed, it ceases to be consensus, and we look for a new one by editing and discussion. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:56, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Support Rexx is incorrect, Wikipedia is not a democracy. Majorities are not required for a consensus to end. -- Kendrick7^talk 22:32, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Support - This is my position. I use WP:MoS#Overlinking and underlinking in reviewing articles for GA and have never had a problem with other editors over this issue. —Mattisse (Talk) 02:57, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

• In reply to Kyrill: NPOV enjoys a special position as a policy we cannot abandon without ceasing to be Wikipedia, so it's not strictly comparable. Setting that aside, yes, significant should be relative to the size of the challenged consensus; I would have no objection to adding that if there is anybody to whom this isn't already clear. If anybody thinks of a smooth way to say this clearly, feel free to add 8.1 here.Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:44, 23 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)

On the contrary, this principle affirms, even depends upon, "Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale." That applies equally well to a "consensus" of three editors bvack in 2006, as to any other place and time. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:01, 19 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)

Support per WP:TIND. -- Kendrick7^talk 07:48, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Couldn't possibly support more. Mlaffs (talk) 05:16, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Disagree - Overlinking, including date autoformating, makes editing substantially more difficult for me. I ask other editors if they will agree to delinking of dates and common words when I am editing their articles for GA or FAC, and so far they have always agreed. —Mattisse (Talk) 03:02, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

What would you do if an editor disagreed? Tennis expert (talk) 21:13, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Nothing. That is up to the editor. —Mattisse (Talk) 23:27, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

You would not fail the article? Tennis expert (talk) 11:09, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

No, the Good article critera are not the same as FAC. If I felt overlinking were a problem, I would ask for a second opinion on the article. Most articles at GAN do not have dates linked anyway, so it is not a problem. —Mattisse (Talk) 20:35, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm amazed that an article could be considered a Good Article despite it's non-compliance with the allegedly mandatory Manual of Style. Or perhaps the MOS is merely a collection of recommendations and isn't really mandatory, an argument that the Good Article criteria implicitly support. Tennis expert (talk) 10:03, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Tennis expert, have you actually read the good article criteria? The only MOS guidelines that have to be followed are those for "lead sections, layout, jargon, words to avoid, fiction, and list incorporation". Dabomb87 (talk) 22:32, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Of course I've read them. See your discussion page for a previous dialogue with you, where you appeared to concede that the Manual of Style is just a collection of recommendations: "The criteria might be lax, but the FAC reviewers are not so forgiving". Anyway, your point is that the MOS is mandatory and must be complied with. Yet, the good article criteria specifically say that an article cannot be kept from good status merely because it fails to comply with the MOS. Thus, your argument results in a serious contradiction. The MOS is mandatory, yet it need not be followed before Wikipedia is willing to declare that an article is "good". Clearly, this supports the counter-argument, i.e., the MOS is not mandatory. Tennis expert (talk) 22:51, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

First of all, I was talking about Good articles, in which only some MOS guidelines must be complied with. Second of all, I did not ever say (or "concede") that the MOS is a collection of recommendations. I will admit that I may have misunderstood the FA criteria at that time [when I made that comment]. I now know that Featured articles must follow all the MOS guidelines. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:07, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

If the Manual of Style is mandatory, i.e., must be followed even by the lowliest of articles, then why would the good article criteria specifically say that only certain aspects of the MOS must be complied with before an article qualifies as "good"? Tennis expert (talk) 23:15, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Concur; the dedication shown by certain editors to date unlinking in the face of disputes amazes me for such an unimportant task. -- Earle Martin [^t/_c] 23:42, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Heartily agree -- The obsession by certain Wikipedians to enforce this piece of the MoS without any reasonable exceptions led me to almost quit Wikipedia. Not that anyone noticed I had left until I threw a tantrum, but this put me in the uncomfortable position of being an outsider where I thought I was an insider -- so why not leave? This kind of mechanistic application of written rules is why many outsiders have a low opinion of Wikipedia's processes. -- llywrch (talk) 20:06, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

ArbCom's powers

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

If a bot with broad impact had only a very narrow sample of participation from BAG, I think it would be best for ArbCom to "remand" the decision so that the wider community could submit more feedback. Cool Hand Luke 19:14, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Support. This is simply common sense. -- Earle Martin [^t/_c] 03:08, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

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)

Why would ArbCom wish to take on extra powers? To settle this case. (They're not extra; but that's a detail.) If ArbCom thinks banning Lightbot will end this dispute and get most of these editors back to productive editing, then they should wish to exercise that power; if they don't think it will work, they shouldn't exercise it, no matter how firmly they have the right to. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:59, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Support A Bot is just an instrument of a given user. If ArbCom can ban my mouse and keyboard, which are just similar less efficient instruments, they must likewise have complete dominion over any program I would create as their proxy. -- Kendrick7^talk 07:52, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm too involved in other aspects of this case to give an opinion as a BAG member, but could I suggest the clerks contact some of the more active BAG members like Bjweeks (talk · contribs) and Mr.Z-man (talk · contribs) as well as the more bot-active Crats like Taxman (talk · contribs) and Nichalp (talk · contribs) to get further opinions on process? MBisanz ^talk 19:23, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

The Committee has the power to make such remedies as topic-bans, as well as highly specific remedies (such as the restriction that Everyking familiarise himself with a dispute before commenting, etc.). That they should have the power to prohibit a user from using automated tools in some or any fashion is self-evident. The problem comes with seeing this as "bot" related -- a prohibition would be against a user acting in a particular way (clearly the AC's role), rather than a bot restriction. For this reason, I would phrase the principle as "The Committee may restrict users from areas of editing, such as using bots, where their behaviour is problematic." [[Sam Korn]] ^(smoddy) 19:42, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

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:

On the "vague" point Tennis expert and Septentrionalis have made some arguments below that I largely agree with. BAG should not approve "blank checks." No opinion at this time whether Lightbot was such a vague blank check, but it is much broader that the previous two approvals. Cool Hand Luke 21:25, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

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)

Support. "Edits may add, remove or modify links to dates" - so, can do anything, basically. -- Earle Martin [^t/_c] 23:46, 23 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)

This is the second time today I've encountered Wiki applications of admin law. Weird. I take it then that you think BAG does not have the authority to issue blank check approvals? Cool Hand Luke 19:19, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Speaking for myself, I don't think it does; if BAG were to approve "this bot can do anything that it can be programmed to do", that would defeat the purpose of having a Bot Approval Group in the first place; everybody would then borrow that bot rather than go through approval. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:31, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

The point is that there is a good reason for prohibiting excess delegations of power in the real world. That should apply by analogy to BAG. Tennis expert (talk) 21:15, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

The crux of the issue is what constitutes "excess". From Tennis expert's wholescale reverts of editors who have undone date autoformatting, it would appear one is one too many. Ohconfucius (talk) 06:16, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

The actual approval was not of the original proposal but the "resolution" section at the bottom. It is also clear that the proposal was made because of wiki-lawyering by people who opposed LightBot on principle, possibly parties to this dispute. The proposal approved was almost completely a re-statement of previous approvals with clarification. The "general fixes" section is I think perhaps a slight ewrror in that I suspect LightMouse meant it to apply to the generally good and uncontentious "general fixes" of AWB, whereas the BAG member took it to be minor tweaks with dates and units. Notwithstanding it was made amply clear in the discussion that it did not apply to correctly autoformatted dates. Rich Farmbrough, 10:30 14 February 2009 (UTC).

Is this a deliberate lie? The previous two approvals are linked to from User:Lightbot; the first one lists four specific tasks (and even then asks a non-zero error rate be tolerated; the second would permit Lightbot to run automatically and proposes two amendments. Neither of these are the blanket permission requested in the third. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:55, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

No consensus

2) There is no consensus to delink all dates

Comment by Arbitrators:

Judging by the existence of the RFAR, there's clearly not consensus for something, but I think the disagreement is nuanced enough that it wouldn't be helpful for ArbCom to make this kind of declaration. Cool Hand Luke 19:23, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Support. —Locke Cole • t • c 18:57, 14 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)

Except that Lightbot was also removing links that were in full compliance with MOSNUM, a problem that was raised at Lightmouse's talk page, and ended up at AN. Mlaffs (talk) 05:29, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Stop this circus. This is arse about face. Per WP:Consensus and per RexxS above: "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." Instead of scaling the Reichstag in between the time 'lack of consensus was claimed, a full-scale assault on the Everest could have been attempted. Instead, the proposer waited until late November. Ohconfucius (talk) 02:07, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

There never was a consensus to delink dates community wide, and there still isn't. —Locke Cole • t • c 05:30, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Rejoinder to Luke: Well yes, it does look like a complex case ("nuanced", as you say) that—like many others past, present and future—are probably best nutted out by the community itself. That this can sometimes be cumbersome and even heated is to be expected on a wiki. Keeping it reasonably under control emotionally is necessary, but the caravan moves on inevitably. I believe that the issue should and will evolve naturally. Tony (talk) 14:36, 29 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)
  • That is precisely what we have not done. Each group of editors has made up their own mind, and then Lightbot or date delinker or somebody swoops in and "corrects" them. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:04, 21 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)

Support While delinking months and days of month had consensus, there was never consensus to de-link all years, eras, and centuries, for all of time, which is what the bot was performing. -- Kendrick7^talk 07:56, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Support. While it may well indeed be useful to delink many or even most dates, there was no clear consensus to delink them all, particularly where links were removed that were in clear compliance with MOSNUM. Mlaffs (talk) 05:29, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Strong support This is clearly what the recent RFC demonstrated. All we had was a limited consensus that the old system of autoformatting was depreciated which applies only to days of month links. That does not give any support to mass delinking of year, decade and century links, and edit warring whenever someone tries to put some back, which is what has been happening lately. G-Man ^?

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)

Support. Strong AI it isn't. -- Earle Martin [^t/_c] 03:20, 22 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)

• Well, as a professional programmer with numerous years of bot-writing to my name, I am amply qualified to "pass judgement" on this "esoteric" (to you, perhaps) issue. Perhaps you'd like to explain to us what a "page" of code is, and what it means in relation to Lightbot, both in terms of the efficiency of the language it is programmed in for the task, and its overall cyclomatic complexity. No? I thought not. I guess being patronizing about something you clearly have no idea about is easier. -- Earle Martin [^t/_c] 03:20, 22 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)

Support per Tennis above. This should be a human decision. -- Kendrick7^talk 07:57, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Support. This couldn't be more obvious. Mlaffs (talk) 05:31, 21 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. See Tony's deconstruction of the results. Ohconfucius (talk) 02:12, 19 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)

Summary

5) I cannot rule out that the three or four non-filing parties intend to improve Wikipedia; that's what WP:AGF means. In practice, however, their efforts result either in a campaign for a New and Improved, politically correct, English, or in preferences for Tony's native dialect over others. When they fail to accomplish that, they resort to obscenity, abuse, and efforts to blackball editors out of MOS, as here.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I am glad that Pmanderson quoted the following conversation, as I was personally disturbed by the attitude it exemplified. -- Earle Martin [^t/_c] 19:31, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

I have said substantially this elsewhere; since I believe it a fair summary of the evidence, I shall say it here. The link leads to GregL saying to an editor who disagrees with him who queries his response to Locke Cole's announcement of this RfAr: [note: corrected summary here -- Earle Martin [^t/_c]]

• [Locke Cole announces RfAr]
• GregL: "Yeah, we were laughing about that this morning."
• Earle Martin: "What do you mean we, Kemosabe?"
• GregL: "Some of us besides you, Tonto". Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:41, 20 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.

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:

These are two remedies. Cool Hand Luke 19:28, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

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)

Strike, change to support given evidence of socking presented by MBisanz. —Locke Cole • t • c 05:34, 22 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 (ie this is not a remedy, but punitive sanction and vindictive action). 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)

I'm clearly biased ... but I strongly ask that ArbCom take into account Lightmouse's expertise, sensitivity and politeness, as well as his willingness to continually improve the technical operation of the tools. He is an asset to the project. Rather than punitive measures, let's get the bot approval process to a more efficient state. Tony (talk) 14:39, 29 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)

Disagree - I want to be able to continue to use Lightmouse's js script to delink dates for my purposes, and I would be disheartened if Lightmouse could not continue to maintain and improve the delinking scripts. —Mattisse (Talk) 03:09, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

You (nor anyone else) should be delinking dates en masse, there is no consensus for this. —Locke Cole • t • c 05:34, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

When preparing an article for GA or FAC, we definitely do need to delink dates, as the MOS currently states that dates should not be linked. It is a royal pain to delink a huge article manually. The only question there appears to be on the consensus right now is whether straight year links or year in... links should be delinked. Karanacs (talk) 19:49, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, this is a perfect example of the problems with FA and GA.

• That's not what MOS says; it actually says Dates are normally not linked, and then proceeds to link to the exceptions: where the link adds to reader information in context. (Idiom would be are not normally, but the sense is the same.)
• That's not what MOS should say; there is no consensus to go further than normally, which is an acknowledgement that abnormal cases exist.
• Enforcing a rule which MOS does not support and which does not work to the benefit of the encyclopedia wastes FAC time. No wonder articles like Kingdom of Mysore, which is a POV-fest, based on abominable sources and written in worse English, pass FA (and Daniel Webster, which has many of the same problems, but is at least written by a native speaker); the reviewers are either partisans or have their heads too far up what they imagine MOS says to pay attention to minor details like neutrality, verifiability, accuracy, and clarity. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:48, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

No, that's not the situation at all. There's consensus for linking month-day and years in certain situations ("sometimes"). What MOSNUM says right now is largely irrelevant since it was protected two months ago because of this dispute. Pointing to it as an authority is also bad form. —Locke Cole • t • c 23:57, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I have to respectfully disagree with Locke's conclusion. The sole purpose of fully-protecting any article is to stop edit-warring and forcing the participants to engage in a broader arena if they wish to make changes. It says nothing about the status of the article. I am confident that any consensus for a change of wording arising from the recent RfC's, for example, would be implemented. The second issue concerns the authority of any wikipedia guideline, and MOSNUM in particular. I still maintain that guidelines are a collection of consensuses and would not lightly urge ignoring them, especially when considering their application to the very best of our articles. --RexxS (talk) 01:16, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

• To clarify, I am not delinking articles en masse. I delink articles that I am working on to move them toward GA or FA status. Delinking dates is sometimes the only way to tell whether the date format is being used consistently in an article. Since most readers do not have a preference set for date formats, it is important to see what the general reader does, and not just what wikipedia editors see. I delink also because I find too many links in an article are confusing to me and make the article hard to read. When I add a wikilink to an article I think about whether that wikilink will actually add information of relevance to the reader. I do not want to send the reader away from the article on an irrelevant link. —Mattisse (Talk) 21:27, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
  • In short, you waste your time and Wikipedia's resources making trivial and irrelevant changes to articles and call that improving them. I will take a break and consider what finding are warranted to stop this folly, or at least stop it being presented as a defense of a public nuisance like Lightbot. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:50, 23 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. This is not a remedy, but punitive sanction and vindictive action 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)

Support this given evidence of socking. —Locke Cole • t • c 05:36, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Support, but suggest a permanent bar on Lightmouse engaging in MOS-related bot activity. -- Earle Martin [^t/_c] 18:52, 24 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)

Yes, let's please abandon the fallacy that this whole exercise is entirely about two irked editors trying to take multiple cracks at a battle they "lost". Lightmouse's talk page was not without its share of visitors concerned about Lightbot's rampant date edits. Many of those visitors — myself included — had absolutely no dog in the autoformatting fight and are not regulars at MOSNUM. We simply had good faith concerns about the date de-linking done by the bot, particularly with regard to its removal of links that conformed with MOSNUM and other valid chronological links that provide context. That it took escalating those concerns to AN and AN/I on separate occasions highlights the extent of the problem. Mlaffs (talk) 05:40, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Support Although I would revoke this user from bot construction for life, yet if WP:BAG is giving editors an open pass to write a bot to muck up the project in however a way they see fit, ArbCom needs to put a stop to such shenanigans. -- Kendrick7^talk 08:02, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Partial support. Lightbot would be a useful tool in the right hands, provided that its scope was properly defined. Mlaffs (talk) 05:40, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Disagree - Litghtmouse's script is a wonderful thing and has made life as an article editor much easier for me. I would be very discouraged if I were not allowed to use the delinking script anymore. In fact, the chill that this Arbitration case has thrown over the simple process of trying to edit articles for the general reader, and the use of a simple script that aids this process, is disheartening. —Mattisse (Talk) 21:32, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

• Again, a script is not a bot; this is proposed against the bot. If the script proves to be a nuisance or an obstacle to the proper conduct of FA, that's another issue. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:58, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Bot Disapproval

1.3) Lightbot is hereby disapproved.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

By itself, as a separate remedy. But since Lightmouse has already requested another bot to replace Lightbot (Cleanbot, per the evidence page) further remedies are called for. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:01, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

• Please, no. The delinking script is a wonderful thing for article editing. It is the easiest way to determine if the date format is being used consistently in the article. Doing this by hand is very difficult. —Mattisse (Talk) 21:35, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Lightbot isn't the delinking script; but findings on it are clearly also called for. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:52, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Lightmouse restricted

1.4) Lightmouse is barred for six months from constructing, designing, or advocating bots to enforce any portion of WP:MOS or its subpages.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:01, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Transparency

1.5) Any further bot approval requests by Lightmouse, under any user name, shall include all his usernames.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. If the next one passes, his other usernames should provide the same data as the current main account. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:01, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Accountability

1.6)ArbCom recommends to the Bot Approval Group that they require applicants to make their edit histories and block logs readily available in approval requests.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed; I'm thinking of some template like {{Checkuser}}. They already seem to do this for the bot, but not for the constructor. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:13, 23 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, in that almost everything in this "workshop" is the continuation of some pretty thinly-disgused forum-shopping; the sanctions/censures are merely point-scoring and personal attacks legitimised by the system. This proposal is itself probably worthy of the "WP is not reality TV" 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. They cannot be "uninvented", and even if they 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)

Oppose Guidelines appear to be useful; the issue is pedantic editors who can't tell black from white and thus refuse to acknowledge there is such a thing as gray, and they program bots and use automated tools to eradicate gray from the project. -- Kendrick7^talk 08:08, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Oppose — the guidelines are useful. All involved need to remember, however, that they're neither the sermon from the mount nor the fruit from the poisoned tree. Mlaffs (talk) 05:42, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Oppose - WP:MOSNUM is useful to me in reviewing and copy editing articles for other editors. —Mattisse (Talk) 03:13, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Oppose. Overkill. The entire point of this dispute is about the authority of the MoS: is it a recommendation, or is it policy? One item that I fear that has been overlooked in this dispute is that, even as a guideline, the MoS/MoSNUM does have a powerful influence by establishing (so to speak) the default settings over articles. And violating it for poor -- or no -- reasons can lead to user blocks as a case of WP:DISRUPT or WP:POINT. And even if the entire MOSNUM section were declared historic, we'd have to go about writing an whole new section to answer the questions it does now. -- llywrch (talk) 20:26, 9 February 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:

This doesn't strike me as a good idea. Besides, Wikiprojects can have similar problems. See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Highways 2. Cool Hand Luke 19:28, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

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)

As for Kotniski and Ohconfucius. Anderson has been conducting a concerted war against the status of the MoS for more than two years. It's boring and destructive to one of the contributing factors to WP's authority on the Internet (a modicum of consistency and quality in style and formatting, especially for FAs and FLs). Tony (talk) 09:32, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Oppose, as per 2) above. Mlaffs (talk) 05:43, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Oppose - per comments above. This would make working on articles for GA and FAC more difficult for me. —Mattisse (Talk) 03:15, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Oppose. I never suggested such a proposal. I just mentioned that a MOS should be followed by all by nature of its name, and I support such a notion.--HJensen, talk 10:23, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Armistice

4) The Arbitration Committee has instructed all editors "not to engage in any program of mass linking or delinking of dates in existing articles, including but not limited to through the use of bots, scripts, tools, or otherwise" until this case is settled.

All parties to this case are hereby required not to engage in any program of mass linking or delinking of dates in existing articles, including but not limited to through the use of bots, scripts, tools, or otherwise. The Arbitration Committee strongly recommends that all editors whatsoever also abstain from so acting.

Comment by Arbitrators

Comment by parties

Comment by others

Proposed. At the moment, we have an armistice; this declares a perpetual armistice. I have no objection to tweaking this to have it end after a year, or after there is a general agreement on how bots are to be used; it could also be phrased as a general sanction.

There are three ways of dealing with the massive number of linked dates.

1. Ignore it and leave them alone. This would be indicated by #Tempest in a teapot, above.
2. Persuade a large number of editors that the Wiki way is not to link dates except in unusual cases. The dates are linked now because editors were persuaded for five years that the Wiki Way was to link them, so this will work if editors can be persuaded not to link dates; it may take another five years. We have time before WP:DEADLINE.
3. Run bots and scripts throughout WP, and unlink dates without consultation and without listening to complaints.

This case exists at base because a handful of extremists, unable to stand #1, and too impatient and too tactless for #2, insist on #3, clamoring "If we don't unlink dates, Wikipedia will be unprofessional [why?]; will collapse [how?]; will lose its top search rank [how? and why should we care?]"

Let us instead go back to #2. This will work in reducing links, unless, as may be, many editors cannot be persuaded to remove most date links. (If that happens, then we shouldn't remove most of them, per WP:CONSENSUS, resulting in solution #1; but I don't think that will happen.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:05, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

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)

Oppose. Redundant and inappropriate for an ArbCom finding. Tony (talk) 09:33, 20 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:

I don't think this is broadly true. At one point, there seemed to be a consensus that IAR was not policy, but it is; the whole point of IAR is that our policies and guidelines (even those with unambiguous consensus) sometimes get in the way of building an encyclopedia. I tend to agree with Septentrionalis—saying "IAR" is not enough, that's the error. Cool Hand Luke 19:37, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

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)
• So the current system is bad? News to me. This attempt to knobble bots sounds like sour grapes to me. Tony (talk) 09:35, 20 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)

Response to Tony1

This proposed principle describes the current system, which is approval by consensus when the bot approval request is made. The point of this principle is that the current system is the best means of allowing bots to edit. Permitting bots to edit without any prior approval is a recipe for chaos. Requiring every bot run to be subject to scrutiny by the "peanut gallery" would soon bring the use of bots to a halt. What do you propose as an alternative? --RexxS (talk) 18:11, 21 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)

Best interests of the project

5) The interests of the project are best served not by sanctions on productive editors, but by resolving conflicts which divide them.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. When groups of editors disagree on an issue, that conflict is best resolved by reaching a consensus. Restrictions on productive editors does have a negative impact on the project, and the positive effect of reducing disruption is only a short-term gain unless the underlying disagreement is resolved. Any sanctions on editors under these circumstances should be considered only as a last resort. --RexxS (talk) 02:40, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't know what else you can do, though, when one party (Lightmouse in particular) simply refuses to acknowledge there is a conflict. I'm reminded of a paragraph from the novel A Scanner Darkly:

"This guy was more burned out than he showed. I felt so. He drove up to Ventura one day, cruising all over to find an old friend back inland toward Ojai. Recognized the house on sight without the number, stopped, and asked the people if he could see Leo. 'Leo died. Sorry you didn't know.' So this guy said then, 'Okay, I'll come back again on Thursday.' And he drove off, he drove back down the coast, and I guess he went back up on Thursday again looking for Leo. How about that?"

Single mindedness is OK, blind obsession is not. The history of this user's behavior (going back to 2006, really, but even since July that I witnessed) suggests that without sanctions, or the threat of sanctions, we'll all end up having to "come back again on Thursday." -- Kendrick7^talk 17:37, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

No consensus is deprecated

6) Wikipedia does not benefit from policy or guidelines being considered "no consensus".

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. This is intended to "test the water" to resolve a potential problem as stated here, where a group of editors could challenge a guideline and effectively nullify it without removing that guideline, thus making it impossible for supporters of the guideline to counter-challenge. That unsatisfactory state can be avoided by literal application of WP:CON which implies consensus exists until replaced by a new one. --RexxS (talk) 02:40, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

A lie by a would-be despot who must have a rule for every situation. Ban RexxS so he can more fun playing any of the on-line role-playing games which welcome Czars. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:24, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Guidelines and policies can be deprecated, typically becoming "historical" or "essays" -- this happens from time to time. With the probable exception of WP:5, nothing is written in stone -- other rules can outlive their usefulness. The new consensus can simply be that there is no longer consensus. The same should apply to any part of a policy or guideline. -- Kendrick7^talk 12:43, 25 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)

Oppose per Arthur below. -- Earle Martin [^t/_c] 17:30, 15 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 No rationale has ever been presented for de-linking historical years, which like geographical links, provide context to our readers who were not alive during such a given year, in the same way the average user had not been to such and such a place. -- Kendrick7^talk 08:11, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Oppose Per Arthur Rubin and Kendrick7. G-Man ^? 21:47, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Underlying dispute

2) The underlying dispute in this case is a disagreement between two groups of editors on the issue of linking dates.

Comments by Arbitrators:

Comments by parties:

Comments by others:

Proposed. To establish that date-linking is the fundamental issue, and other issues are consequential. --RexxS (talk) 02:57, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid I disagree, in part, with this one. The fundamental issue is disagreement between (possibly more than) two groups of editors about consensus on the issue of linking dates. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:54, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Arthur Rubin that there is a fundamental disagreement over the issue of linking dates between these editors, and most likely others as well. Addressing the behavior of one group of edit warriors or of a particular bot will not settle this fundamental issue, which will continue to cause clashes. Therefore, disciplining any editor or bot in this Arbitration will merely shift the focus of this disagreement to another arena. The issue of date linking needs to be addressed directly in some way. —Mattisse (Talk) 15:15, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Civility dispute

2) The issues in this case concerning editor civility are primarily consequential to the dispute about date-linking.

Comments by Arbitrators:

Comments by parties:

Comments by others:

Proposed. Although ArbCom is the most competent body to adjudicate this issue, I contend that no long-term resolution is possible without a resolution of the underlying dispute. --RexxS (talk) 02:57, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Agree. I have the impression that the editors involved in this arbitration are not normally involved in edit wars. (I could be wrong.) If there is not a resolution of the underlying dispute, I don't think the outcome of this arbitration will settle anything. —Mattisse (Talk) 15:20, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Bot editing dispute

3) The issues in this case concerning the disputed edits made by bots or by script are primarily consequential to the dispute about date-linking.

Comments by Arbitrators:

Comments by parties:

Comments by others:

Proposed. Although ArbCom is the most competent body to adjudicate this issue, I contend that no long-term resolution is possible without a resolution of the underlying dispute. --RexxS (talk) 02:57, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Agree. How an editor evaluates the bot behavior at issue depends on that editor's opinion of when date linking to single years, single days etc. should be employed. —Mattisse (Talk) 15:26, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. Wikipedia:Tendentious editing is the issue, it's just taken the form of bot and script driven date-delinking. -- Kendrick7^talk 17:27, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Proposed remedies

Solving the underlying problem

1) Tony1 and Locke Cole are instructed to collaborate together and with a designated uninvolved administrator to produce an RfC, which addresses to the satisfaction of the Arbitration Committee - or such persons as they may delegate - each and every outstanding disagreement on the issues of date-linking. This RfC is to commence not later than 30 days following the conclusion of this case.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

On the surface, it is an attractive idea. I don't dismiss it, but I'm dubious about its viability for the following reasons. (1) I think there's a certain emotional distance between Cole and me, despite my invitations (three times) to pursue wikifriendship. However, I cannot deny that I've not made things easier by robustly prosecuting what I believe is best for the project on these substantive matters, which clearly upsets Cole. The evidence is that there would be difficulty in collaborating thus, although I'd be willing to try. (2) It's questionable to give just two editors this role, when many more are knowledgeable and have invested a great deal in the issue. (3) There's no out if it fails. (4) The role of an ArbCom rep is not defined here, and it might be difficult to find a mediator who has the right skills to manage a one-on-one process. PS Does WP have a really really good, professional-type mediator in its ranks? I don't mean to be negative, but it appears to me that our resources are overstretched in that department. Tony (talk) 14:54, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed. The desired outcomes of this case should be: a way forward on the underlying issue of date-linking and a resumption of collaborative editing at MOSNUM. I humbly suggest this proposal has the potential to advance both those outcomes, given the possibility that all parties accept those outcomes as essential to progress. --RexxS (talk) 03:32, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I support this proposal; I am a long-time (since 2005) editor, however often too busy in "real life" to edit frequently. I have not previously participated in discussion in any venue on this topic (that I can recall). I missed the earlier discussions, probably due to my own fault, in not being active enough on WP. Most of my editing involves historical topics, and I believe, in most articles which reference events prior to the adult lifetime of the typical user, carefully considered links to "bare year" or "year in" articles can provide valid context and/or navigational ("build the web") assistance to readers (and/or editors). I would appreciate an opportunity to have a voice, in a proposed new RFC, especially if it would involve the assistance of a neutral admin in framing the RFC (and assisting in determining consensus?), and also if the issue of the desirability of the use "bare year" and "year in" links were clearly distinguished from the issue of date autoformatting. Thanks, Lini (talk) 14:03, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

As a word of caution, I doubt that every issue with date linking can be resolved by a single RFC - either the RFC will be incredibly long to try to iterate every possible use of date links, or a shorter and more usable RFC will require additional discussion. Personally, I think the existing RFCs establish some factors that can be built on for an additional RFC as reiterating some of the clearly resolved issues (using existing DA for example) are established already. --MASEM 14:26, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, Masem, exactly that! It seems clear now that local consensus on the guidelines in question is not going to be satisfactory. The outstanding questions are going to have to be resolved by RfC's because that's the best way to draw in as much community participation as possible. I deliberately used the word "addressed" in the proposal, because I don't expect a resolution of every issue first time around. But by refining and building on the results of this proposed RfC, I really believe we can reach a resolution - by iteration, as you say, to converge on a consensus. P.S. I only used Tony and Locke as representatives of the two opposing viewpoints, I had no intention of excluding other input from the formulation of the RfC. --RexxS (talk) 16:35, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Agree that the issue is contentious and must be confronted directly in some way, rather than punishing the proponents of one side or the other. —Mattisse (Talk) 15:29, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I highly support this and am a bit confused why arbitration was pursued instead of an additional RfC. Karanacs (talk) 15:36, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

With two RfCs (and probably some previous unadvertised RfCs), with hundreds of !votes each, producing no results the parties can agree on, why suppose another RfC would do beter? I think the ArbCom needs to craft an RfC to which they could determine the meaning of the results. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:20, 29 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)

These last two comments seems profoundly unhelpful. If you don't understand why, please raise it on my talk page. Cool Hand Luke 20:01, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Another personal attack. -- Earle Martin [^t/_c] 19:56, 21 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)

Support The issue is a failure to compromise or in any other way act collaboratively or even constructively. Which is very bad form as removal of links is destructive at the outset. -- Kendrick7^talk 08:16, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Support. Unfortunate that anyone needs reminding of this, but all too clear that there are those represented on this very page who do. Mlaffs (talk) 05:46, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Support as obvious and fundamental to much else proposed as principles.. I observe that Tony manages to oppose this both as existing policy and guideline requirements (and so not needing to be stated) and as a dangerous innovation which would undermine policy. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:50, 23 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)

Another personal attack. -- Earle Martin [^t/_c] 19:56, 21 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)

Because if we'd all followed this process we wouldn't be here. —Locke Cole • t • c 22:12, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Knowlege and compliance are separate entities. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:51, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

It's relevant to the findings of fact I propose below (the lack of compliance, hence disruption and incivility). —Locke Cole • t • c 04:19, 29 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:

I think this does have a bearing on disputes like this. Written policy and guidelines don't capture all of our social norms. Cool Hand Luke 20:01, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Tony, you've expressed your philosophy several times, but if you look at old ArbCom decisions, the "principles" are filled with "motherhood" statements. We start with non-controversial background principles and build the details of our findings on top of them. Swooping in to declare one side the winner would seem unprincipled and possibly unjust. Cool Hand Luke 19:18, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

You might be right for this particular finding, but I do think that this case involves community norms more than most cases; some editing is disruptive even if it isn't enumerated at WP:DE. Cool Hand Luke 19:29, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

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

Agree. However, it would appear from this whole farce that some individuals are vested with considerably less common sense than others. Ohconfucius (talk) 08:42, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Another personal attack. -- Earle Martin [^t/_c] 19:56, 21 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)

Sorry, moved my first statement from the "others" section. Response to Luke: I agree that it has a bearing, but as for including such a statement in ArbCom's judgement, I think this is difficult without fine-graining it a little, so that it's not redundant. No one would disagree with the statement; but I'm unsure it moves us forward here. Tony (talk) 14:57, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Support. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:24, 14 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)

Disagree - if this means all Scripts that a user may have in monobook.js to make some tasks easier, such as Twinkle and Lightmouse's date delinking scripts. —Mattisse (Talk) 03:22, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

This only applies to scripts used in an "automatic" fashion or high speed edits (bot-like activity). Then you need BAG approval. —Locke Cole • t • c 05:41, 22 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:

"...is required..." — that's better; fixes RexxS' criticism above. Cool Hand Luke 20:01, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

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

Anything that can be added to fine-grain this a little? I'm thinking of how we might minimise disputes/unhappiness in the future while at the same time avoiding the knobbling of bots where they make a valuable contribution. It's a fine balance, and if someone can set out the technical fulcrum, as it were, in a few respects, that might enable a more useful, pertinent statement by ArbCom to be developed. Tony (talk) 15:02, 29 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:

Good relevant finding from Betacommand 2. Cool Hand Luke 20:01, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

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)

It's hard not to agree, but it already has equivalent status to policy if ArbCom has already said it; I believe it should explicitly cite that judgement if a statement draws on it, in the manner of reminding people, not of making new findings. Tony (talk) 15:05, 29 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)

Strong support. Mlaffs (talk) 05:49, 21 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 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:

I believe this is why bot use in controversial areas is discouraged, yes. Cool Hand Luke 20:01, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

The removal of "in order" by Tony looks good. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 11:37, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

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

The opening sentence is fine. The rest is fine too, except that methinks this is a loaded statement by Cole to imply that editors such as Lightmouse and Colonies Chris have tried to "game the system". Volume is the whole point of automatisation. The "many making few" would be a difficult judgement call and appears to invite highly subjective judgements on such edits—I think this would be intrusive and prone to possible abuse. On balance, this proposal needs recasting. I've removed "in order" as a redundancy; I hope no one minds. Tony (talk) 15:12, 29 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)

Is the proposer concerned about the efforts of a certain individual who through his/her username lays claim to being an expert in a particular racket sport? It appears to be the only blatant example I've seen during this entire dispute. Ohconfucius (talk) 02:21, 19 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)

Support clearly the main issue here. In addition, a handful of users shouldn't attempt to change guidelines in a way that effects every article on the project without any community notification, and redouble this slight by insisting, when new editors come complain about the change, that it's too late to change consensus, and that it was reached through some wide ranging discussion, while, oops, suddenly no one can remember where this very recent discussion occurred. -- Kendrick7^talk 18:42, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Struck upon reviewing discussions, it wasn't quite as bad as all that, although per my evidence, the rest is a fair gloss of User:Tony1's wikilawyering over consensus. -- Kendrick7^talk 11:39, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Try to avoid the temptation to vote. Workshop is for suggesting proposals and comment on them based on the evidence. This kind of evidence-free insinuation is not helpful. In August 2008, some two dozen users took part in the debate on the talk page to find a consensus on date autoformatting; it was announced, and comment invited, at the Village pump, and attention was drawn to Tony's collection of earlier comments by numerous editors. In November 2008, two RfCs were started, attracting comment from hundreds of users, and announced throughout the wiki. Where is the basis for your accusations? --RexxS (talk) 21:39, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

He wasn't voting. Also, the discussion from August involved (by my count) just over a dozen editors, this is not sufficient exposure to claim community wide consensus. —Locke Cole • t • c 05:44, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

It's a pity that someone of your obvious intellect should have to resort to simply gainsaying other folk's arguments to try to bolster your position. First: Of course Support is a (!)vote, no matter how many times you tell folks that it isn't. It has no place here. Second: Can you count the number of contributors to the August discussion, if I list them here? Kotniski, Keith D, Tony, JIMp, Bzuk, Greg L, SandyGeorgia, Christopher Parham, The Duke of Waltham, Lightmouse, sdsds, Gerry Ashton, PMAnderson, SatyrTN, Bazj, Jao, Philip Baird Shearer, Mattisse, Askari Mark, Teemu Leisti, EdJohnston, Fullstop, Seddon, GregorB, David Ruben, Rich Farmbrough, OranL. Just in case you can't manage it, that's 27. Finally: Who gives you the right to decide on how many people are needed for a consensus, community-wide or otherwise? How are you measuring "exposure"? You have no idea how many may have seen the notice at the village pump, and read the discussion, but not commented. --RexxS (talk) 05:23, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

That would be this level 2 section and its subsections. In fact, just over a dozen took part in the straw poll which occurs high in the section; some of the others expressed opinions for and against later (for example OranL's clear opposition). But several comments have nothing whatever to do with any eventual consensus on date autoformatting (most obviously Seddon's proposal to allow the all-numeric ISO format everywhere, which was shot down, and Rich Farmbrough's various comments). The poll is counted in evidence as 11 to 3 against autoformatting; if the other editors who commented are counted in, the result will be a narrower margin among about twenty. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 05:50, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

First, the August 2008 discussion was not about mass delinking, it was about deprecating dates linked for auto formatting. Second, my recollection may be off, but I don't seem to remember there being that many people participating in the actual !vote that this "consensus" was based upon (I'll take your word for it that I was off). Finally, exposure here is easy enough to see: it was noted on the Village Pump only, as far as I'm aware. It was not listed as an RFC, nor added to centralized discussions. So the exposure was quite limited; only those who saw it announced at the Village Pump during that week would have been aware of it. Otherwise only those watching WT:MOSNUM would have known about it. Again though, this is all irrelevant: the question was never proposed regarding mass delinking. Merely deprecation. —Locke Cole • t • c 05:56, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Also, regarding voting, my definition is someone who simply writes "Support" or "Oppose" and nothing else. Kendrick7 provided a rationale for his support, which goes far beyond a simple "vote". —Locke Cole • t • c 05:58, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

(in r to RexxS) There are editors on that list who I know and respect a great deal, and unsurprisingly, the issue discussed in the section PMAnderson links to was about, explicitly, linking to "A combination of day-number and month" about which there's never been much dispute. That's vastly different from the "consensus" which was claimed by the time I showed up (I thought it was in August, but by October I now guess, tempus fugit) maintaining that delinking all years, decades, centuries, eras, millenia, and what have you -- which is what Lightbot was actually doing -- was what was decided. Little wonder that when I asked for where this consensus was decided in the archives sometime later I was given the run around. -- Kendrick7^talk 06:14, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't disagree with most of the responses above, but question their relevance to the assertions Kendrick7 made. I reflect that the only guideline that has actually been changed in the past six months is the one concerning date autoformatting. As I hope can be seen, that is precisely what I addressed in response to Kendrick7. I still maintain that that change has been the subject of debate by the participation of a not insignificant number of editors in the August debate and in the recent RfC's. I see no reason to do otherwise than refute Kendrick7's initial comments. --RexxS (talk) 23:23, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

We're just talking about different discussions, basically. I think we are actually in complete agreement. Once I complete my evidence in regards to the late October discussions at MOSNUM, which I don't recall you being around for, you should begin to see the big picture I'm getting at here. Again, auto-formatting is a red herring and has little to nothing to do with why we are actually here, in my opinion. -- 23:44, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I had thought Locke Cole's evidence supported my recollection here. I am considering adding my own evidence page, though. -- Kendrick7^talk 19:53, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I have begun adding my evidence here. -- Kendrick7^talk 22:12, 23 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:

Heh. Like Septentrionalis I think this is a variation of WP:NOT#BATTLE. Cool Hand Luke 20:01, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

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)

We do not need ArbCom for this - The proposer can attempt to insert that into WP:NOT through the usual channels. Ohconfucius (talk) 02:24, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Ohconfucius. This is all very easy to mouth, but too vague and subjective to be useful or encoded in policy. It has the potential for abuse, I must say, where ?admins are placed in a position of judging nuances of animated debates. Totally impractical, my legalistic persona is telling me. Tony (talk) 15:15, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

The substance of this is already in WP:NOT#BATTLE. If, as his comment suggests, OhConfucius disagrees with it, it may be useful for ArbCom to affirm it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:47, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Support This more or less describes my experience at WT:MOSNUM, that I was simply going to be outworded and outwaited until I gave up trying to reason with the editors who wanted to remove all chronological links from the project, which I finally did. -- Kendrick7^talk 19:23, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Silence is consensus

10) Consensus can be presumed to exist until voiced disagreement becomes evident. However, claiming silence as consensus in the face of vocal and active objection is inappropriate.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Could definitely use some rewording, but I think I make the point reasonably well. My thoughts: was there silence over many date delinking edits? Sure. But that sounds like an invitation to edit war over thousands of articles, something I think most of us were trying to avoid by expressing our dissent at WT:MOSNUM. It follows then, that silence does not mean consensus when vocal opposition has already been raised (perhaps this should be codified at WP:CON; silence is only consensus when there is a lack of discussion/debate. —Locke Cole • t • c 02:27, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Totally meaningless. Tony (talk) 07:34, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Well yes, it's a proposal. If the arbitrators agree, then it becomes less meaningless. This addresses Colonies Chris (talk · contribs) claim that because of silence there was consensus for mass delinking, this is of course logically false because there was dissent expressed frequently at WT:MOSNUM. My finding of fact below continues this argument, though I have no idea for a remedy to address this in the future (other than suggesting WP:CON be modified to note that dissent on a project talk page over a site wide change should be enough to trump "silence as consensus"). I think it's logical, but somehow this keeps getting brought up as if it proves some point... —Locke Cole • t • c 07:56, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Of course you would say it's "meaningless", Tony, given the astonishing lack of empathy that the editors on your side of this dispute have displayed for others. -- Earle Martin [^t/_c] 08:02, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Conduct on Arbitration pages

11) The pages associated with Arbitration cases are primarily intended to assist the Arbitration Committee in arriving at a fair, well-informed, and expeditious resolution of each case. Participation by editors who present good-faith statements, evidence, and workshop proposals is appreciated. While allowance is made for the fact that parties and other interested editors may have strong feelings about the subject-matters of their dispute, appropriate decorum should be maintained on these pages. Incivility, personal attacks, and strident rhetoric should be avoided in Arbitration as in all other areas of Wikipedia.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. —Locke Cole • t • c 03:31, 13 February 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)

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

Disagree: it was a consensus, albeit one with a relatively small number of participants. "Editors can easily create the appearance of a changing consensus by asking again and hoping that a different and more sympathetic group of people discusses the issue. This is a poor example of changing consensus, and is antithetical to the way that Wikipedia works.". Ohconfucius (talk) 02:35, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand the relevance of the quotation or the link. —Locke Cole • t • c 22:19, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

You don't have to; Ohconfucius has been bandying around accusations of "forum shopping" all over the place. I suggest ignoring it. -- Earle Martin [^t/_c] 15:47, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Much evidence of community approval was gathered at this time. Do I provide all of the links yet again? (On request, yes.) See RexxS below. Tony (talk) 15:20, 29 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)

Well technically it's already been made: here (as well as responses to questions three and four). There's also my evidence presented (where something like nine[?] editors expressed objections). —Locke Cole • t • c 22:19, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Ah, your link goes to the one that has been exposed as being highly distorted in language and structure, here. Please be careful in the contruction of RfCs and the interpretation of their results. This one is a real problem on both counts, and we can draw no such conclusion from it. Tony (talk) 06:39, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Tony you participated in the creation of that RFC. It makes little sense to allow it to run for a month and then complain about it only after everyone has spent time voicing their opinions. I see you're also taking this route at WT:MOSNUM where it is equally unhelpful to moving us forward. —Locke Cole • t • c 06:44, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

True I was in discussions around this time, and did not Having reviewed the August discussion now, it's clear consent was about day-month links, and not about consent to de-linking historical years extending beyond living memory. There are four dimensions, time and space, and beyond our lifetimes, all 4 coordinates are useful to provide context to our readers. Anyone who programmed a bot to de-link all geographical locations would be laughed out of the project. Wikipedia is not a democracy or even a pluralocracy and yet my viewpoint was simply ignored and the bots continued. -- Kendrick7^talk 06:20, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Remarks updated; upon review I was not there until later. -- Kendrick7^talk 18:31, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Support Anyone reading of the debates on this issue at Talk:MOSNUM, or of the various edit wars, (or indeed this page) would come to the conclusion that this issue has caused considerable disquiet which has rumbled on for months. This hardly suggests any consensus was or has been reached. G-Man ^? 22:05, 21 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)

Oppose: This claim is wide of the mark, per RexxS, Mattisse et al. below. The community has spoken with overwhelming consensus that specific, explicit consensus is not required to implement style guidelines using automated or semi-automated means, here. Tony (talk) 07:03, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Tony the only consensus that was established was that date linking purely for auto formatting was deprecated. There's still no consensus for delinking all dates. —Locke Cole • t • c 07:07, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Um ... That might be worth debating if, conversely, there had been any consensus to link dates in the first place. In 2003, it was just adopted by some naive process of osmosis to supposedly prevent edit-wars about which format to use in each article. Tony (talk) 07:43, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

There was consensus (via discussion on auto formatting back in the day, and through many years of WP:SILENCE) for date linking. Only recently has that consensus changed (and even then, there's still no consensus for mass delinking via automated means because the community believes some date links should be kept). —Locke Cole • t • c 08:37, 10 February 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)

Support Per my previous comments. G-Man ^? 22:15, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Disagree - per HJensen. —Mattisse (Talk) 02:51, 22 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)

I don't think that it was disruptive. In fact, the two RfCs seemed to complement each other. Tony's provided a view as to the general opinion on date linking (and also on automated bots, which the other RfC didn't touch), while the "detailed" RfC provided more insight on the !voters' reasoning. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:45, 23 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)

Support The RfC was written as a strawman misrepresenting the dispute and thus was not in keeping with the consensus building process RfC's are meant to help. This speaks volumes about the underlying WP:OWNership issues. -- Kendrick7^talk 22:25, 21 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:

There seems to be some behavior issues. Has been way over the line in the past. Cool Hand Luke 20:01, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

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 (an ironic nickname, since my claim was two steps back ("you risk", not "you are", and "making a pig of yourself", quite different from "you are a pig" as a manner of speech) 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)

• I suppose I have to defend myself here, as childish as this seems: I was genuinely concerned about Tennis expert's state of mind when I saw his "Retired" sign (which now turns out to have been meaningless). He rejected my concern out of hand. End of topic as far as I'm concerned. Tony (talk) 07:16, 23 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 : Clearly preposterous. The evidence is not there to support this assertion (see talk page), and the case is built uniquely on the proposers inability to assume good faith where Tony is concerned. Ohconfucius (talk) 08:26, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Note Original incivil message available here. —Locke Cole • t • c 10:01, 22 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)

Reject, no evidence has been presented that actually supports this allegation, and to my knowledge, no FAC or FAR has ever been disrupted over any of the issues raised in this case. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:45, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

See the Lazare Ponticelli evidence on the Evidence page, plus two other examples (one by myself, one by Pmanderson). —Locke Cole • t • c 07:24, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Greg L has been disruptive

6) Greg L (talk · contribs) was disruptive when he created his own Request for Comment when a similar set of RFCs had only just been completed a month prior (and after a month of discussion).

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. —Locke Cole • t • c 02:15, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Note Locke Cole's archiving of the RfC without previous discussion. To his credit, when he was reverted, he did not try to repeat the action. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:22, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Greg's attempt to derail discussion should not be tolerated or encouraged, hence why I attempted to archive it. We already have two RFCs with data we can look at asking similar questions, we don't need one written entirely by Greg using prejudiced wording (and a much smaller audience) to determine where to go next. —Locke Cole • t • c 03:41, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

That was not the first time. In November, Locke prematurely archived Tony's delinking RFC only 14 hours after it started.[5] -- SWTPC6800 (talk) 02:50, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

After that an admin attempted to close the RFC twice (only to be reverted by two editors unwilling to recognize that the RFC was disruptive). My being bold isn't and never has been as disruptive as the antics engaged in by Tony1 and Greg L. —Locke Cole • t • c 03:41, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Greg L has been incivil

7) Greg L (talk · contribs) has been incivil to other editors, particularly those he disagrees with.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. —Locke Cole • t • c 02:15, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Support. -- Earle Martin [^t/_c] 15:43, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Oppose. I have a conflict of interest here, since Greg is a good wiki-friend. But two points: yes, Greg is heavy-handed sometimes in defence of what he is passionate (and very knowledgeable about), but people at MOSNUM and similar pages who are familiar with him—present company included—should know better than to take offence at every little potty reference. I privately find some of these references amusing, although it's true that I'm not on the receiving end. Even so, we're not made of cut-glass, are we? We're not innocent, vulnerable children you might want to protect from a few coarse words. I think we should all toughen up and pass off a few ill-tempered words as part of the deal. There is a danger in adopting a zero-tolerance policy towards posts by regulars that have a degree of negative emotion in them: there lies the slippery slope towards censorship. Now, I've been tempted to frame as widely as possible a few exchanges by others towards me as "personal attacks" and "incivility"—I did so against Anderson the other day at MOSNUM (in an edit-summary), realising how stupid this was to try to score tit-for-tat points. We still disagree about aspects of date-linking and autoformatting, and the debate will continue, but I think we have to learn to be tolerant of each other. Otherwise, ArbCom is like mommy. Tony (talk) 11:46, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Ohconfucius has been incivil

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

To a surprising extent even in this case, even. Cool Hand Luke 20:01, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Proposed, note that much evidence of this is on this very page (or in its edit history). —Locke Cole • t • c 10:03, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Rather than slinging mud at each other here, let's try to find ways of reducing tension on a day-to-day basis. That is, I'm sure, what ArbCom would want. Punitive measures won't do that; rather, they would risk making editors significantly more resentful of each other. See also my comments about Greg above. Again, CoI on my part, since Ohconfucius is a good wiki-friend. But I hope my comment is taken more broadly than this. Tony (talk) 11:50, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Support; I have been surprised how this behavior has continued even throughout this arbitration. -- Earle Martin [^t/_c] 13:48, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Everything was from the beginning a "who can accuse who with the most in shortest time" exercise, and this addition just lends more credence to that fact. I think the main issue of date delinking is being more and more obscured by people's preoccupation with this "civility" issue. Why can't editors grow up a bit, and focus on more serious matters. As I have pointed out several times here, the civility thing is so subjective, and it appears here that many editors casually throw around the "incivility" card whenever someone expresses disagreement. Just like disagreement in edits as a minimum are labelled an "edit war" to which people are suggested to receive eternal punishments. I must say that this document more and more are turning into a testament of a lot of childish behavior by grown ups not getting their way.--HJensen, talk 11:29, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

• Too true! I wasn't going to comment here at all, but to reply to a point you made, I'd say that ArbCom gets what ArbCom wants. It framed the case in terms of behaviour over delinking, the game has shifted from seeking to win the debate (which ArbCom is not habilitated to decide because it a matter for consensus) to seeking to win the ArbCom case by throwing the kitchen sink at the opposition. The gameplan, therefore, appears to be to tease out anything 'the opposition' did (from the tons exchange over the subject) which could remotely be construed as 'bad behaviour'. They have completely forgotten that we are all on the same side, and their continued conduct in this fashion is indeed regrettable. Ohconfucius (talk) 12:31, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

There was no silence regarding date delinking

9) There were active and continual objections raised at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers) over the mass delinking of articles. This active dissent on the project page quashes the "silence is consensus" claim made by those engaging in these types of edits.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed, subject to rewording. Again, the invitation seems to be to edit war here (you didn't revert these changes, the lack of reverts means there's consensus), which is unacceptable per policy (see WP:EW, etc). Vocal dissent was raised by many editors at WT:MOSNUM, more than enough for those engaging in these edits to consider stopping to participate in discussion aimed at finding consensus. —Locke Cole • t • c 02:50, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

If it appears that there was little or no outside comment in this matter, it was because the individuals responsible conveyed the impression that the matter was over & done with. When I discovered that the issue was still very much under debate, I was greatly disappointed at this display of arrogance & lack of interest in seeking a true consensus of all stakeholders. (For example, when I later raised the issue that the Mos was not policy but a systematic collection of recommendations, I received what appeared to be a dismissive response. Despite that, I assumed good faith, asked for a clarification, & heard nothing. Whether or not "silence is consensus", it is clear some of the parties involved were clearly not interested in listening for objections. -- llywrch (talk) 17:44, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Date delinking editors were aware of fait accompli and dispute

10) Tony1 (talk · contribs), Lightmouse (talk · contribs), Ohconfucius (talk · contribs), Dabomb87 (talk · contribs), and Colonies Chris (talk · contribs) were made aware of the committees prior decision in Episodes and characters 2 as well as the overall dispute regarding delinking dates. These same editors continued to use automated and semi-automated bots/scripts in order to present objectors with a fait accompli.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed from evidence recently added. —Locke Cole • t • c 10:52, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

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.

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 (ie this is not a remedy, but punitive sanction and vindictive action). Ohconfucius (talk) 08:30, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Reject This seems like a method to get one of the foremost MOS editors out of the way, just because someone (or some people) doesn't/don't agree with him on some issues. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:26, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Tony has been generating more heat than light for some time now. The more he tries to derail discussions and disrupt dispute resolution processes the more it becomes clear he needs a separation from the topic that clearly is causing him stress. —Locke Cole • t • c 07:22, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

What's with all the bold shouting in the comments above? -- Earle Martin [^t/_c] 14:24, 1 February 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)

Oppose. The evidence does not support (as alleged by Locke Cole) that Tony has been disruptive at either FAC or FAR. Further, removing one of Wiki's most knowledgeable MoS editors and most valued and respected FAC and FAR reviewers would have a chilling effect on content review processes, leading to a decline in standards if other reviewers become afraid to review to a high standard. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:51, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

His use of FAR to coerce editors to comply with his changes at MOS are the evidence you should be referring to. At least three instances of this are on the evidence page. Further, there's his other disruption, such as launching a nearly identically intentioned RFC after weeks of other editors working with him on another RFC (disruptive in that it seemed an attempt to undermine those weeks of work). Then there's his post-RFC behavior, including trying to discredit the results of the RFC (and effectively set aside the opinions expressed by 150-200 editors in the community wide RFC), not just once, but at least two occasions.

As to your concerns of a chilling effect, I don't see that here. The simple fact is this: you should not try to bribe or coerce people to accept your views by threats. That's not how Wikipedia works. —Locke Cole • t • c 07:19, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

---

[I comment only here, specifically on the proposal against Tony, but also generally against abuses of this ArbCom process that threaten individual editors. –Noetica]

Preliminary observations

As the statistics show, Tony and I have been the most prolific contributors at WP:MOS, and I have therefore come to know intimately both his operating style and the substance of his work. I have had differences with him concerning each. How could it be otherwise – for independent, competent, and energetic editors working on the same project? But we have forged an excellent working relationship, and I am proud of the advances in MOS since he and I became seriously involved with it. It is fatally easy to dwell on small perceived flaws in substance and style, as many in their submissions here have done: as if imperfections were not inevitable in such major undertakings at Wikipedia generally. But let any independent observer review the remarkable progress at WP:MOS, and at WP:MOSNUM (where statistics show Tony as the most prolific contributor). Tony has also been extremely productive at WP:FAC; and that includes, as it should, seeing that candidates respect the explicit FAC requirement to respect MOS guidelines. The consequent improvement in these articles – the public face of Wikipedia, for interested onlookers – is beyond reasonable doubt.

I no longer intend to participate at WP:MOS and WP:MOSNUM, and I have given my reasons for that decision elsewhere. Briefly, I find that progress is impossible beyond a certain ceiling. Holding back from mention of individual editors, I diagnose flawed protocols, inadequately understood principles, and generally a lack of common purpose. If these matters are not addressed systematically, with participation from the wider WP community, ArbCom will have many more fruitless disputes on its hands than the present one. And untold hours and days of editors' time will also be wasted.

Opposing the proposed measure against Tony

I object in the strongest terms to this opportunistic abuse of ArbCom to censure or sanction particular editors: Tony, Greg L, or anyone else. As a fundamental principle in such proceedings as this, the issues have to be rationally distinguished and classified. At least this has been achieved, in the bizarre Bleak House complexity of the current case. But this process of distinction and classification is only a first procedural step, and not a justification for spurious additions to the case. Some proposals ought to be peremptorily ruled out as entirely alien to the case, no matter how neat the headings appear or how subtly they are grafted on to the true matter that is to be decided.

This opportunistic attack on Tony is one such proposal. So, I should add, are proposals concerning other editors; so are Locke Cole's proposed findings of fact that lead in solemn sophistic procession up to this attack; and so are very many proposals that with nefarious but transparent intent waste ArbCom's time to re-affirm the bleeding obvious. Why not add "Go placidly amid the noise and haste ...", while we're at it?

Tony is a true asset to Wikipedia, and I will not stand by and see him assailed on specious grounds by less constructive editors, in a case concerned with other matters. When those editors are as productive and progressive themselves, or have a tenth as much to their credit as Tony has, then they might have some credibility. Let them yap away, in their own forums; but let them waste no more of ArbCom's time on such captious nonsense as we see here. Any editor who seeks to make real changes and real improvements will attract censure from those who have not yet developed such vision and competence. I wish for some of Tony's detractors that they will eventually experience this themselves.

Meanwhile, the dogs bark, but the caravan moves on. I throw them this proposal to chew on, to counter the jungle of verbiage in which they have sought to entangle us: "... remember what peace there may be in silence".

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 02:52, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

---

Greg L restricted

2) Greg L (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is subject to an editing restriction for one year. Should he make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, he may be blocked for the duration specified in the enforcement ruling below.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. —Locke Cole • t • c 02:24, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Support. -- Earle Martin [^t/_c] 15:41, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Ohconfucius restricted

3) Ohconfucius (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is subject to an editing restriction for one year. Should he make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, he may be blocked for the duration specified in the enforcement ruling below.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. —Locke Cole • t • c 10:05, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Date delinking editors restricted

4) Tony1 (talk · contribs), Lightmouse (talk · contribs), Ohconfucius (talk · contribs), Dabomb87 (talk · contribs), and Colonies Chris (talk · contribs) are subject to an editing restriction for one year. Should they make any edits using automated or semi-automated tools (scripts, programs, bots; to be interpreted broadly), they may be blocked for the duration specified in the enforcement ruling below.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed, from finding of fact above and evidence presented. —Locke Cole • t • c 10:56, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

This is rather broad and I am afraid I don't understand. Would this include Twinkle, pop-ups, and other miscallenous vandalism-fighting tools? What about clearly uncontroversial scripts such as Brighterorange's dash script? Dabomb87 (talk) 13:53, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it would be cover those tools; it would be difficult to carve out exceptions. —Locke Cole • t • c 14:49, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

On second thought, this can be refined to target just the behavior that got us here. See 4.1 below. —Locke Cole • t • c 14:56, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

This remedy is based upon Responsibilities of bot operators (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.) and Date delinking editors were aware of fait acompli and dispute. —Locke Cole • t • c 14:48, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Date delinking editors restricted

4.1) Tony1 (talk · contribs), Lightmouse (talk · contribs), Ohconfucius (talk · contribs), Dabomb87 (talk · contribs), and Colonies Chris (talk · contribs) are subject to an editing restriction for one year. Should they make mass edits edits using automated or semi-automated tools (scripts, programs, bots; to be interpreted broadly) in article space, they may be blocked for the duration specified in the enforcement ruling below.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. This remedy limits the restriction to mass edits (perhaps some better wording could be used here) and only to such edits made in article space. This remedy should allow automated/semi-automated tools to be used for vandal fighting, nominating articles for deletion, and other uncontroversial edits outside of article space. —Locke Cole • t • c 14:56, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism usually takes place in article space. A rough edit-per-minute count would be handy. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:33, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

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)

Support. -- Earle Martin [^t/_c] 19:52, 21 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)

That's irrelevant and a personal attack to boot. -- Earle Martin [^t/_c] 19:52, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

How widely is "personal attack" being framed here? Is this entry a personal attack upon you, Earle Martin? On the matter at hand, keeping a lid on things is the main game, not issuing punishments that will only lose valuable editors. This applies to accusations hurled at all parties and onlookers here. Tony (talk) 07:20, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Pray tell, Tony, what exactly does Ohconfucius's comment contribute to this proposal? -- Earle Martin [^t/_c] 17:50, 23 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)

This requires the impossible. We have, we can have, no standard but "are enough readers likely to be interested in this link?", and no test but "do enough editors think readers will be interested?". Predicting human interests is substantially equivalent to passing the Turing Test, which no program yet written can do. "Cannot" is therefore correct. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 06:25, 22 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:

Seems like this would have been good advice—at least when the need to do the task is not urgent (as it was not in this case). Cool Hand Luke 20:11, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

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)

Couldn't possibly support more — this is the crux of the issue. Mlaffs (talk) 05:53, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Support WP:MOSNUM has been protected since November, and yet I have pages on my watchlist which continued to be delinked well after that date. There is no doubt in my mind that Lightmouse was 100% aware the dispute had not yet been resolved. -- Kendrick7^talk 18:47, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Support Per Kendrick7. G-Man ^? 22:18, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Response to Cool Hand

This is certainly good advice (whether the task is urgent or not), but I urge caution in turning such advice into a principle as ArbCom's findings may have a chilling effect when quoted in debate. The wording "significant dispute" is a hostage to fortune. Although common sense should prevail, it begs the question "What is a significant dispute about a policy or guideline?" and leaves itself open to gaming. Not only that, but I am concerned about the way in which it seems to contradict WP:Consensus. The policy there implies that a consensus is changed when a new consensus is reached. Leaving a guideline as "disputed" without reaching a new consensus is a very large part of the problems underlying this RfArb. --RexxS (talk) 01:48, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

If a consensus is seriously challenged, then there is no consensus. Cool Hand Luke 01:53, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

If that were the case, suppose a group of editors challenge a guideline they disagree with, even though they cannot generate the consensus to change it; they then claim "no consensus" and the effect is as if that guideline were deleted; another group of editors could only oppose that by arguing that it was not "serious challenge". How is that then to be decided? That would not be a good use of ArbCom's time. However, I can only suggest again that it is better to assume that a consensus exists until it is replaced by a new one (call that the definition of "serious challenge" if you will). --RexxS (talk) 03:05, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

There is likely a need to define this better. That said, a rational bot operator, given the responsibility of creating and operating a bot, should be 1) watching, if not even participating, in the guideline or policy pages that their bot's operation coverages, 2) can reasonably determine when there is a clear dispute (as opposed to one person trying to tip the boat) and disable that bot's function, and 3) ready to disable the bot's function until resolution is made if asked by admins. --MASEM 13:53, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

We could use a definition, but consensus does not spontaneously recenter on one target to a new one. It changes with discussion. There is sometimes no consensus for a particular policy or guideline. Games could also be played by automating an obscure guideline that no one is particularly aware of. If this guideline is called into question, the activity should stop—building a new consensus takes a long time. Cool Hand Luke 04:33, 25 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)

Whoa there. This RfC brokes a fundamental rule of avoiding the skewing of results by using a "sandwich" model of only three choices, funnelling people into the "use sometimes" middle category by proposing extreme view on either side ("ban" or "always link"). The evidence in responses clearly indicates the discomfort of users in supporting the "never" category (although many many users did sign on to that angle). The results in the "use sometimes" category were significantly swelled and cannot possibly be held up as consensus for what is claimed. See this analysis. Tony (talk) 07:27, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

This statement remains true if I look at only the 3-question RFC, where the consensus was strongly in favor of "dates should not be linked except in rare occasions". The key point I make here is that consensus is neither at "all dates" or "no dates", but sits at the middle. Exactly where - that's more difficult to access. --MASEM 13:08, 23 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)

Support As much as certain parties would like to a consensus to exist "to link to no when no where" and to enforce it by bot, there is a mountain of evidence to belie this as fantasy. -- Kendrick7^talk 18:53, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Broadly support, We need some more guidance on what the conditions would be, but that seems to be broadly what the majority opinion seems to be. G-Man ^? 22:24, 21 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:

However, in several places in the explanatory texts of the RfCs claimed to support all manner of consensus, these issues were fatally blurred. I draw your attention to the lead of the first one, 'here and the analysis here under "A second element of confusion". Tony (talk) 07:31, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Even if the questions colluded them, factually, they are still two different things, that's all that I'm trying to point out here (I acknowledge that the final RFC questions may have made them sound like the same issue, though that was not in my edits of it ) --MASEM 13:11, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

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)

Support. A blatantly obvious statement in fact. G-Man ^? 22:28, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Support. As Masem says, auto-formatting dates are shown in a bad light due to dates being linked when auto-formatted. I acknowledge that the ticket to create an auto-formatting function without linking is stalled as there is no specification describing a new syntax. Ideally, if such a specification were decided upon, it would provide a way to default the format to allow consistency in date formats within an article while changing the formatting for users with a preference. However, the stalling of creating a new method does not indicate that users have no interested in auto-formatted dates (without links). —Ost (talk) 19:57, 29 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:

That's an interesting idea, and it seems like it might be a good thing to me, but I think this is a policy decision that should be made by the community. Cool Hand Luke 20:11, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

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)

Strong support. Mlaffs (talk) 05:55, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

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:

Well, yes, it is complete waffle. Sorry, Kotniski, you do such good work, but—as I've cautioned elsewhere on this page—ArbCom would be ill-advised to make such statements (they would make no difference; they are, effectively, meaningless). Tony (talk) 11:57, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

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:

This finding makes WP:CONSENSUS sound like an abuse of the word "consensus"—unfortunately there is no consensus for what Wikipedia's peculiar kind of "consensus" should mean. I think that's one of the central problems on this site—consensus by dictionary definition doesn't exist, and it's hard for users to claim that some supermajority armed with arguments of subjective quality has actually attained "consensus." I can't imagine a genuine solution to this problem, but requiring uninvolved closure is probably a good idea. Cool Hand Luke 20:27, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

While the most simply framed and clearest-cut RfC might well be closed by a third-party, those are the ones that probably don't need "uninvolved" closure. Those that do are the problematic ones that are complicated and/or whose results are unclear, open to different interpretations, and upon serious analysis of language or structure risk may be shown (or at least claimed) to have been contaminated. This is the case with at least the first three of the "detailed" RfCs (here and here, which stood up poorly to serious analysis, although their authors may claim otherwise. The irony is that these are the very RfCs that are least conducive to third-party decision-making. It is unrealistic to expect such a party to analyse the structure or results scientifically, and any such treatment is likely to be contested. We are thus back at square one. The current system is the best of a bad lot, I'm afraid; this is not uncommon on a dynamic wiki. Tony (talk) 12:07, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

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:

Bots as a whole are good even with their failings, yes. Cool Hand Luke 20:27, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

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:

Support Most Wikipedians have already accepted this and moved on, but a stubborn minority still hangs on. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:23, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

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)

Oppose I for one have a strong desire to keep links to historical years beyond living memory in order to provide historical context to our readers. -- Kendrick7^talk 07:32, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Oppose. I don't believe this statement can be supported by the evidence. There are clearly wide ranging opinions on this matter. G-Man ^? 22:35, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Support - It was a huge relief to me when date linking and delinking of common words became an option. I am handicapped by the "sea of blue" created by the over use of wikilinks. I never click on date links. —Mattisse (Talk) 03:38, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Support, the statement as worded accords with my observations at FAC and FAR, where there has been essentially no resistance to removal of date linking, and widespread relief at no longer needing to waste editing time on adding brackets to every date. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:55, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Support as written, oppose the implication that there is strong (based on Wikipedia policies) opposition to date links. Oppose inclusion, because of the misleading phrasing. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:45, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Oppose Like Kendrick7, I have an interest in keeping one class of date links -- those marking the birth & death dates in biographical articles. (I figure these would be upwards of 90% of all linked dates) Sometimes these dates consist of the year alone. However, I did not seriously suggest this exception to the rule because I felt the burden of getting some people to admit that there could be exceptions was enough of a fight. -- llywrch (talk) 21:06, 9 February 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)

Oppose as above. Month and day of the month links I don't care about, but year, century and era links provide context for the average reader. It's the inability for certain editors to make the distinction that has been the source of the problem. -- Kendrick7^talk 07:36, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Oppose I agree with Kendrick7. G-Man ^? 22:38, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Support - Those that should be linked are linked and piped to specific pages that are relevant, such 1969 in baseball. —Mattisse (Talk) 03:41, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

That's all fine and good for WP:RECENT pop-culture topics with multiple incoming links, like Pokemon, Family Guy and Baseball, but this is pointless bureaucracy for history articles. Having to pipe the year of discovery of polonium by Madame Curie to 1898 in nuclear physics is absurd when the discovery of polonium was the only notable event in that field in that year. Same goes with 33 in crime for the crucifixion of Jesus, 1066 in invasions for the Norman Conquest, or 1492 in exploration for Christopher Columbus. I don't believe editors should be forced to stub all those red links out. -- Kendrick7^talk 19:40, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

But the general reader of a Wikipedia article extremely unlikely to care what happened in 1898. These date articles are very biased toward American, UK, and European events of a specific type. Looking at 1898, it has many American and European composers, artists, entertainers, scientists, and awards for same. Of the 2,300,000 articles on en Wikipedia, how many are on these specific subjects? Many articles contain dozens of linked dates, none of which is likely to have relevance. The reader just learns, as I have, never to click on a date. Look at the page traffic statistics for that date[6] - not very impressive. —Mattisse (Talk) 20:49, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

200 hits a day is pretty good, in my opinion, but this isn't a popularity contest. It gets half as many readers now than it did a year ago,[7] but of course, Lightbot and others have been running around delinking it everywhere since at least August, so this is not surprising. During the same period, overall traffic to the main page has increased from 4.0M to 6.0M hits, so 1898 should be getting 600 hits a day, all else being equal. The link removal is apparently inconveniencing 400 readers a day on this one year alone. -- Kendrick7^talk 22:03, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

200 hits a date is hardly anything, compared to a normal article, especially considering how many pages a date may be on. Further, readers are probably learning never to bother clicking on a date, because of the extremely low probability that the information will be relevant and not over weighted (POV) to a particular culture or subject matter. —Mattisse (Talk) 22:01, 23 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:

Granting that this is true, it rises a question: is there an actual loss in holding off? Cool Hand Luke 20:27, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

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)

Oppose — if we've learned anything from this experience, I'd argue that we should have learned that there would have been a substantial actual gain in terms of human effort if the delinking effort had commenced with greater thought, concern, and planning. We wouldn't have wasted all the black on this page, at the very least. It makes far more sense to mark links that editors believe should be kept and to discuss where other editors respectfully disagree with that assessment, than it does to remove all links and have to discuss about whether they should be put back — inertia will be a powerful force once links are removed. Mlaffs (talk) 06:01, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Support — I personally have never seen harm nor has anyone complained to me about my use of Lightmouse's automated script in delinking dates in articles. —Mattisse (Talk) 03:45, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Cool Hand Luke asked "is there an actual loss in holding off?" Wikipedia currently has many Julian dates that are in the format YYYY-MM-DD, either in source code, or displayed by autoformatting to signed in users who choose the "2001-01-15T16:12:34" option in the date preference window. As I summarized, the history of the autoformating mechanism makes it apparent that the YYYY-MM-DD format was intended to follow ISO 8601, which requires all dates in that format to use the Gregorian calendar. This continuing misuse of the ISO 8601 format is a discourtesy to the International Organization for Standardization and continues to present a bad usage example to the reading public. I don't go so far as to claim that many readers are actually confused about the date intended, since so few readers are both interested in ancient history and conversant with the details of ISO 8601.--Gerry Ashton (talk) 20:39, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

The bots at issue didn't merely correct date formats—the reason they are apparently controversial is the delinking. So again, was there a harm in holding off on automated delinking? Cool Hand Luke 20:51, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Due to the flawed design of date autoformatting, linking and autoformatting are usually the same thing. Some of the autoformats are into forms that are erroneous and discourteous. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 20:58, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

There are two obvious immediate steps.

• Turn off date autoformatting into YYYY-MM-DD.
• Reformat dates from before 1583 which are in YYYY-MM-DD. Since "10 September 1582" became usage in England (as elsewhere in the English-speaking world, I believe) during the twentieth century, using that format would be an anachronism.

Both of these steps should resolve Gerry's urgency, which many do not feel. each affects a small minority. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:24, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

• The fact is that date formatting is a mess anyway, as soon becomes apparent if you remove the autoformatting. The harm in holding off is that its use disguises the mess from editors of the Wikipedian community who have date preferences set. Therefore, it puts off the time when we can address this issue and see what the general public sees. Also, postponing the availability of the script makes editing articles for FAC and GAN more difficult. Do we care about the general readership, aside from the small community of Wikipedians? —Mattisse (Talk) 22:09, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

  Only because lazy, incompetent, and illiterate reviewers prefer to judge compliance to MOS than actual writing; much less the value of the submitted article as an encyclopedia article. It is true that actually doing something useful in a review is much harder than chasing down whether 5 May is linked (horrors!) or coexists with September 15 nine sections later; like all most excellent things, it is both difficult and rare.

• Anything which impedes the lazy reviewer's way is a relative good to Wikipedia in itself. If it encourages him to actually learn to review content and prose, and improve them, it will help directly. Thank you for making an absolute argument for blocking Lightbot, all conduct issues aside. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:24, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

PMAnderson, you just suceeded in throwing off some stuff that probably to some would appear very incivil. Maybe I should propose a civility parole on you? (No, seriously, I would not sink to that level, but I for one would rather be called a "pig" than a "lazy reviewer" ignoring actual writing.) In any case, since you have now apparently reached the understanding that delinking is just helpful securing some silly internal consistency in articles, could you please remind me of what use linked dates actually have? I have completely forgotten it in all this confusion. And I still believe this is the most important issue (not, as most think, who can find the most exciting diffs about X's disruptive, incivil, destructive, unhelpful and blabla behavior). --HJensen, talk 00:41, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

• In order to have made personal remarks, one must have addressed a person. I did my best not to. I do not mean Mattisse, who has done some very useful and substantive reviews; but he would encourage the sort of review which will appeal to the most slothful of editors. It's much easier to check whether there are double brackets around years than whether the sentence the year is in is well-constructed, or the year is right; so you will see legions of "FAC reviewers" volunteering bravely to do the first. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:14, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I was also very careful not to mention any names ;-)--HJensen, talk 10:26, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

• Yes, it is the most important issue. You will find several examples in my contribution to the RfC that set all this off, and many editors have broader ideas than I have. Some people want to see links to the year when the subject was born, or died, or won his great battle, so they can see what else happened then; peerage articles routinely link years of creation, as a guide to the reign and ministry that made the peer; for saints' days, it is often useful and amusing to see what happened then... and so on. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:14, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

PMA, that's a good roundup - there are lots of valid reasons to see (some, but by no means all) linked dates, when they link to useful information, like "what else was happening on the day/in the year this person did something-or-other?" We can't prejudge the usefulness of hyperlinks in many of these cases. Maybe a worthy editor can, but a bot can't. Beyond that, it's the sheer multiplicity of various automated approaches to removal, in the absence of a defined mechanism to indicate "keep this one!", that renders any attempts to keep selected dates futile for the nonce. Another auto-process could be following just behind to again "audit" linking, and the same damage will result. (Until all date-links are finally gone I suppose) Franamax (talk) 03:13, 24 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)

Oppose bots need to act on real consensus, not two or three users pretending and arguing ad nauseam that such a consensus exists. -- Kendrick7^talk 07:41, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Support - From experience, I know that Lightmouse's automated script does not delink relevant dates like 1987 in baseball. —Mattisse (Talk) 03:48, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, if the link is piped, both Lightmouse's automated script and Lightbot will and have removed those links. Mlaffs (talk) 05:08, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I know from experience that Lightmouse's automated script does not remove piped links such 2000, having edited many dozens of articles with such and used Lightmouse's automated script without those piped links being delinked. —Mattisse (Talk) 20:31, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, it changed [[July 20]], [[2000 in baseball|2000]] to [[July 20]], 2000, rather than the slightly more sensible July 20, [[2000 in baseball|2000]]. I think that's been fixed, but there are probably other misformated dates which Lightbot makes worse. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:20, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Lightmouse has assiduously addressed all concerns brought to his attention. We should all be thankful that Lightmouse is so conscientious. There was a bot that tried to delete every article 30 seconds after creation. That was a harmful bot. —Mattisse (Talk) 22:14, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

He has not assiduously addressed the repeated concern expressed by numerous users that his bot should not be delinking dates. Including when his previous account, [[::User:Bobblewik|Bobblewik]] ([[::User talk:Bobblewik|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Bobblewik|contribs]]), was warned not to do so by no less than Jimmy Wales. -- Earle Martin [^t/_c] 22:18, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Be aware that in this context Jimmy Wales was lied to by a then senior Wikipedian who was fanatical about the linking argument (I forget on which side), had the lies been true Jimmy's response would have been correct. Rich Farmbrough, 09:02 14 February 2009 (UTC).

I'm glad there's somebody relatively non-partisan around who actually remembers what happened. Of course, the quality of decision-making of a ruler is only as good as the loyalty/quality/objectivity of the eunuchs which surround him. It would appear that that one was not neutered. Ohconfucius (talk) 09:18, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Beat me to the punch. I've been party to two separate escalations, once at AN and once at AN/I, as a result of his unwillingness to consider the objections of other editors. At least one of those escalations resulted in an addition to Lightbot's block log. I'd suggest this only qualifies as "assiduously addressed" if by "addressed" you mean "dismissed and ignored when the concerns are in opposition to his own interpretation of MOSNUM". I will grant, however, that he is extremely polite and cooperative when the bot makes an edit that he will agree is in error, and I do believe that he believes that he is acting with the project's best interests in mind. Mlaffs (talk) 23:04, 23 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)

• MOSNUM demonstrably does not have community consensus. That's why it's protected. Please stop begging the same question over and over again. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 06:48, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Oppose If I'm reading an article with a significant event occurring in 471, I want to be able to click on that as a hot link and find out what else was going on in the year 471, whether it is a "chronological article" (whatever that means) or not. -- Kendrick7^talk 07:44, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Oppose Agree with PManderson and Kendrick7. G-Man ^? 22:44, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Support - If a user wants to know more about 471, that user can type it into search. Looking at 471, it is easily seen that the page would not be relevant to almost all uses of that date. It would therefore be a useless and distracting click to the vast majority who did click on it. —Mattisse (Talk) 03:54, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

By that logic, we should just delink everything and force our readers to type any topic related to an article they are reading into the search box. And your second point is -- what -- that we should never link to stubs? Then no one ever finds the stubs and improve upon them, which again seems contrary to building an encyclopedia. Personally, I think hypertext is a great invention which the project should err on the side of using. Yet, I do imagine programming Lightbot ot delink everything is phase two... -- Kendrick7^talk 19:49, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Precisely, and thank you for making the point about hypertext, which seems to have been missed by a great many people. The style guideline that "common" terms should not be linked is not only incredibly presumptive (as if we know what any random reader feels like clicking on), and patronizing (readers shouldn't be allowed to click on "obvious" terms), but also a magnet for systemic bias. For example, this edit by Dabomb87 (which was the direct cause for my involvement with WT:MOSNUM, and indirectly a trigger for this entire arbitration). If you look at the change for line 61, you'll see that Paris and Berlin were delinked, but not Stockholm. What can we determine from this edit? Firstly, the editor in question felt that the names of cities were not worth being linked, or that the random curiosity of any visitor does not merit being catered to by this project. Secondly, the editor felt that Stockholm was somehow more exotic than Berlin or Paris and merited linking to - a flagrant example of inadvertent bias. How is Paris any less foreign than Stockholm to a reader from Cibodas? The continued delinking of terms is only going to make this problem worse by providing a fertile breeding ground for these kind of mistakes. Year links are less subject to bias, but equally subject to the presumptive and patronizing attitudes I mentioned earlier. -- Earle Martin [^t/_c] 21:52, 22 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)

Oppose The benefit is to the reader of a given article, and should be left up to human (not bot) judgment on a case by case basis. -- Kendrick7^talk 07:46, 20 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:

Dubious. Besides, I'm not sure whether any of this series of findings is relevant. People are responsible for their own edits. Cool Hand Luke 01:16, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

To clarify, I don't think that's a policy by the community. It seems like a policy from the developers. I would only sanction an editor if their edits violated WP:POLICY—whether their edits are automated or not. Cool Hand Luke 04:41, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Of course these series of findings are relevant. AWB is one of the primary methods that the date delinkers have used in this controversy. They have used AWB in flagrant disregard of the AWB rules of use. A defense that some of them have posed is that the AWB rules of use aren't actually "rules" - they are merely suggestions or non-policies that can be ignored whenever it is convenient to do so. Another defense has been to persuade an administrator who also has violated the AWB rules of use in exactly the same way to close complaints about rule violations and threaten the complainants with blocks and other administrative remedies. Tennis expert (talk) 07:34, 24 January 2009 (UTC) And I'm not sure what you mean by "people are responsible for their own edits". Tennis expert (talk) 07:35, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Response to Tennis expert : This proposed principle is sound. Those rules have the sanction of removal of AWB and should be binding as such. Nevertheless, you are reading something in Wikipedia:Awb#Rules of use that isn't there. Editing at more than a few edits per minute is not prohibited. As was pointed out earlier, editors who find they are doing that regularly should consider opening a bot account. The implication is that they may be unable to give proper consideration to their edits at that speed and that the greater rigour imposed on bot editing would be more suitable. Nobody is going to disagree with sanctioning an editor who consistently uses AWB to edit so fast that they cannot possibly supervise the edits. Conversely, finding a couple of examples of an editor using AWB at speeds of 8 edits per minute (for example) is not grounds for an outcry and making a big issue of it is likely to produce negative responses from admins. The point of "people are responsible for their own edits" is that any misuse is not the fault of the bot: it is the responsibility of the operator. If someone is shot, you don't prosecute the gun. --RexxS (talk) 15:20, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I never said anything about prosecuting a bot or AWB. Speed of editing is irrefutably one of the AWB rules of use. It is not a suggestion. It is not a recommendation. It is a rule. Lightmouse used AWB to edit 1,777 articles in 114 minutes, which is 15.59 articles per minute or 1 article every 3.9 seconds. I suggest holding him responsible (not AWB) for violating the AWB rules of use and eliminating the defense that the speed limits are just a recommendation or that none of the rules of use are enforceable policy. Tennis expert (talk) 11:24, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I used "prosecuting the gun" to explain to you what "people are responsible for their own edits" means when an editor uses a script, etc. To be helpful to all, here is the rule about speed editing:

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

Speed limits are indeed just a recommendation. But you are right in assuming it is a recommendation that cautions users not to edit so fast that they may violate wiki-policy about disruptive editing, if they do not supervise their edits. In the example you quote above, I would agree that 1 article every 4 seconds is too fast; many of the other examples you have brought forward are nowhere near this and spoil your case. --RexxS (talk) 12:13, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

The AWB rule is "don't edit too fast". It's not "please don't edit too fast", "it would be a good idea not to edit too fast", or "you'll be considered disruptive if you edit too fast". If you want this particular AWB rule of use to be a mere suggestion, then I recommend that you attempt to get the AWB rules of use amended to support your objective. Given the current wording, "don't edit too fast" has the same prescriptive value as the other AWB rules of use, such as nothing controversial, nothing inconsequential, etc. Tennis expert (talk) 16:03, 25 January 2009 (UTC) May the administrators' noticeboard be used to enforce an AWB rule of use that is not considered to be policy? See this thread and this thread. Tennis expert (talk) 16:59, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

The other examples I have noted here are one article every 6.4 seconds, one article every 7.9 seconds, one article every 15.19 seconds, one article every 22.6 seconds, and one article every 7.5 seconds. Which of those are too fast, in your opinion, and what is your criteria for your opinion? Tennis expert (talk) 16:08, 25 January 2009 (UTC) In this thread on the administrators' noticeboard, Shereth said this about Lightmouse's use of AWB to make very rapid edits: "Currently you are using AWB to make semi-automated edits to this effect at the rate of about 4 per minute, or once every 15 seconds. Do you mean to tell me that in a 15 second timespan, you have adequate time to load the page, read it over to contextually determine whether unlinking is necessary, and perform the edit? I think not." Tennis expert (talk) 16:59, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I expect you will have realised by now that the AWB rules, per se, don't carry the authority of WP:POL. Violations of AWB rules are not sufficient to base your proposed FoF and remedies on. I suggested a "handle" - that the consequences of editing too fast could be disruptive, but you seem determined to make AWB rule violations themselves sanctionable in addition to withdrawal of the use of AWB. Perhaps you might decide to reconsider. As for the criterion for being too fast, in my humble opinion, I'd say editing at a speed that doesn't allow you adequately to review the changes that AWB suggests. If the edits were, for example as here, I think most of us could spot that the linking in "|lifespan = February, 2009 (Tentative)" is (a) deprecated and (b) worthless, as neither of the articles February or 2009 could possibly add anything to the lifespan of GP2X Wiz. That would take the average editor less than 2 seconds to appreciate; I clearly can't comment on loading speeds. On the other hand, if a different article had a link to 1346, we would all have to take a minute or two to decide whether that link was of value to the article. As another example, running AWB to change a hyphen to an ndash in numerical ranges could produce high speeds without problem. So, sorry there's no hard-and-fast rule, it depends on the context, but rapid script-assisted editing in itself is not necessarily problematic behaviour. --RexxS (talk) 19:16, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I have realized no such thing. That is merely your opinion and the opinion of two others who have posted here. This is an issue that needs to be resolved by the Arbitrators, one way or another. As for the speed limit on AWB usage, the rules of use don't say anything about the types of edits being done with AWB. If you would like the rules to have different speed limits for different types of edits, perhaps you should attempt to get the AWB rules of use changed. Tennis expert (talk) 17:32, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Cool Hand Luke, I am really surprised that you are unconcerned about a semi-automated tool being used to edit approximately 15 articles per minute when the tool is supposed to be supervised. Regardless of whether the AWB rules of use are currently policy, they should be policy because of AWB's potential to harm the encyclopedia when used by editors who, in effect, want to use a bot to edit but can't be bothered to get the bot approved beforehand. Lightmouse has bounced around from AWB to his bot to AWB to make the same kind of date delinking edits, depending on whether his bot happens to be controversial at the moment. He, in effect, equates the two tools. Tennis expert (talk) 16:17, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

CHL is not saying that he is "unconcerned about a semi-automated tool being used to edit approximately 15 articles per minute when the tool is supposed to be supervised". He is saying that AWB policies are not community policies but AWB-developer policies, and as such they are for the AWB developers to handle, not the AC. If the rules of use were specifically adopted by the community as policy, it would be a different matter. Except inasmuch as the rules are exceedingly sensible and anyone breaking them deserves to be sanctioned for that alone, concern with these rules is not the concern of the AC. This case should focus on individuals' unacceptable behaviour, not on "policy creation" statements such as this. [[Sam Korn]] ^(smoddy) 16:39, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

What is the basis for concluding that the AWB rules of use are not Wikipedia policy? Tennis expert (talk) 17:02, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

They've never received the widespread community scrutiny that our policies have. I've no doubt that they're good rules, but they're essentially terms of use from the AWB developers. I would not tell them how to interpret their own rules; they can revoke privileges as they will. If the edits violate Wikipedia policy, I think they would be sanctionable no matter how the editor made them. If AWB inclined specific editors to make bad edits, I would also consider barring them from semi-automated editing, but I would not make findings based on these terms of use. Cool Hand Luke 17:21, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Then why have the AWB developers suggested several times that if immediate action is needed about a violation of an AWB rule of use, go to the administrators' noticeboard for help? Tennis expert (talk) 17:32, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Probably because users are always available there, whereas the developers may be busy. I don't know; I'm not an AWB developer, but referring issues to admins does not make it WP:POLICY. Cool Hand Luke 17:40, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

On the contrary, I believe the referrals are on the assumption that the AWB rules of use are policy. Tennis expert (talk) 18:20, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

If that's their assumption, they are wrong. Please see WP:POLICY, which explains how policies are created. Again, this doesn't mean that I'm unconcerned with blind reversions or anything else. It simply means that our remedies will be based on Wikipedia community-endorsed policy, not on the equivalent of a Wikiproject's rules. This is my last word on the subject. Cool Hand Luke 18:51, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

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)

That's a very strange argument. The rules of use specifically say, "Repeated abuse of these rules could result, without warning, in the software being disabled." The "don't edit too fast" rule specifically is one of the rules of use. If the rules of use are inteneded merely to be suggestive, then why are possible penalties mentioned? And why have penalties actually been imposed in the past? Tennis expert (talk) 12:55, 19 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:

I have a problem with this one. Can one use AWB to change one erroneous statement to another (possibly less) erroneous one, with or without the intention of correcting it later? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:09, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

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:

Disagree. An error made using AWB is no different to any other editing error; all editors are volunteers, what errors they choose to correct is up to them. Rjwilmsi 22:55, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

And your point is what? That editors are free to intentionally make errors without consequence or refuse to correct their errors? The risk to Wikipedia when editors use AWB to edit is much higher than when manual edits are made. Therefore, part of the agreement for using AWB should be an obligation to correct errors. Tennis expert (talk) 23:14, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

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:

I think this is untrue. And I'm saying that as one who has never used AWB. Cool Hand Luke 01:16, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

To clarify, past misuse of AWB does not give on a conflict of interest, certainly not as WP:COI. Perhaps one could say that a past misuser of AWB has per se questionable judgment and should not adjudicate the claim. Cool Hand Luke 04:43, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

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)

I have said nothing about doing away with AGF. However, there are certain actions that should be prohibited - always, regardless of whether the administrator acted in good faith. This has to do with avoiding even the appearance of impropriety, which is a well established principle of law to promote confidence in decision makers and should have equal application here. Tennis expert (talk) 12:58, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Exactly what is untrue, Cool Hand? Tennis expert (talk) 07:29, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Certain behaviors on Wikipedia are prohibited

8) Incivility, disruption, edit warring, or any other unconstructive behavior violates Wikipedia policy.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Semi-automated tool usage: unsupervised edits

9) The use of a script or any other semi-automated tool, including AWB, to make an unsupervised edit or the factual equivalent of an unsupervised edit is prohibited.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Oppose: Completely empty. Anyone can make mistakes, with or without a tool or script. Who will decide that a certain edit is "an unsupervised edit or the factual equivalent of an unsupervised edit"? Would that be Tennis expert again, in his favourite role of judge, jury and executioner? Colonies Chris (talk) 16:43, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Oppose. This would be a major step backwards by WP, which needs to be dynamic, flexible and open to change to retain its premiere ranking among competitors year after year; if we give way to such conservatism, we really do risk a slippery slope downwards, given the presence of other sites that would love to take our place. See also this video, about 30 mins in, of a Wikimania address by researcher Dr Bill Wedemeyer, Faculty of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, Michigan State University, who conducted an extensive study of the quality of (mainly) scientific articles on WP. His point, inter alia, was that automation is one the keys to lifting WP's standards. Tony (talk) 07:38, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

In principle, probably a good principle, but badly phrased and untestable. We know that many of the date delinkers (isn't that a good name for a rock band) have been using AWB for automated edits (hitting OK without looking at the changes), but how can we prohibit something we can't prove? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:13, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

FWIW, the community did find a way in their community editing restrictions for BetaCommand, limiting the number of edits per minute, and requiring Beta to seek out approval before doing bot-like types of edits on 25 or more pages. --MASEM 15:16, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

The "factual equivalent of an unsupervised edit" language is aimed at the extreme cases (such as editing one page every 4 seconds) where it would be virtually impossible for a human being to have supervised the edits. Tennis expert (talk) 18:46, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Reply to Colonies Chris: what you said ("his favourite role of judge, jury and executioner") is incivil and untrue. Tennis expert (talk) 18:43, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Reply to Tony1: I wasn't aware that Wikipedia was a competitive enterprise that seeks a premiere ranking year after year. And I am not advocating the elimination of automation. I am simply saying that semi-automated edits like scripts and AWB should be supervised in actual fact and not de facto unsupervised. It's unsettling that you're apparently advocating for unsupervised semi-automated editing in an obvious scheme to get around the bot approval process. Tennis expert (talk) 07:41, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

WP is an on-line information provider which does not tap advertisers for its revenues. WP exists in a free market, where there are other such providers of information with different goals and different revenue models, whether Jimbo or any of us like it or not. We may not be after first place in GSearch, WP has competitors for those who are looking online for their information. Quite frankly, it can be extremely tempting to read too much into a statement because one already knows (or thinks one knows) where the author is headed, or when it is something approaching what one doesn't want to hear. Tony said none of the above -just as well his statement is just two paragraphs away so I don't risk any error in transcription. It is already on record you dislike the use of the script because User:ThisGuy or User:ThisGal is capable of editing more that 4 articles a minute (or somesuch), but none of what you say makes the script or AWB a bot... unless by saying "supervised" you mean by the user's Mummy or Daddy? Now, wouldn't that be just dandy! ;-) Ohconfucius (talk) 13:24, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I invite you to re-read Tony1's post, let him speak for himself, and try assuming good faith for a change. Concerning the proposal to prohibit unsupervised edits with semi-automated tools, he said, "This would be a major step backwards by WP, which needs to be dynamic, flexible and open to change to retain its premiere ranking among competitors year after year; if we give way to such conservatism, we really do risk a slippery slope downwards, given the presence of other sites that would love to take our place. See also this video, about 30 mins in, of a Wikimania address by researcher Dr Bill Wedemeyer, Faculty of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, Michigan State University, who conducted an extensive study of the quality of (mainly) scientific articles on WP. His point, inter alia, was that automation is one the keys to lifting WP's standards." Tennis expert (talk) 11:30, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Semi-automated tool usage: intentionally making errors to be cleaned-up later

10) An editor may not use a script or any other semi-automated tool 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:

This would be fine except that Tennis expert defines an 'error' as anything he disagrees with. Colonies Chris (talk) 16:37, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

How is a third party supposed to distinguish whether an error was intentional? Submit the original editor to a lie detector test? This is unnecessary. -- Earle Martin [^t/_c] 00:05, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

They could do that through an edit summary or the talk page. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:08, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Concern: Same as above; changing one erroneous statement to another (perhaps less) erroneous one may be perceived as an erroneous edit. Suppose we have statements which appear similar to someone not familiar with some of the twists of the English language; but the first is grammatically incorrect, and the second is factually incorrect. Changing from one to the other might be considered "erroneous"… — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:18, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't think so. A person who fails to correct an erroneous statement in an article does not put his stamp of approval on that statement. Tennis expert (talk) 18:48, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Reply to Colonies Chris: what you said is incivil and untrue. Tennis expert (talk) 18:41, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Semi-automated tool usage: the obligation to clean-up errors

11) An editor who has made an editing error while using a script or any other semi-automated tool is required to correct the error immediately after realizing that the error was made.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

This would be fine except that Tennis expert defines an 'error' as anything he disagrees with. Colonies Chris (talk) 16:38, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Assuming there is no recklessness, WP editors' rights and obligations in this regard are enshrined within WP:BOLD. Ohconfucius (talk) 13:43, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Concur, in principle. Could be problems in practice in determining whether someone had complied ("immediately"). — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:21, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

What deadline would you propose? Tennis expert (talk) 18:40, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Reply to Colonies Chris: what you said is incivil and untrue. Tennis expert (talk) 18:40, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Disagree, and enforcing 'realization' would be impossible. There's no difference between an error from a scripted edit and a manual edit. All editors are volunteers; what they choose to correct is up to them. Rjwilmsi 22:58, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

An over-generalization, at best. When an editor is notified that he or she has made an error while using a script or other semi-automated tool, there is no ambiguity about whether the editor has realized the error has been made. I have no idea what you mean by the volunteer sentence. But if you're saying "go ahead, intentioinally make whatever errors you want", that's equivalent to encouraging vandalism. We don't do that. Tennis expert (talk) 23:11, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Obligations of administrators and bureaucrats

12) Administrators and bureaucrats are expected to lead by example and to behave in a respectful, civil manner in their interactions with others. Administrators and bureaucrats are expected to follow Wikipedia policies and to perform their duties to the best of their abilities. Sustained or serious disruption of Wikipedia is incompatible with the status of administrator or bureaucrat, and consistently or egregiously poor judgment may result in the removal of administrator or bureaucrat status. If an administrator or bureaucrat finds that he or she cannot adhere to site policies and remain civil (even toward users exhibiting problematic behavior) while addressing a given issue, then the administrator or bureaucrat should bring the issue to a noticeboard or refer it to another administrator or bureaucrat to address, rather than potentially compound the problem by poor conduct of his or her own. Administrators or bureaucrats who seriously, or repeatedly, act in a problematic manner or have lost the trust or confidence of the community may be sanctioned or have their access removed.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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)

And he should have used the bot to make extremely rapid edits, not AWB, which leaves me wondering why he chose to make the edits using AWB. Was it because his bot was blocked or threatened to be blocked? (I'm not making an accusation. I'm just curious.) Tennis expert (talk) 13:00, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

• There has never been any indication that Lightmouse would refuse to abide by a clear community consensus, ruling by the Arbcom or any other official "finding". The problem so far is that no one knows the usefulness or hindrance of date linking for Wikipedia's general readership. I do not understand how Lightmouse ended up in the middle of this, when the problem is a lack of information regarding "date" pages and their possible POV or unsourced claims being presented to the general reader as valid Wikipedia pages. —Mattisse (Talk) 16:14, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

• I disagree with that. But I also don't see the relevance to this proposed finding. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:33, 8 February 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)

This is simply a finding of fact, which forms the factual basis for a proposed decision. Tennis expert (talk) 13:01, 19 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)

It is remarkable though that in 2006 this behavior by the same person got numerous blocks, while in 2008 users are threatened with a block simply for pointing it out. Project administration has gone to hell in a handbasket, if this is any indication. Oh well. Sic transit gloria mundi! -- Kendrick7^talk 21:46, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Do you have links for those blocks? I couldn't find them. Tennis expert (talk) 11:31, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

[8] -- Kendrick7^talk 23:19, 23 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, the opponents of date delinking have mounted this dog and pony show to seek their pound of flesh. They are making Tony1 and Ohconfucius as public enemy for our steadfast opposition; retribution is also sought against Greg L for his lack of political correctness and Lightmouse for his marvellous talent of removing date links faster than anyone else in WP history. I am indeed proud to be in such company. Ohconfucius (talk) 14:47, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Please do not insult your readers' intelligence by comparing adult civility with political correctness. -- Earle Martin [^t/_c] 15:38, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

My comment above was made in response to the original response of Ohconfucius to this proposed finding, which read in its entirety as follows: "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." Ohconfucius then slyly changed his response, leaving the unfortunate impression that the current version is his original version. This illustrates the disruptive and misleading tactics that Ohconfucius typically uses, here and elsewhere. Tennis expert (talk) 20:19, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Ohconfucius, your refusal to correct your errors leaves the 60 articles in violation of the Manual of Style (MOS), which you have repeatedly said must be followed by all editors, including yourself. Your refusal begs the question of whether you believe the MOS applies to everyone except yourself. Tennis expert (talk) 20:25, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Pedants corner: "begging the question" actually refers to a fallacy of circular logic - I think you mean "raises the question". Sorry - just want to make sure that your point is understood correctly. -- Earle Martin [^t/_c] 21:32, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

WP:MOS requires all dates within articles to be in a consistent format. That was the goal of my action, and in that, there has never been any "error". Ohconfucius (talk) 08:10, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

You are again incorrect. By the way, you are a "party" to this arbitration, not an "other". Tennis expert (talk) 20:01, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

The two editors complained that Ohconfucius had been changing articles from February 6, 2009 to 6 February 2009. MOS does not, and did not, require this "consistency". Editors have been banned for tweaking from AD to CE or back again; this form of Date Warring should also be discouraged. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:29, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Ohconfucius repeatedly has been incivil, disruptive, and unconstructive in violation of several important Wikipedia policies

5) The overwhelming evidence of his past and ongoing incivil, disruptive, and unconstructive behavior can be found on the evidence subpage of this arbitration.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Do you mind if I move most of this to evidence? Cool Hand Luke 02:42, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Tennis expert should stop this dog and pony show. If only Tennis expert would have enough guts to come out from behind that protective screen which he calls "not being a party" to this dispute... Ducking behind Locke, when he is in fact one of the main protagonists is rather disingenuous. Ohconfucius (talk) 15:04, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

• I received this message of thanks from the said third party after I had deleted disingenuous and juvenile remarks posted by Tennis. Ohconfucius (talk) 03:31, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Wow, what prompted this last outburst contributing severely to content bloat? Could it be retaliation at me for pointing out your rank hypocrisy. You really ought to calm down, or you risk, once again, making a pig of yourself.

No, I didn't need to stalk TE and Locke Cole to Nuclearwarfare's RFA, Someone led me there - remember??? Also, the proposer has a score to settle with Reedy, referred to above as the third party. Ohconfucius (talk) 02:04, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

For someone who claims to be a lawyer, it's a pretty poor showing not being able to tell the difference between "you are a pig" and " you risk making a pig of yourself"; also, I do not believe that it's either uncivil or slanderous to say someone is a hypocrite (sic), when one has furnished well-reasoned proof that the term has been used properly. Ohconfucius (talk) 14:02, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Agree. I have repeatedly seen accusations and incivility emanating from Ohconfucius during this farrago of disagreements. -- Earle Martin [^t/_c] 15:36, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Agree as well, per Arthur and Earle. —Locke Cole • t • c 18:16, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Agree. It's nice of the target of the finding to supply his own evidence in this file. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:06, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

It's already there, CHL. But unless all evidence on this subpage (under all proposed findings of fact by everyone) is going to be moved to the evidence subpage, then I think the stuff here should remain. Tennis expert (talk) 02:53, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

If it's already there, then I think the readers of this page would be well served by having it replaced here with an appropriate hyperlink, as well as any other duplicated sections. This page is becoming gigantic. -- Earle Martin [^t/_c] 16:24, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Colonies Chris repeatedly has edit warred to delink dates

6) The overwhelming evidence of his date delinking edit warring can be found here.

Here is his denial of ever edit warring on this issue. He said, "And I have not imtimidated anyone, nor steam-rollered, edit warred, nor made aggressive posts and edit summaries. The evidence is open to anyone to examine." The evidence has now been examined.... This was only the latest example of his falsely denying the obvious. See this, and this. The falsity of these claims is proven by his publicly declared intent to engage in tag-team edit warring regarding the delinking of dates: (1) and (2). In an angry and ironic response to his being warned about edit warring concerning date delinking, Colonies Chris said, "So children, what have we learned today? We've learned that if you don't like what other people have decided, you just have to disrupt things by making lots of noise and repeatedly reverting other editors' work and complaining that they're all against you and making accusations in every available forum, and reverting their attempts to discuss anything on your talk page whilst accusing them - untruthfully - of not discussing things; and in a while a kind administrator will come along and give you what you want by stopping the nasty men from doing all those horrible things that are so upsetting you. And why? Because it's causing so much disruption! This administrator action sets an extraordinarily bad precedent" Tennis expert (talk) 04:02, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Yes, evidence support this. —Locke Cole • t • c 18:15, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

It's very kind of Tennis expert to supply such detailed evidence of his edit warring. If you look at all these diffs, you'll find Tennis expert repeatedlly reverting many editors' attempts to make articles consistent with the Manual of Style, whilst claiming to be defending a 'local consensus' to keep dates linked. The strange thing is that not one single other editor comes forward to support this so-called 'local consensus'; in fact several regular editors of tennis articles actively oppose Tennis expert's actions. So who's the edit warrior?

And I wish to point out that Tennis expert has now twice accused me of 'blind reversions' and has failed to come up with a single diff to support this lie. Colonies Chris (talk) 22:19, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

And thank you for including that quotation from ANI, I'd forgotten about it. Rereading it now, I think I described your behaviour rather well. Please feel free to publicise anything similar I may have said on the subject. But why didn't you mention, when you say "'he was warned about edit warring", that the 'warning' came not from an administrator but from you, and had no official authority of any kind? Oh, and you forget to mention - again - that the outcome of your complaint was NoVio. Colonies Chris (talk) 08:42, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

This soap opera is taking on epic proportions. I just want to say that all of Colonies Chris' edits above are very helpful and productive edits. The ones I have bothered checking were unfortunately reverted by Tennis Expert. Quite disruptive behavior imo. (I myself have tried to delink some dates, but I was also reverted by Tennis Expert who claimed I was making "blind" edits. Very incivil accusation!) --HJensen, talk 16:31, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Like you, Colonies Chris has engaged in a fair number of blind reversions, none of which I have listed above, although I probably should have. Anyway, because you brought up your own blind reversions here, I'll list them for you so that you can refresh your memory and see that they truly were blind. (A) Mats Wilander article where you not only delinked dates, but also reverted unrelated edits and a large table (B) Goran Ivanisevic article where you not only delinked dates but eliminated a large table (C) Andriy Medvedev article where you not only delinked dates but deleted fact tags and rolled-back improvements to the article (D) Mats Wilander article where you not only delinked dates but reinstated the wrong name of the "US Open", rolled back numerous improvements that had nothing to do with date linking, and deleted a large table. It's disruptive and harmful to the encyclopedia for an editor to revert another editor's edit in its entirety when your attitude is that you just cannot be bothered to leave unaffected the portions of the edit that you don't have a problem with. Yes, it's harder to pick-and-choose exactly the things you want to undo, but it is absolutely your responsibility to do so. Never edit blindly. Tennis expert (talk) 17:55, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Check a mirror. Look at your, by your standards, "blind edit" at the Wilander article; what a blunder. Also, the table I removed was repetitive information that you without explanation insisted should remain. Your behavior is disruptive and counterproductive beyond imagination. Never edit blindly! And your accusation that I "cannot be bothered to leave unaffected the portions of the edit that you don't have a problem with" is exceptionally nasty and hurting. I suggest you read WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL and cool down your nasty and derogative insinuations about other editors.--HJensen, talk 18:13, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

There was nothing "blind" about my Mats Wilander edit. At the time, I intended every one of those changes. Tennis expert (talk) 19:05, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh, it was intentional that you wanted the uncropped picture to appear right under the cropped one? Why didn't you revert me when I corrected it then? Oh yes, and all my edits were intentional as well. So please hold back your incivil insults. You are acting in a very, very harmful manner. --HJensen, talk 19:50, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

If you have evidence of my so-called blind reversions, post it here. Otherwise withdraw your accusation. Colonies Chris (talk) 09:02, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Despite what the username might seem to suggest, no ownership rights of tennis articles can be applied or may be assumed. Just a cursory glance at any history of the above articles is enough to determine multiple reverts by TE over the period of the month of November. There is no point arguing what constitutes a "blind revert", for I believe TE's definition is any revert which he disapproves of. Ohconfucius (talk) 15:18, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Both Colonies Chris and Ohconfucius are parties, not others. Tennis expert (talk) 16:17, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

"I was provoked" or "Others were doing it as much as me" or "Don't look at me, look at them" is an irrelevant rationalization of misconduct, CC, especially in light of your own admission of edit warring and encouraging others to enagage in the same conduct. Tennis expert (talk) 22:45, 11 February 2009 (UTC) And in addition to your independent edit warring, I have documented 64 instances of your participation in tag-team edit warring. I invite you to peruse the list and provide an explanation if you can. Tennis expert (talk) 22:55, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Let me refresh your memory again, CC. You were warned by two administrators. (1) Administrator Seicer said, "I've given Colonies Chris a warning and any further de-linking will result in a block." (2) Administrator Master of Puppets said these things: (a) "Secondly, if some editors have issues with something then you discuss it. Anyway, clearly the MoS isn't agreed on if this is happening. I appreciate that you are passionate on the delinking of dates but please respect the terms laid down until this is all over or then it starts raining blocks and generally unhappy things take place. Can you agree to wait this out?" (b) "Oh, and a note; edit warring is unacceptable, whether policy backs you or not." (c) "Yeah, well... once again, having multiple editors agree with you does not give you free reign over any article because 'policy says so'. If users object, they object. If you continue to edit against their wishes, that is edit warring. ... I'm not up for arguing pointlessly over what edit warring is or who is right. There is a dispute here; stop the contested edits. Your understanding is greatly appreciated." (d) "So as long as the edits stop, all will be well." And then the diatribes from you and Ohconfucius occurred, where he amazingly managed to analogize the proceedings to Stalinism, McCarthyism, and Communism in just two sentences. Master of Puppets added "no vio" to the case merely as a courtesy to you and under the assumption that you would stop the delinkings per the warnings. Tennis expert (talk) 20:09, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Colonies Chris has advocated the use of scripts to delink dates in an unsupervised manner

7) On the Lightmouse discussion page, an editor nicely asked Lightmouse to make sure that before he delinks a date using a script, he spends a little time exercising discretion to determine whether the date link serves any useful purpose. Colonies Chris interjected this: "CR, since you aren't prepared to suggest any practical means for an editor, human or bot, to make such a determination, your question is both empty and tendentious and LM is quite right not to answer it." See also this, where he repeats that position and then adds that the urgency of date delinking is almost equivalent to an emergency situtation.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Dabomb87 repeatedly has edit warred to delink dates

8) The overwhelming evidence of his date delinking edit warring can be found here.

Notice this disruptive and conspiratorial thread involving Dabomb87, Ohconfucius, Tony1, and SkyWalker. Tennis expert (talk) 13:33, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Thanks once again to TE for finding so many examples where he and/or Locke Cole (and AN Other) have been engaged in edit-warring. Legitimate changes to the above articles per WP:MOS were reverted. Keep those diffs coming. ;-) This motion is unproductive as it is just another attempt to settle the score, and deserves to be thrown out. Ohconfucius (talk) 03:41, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Evidence supports this assertion. —Locke Cole • t • c 18:13, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

HJensen repeatedly has edit warred to delink dates

9) The evidence of his date delinking edit warring can be found here.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

This is a content dispute between Tennis expert and another editor who frequents tennis articles. Ohconfucius (talk) 08:13, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Is this where I am supposed to write: "I am not a party to this arbitration. See this list of involved parties." like you do TE? --HJensen, talk 23:38, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Make whatever arguments you deem appropriate. Tennis expert (talk) 11:28, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

In any case, I guess you have noted that I am opposed to any sanctions towards anyone. Also, thanks for highlighting my edits. All of them have relevant edit summaries, and are good edits imo. (I am particularly fond of the "Mats Wilander No. 2" one.) But I grant that my 14 edits over nearly two months are no match (no pun intended) for your 250+ ones over five days that I listed. Note that I only listed them to explain a link to another editor. Sorry to see that you have taken it like this.--HJensen, talk 23:38, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Ohconfucius, this is obviously about date delinking edit warring by HJensen. Don't try to mislead people by dressing it up as a "content dispute". Tennis expert (talk) 20:05, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

SkyWalker repeatedly has edit warred to delink dates, including blind reversions that harmed Wikipedia

10) When he learned that a date-delinking edit warring case had been opened on the Administrators' Noticeboard, SkyWalker made clear his edit warring intentions regarding date-delinking. He said, "Who the heck cares. I keep on delinking the dates" and "Yea desperate campaign, desperate people." He also said on Tony1's discussion page, "Wow tony. After delinking the dates tennis expert and his crew is reverting and linking dates and that person says in the edit summary 'There is no consensus to delete existing date links'. Iam not sure if that person should be taken to ANI or RFC for simply reverting. If i may ask how long do you think we have keep on delinking the same page over and over and over again?".

The evidence of his date delinking edit warring can be found here.

Not only has SkyWalker edit warred, in his rush to delink dates, he made many blind reversions of edits that had nothing to do with date links and thereby harmed Wikipedia: Kelly Jones (tennis), Roy Emerson, Robert Kendrick, Maria Bueno, Steffi Graf, Linky Boshoff, Helen Jacobs, Darlene Hard, Ann Kiyomura, Greer Stevens, Manon Bollegraf, Phil Dent, Anna Smith (tennis), Urszula Radwanska, David Rikl, Karin Knapp, Francesca Schiavone, Bernard Mitton, Goran Ivanisevic, Mel Purcell, Vitas Gerulaitis, Joe Hunt, and Henry IV, Holy Roman Emperor.

Notice this disruptive and conspiratorial thread involving Dabomb87, Ohconfucius, Tony1, and SkyWalker.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Not a party, but yes. —Locke Cole • t • c 18:10, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Stop this hypocrisy. Ohconfucius (talk) 10:02, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

The Rambling Man, now known temporarily as The Rambling Man on tour, repeatedly has edit warred to delink dates, including blind reversions that harmed Wikipedia

11) The overwhelming evidece of his date-delinking edit warring can be found here.

Not only has The Rambling Man edit warred, in his rush to delink dates, he made many blind reversions of edits that had nothing to do with date links and thereby harmed Wikipedia: Monica Seles, Andrea Jaeger, Natasha Zvereva, Francoise Durr (1), Francoise Durr (2), Margaret Osborne duPont, Nancye Wynne Bolton, Jana Novotna, Arantxa Sanchez Vicario, Malivai Washington, Wendy Turnbull, Virginia Ruzici, Cedric Pioline, Jennifer Capriati (1), Mima Jausovec, Conchita Martinez, Jennifer Capriati (2), Emilio Sanchez, Tony Roche, Elizabeth Ryan, Marion Jones, Christophe Rochus.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Not a party to this case, but yes. As an aside, hard to believe an administrator would engage in edit warring like this. —Locke Cole • t • c 18:09, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I might add that each time that these edits occured, they are are considered edit warring. However, they are delinked multiple times because somebody re-linked the articles each time. Is that not edit warring? Dabomb87 (talk) 16:58, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

And, I might say, one of the most popular, thoughtful, sensitive editors around. He was almost instantly nominated by all regulars to be the inaugural Director of the Featured List Candidates process when it was revamped last year. I think his editing activity here has arisen because he cares deeply about tennis articles. Tony (talk) 06:08, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I echo that. Whatever Tennis expert might say or do, TRM is sorely missed and his contributions to Wikipedia have been invaluable. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:54, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Not only an administrator - a bureaucrat. Tennis expert (talk) 18:45, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I thought you're a party? Anyway, I selected one of these at random - the first of your second bunch, from Monica Seles and am unsure what you think is damaging, other than he reverted your revert of unlinking. --Dweller (talk) 16:52, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Please feel free to discuss my "punishment" but understand that I do not wish to spend one second more on this topic. When I return and have sufficient time, I will refocus my effort on featured articles, lists and topics, of which I have created many. I gave up trying to help tennis articles comply with the WP:MOS to give them a chance of becoming featured months ago. Thus I have made no attempt to delink dates for months. Any "punishment" will be precisely that, vindictive punishment.

Secondly, if it is deemed that my behaviour is unbecoming of either an administrator or ´crat then please note that I am open to recall for both positions. If Wikipedians believe that I have abused either position then they may exercise their right to have my flags removed.

Finally, it would have been corteous of the Tennis expert to have notified me of this activity instead of relying of others to let me know my behaviour was being scrutinised in such a way. The Rambling Man on tour (talk) 17:08, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

It's good to know that you have agreed to be subject to recall. Your behavior has been below standard for a very long time, and I believe that you atrocious behavior (past or present) is entirely relevant to the question of whether you should remain as either an administrator or a bureaucrat. As for your complaint about courtesy, how hypocritical. You have been repeatedly discourteous to me for months, going around behind my back on many different discussion pages to trash talk my edits and character and misrepresent my opinions and have ignored my repeated pleas to stop. Not once did you give me the courtesy of notifying me that you were doing so. Nor have you ever apologized. Tennis expert (talk) 21:58, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Note that he did not say he agreed, but merely said he was open to recall - a difference that any law student should know. Anyway, let me spell it out for you: anybody is free to try "revokal" (or whatever your word is) of either or both his positions, but there is no obligation to. However, perhaps User:Tennis expert should, bearing in mind the rather savage attack against TRM made by him directly above - it's called "putting your money where your mouth is". ;-) Ohconfucius (talk) 03:09, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Welcome back. Is this a different spirit from when you left?

• Precisely, he agreed to be open to recall. This is persiflage.
• Speaking of which, I'll take the good old word revokement (you could look it up).

But, seriously, I commend to ArbCom's attention that RM was delinking dates "to give them a chance to be featured". This is a mark of how little FA has to do with actual article quality, and how much with inane shibboleths. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:19, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

May I ask what the last point has to do with anything discussed? Dabomb87 (talk) 03:24, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

It's so tempting to just say No; but the answer is: this is justification for #Cutting the Gordian knot, above, and taking at least one layer of semi-literate distraction out of FAC's way. There is no sane reason for date delinking to be a prerequisite for consideration as one of our best articles; if a reviewer is actually distracted by having one or two dates linked, they can say so, and it will be up to a consensus to believe them. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:35, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

<cynical_mode>Of course! And we can have a similar eventual debate over millions of articles as date-linking should obviously be considered differently in (say) an article about Monica Seles, than (say) an article about Handel. Ah, the cummulative years of useful work (instead of all that mucking about with simply contributing to the contents of articles).</cynical_mode>  HWV258  04:57, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

If there's one thing that's been made clear during this dispute, it's that not all date linkes are necessarily bad, and that those wishing to remove them all are facing an uphill battle in getting their way (often at the expense of the communities patience, see Greg Ls newest RFC which effectively re-asks the questions asked only two months ago). So yes, date links will need to be challenged on a case by case basis. Just about the only clear thing we can take away from the RFC is that the community supports deprecating dates linked purely for auto formatting purposes (but of course not all dates were linked for that purpose). —Locke Cole • t • c 05:08, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Geez—it shouldn't be necessary to debate it out on an article-by-article basis. A MOS page should be capable of giving guidence as to the type of date that can reasonably be expected to be linked (although exactly which those are still defies analysis). How many situations can there be for justifying a date link? Five? Ten? Well, list them and end it. Individual articles are still entitled to debate around the guideline, but at least there's a chance of avoiding endless tiresome debates from people who have too much time on their hands.  HWV258  05:18, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

You brought up the "millions of debates" hysteria; we didn't have millions of debates about the far more controversial issue of Anglo-American spelling. The dozen types of links that some editors find useful are all in evidence, and all in the RfCs. If there were consensus to put them in MOSNUM, it would be clear that bots are not appropriate, and we could all go edit content. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 06:07, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh please, the Anglo-American spelling issue has been sorted satisfactorily because it can clearly be specified as being based on the subject matter of the underlying article. Whether any one particular date in an article should be linked is in a different league of awfulness as there are many more parameters to be considered. For example, for the Handel article, which of the following are worthy of linking: birth-date, death-date, date of illness, date of moving to Italy or London, date of first performance of significant works, etc. etc. etc. There are about 100 dates in that article, and I confidently predict there will continue to be heated debate as to which of those dates are worthy of a link (in order to find out what other exciting events happened either on that day, or in that year—throughout history). In some strange world, there's probably someone who thinks all the dates should be linked, and then we're back to where we started (something the RfCs specifically stated wasn't wanted).  HWV258  06:33, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

(left) Enough. HWV258 writes with reckless disregard for the truth; if he continues doing so, I will propose sanctions.

• WP:ENGVAR has four points. Of those, Strong national ties is only one; it is so expressed because it only applies in a small number of cases (many articles have no ties to any English-speaking country; of the remainder, few are strong); the rules which always apply are Be consistent, Retain the existing variety, and seek commonality' when possible.
• The only reason to predict that there will be heated debate about linking 1685 is that HWV258 intends to conduct such a debate; otherwise it should be as uncontroversial as linking opera or Dublin: in all three cases, there are reasons to link, and reasons not to link, but the question is unimportant, as proposed above. A moment's discussion will resolve it, or we can go back and forth until we reach consensus, as we do with other trivial matters. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:34, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

No, not enough—and I encourage you to "propose sanctions" (we could all do with a lightening of the mood around here). You have referred a number of times to "Anglo-American spelling", however I now regret entertaining this pointless extension to the argument (although I do find it interesting that you readily quote from the MOS when you believe it suits you—I'll certainly remember your dependence on that page when you next denigrate it's very existence).

You have failed to address the point that deciding which types of date are to be linked is in a different category to spelling. To give you a concrete example to ponder, there are actually editors (and I know you'll find this difficult to believe) who support the notion that date linking in articles relating to tennis should be treated differently to other topics (no, stop giggling—I'm serious). If problems to do with the linking of dates starts at the level of sport, heavens knows where it will end up when the linking of dates in articles to do with sex, religion and/or politics get debated.

Your allegation that I intend to engage in "heated debate" (I guess to self-fulfil my point) is of course, groundless. On the contrary, If you take the time to read my additions (e.g. here), you'll find that I have in fact been the most proactive editor in terms of making sure such debates don't end up happening.

Always fun to receive responses that start with an imperative, and end with a personal attack—you just know that the engine is running out of steam. Cheers.  HWV258  23:05, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Four paragraphs; the only point worth addressing is that I do cite WP:ENGVAR with approval. Of course I do; such guidance on conduct is probably the only part of MOS which is both valid and independent of widely available style guides. See User:Pmanderson#Five layers of MOS. The rest of this is written by an "editor" who uses proactive as though it were well-formed English and had a meaning not covered by active.

More "playing the man, rather than the ball"—which should come in handy in the impending sanction debate. Are you saying that the meaning of the rest of what I wrote has left you mystified by my inclusion of the word "proactive" at one point? Hmmmm. To clear your block, have a read of proactive and see if you can reasses my points. I wasn't aware that fundamental to this debate was the the use of (your interpretation) of "well-formed English". I do promise to try my best to keep my eye on that particular ball from now on. Of course, there is always the point of view that people can be negatively-active in a debate—I encounter it all too often lately.  HWV258  00:36, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Note to Clerk: This entire discussion should probably be moved to talk. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:16, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I am not a party to this arbitration. As as you well know, Dweller, whether an edit is considered "harmful" has nothing to do with whether an editor is edit warring. And blind reversions (see the diffs above) are ipso facto harmful. Concerning the Monica Seles blind reversion, see, e.g., the edits of "U.S. Open" to "US Open" and "dominant player" to "World No. 1 player" that The Rambling Man on tour blindly reverted. Tennis expert (talk) 21:58, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Tennis expert, whether you are a party or not is irrelevant to your behavior. For all those allegations in that paragraph, I don't see any evidence (atrocious behavior, "going around behind my back on many different discussion pages to trash talk my edits and character and misrepresent my opinions and have ignored my repeated pleas to stop", etc.). Good luck trying to secure a recall of TRM. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:05, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

OK, I'll work on posting the diffs for you in a new proposed finding of fact regarding his incivility. Tennis expert (talk) 23:29, 3 February 2009 (UTC) Until then, here's a typical example of his disruptive attitude towards myself. He posted this on his discussion page: "Good luck in your drive to remove Wikipedia of editors who actually care about improving articles." and then removed my response, in a transparent effort to have the last word and sanitize the public record, which admittedly is his right on his own discussion page. Tennis expert (talk) 00:03, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I disagree that TRM "harmed Wikipedia" by doing a reversion that included changing ""U.S. Open" to "US Open" and "dominant player" to "World No. 1 player"". --Dweller (talk) 22:09, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I think it was the other way around. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:13, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, reverting the factual "World No. 1 player" to the POV and unsourced "dominant player" was a benefit to Wikipedia ... as was reverting the consensus-based "US Open" (see this, this, this, and this) to "U.S. Open", a consensus that TRM was very familiar with. But if you don't like the Monica Seles example, have a look at any of the others. Tennis expert (talk) 23:29, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with Tennis expert on just about everything and decline to participate in this charade any further. Further, I call on Arbcom to police this page properly, as it is replete with inappropriate behaviour. --Dweller (talk) 10:57, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

2008Olympian repeatedly has edit warred to delink dates, including blind reversions that harmed Wikipedia

12) The overwhelming evidence of his date-delinking edit warring can be found here.

Not only has 2008Olympian edit warred, in his rush to delink dates, he made many blind reversions of edits that had nothing to do with date links and thereby harmed Wikipedia. For example: Maureen Connolly, Shirley Fry, Peter Fleming (tennis), Zack Fleishman, Dorothy Head Knode, Casey Dellacqua, John Bromwich, and Fred Alexander.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Not a party to this case (perhaps he should have been), but yes. —Locke Cole • t • c 18:08, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

This is another content dispute between Tennis expert and another editor who frequents tennis articles. Ohconfucius (talk) 08:15, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Ohconfucius, this is obviously about date delinking edit warring by 2008Olympian. Don't try to mislead people by dressing it up as a "content dispute". Tennis expert (talk) 20:04, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Tony1 repeatedly has edit warred to delink dates, including blind reversions that harmed Wikipedia

13) The overwhelming evidence of his date delinking edit warring can be found here.

In his zeal to keep dates delinked in various articles, he has made blind reverts of edits, apparently without considering whether he was reverting edits that had nothing to do with date linking. See, for example, his reverts of the following articles: Manon Bollegraf, Emilio Sanchez, Oliver Campbell, Margaret Court, John Bromwich, Fred Alexander, Christine Truman, Lesley Turner Bowrey, Linky Boshoff, Anna McCune Harper, Jill Craybas, Darlene Hard, Kelly Liggan, Judy Tegart, and Florenta Mihai. Tennis expert (talk) 20:30, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

His edit warring is very ironic given that he was publicly claiming that he was discouraging date-delinking-afficionados from edit warring. He said to The Rambling Man, "As one of the promoters of the change in practice, I've cautioned other supporters against edit-warring on the matter. After all, one of the arguments put against the change was that DA stops edit warring. Although I don't believe it was a valid argument, I don't want to give ammunition to those who might throw back at me their prior warnings." He also said publicly, "no one's going to press improvements (date delinking) where they're not wanted, and no one's going to edit war or cause instability; that's the last thing we want." And again, "I dislike intensely edit conflicts over this matter." Tennis expert (talk) 00:06, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Yes. —Locke Cole • t • c 18:07, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Several editors are providing long lists of edit wars they have been involved with. If you look at 1918 in music you will find an Irving Berlin song, "They Were All Out Of Step But Jim". Jim's regiment marched in a parade upon returning from the World War. His mother was quite proud of her son and in her accounts of the parade she would note that entire regiment marched out of step with Jim. If you have been in a hundred edit wars, you may be like Jim. -- SWTPC6800 (talk) 05:11, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Tony1, 2008Olympian, The Rambling Man, Colonies Chris, SkyWalker, HJensen, Ohconfucius, and Dabomb87 repeatedly have engaged in tag-team edit warring to delink dates

14) Not only have Tony1 (T1), 2008Olympian (2O), The Rambling Man (TRM) (including his alternative The Rambling Man on tour account), Colonies Chris (CC), SkyWalker (SW), HJensen (HJ), and Dabomb87 (D8) repeatedly edit warred to delink dates, they and Ohconfucius (OC) (including his alternative Date delinker account) have engaged in tag-team edit warring to delink dates. The overwhelming evidence is here.

These edits were not just a coincidence or the end product of finding a pattern that was wanted to be found. The editors in question have a long history of interaction and mutual support concerning date delinking activities. The evidence of this fact can be found on the evidence subpage for this arbitration.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Another facet of the fait accompli. —Locke Cole • t • c 18:06, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Another facet of the over-vivid imagination of a conspiracy theoretician. Ohconfucius (talk) 08:19, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Nice ad hominem there. -- Earle Martin [^t/_c] 20:30, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Um ... sorry to break the news, TE, but I think everyone has realised that once the first few dozen diffs were inserted, the arbitrators will get the gist of what you're attempting to put over. Several hundred more are utterly useless, unless you're selling bandwidth to WP. Do you have a few minutes to help with WikiProject Years? Tony (talk) 12:37, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Well my comments are: 1) I actually don't know what "tag-team" means. 2) My four edits shown above are all very good. In three of them, I repeatedly ask Tennis Expert to provide edit summaries to his blind linking of dates. 3) The fourth edit asks a question, thereby opening up that my edit could be questioned (and reverted). So in conclusion, four very constructive edits if I may say so.--HJensen, talk 18:30, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

See WP:GANG. Tennis expert (talk) 18:51, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Why would I want to read essays suggested by someone who refuses to adhere to guidelines? --HJensen, talk 18:49, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

To find out what "tag-team" means? (I'm not persuaded that these are, but displays of I Didn't Hear That tend to indicate a problem.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:59, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok,I found that out, but also found out that this sub-thread is utterly over the top. Yeah, not providing edit summaries is a good example of I Didn't Hear That. It is amusing that the essay mentions that it may be considered incivil (the word you can throw around at will here) to accuse of tag-team edit warring. I still can't see how my four edits can be "tag-team" edits at all. So accusing me of even "repeatedly" being engaged in tag-teaming is typical of Tennis Expert's exceptionally condescending, patronizing and confrontational style towards anyone that disagree with his definition of consensus. I am slightly insulted here! (unless there will be more "more to come")--HJensen, talk 14:49, 31 January 2009 (UTC)--HJensen, talk 22:37, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

RE: "g)" This was my response to Tony1's entry on my talk page—in case anybody is remotely interested (as one can see, I politely thanked Tony1, and I left it at that). Is more "more to come" coming, or do you, Tennis Expert, plan to throw out another range of wild accusations, and then dropping "evidence" onto the page gradually? That in itself, is highly disruptive behavior. If you want to make accusations then present your "evidence" at the same time. Thanks. --HJensen, talk 07:12, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

As I find relevant evidence, I add it. But I thought you "do not want to participate (here) anymore. It has turned into a Kindergarden activity for a few very stubborn and self-righteous people. I don't want to waste more time on these children pretending to be serious adults." Glad to see that you have changed your mind. Tennis expert (talk) 07:37, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

1) Oh I see. Stadard lawyer practise: Accuse, and then collect the relevant evidence as complaints come in. Such agenda-setting behavior might work in courts, but is grossly incivil here. 2) I only perticipate if someone is joking with me. Then I cannot help but reacting. I have long lost interest in the case per se; partly thanks to your tireless search for revenge. --HJensen, talk 14:43, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

The current spate of posts by TE prove nothing, and merely serve to dilute this page away from the salient points in arbitrating on date delinking. What an amazingly biased and pejorative way at looking at the events is demonstrated by posts such as "undeniable that these editors were working in concert concerning date-delinking". The rational way of looking at the events referred to is that the editors involved were working boldly, tirelessly and in a spirit of co-operation in order to implement the guidelines as specified by the MOS at the time. Their work should not be held up as some sort of "evidence" in this degrading way; on the contrary, they should be commended in their efforts to improve WP in accordance with the community-based consensus in place at the time.

The reference to WP:GANG misses the point (by a long way). From that page is the salient point: "editors may be accused of coordinating their actions to sidestep policies and guidelines", however it is obvious that the editors "involved" were absolutely working within the policies and guidelines at the time. Accusations of WP:GANG just don't apply; instead, the editors co-operative hard work (purely aimed at improving WP for millions of readers) should be commended.  HWV258  22:42, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I suspect that the arbitrators will be fully capable of examining the facts and drawing their own conclusions. Collaboration generally is a good thing. But collaborative edit warring is harmful to Wikipedia and violates policy. The diffs show the pattern of edit warring. The communications between the parties about date delinking strongly imply a concerted effort to edit war and avoid sanctions for doing so. Tennis expert (talk) 23:05, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Well thank you for pointing out the facts that the editors involved worked co-operatively in an effort to implement the guidelines established by the MOS at the time. The "warring" (as you put it), came from those who had no community-based consensual justification in removing the fine work done by the people you now so happily denigrate with your pejorative posts.  HWV258  23:27, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Where does Wikipedia policy say that edit warring to enforce the Manual of Style guidelines is permissable? Tennis expert (talk) 23:35, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

At least you are now starting to realise the truth regarding the point of MOS-supported edit-delinking, as well as the co-operative work needed for such an enormous task. To answer your sole remaining point: nowhere, but they had far more justification in reverting to the situation supported by the MOS than you ever had when you did likewise (e.g. Don_Budge&action=history). What was your justification for doing that? Furthermore, the simple fact that more than 100,000 articles (November 2008, and earlier) were edited by the bots (with little or no eventual problems) suggests (from Wikipedia:Consensus: silence implies consent if there is adequate exposure to the community) that the blind brick wall of reverts that you built across the road of MOS community-supported consensus needed special attention. For some reason, you took it upon yourself to speak for the entire tennis-based community to remove the MOS-supported edits. (As an aside, the implied suggestion that articles on tennis should be handled differently when it comes to date-linking still defies belief.) A community-minded approach at the time, should have caused you to leave the original edits as they were in order to show the tennis-based community the problems (as you perceive them)—thus initiating a community-based discussion on the issue. Why did you skip the process of finding out what the tennis-based community wanted in regards to date-linking? The multiple reverts to return to the position supported by the MOS were clearly made so as to give the people interested in the articles a chance to see how the articles would look—based on the guidelines suggested by the MOS.  HWV258  00:27, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I asked, "Where does Wikipedia policy say that edit warring to enforce the Manual of Style guidelines is permissable?" You answered, "nowhere". Thus, we are in total agreement on the relevant point of this proposed finding of fact. Tennis expert (talk) 05:24, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

No, I answered "nowhere, ..."—so once again you have failed to address the points I raised. Pity, I really thought that some progress was being made. (In case you ever get interested, the rest of my points allude to why the term "edit-warring" is moot as one side applied blind reverts for personal reasons, whereas the other side tried to introduce community-consensus-based edits for the betterment of all at WP.)  HWV258  05:38, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Thinking about it, this is quite accurate, although perhaps a bit too subtle for the named editors. The actions of the editors included editing the MoS to reflect a stated consensus, which was never actually achieved, and then (both before and after that edit), editing according to that consensus. It was never (and, in fact, still isn't) editing according to that part of the MoS about which there is consensus, although DaBomb's new summary of the consensus is reasonably close to accurate my understanding. It's not reflected in the MoS, nor would it support the massive date-delinking. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 13:38, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

The Rambling Man has been highly disruptive, which is unbecoming of the trust placed in bureaucrats and administrators

15) The disruptive behavior of The Rambling Man, temporarily known now as the The Rambling Man on tour, can be categorized as follows:

A) Edit warring, including harmful blind reversions:

See proposed findings of fact (11) and (14), above.

B) Fostering a hostile "us versus them" atmosphere by encouraging others to edit war, be disruptive, and assume bad faith:

a) On Tony1's discussion page: "Hi Tony. Just thought I'd let you know that User:Tennis expert is systematically undoing your edits once again. I've tried to remind him that his edits are not actually improving the article but I suspect (a) he'll delete the message with a smug edit summary and (b) he'll continue applying his own consensus to articles he seems to own. Just thought you should know." [9]

b) On Tony1's discussion page: "Tony, sorry that I've dragged you into another debacle. 'Tennis expert' has continued to revert your edits against the WP:MOS. Despite being asked the purpose of relinking years and the odd country, plus turning 'runners-up' into 'runner-ups' (!), he is adamant that his impression of consensus rules over others. I think this one is doomed. RIP WP:Tennis." [10]

c) On Tony1's discussion page: "Hi Tony, any chance you can rerun your script over this? As usual, Tennis expert has relinked the dates but made other changes so a simple reversion is impossible." [11]

d) On Tony1's discussion page: "Hi Tony, I'm trying one last time to get the Tennis crew talking. I've initiated a new thread and invited a few contributors to join in. I don't expect much from the 'expert' but it'd be interesting to understand whether his main interests lie in improving the encyclopedia or process wonkery." [12]

e) On Tony1's discussion page: "Yeah, I tried spamming a few of the project contributors to get some idea of whether we're wasting our time with the 'expert'. Someone has gone so far as to suggest RFC... I'm wondering what the point of the whole project is as the 'expert' seems to run the whole show." [13]

f) Post directed at Tennis expert on Tony1's discussion page: "And I suggest you make good with your 'retirement'. Not going your way is it? Apologies Tony that this stalking doesn't quit. And by all means watch me comply with guidelines, correct grammar and markup and tag the dozens of pitiful tennis articles with the maintenance tags they need." [14]

g) Post directed at Tennis expert on Tony1's discussion page: "Haven't you retired yet? ... Enjoy retirement." [15]

h) Post directed at Tennis expert on Tony1's discussion page: "Tennis expert, haven't you retired per your userpage? Please stop posting rude and disruptive messages - we're here to improve the encyclopedia, not just snipe from the sidelines." [16]

i) Post directed at Tennis expert on The Rambling Man's discussion page: "Good luck in your drive to remove Wikipedia of editors who actually care about improving articles." [17]

j) On the WP:Tennis discussion page with the edit summary of "User:Tennis expert: lost cause": "I think it's a lost cause. If his disruptive edits counter to consensus and WP:MOS continue, I'll instigate an WP:RFC. He's single-handedly keeping WP:TENNIS in the dark ages and refusing to discuss anything or a possible way forward. It's his way or the highway." [18]

k) On the WP:Tennis discussion page: "[A]ll I have to say as it's abundantly clear that you, Tennis expert, are on your own. ... You are trying to own, not only these bios, but, it seems from the discussions of plenty here, this [tennis] project. It's a shame that you can't turn your "expert"ise to improving the poor state of the bios rather than go on a crusade...." [19]

l) On Ryan4314's discussion page in response to a post to that user from Tennis expert: "And I strongly recommend you follow the current WP:MOS guidelines on this matter and ignore any threats from bullying (and so-called retired) editors who seek to impose their own agenda on you." [20]

C) Abusing the good article and feature article review process to bludgeon and shame people into accepting mass date-delinking:

a) On SkyWalker's discussion page: "Tennis expert doesn't seem at all interested in the fact that he is single-handedly preventing the entire tennis project from getting any good or featured content. That is a problem only he can solve but ceasing his continual ownership over each and every tennis bio. He was partly responsible for the delisting of Maria Sharapova through his ownership edits, and now the project has just one real tennis GA. No real FAs. Pathetic. What's the point in being part of a Wikiproject when all your edits are about preventing articles getting to GA or FA? What's the point in this project at all if not to create excellent, consistent articles? Tennis expert is simply not doing what is best for the encyclopedia. Read WP:WIAFA, point 2 - articles need to follow style guidelines. If people are supporting the continually linking of out-of-context words and dates then this encyclopedia is going to get worse." [21]

b) On SkyWalker's discussion page: "And yes, Tennis expert is single-handedly preventing every single tennis article becoming an FA because he refuses to allow any article to comply with the WP:MOS. Tennis expert's abject refusal to discuss whether he will allow an FA-drive to take place by not continually reverting MOS-compliant edits is a sure-fire sign of arrogance and ownership. The tennis project is in disarray, not a single FA (besides those video game ones) for a project like that really shows that something is amiss there. A number of editors have attempted to improve these articles to attempt to comply with MOS just to get a terse edit summary which says something like "apparently editors like it the other way". My all-time favourite edit was the reintroduction of spaces between citations. That was truly unbelievable. Until Tennis expert (and, it would seem, Yohan euan o4) understand that the whole idea of wikiprojects is to improve articles (hence why Wikipedia has a number of style guidelines), then the current FA/GA total will never improve. Tennis expert says he doesn't edit against 'any policy change that is supported by consensus' - the linking of dates has been deprecated per WP:CONTEXT - that's been supported by consensus or else how would it be in the MOS? I hope others don't give up on this project but I wouldn't be surprised. There's nothing about the tennis project to be proud of right now. ... Why is the tennis project in the doldrums?" [22]

c) Harrassment on Tennis expert's discussion page, analogous to "When are you going to stop beating your spouse?":

"Once again, please discuss whether you would like the project to get any featured content before making edits that make it impossible." [23]

"Please could you respond to the discussion over whether the tennis project wants to get any featured content before you continue making it impossible to happen by contravening the MOS with the reversions? Thanks." [24]

"I would also appreciate your input at the WT:TENNIS thread discussing the current inability for WP:TENNIS to get a single featured article, thanks." [25]

"Your edits prevent any tennis bio from ever becoming featured. You know that. Please stop." [26]

"I think the other participants would also like to hear your opinion on not following the WP:MOS which currently thus prohibits such an article promotion." [27]

"You ... seem almost proud that the [tennis] project has no real featured or good quality articles. How strange. Well, good luck. Most of us here wish to improve Wikipedia rather than stick it in the mud." [28]

d) Falsely claiming that the following articles must be date delinked in accordance with the Manual of Style because they are being prepared for FAC: Virginia Wade, Dinara Safina, Emilio Sanchez, Jennifer Capriati, and David Ferrer.

e) On the WP:Tennis discussion page: "Tennis expert's continual relinking of dates contravenes this approach and therefore prevents any article he continually relinks from improving to the point of FA/FL. Which is a shame." [29]

f) On the WP:Tennis discussion page with the edit summary of "shame": "I'm surprised that you ('Tennis expert') persist in ensuring this [tennis] project goes from weakness to weakness, guaranteeing from your various edits that it will never get a featured article. After all, what is the purpose of this whole project? Not just the tennis wikiproject but Wikipedia? To develop an excellent encyclopedia perhaps? Do you want to achieve this?" [30]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

One may be excused for conveniently forgetting that FA and GA reviewers were urged to comply with MOSNUM to link dates for the purposes of autoformatting, when it was launched. The FA/GA machine just got shoved into reverse gear as a result of deprecation - it's as simple as that. How all the above nonsense be considered "abusing the good article and feature article review process" is totally beyond me. Ohconfucius (talk) 09:46, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but I can't agree with this: the material presented above is disagreement, not disruption. -- Earle Martin [^t/_c] 13:53, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

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.

Compliance with the AWB rules of use

1) To protect Wikipedia in the future from the type of misbehavior that these users have evidenced in the past, Lightmouse, Ohconfucius, Reedy, and every other editor who uses AWB to edit shall comply with the AWB rules of use. Tennis expert (talk) 11:10, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

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)

• OhConfucius would have done better to link to ad hominem itself, which would have told him this is not one. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:37, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

• which is why it wasn't linked there ;-) Ohconfucius (talk) 15:20, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

That doesn't make any sense. What are you trying to say? -- Earle Martin [^t/_c] 15:35, 20 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:

Oppose No reason given for the five days. Why not two or 11?--HJensen, talk 16:34, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

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)

No, there isn't. "Could" and "shall" have different meanings. The first implies merely a possibility. The second is a requirement. Tennis expert (talk) 11:21, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Ohconfucius - Civility Parole

3) To protect Wikipedia in the future from the numerous adverse consequences of Ohconfucius's current and past incivility, he is subject to an editing restriction for 24 months. Should he make an edit that is adjudged by an administrator to be uncivil, disruptive, a personal attack, or an assumption of bad faith, he may be blocked for the duration specified in the enforcement ruling below. Tennis expert (talk) 10:46, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

TE, if you're being baited, realise this and have a sense of humour. Life is short. Tony (talk) 12:53, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

• Tony, he has yet to demonstrate he has one - a sense of humour, that is. In any event, since a message posted on Arthur Rubin's talk page, I now realise that my previous irritation with Tennis expert was misplaced. I am sufficiently concerned for his well-being that I am prepared to overlook his venting of anger against me. Ohconfucius (talk) 16:52, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Support this proposal. -- Earle Martin [^t/_c] 14:53, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Colonies Chris - Revert Parole

4) To protect Wikipedia in the future from the numerous adverse consequences of the edit warring that Colonies Chris (talk · contribs) has engaged in in the past, he 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. Tennis expert (talk) 11:10, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

CC is a meticulous and methodical editor; This smacks of revenge and punishment, and will only harm the interests of WP. Ohconfucius (talk) 09:58, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Colonies Chris - Script Usage Injunction

5) To protect Wikipedia in the future from the numerous adverse consequences of improper script utilization by Colonies Chris (talk · contribs) in the past, he is permanently enjoined from using scripts or any other automated or semi-automated editing tool, including AWB, to make an edit that is in actual fact unsupervised or is the factual equivalent of being unsupervised. He also is permanently enjoined from encouraging any other editor to use scripts or any other automated or semi-automated editing tool, including AWB, to make an edit that is in actual fact unsupervised or is the factual equivalent of being unsupervised. Tennis expert (talk) 11:10, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

CC is a meticulous and methodical editor; This smacks of revenge and punishment, and will only harm the interests of WP. Ohconfucius (talk) 09:58, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

So, Ohconfucius is advocating the use of semi-automated editing tools to make unsupervised edits. Shocking. Tennis expert (talk) 10:27, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Dabomb87 - Revert Parole

6) To protect Wikipedia in the future from the numerous adverse consequences of the edit warring that Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) has engaged in in the past, Dabomb87 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. Tennis expert (talk) 11:10, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

DAB is a dedicated editor doing sterling work on FARC; This smacks of revenge and punishment, and will only harm the interests of WP. Ohconfucius (talk) 09:58, 6 February 2009 (UTC)::

Comment by others:

Oppose A year is completely excessive given this evidence. I'd want to see evidence that this user not only drank the kool-aid but was dishing it out, and in the manner other parties to the dispute were. Given the seemingly large number of edits this user does in general using scripts, it's somewhat possible he just hasn't found the break pedal yet -- we see this happen all the time -- and, if that is so, then, sure, strapping his foot to the brake pedal for a month or two might help. However, from my short conversation with him today, he seems entirely capable of open communication, being reasonable, making compromises, and seeking a consensus. If other parties to this case had been like this over these past months I'm certain we wouldn't be here. -- Kendrick7^talk 03:35, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

He is a party to this case and communicated regularly with the date-link-deletionists who also are parties to this case. So, his edit warring was not as innocent as it might seem. Tennis expert (talk) 14:37, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Prior to this case being opened he was difficult to work with and seemed disinterested in compromise or talking things out (he was also the reason I listed "stalking" as a behavioral issue in this case). Lately his attitude has shifted significantly, and assuming we're not all banned per WP:LAME, I look forward to working with him after this to try and sort out where to go next. —Locke Cole • t • c 00:11, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

HJensen - Revert Parole

7) To protect Wikipedia in the future from the numerous adverse consequences of the edit warring that HJensen (talk · contribs) has engaged in in the past, HJensen 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. Tennis expert (talk) 11:10, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

HJ is not a party and is only here because of the wild accusations Tennis expert is making against him for their prior disagreements and content disputes; This smacks of revenge and punishment, and will only harm the interests of WP. Ohconfucius (talk) 09:58, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I might add that HJensen is one of those tennis expert editors who Tennis expert claims have not agreed on delinking dates. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:36, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Question to Dabomb87: I dont quite follow this: "I might add that HJensen is one of those tennis expert editors who Tennis expert claims have not agreed on delinking dates". I have missed that.--HJensen, talk 14:45, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

SkyWalker - Revert Parole & Blind Reversion Permanent Injunction

8) To protect Wikipedia in the future from the numerous adverse consequences of the edit warring that SkyWalker (talk · contribs) has engaged in in the past, SkyWalker 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. SkyWalker is permanently enjoined from making blind reversions of edits. Tennis expert (talk) 11:10, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

This smacks of revenge and punishment, and will only harm the interests of WP. Ohconfucius (talk) 09:58, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

The Rambling Man & The Rambling Man on tour - Revert Parole & Blind Reversion Permanent Injunction

9) To protect Wikipedia in the future from the numerous adverse consequences of the edit warring and blind reversions that The Rambling Man (talk · contribs) has done in the past, he (including his alternative account The Rambling Man on tour) 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. The Rambling Man (including his alternative account The Rambling Man on Tour) is permanently enjoined from making blind reversions of edits. Tennis expert (talk) 11:10, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

not content to slander, this smacks of revenge and punishment, and will only harm the interests of WP. Ohconfucius (talk) 09:58, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

2008Olympian - Revert Parole & Blind Reversion Permanent Injunction

10) To protect Wikipedia in the future from the numerous adverse consequences of the edit warring and blind reversions that 2008Olympian (talk · contribs) has done in the past, he or she shall for one year be limited to one revert per page per week, excepting obvious vandalism. Further, he or she is required to discuss any content reversions on the page's talk page. 2008Olympian is permanently enjoined from making blind reversions of edits. Tennis expert (talk) 11:10, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

For what? engaging in content disputes with the tennis expert? This smacks of revenge and punishment, and will only harm the interests of WP. Ohconfucius (talk) 09:58, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Ohconfucius, this is obviously about date delinking edit warring and blind reversions by 2008Olympian - behavior. Don't try to mislead people by dressing it up as a "content dispute". Tennis expert (talk) 17:19, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Tony1 - Revert Parole & Blind Reversion Permanent Injunction

11) To protect Wikipedia in the future from the numerous adverse consequences of the edit warring and blind reversions that Tony1 (talk · contribs) has done in the past, he 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. Tony1 is permanently enjoined from making blind reversions of edits. Tennis expert (talk) 11:10, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Need I say once again how ridiculous this sounds, coming from where it does; This smacks of retribution and punishment against a dedicated and respected FAC editor/reviewer, and will only harm the interests of WP. Ohconfucius (talk) 09:58, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

The Rambling Man & The Rambling Man on tour - Administrator/Bureaucrat Probation

12) To protect Wikipedia in the future, The Rambling Man (including all of his alternative accounts) is placed on administrator/bureaucrat probation for one year. During that time, he is expected to comply strictly with all applicable Wikipedia policies and guidelines regarding the conduct of administrators, bureaucrats, and editors, including but not limited to this. He is prohibited from making any edit or contribution to any Wikipedia article, noticeboard, or discussion page about the linking or delinking of dates or date fragments, including the Manual of Style. He also is prohibited from using any administrator tool in connection with any date linking or delinking controversy. Tennis expert (talk) 11:10, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Why not even discussion pages? Dabomb87 (talk) 13:39, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, thank you for clarifying Earle. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:57, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

So now, you are not even allowing us to speak on the matter. What happened to being able to voice our opinions? Dabomb87 (talk) 01:00, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

It's a case of "Don't Rain on My Parade" Ohconfucius (talk) 01:56, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

I already listed "discussion pages", or is your point something I'm not understanding? Tennis expert (talk) 19:50, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, you've misunderstood - Dabomb87 is asking why TRM would not be allowed to edit discussion pages. -- Earle Martin [^t/_c] 13:47, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

The clear evidence of his disruptive behavior encompasses discussion pages just as much as articles. That is the reason for including discussion pages in this proposed remedy. Tennis expert (talk) 21:54, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

My reply, Dabomb87, is in the next section. Tennis expert (talk) 08:54, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Tony1, 2008Olympian, Colonies Chris, SkyWalker, HJensen, Ohconfucius, and Dabomb87 - Injunction Against Participating in Date Delinking or Linking Controversies

13) To protect Wikipedia in the future from the misbehavior that the following users have exhibited in the past, Tony1, 2008Olympian, Colonies Chris, SkyWalker, HJensen, Dabomb87, and Ohconfucius (including any alternative account of the foregoing) are enjoined for one year from making any edit or contribution to any Wikipedia article, noticeboard, or discussion page about the linking or delinking of dates or date fragments, including, but not limited to, the Manual of Style (MOS). They also are prohibited for one year from enforcing or attempting to enforce any MOS policy or guideline about the linking or delinking of dates or date fragments. This injunction includes, but is not limited to, the review of any article for good or featured status. Tennis expert (talk) 11:10, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Are you sayig that we cannot even review articles for Featured article status? I still don't see why you are trying to prohibit us from discussion pages. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:35, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

If I read him right, he's proposing you can review for FA, but just not involve the topic of date links at all. Also, I have to say that I'm not convinced by this new addition of "To protect Wikipedia..." to all of his proposed remedies. -- Earle Martin [^t/_c] 13:45, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't agree with that new opening clause either. I don't think the date linking thing for FA would be a problem, as I almost never have to bring it up anymore. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:59, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. All this "To protect Wikipedia..." stuff is just Tennis expert's attempt to put a veneer of respectability on his revenge against anyone who's ever crossed him. We shouldn't demean ourselves by even stooping to discuss such vindictive nonsense. Colonies Chris (talk) 10:09, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Um, how are we to ever reach consensus on these matters if we are not allowed to discuss it? Is there evidence of "disruption" on a talk page? For me, at least, I don't see anything that would disallow me from participating in such vital discussions. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:20, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

But why should we be banned from discussion pages? Is there any behavior that shows that we are not capable of discussing the issue? Are you keeping us from giving our input? Dabomb87 (talk) 23:47, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

This is clearly unreasonable, punitive, and may well be conceived to cripple 'the opposition' in any matter which concerns Tennis experts attempts to reverse the overwhelming consensus to delink dates, and shows Tennis expert's true face of fanaticism and intolerance. Ohconfucius (talk) 00:24, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Hey, guys, this is la-la-land stuff, and best left blank. The Arbitrators are interested only in serious stuff that is likely to have managerial, community advantages. We've been busy making a couple of proposals to that effect. Tony (talk) 03:38, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

And of course Tennis expert, you failed to notice that Kendrick7 did the same thing, albeit with the prolink camp. [31] [32] [33] [34]. I just wanted equal representation. When I created my summary, I made sure to alert people on both sides of the debate. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:02, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

You still have yet to convince me of why depriving certain people of participating in discussions and giving their opinions will "protect Wikipedia". Dabomb87 (talk) 15:10, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

The clear evidence of disruptive behavior by Dabomb87 and the others listed here encompasses discussion pages just as much as articles. The opening clause makes it clear that these remedies are not intended to be punitive for purely past behavior. Rather, they are intended to prevent harm to Wikipedia from future repetition of the disruption that happened so frequently in the past and continues to happen now. Tennis expert (talk) 21:58, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Consensus can be reached without your participation, Dabomb87. And because you were part of a group of people who engaged in tag team disruption of many articles, the remedy should apply to you just as much as the others. (Please stop adding your comments to the "others" section. You are a "party".) Tennis expert (talk) 23:41, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Dabomb87, there is irrefutable evidence that you and the others listed above have conspired to bully and shout-down other editors via discussion page incivility. So, yes, the behavior on discussion pages of everyone listed above is entirely relevant and warrants the proposed remedy here, especially given that the Manual of Style issues have not yet been resolved and will be the subject of much discussion in the future. If you would like me to provide even more evidence of past disruption, let me know. It's available. Tennis expert (talk) 08:51, 14 February 2009 (UTC) And as you know, Dabomb87, you are still inclined to "take sides" on these issues, as your recent posts on Tony1's, Ohconfucius's, GregL's, and Colonies Chris's discussion pages prove. That's evidence enough of your future intentions to continue in group disruption, in my opinion. Tennis expert (talk) 08:59, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

This proposal is nothing more than a last-ditched and vacuous attempt to confound the process. I'm now worried that TE appears to be cracking under the strain of dealing with overwhelming opposition and evidence. It is obvious that proposals such as this demonstrate that TE now only has an interest in playing a retrospective blame-game—as opposed to any sort of attempt to construct a community-based consensus for moving forward. I would recommend that the community treat this, and any similar proposals by TE with the suspicion and contempt they deserve.  HWV258  21:37, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Proposed enforcement

Blocks and bans concerning Ohconfucius

1) Should Ohconfucius violate an editing restriction specified in this case, he and his alternative account Date delinker may be 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:

Blocks and bans concerning Colonies Chris

2) Should Colonies Chris violate an editing restriction specified in this case, he may be 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:

Blocks and bans concerning Dabomb87

3) Should Dabomb87 violate an editing restriction specified in this case, he may be 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:

Indeed, and pigs might fly. Ohconfucius (talk) 13:20, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't quite see the significance of this statement, but I am tickled. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:42, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Blocks and bans concerning HJensen

4) Should HJensen violate an editing restriction specified in this case, he may be 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:

Blocks and bans concerning SkyWalker

5) Should SkyWalker violate an editing restriction specified in this case, he may be 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:

Blocks and bans concerning The Rambling Man & The Rambling Man on tour

6) Should The Rambling Man, including his alternative account The Rambling Man on tour, violate an editing restriction specified in this case, he may be 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:

Blocks and bans concerning 2008Olympian

7) Should 2008Olympian violate an editing restriction specified in this case, he may be 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:

Blocks and bans concerning Tony1

8) Should Tony1 violate an editing restriction specified in this case, he may be 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 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:

Seems to be a lot of incivility, and Greg L looks like one.[35][36] and RFC. Cool Hand Luke 04:53, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

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)

Decided to save the arbs some time - suggested remedy and enforcement follow. -- Earle Martin [^t/_c] 21:51, 23 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)

Your incivility is nothing more than immature forum bullying. If you truly wanted people not to take your harsh words and "you're a fool and an idiot" criticisms personally, then your edit history would be full of apologies. The fact is that you almost never apologize and seem to take an inordinate amount of pride in putting people down. Wikipedia is not the venue for your kind of behavior. Ideas should flow freely here but always in a civil manner with high regard for the feelings of others, especially given that this is a written medium. And no amount of your Wikilawyering smoke screen is going to obscure the real issue here: your longstanding incivility and rudeness to virtually everyone who disagrees with you. Tennis expert (talk) 18:15, 19 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:

Many examples on this very page. Cool Hand Luke 04:53, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

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)

Concur with the remedy and enforcement suggested by Tennis expert. -- Earle Martin [^t/_c] 21:51, 23 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.

Struck. Moot; much evidence has been found that there has, in fact, been a large amount of vocal disagreement, which has mostly been steamrollered over, ignored, or hidden. See Lightmouse has made it difficult to complain about his bot activity, below.

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: [37] [38] [39] [40] [41] [42]. 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)

If people don't object, it means a lot. WPians tend to object promptly and sometimes strongly when they don't like an edit. To announce a policy that gives silence the status of potential objection would undermine the whole wiki procedure ("anyone can edit"), and would endorse reversions of just about any edit. Tony (talk) 14:51, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Silence should have no special bearing on consensus except to mean that "nobody has objected, yet". Once objections come, mass activities should be halted and discussion should ensue (see WP:BRD). But this isn't what happened in this case. Also, as noted in the proposal, the atmosphere at MOSNUM is not inviting, and frequently editors were ran off by regulars who cited "consensus". —Locke Cole • t • c 15:02, 30 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)

The fact that it's been protected four times a year due to disagreements, the most recent that detailed by Mbisanz in \Evidence, should be enough to refute any assumption that that mess is consensus. I did not participate in any of the edit flurries involved in those protections, and some of the issues involved are trivial beyond belief, but I judge there is no consensus on any of them. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:59, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Strong support This is the problem in a nutshell. -- Kendrick7^talk 21:32, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Broad support. Although it's impossible to prove. My hunch is that a lot of editors assume that as these changes are being carried out en masse by scripts and bots, and the misleadingly official sounding edit summaries provided by the date delinkers (linking to policy pages etc) mean that this is a new policy with overwhelming consensus. And so no point in raising it. G-Man ^? 22:57, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

My standard edit summary doesn't sound 'official' and doesn't link to any policy pages, and I've still had almost no complaints (see my evidence). This argument just doesn't hold water. Colonies Chris (talk) 16:53, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Ohconfucius has displayed contempt of the arbitration process

4) Ohconfucius has continued to make mass script-assisted edits delinking dates using both his regular account and his alternate account, Date delinker (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log), in direct contravention of the temporary injunction issued against such activities by the arbitrators. Examples are provided in the evidence section of this arbitration).

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Lightmouse has made it difficult to complain about his bot activity

5) Lightmouse has set his talk page to have threads archived after three days, effectively concealing the complaints regarding his bot.

Additionally, on numerous occasions users have complained about there not being consensus for his bot's date delinking, only for Lightmouse to move their comments to WT:MOSNUM rather than suspend his activities until agreement has been reached. The claim that there has been "silence implying consent" is therefore disproved because this demonstrates that there has not been silence.

Examples of requests to stop bot activity being shuffled away elsewhere:

1. Jheald's comments (Nov 2008)
2. Kendrick7's comments (Oct 2008, and as mentioned in Kendrick7's evidence to this arbitration)
3. Shereth's comments (Sep 2008)
4. Belhalla notes rapid archive setting despite high volume of complaints (Sep 2008)
5. Rhebus told by Lightmouse to discuss at MOSNUM (July 2008) - Lightmouse does not participate further in thread
6. Kendrick7's comments (Jul 2008)
7. Tom Szepanik told by Lightmouse to discuss at MOSNUM (Jun 2008)
8. Baseball Bugs and Theresa knott's comments (Mar 2008) - comes immediately after Lightmouse has AWB permissions suspended for date delinking against consensus; note comment by Lightmouse within diff attempting to move discussion to MOSNUM

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Honestly, I could go through the history of Lightmouse's talk page and tally up the number of complaints about date delinking, but I'd really prefer not to have to. Have a browse; the volume of complaints is spectacular, and totally gives the lie to the claims made by proponents of date delinking that there has not been any vocal opposition to their activities. -- Earle Martin [^t/_c] 18:16, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Supported → unsupported, surely? Otherwise agree. —Locke Cole • t • c 18:26, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I said supported and meant it, because this clearly demonstrates copious noisy opposition to date delinking. If we'd actually had a silence, then all the issues with "silence implies consent" would still be just that, issues. But since the claim of "silence" has been conclusively disproved, we don't have to worry about that any more. See what I mean? -- Earle Martin [^t/_c] 18:34, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I see what you mean - the wording was ambiguous; I was referring to the principle rather than finding of fact here. Fixed. -- Earle Martin [^t/_c] 18:42, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Something I just noticed: the second comment ever left on Lightmouse's talk page was an objection to date delinking. There is no consensus. -- Earle Martin [^t/_c] 19:16, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

It was not an objection, it was a question. After a discussion on the questioner's talk page, the questioner seemed to think Lightmouse's approach was acceptable. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 00:25, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Okay, fair enough, I didn't see that linked discussion. How about the sixty or so people in finding 7 below? Are they all happy campers? -- Earle Martin [^t/_c] 01:16, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Lightmouse has acted disruptively in this arbitration

6) Lightmouse disrupted the discussion on this arbitration workshop page by pasting the same comment throughout it many dozens of times.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

For the record, as Sarcasticidealist points out below, I jumped the gun by removing the comments in question myself; next time I'll let the clerks handle an issue of this kind. -- Earle Martin [^t/_c] 19:03, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Why on earth do you make this proposal when you have removed all comments, and thereby violated fundamental wiki rules? In your edit summary for this top-of-the-top-nonsense you wrote "stating the obvious". Well if it is obvious, do you mind if I just delete it?--HJensen, talk 12:01, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Support with the caveat that your own decision to unilaterally remove the comments was ill-advised. Also request that arbitrators wrap this case up as soon as feasible, as things seem only to be getting worse. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 13:20, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I have yet to hear as to why this is disruptive. He was just trying to get a point across and there was not disruption involved. I find the removal of the comments more troubling. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:07, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

He was burying an already extremely long page with 16K of additional text making 200 bytes worth of comments over and over. I agree that Earle shouldn't have removed the comments—better to bring them to the attention of a clerk—but the suggestion that Lightmouse's actions weren't disruptive is nonsense. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 14:13, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

That is not for you to judge. There are a host of hate threads in the document now on how to punish those "thinking different than another as this is editwarring and/or incivil etc." If one want to consistenly address all of these Kindergarden threads, one has to put in a comment everywhere (and if that comment is the same, it is only consistent). Lightmouse just did it in one shot.--HJensen, talk 15:38, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

That's sort of a non sequitur: non of this is for any of us to judge. It's for the arbs to judge. We're giving our views on the various proposals, here, in the hopes that these will inform the arbs' decisions. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 18:22, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Lightmouse received numerous requests to desist from date delinking

7) An examination of User talk:Lightmouse reveals a continuous stream of editors requesting Lightmouse to cease delinking dates.

Comment by arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I have collected no less than sixty instances of people asking Lightmouse to stop date delinking. Several of them ask him specifically to stop delinking [[Foo in 1234|1234]]. This is what the "consensus" claimed by Greg L, Dabomb87, Ohconfucius et al. looks like: complaints that you have to count not by the handful, but by the dozen. -- Earle Martin [^t/_c] 01:16, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed remedies

Greg L - civility parole

1) [[::User:Greg L|Greg L]] ([[::User talk:Greg L|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Greg L|contribs]]) is subject to an editing restriction for twelve months. Should he make an edit that is adjudged by an administrator to be incivil, a personal attack, or an assumption of bad faith, he may be blocked for the duration specified in the enforcement ruling below.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Increased accountability for bot approvals

2) The Bot Approvals Group are requested to modify the approval process for bots as follows: any potential bot operator must, in a request for bot approval, disclose any and all prior involvement with bots on Wikipedia.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I don't know if ArbCom can do this, but I think it's necessary. -- Earle Martin [^t/_c] 22:14, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Date delinker banned

3) Ohconfucius's alternate account, Date delinker, is permanently banned.

• Rephrased as 3.1. --EM

Comment by Arbitrators:

Seems reasonable. Stunning that Ohconfucius used it during this Arbitration. Cool Hand Luke 02:11, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Tony: it looks like his main account was also blocked for 48 hours. There shouldn't be any major movements on this case until he gets back. Cool Hand Luke 18:55, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I issued this apology yesterday, and have nothing to add to this debate. Ohconfucius (talk) 05:14, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I am the user who did the enforcement report. I am not completely uninvolved, since I did comment on Lightbot: [43], and I think I reverted Ohconfucious once. While I appreciate that Ohconfucious' apology may be heartfelt, I would encourage arbitrators to peruse this diff: [44], which I think is a fair example of the edits which lead to the block. I would encourage Ohconfucious to remember that manual edits are expected to be approved by the user before submission. AKAF (talk) 16:42, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Disappointed at this breach by my colleague. Ohconfucius, I do believe an apology to ArbCom is in order. Tony (talk) 06:45, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Earle, in case you hadn't noticed, the Date delinker account was indefinitely blocked yesterday for violating the injunction. Mlaffs (talk) 22:05, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, thanks. I would like to see that indefinite block extended to a permanent ban. -- Earle Martin [^t/_c] 22:45, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Technical point: bans apply to individuals, not accounts, don't they? I think the restriction that's actually being sought here is "Ohconfucius permanently enjoined from operating Date delinker", or something similar. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 16:45, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

And a good point it is too. Rephrased below. -- Earle Martin [^t/_c] 01:27, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Ohconfucius enjoined from using Date delinker alternate account

3.1) Ohconfucius is permanently enjoined from using his alternate account, Date delinker.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Ohconfucius banned from WP:MOSNUM-related activities

4) For continuing his activities in date delinking and displaying gross contempt for both the Arbitration Committee and other editors involved in the arbitration process, Ohconfucius is permanently banned from any further activies related to the implementation of Manual of Style guidelines.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Please note the limitation to implementation; I see no reason why he should be prevented from participating in discussion (providing he remains civil). -- Earle Martin [^t/_c] 17:28, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I do believe that he has issued an apology, here. Tony (talk) 15:34, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I think that a permanent ban is a bit harsh. This seems to be more punitive than preventative. Maybe a one-year ban (if at all), to keep consistent with the proposal to remove his AWB rights for a year? Dabomb87 (talk) 15:45, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I am aware that the proposed remedy is for implementation only. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:47, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

One year's suspension of AWB access for Ohconfucius

5) Due to misuse, Ohconfucius's access to the AutoWikiBrowser tool is suspended for one year.

Comment by Arbitrators:

I would just forbid him from using any tools for automating edits. Would it be better if he programed a Python bot to do this work? I don't think so. Cool Hand Luke 02:10, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Reply to Luke - yes, good point. Rephrased below as 5.1. -- Earle Martin [^t/_c] 13:50, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I do believe that he has issued an apology, here. Tony (talk) 15:34, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Ohconfucius forbidden from using automated tools for one year

5.1) Ohconfucius is forbidden for one year from using semi- or fully-automated editing tools such as scripts or bots.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement

Blocks and bans concerning Greg L

1) Should Greg L violate an editing restriction specified in this case, he may be 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:

Blocks and bans concerning Ohconfucius

2) Should Ohconfucius violate an editing restriction specified in this case, he may be 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: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:

I wish the "but not beyond" clause were true. Cool Hand Luke 04:57, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

I agree with Chris. Any major change is likely to be accompanied by tense and possibly uncivil discussion; that is a fact of life, out there and on a wiki. People hold strong views, and we just have to work through them. The policy on "civility" under these circumstances is an important break, although many of the accusations on this page appear to frame the concept to encompass any post that disagrees with their view; that is a political use of the policy that—if taken further—could lead in the direction of censorship. We're not made of delicate crystal, so I suggest we concentrate on more practical ideas that will reduce tension. (PS Unsure of what Z-man means.) Tony (talk) 08:37, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

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

Do not support "but not beyond…" clause. The rest is obvious. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:56, 22 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:

I'm clearly biased: I agree with the statement, and there is a large amount of evidence that the community now takes a conservative line on both date autoformatting and the default linking of chronological items. The analyses I conducted of the three "detailed" RfCs (analyses 1 and 2, and analysis 3) that have influenced Arthur's detraction from full agreement demonstrate that RfCs need to be constructed carefully to yield reliable data (just like any questionnaire or survey). Please see the ways in which the RfCs in question appear to fallen into a number of well-known traps, particularly the triple-choice, extreme-bookends one. I contend, with support at MOSNUM talk, that the data from these RfCs, most clearly No. 3 ("some occasions"), should be seriously questioned. Tony (talk) 08:49, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I've said it before and I'll say it again, these analyses you've performed are biased and filled with attacks on the process and not the results. At the beginning you participated in the discussions which created this RFC and you never brought these issues up (that I recall anyways), but now you come out after the fact claiming the RFC was "tainted", "flawed" and fell into "well known traps". It makes it hard to have serious discussions when you constantly act like this. —Locke Cole • t • c 09:06, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Please be less aggressive. Anyone is entitled to analyse a process at any stage, and the process is critical in analysing the results (who would think otherwise?). To analyse such complicated RfCs takes a deal of time and care, so forgive me if I was not prompt. No one has taken me to task on the details of the analyses and the conclusions. You are welcome to do so, and I look forward to engaging on that level; however, until people present cogent criticisms of the methodology, the conclusions appear to stand. Vague, unsubstantiated condemnation will convince no one. Tony (talk) 13:58, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Basically, the problem was that the Date Linking RfC was very broad, but it provided only three choices, two of which were the extreme positions. This put the moderates in a quandary: They might lean toward one point of view more than the other, but they did not want to actually choose one over the other. Therefore, the "link certain cases" crowd skewed the results by combining those with substantially different beliefs—those who think dates should be linked once in a blue moon, and those who thought that dates should be linked liberally (but only when relevant). Obviously, the solution would have been to provide more choices (never and always; split "certain times" into rarely and usually), but we can't dwell on the past. So now Locke, the choices are yours: 1) Accept Tony's analysis and give specific critical comments to help him improve it; 2) Find a neutral third party who would be able to analyze the results in a similarly detailed manner [to that of Tony's] 3) Continue to generalize that Tony's analysis is near-useless, making it so that we will never know the true extent of the consensus of the RfCs, except for a few issues. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:08, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Again, I disagree with the framing you've made of the RFC. And I again ask where these objections were in the weeks leading up to that RFC being launched? After over two weeks on the watchlist notice and a month as a running RFC, then weeks later, you suddenly have an epiphany that the RFC questions themselves were "flawed"? This smacks of not liking the results, and rather than attacking the opinions expressed, attacking the questions themselves. There were vocal admonishments made when Tony launched his self-created RFC disruptively, and yet once the other RFC was started nothing critical was said of those questions or their format. I strongly disagree with Tony's "analysis" and believe it amounts to attempting to discredit the results because of the questions. —Locke Cole • t • c 20:59, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Exactly my understanding. --HJensen, talk 16:36, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Simply not true. Maybe I've misunderstood.-- Kendrick7^talk 21:20, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

No reasonable editor could read the comments in the first RfC Proposals 1 and 3 and the second RfC Question 1 and disagree with this proposed FoF. --RexxS (talk) 21:51, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

OK, maybe I'm misunderstanding the use of the term "date." If the meaning is just months and days of months, I think the FoF is basically correct. However, if this is counting years as "date fragments" then I don't think its at all reasonable to even count Tony's strawman RFCs. The support for sometimes linking years is not "very limited" given the whole remainder of the so-called second RFC. -- Kendrick7^talk 22:10, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Kendrick7. G-Man ^? 23:00, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Agree, in part, only. There is now, thanks to the second RfC, clear support for the deprecation of the present system of date autoformatting. There is, and probably always has been, support for the operation of bots which support the MOS established by consensus. There is very little support that the present wording of the MOS has consensus. No reasonable editor could find any other clauses of this finding as accurate. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:53, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

No reasonable editor would start a sentence with "No reasonable editor...". -- Earle Martin [^t/_c] 17:35, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Proposed remedies

New template

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:

This template idea seems like a good suggestion, and I think I support it, but it doesn't seem to be a problem for ArbCom. Content issue. Cool Hand Luke 19:07, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

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)

Partial support. Facility to protect date links against automated removal where they're appropriate is a good idea. A requirement to code a rationale into each protected link goes a bit too far, though. Two weeks is not long enough, given the number of articles and how long it's taken for links to be applied in the first place, both good and bad. Remove "continue" from "…continue to bypass chronological articles", as they have not been doing so in all cases thus far. Mlaffs (talk) 06:10, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

The requirement to provide a rationale is absolutely crucial. There will always be exceptional cases where the encyclopaedia would be improved by ignoring a general rule, but the rationale for doing so needs to be documented, so that current editors can discuss it and future editors can understand the reason for the exception without having to comb throughs reams of old discussions. And the requirement to provide a few words of explanation is not at all onerous unless you're wrapping a lot of dates, which shouldn't be happening - this is meant to cater for the occasional exception, not a bucketload. Colonies Chris (talk) 09:21, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Oppose per WP:KISS, WP:CREEP, and WP:BURO. To quote the Al Gore character on Futurama : "Not all problems can be solved by chess, Deep Blue. One day, you'll understand that." We could add all sorts of special templates that the humans have to use to make life easier on the bots, but, come on, who is really in charge here? Although, again, I'd be happy if bots just left year links alone prior to ~75 years ago, which are, I imagine, 1% of the links but 99.9% of my concern (I mean, the project is still 95% Pokemon articles, AFAIK). I don't think it would be hard to automate {{current year}} - 75. -- Kendrick7^talk 06:36, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Weak oppose. Protecting a linked date by template will become a default cop-out, and detrimental for intelligent linking. However, I believe it is could be a consensus compromise. Ohconfucius (talk) 04:14, 22 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:

We normally only issue commendations if there's a need in the case to do so. Moreover, I'm concerned that the Lightbot portion of this proposal is not strongly supported by the evidence (compare comments by Sarcasticidealist, Kendrick7, ect.). I do personally agree that he's done a lot of good work, but I don't think any form of this finding will be used. Cool Hand Luke 19:07, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

I don't know that I'd consider shuffling complaints off to WT:MOSNUM (almost a reverse form of canvassing) as "polite". —Locke Cole • t • c 01:08, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I have learnt a lot about the value of politeness from both Lightmouse and Colonies Chris over the past six months. They set a fine example. Tony (talk) 09:01, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

No. Even if this was accurate, ArbCom is not here to award barnstars. -- Earle Martin [^t/_c] 17:39, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

ArbCom should not favour extracting retribution, it should not hand out commendations either. Ohconfucius (talk) 08:27, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

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)

Sorry, but no. While I don't feel that Lightmouse is the devil he's been made out to be by some, I'd take issue with both the idea that his politeness has been unfailing and that he's always been ready to acknowledge and fix errors and to correct the bot. Lightbot's edits in November wouldn't have ended up at AN had that been the case, nor would its edits in December have ended up at AN/I. Mlaffs (talk) 06:13, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

What was the outcome of those AN/I's? --RexxS (talk) 21:14, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

The original AN discussion from November can be found here. The short strokes are that Lightmouse stopped making the edits that led to the discussion and said "I hereby declare now that Lightbot not fix these errors anymore.". Based on that statement, I and the other editors concerned agreed that the discussion could be marked resolved. A month later, Lightbot resumed the same type of edits, leading to the AN discussion that can be found here. This discussion was never resolved. Mlaffs (talk) 22:08, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Strong oppose Is this a joke? His bot continued to remove links well after he was made aware that there was no consensus for the behavior. Not just once was he made aware, either, but repeatedly over a five seven month period, by dozens of editors, via the bot's talk page, discussion at MOSNUM, and at his own talk, and via several RFCs on the issue. That's hardly "acknowledging and fixing errors." That's being deliberately obtuse. -- Kendrick7^talk 19:21, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

And, furthermore, he was pulling the same shenanigans back in March of 2006 under a different username, which at the time got him a block repeatedly blocked. To quote one blocking admin's response to one of his unblock requests:[45]

No, I blocked you because you continued your edits despite saying you were not going to continue them, and have failed to provide adequate reasoning for these mass changes despite having two failed bot requests, and a clear lack of consensus for the changes you wish to be made in both of them. Because you have shown no regard for requests, pleas and warnings to stop and discuss, you are leaving me with no choice but to block you so you may discuss it. Your insistence on continuing to make the edits when you are fully aware there is significant disagreement with implementing these changes is entirely unhelpful. ... -- Talrias (t | e | c) 16:06, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

It appears nothing has changed here. -- Kendrick7^talk 19:33, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Lightmouse has been editing under that username since May 2007. In those 20 months he has received precisely one block, which was reversed 7 minutes later by the blocking admin with the comment, "Changed my mind; no disruptive delinking of dates since last warning". To contradict your assertion, scrutiny shows this is a user who is capable of listening and heeding advice. --RexxS (talk) 21:14, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

You need to present the whole picture. During that time his bot has been blocked five times, and several times unblocked "due to operator's assurance", only to be blocked again later. All that has happened is that he shifted his activities from script-assisted (as Bobblewik) to being a bot (as Lightbot). And now his activities have been forcibly stopped by an ArbCom injunction. I don't see any sign that Lightmouse is a reformed character. -- Earle Martin [^t/_c] 22:00, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Said block log can be found here. Mlaffs (talk) 22:08, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Indeed the whole picture needs to be presented. What is omitted first that is the opposing comments above were aimed at Lightmouse and now there is an attempt to shift the focus when that doesn't stand up. The second bit of the picture you omit is that Lightmouse has actually suggested blocking the bot to stop it.

• Examine the 3 Jan block (it changed "third century BC" to "third century") - Lightmouse responds: "Thanks for stopping the bot and providing a clear example. I have traced the relevant subsection of code and fixed it." -> result unblocked (Per credible assurance that the problem is resolved and the errors will be fixed)
• The second 31 Dec block ‎(MOSNUM says "the first occurrence of each unit should be linked". Looks like the bot is taking articles out of MOS compliance) - Bad block, missing the point that WP:MOSNUM#Units of measurement doesn't say that. It gives the rare exceptions (non-standard units and no conversions) to the WP:OVERLINK statement "It is generally not appropriate to link: ...common units of measurement".
• The first 31 Dec block (Bot malfunctioning: Why is it unlinking hundreds and hundreds of units?) - Bad block, failed to read the bot approval -> result unblocked (Bot approved to do so: Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Lightbot)
• The 23 Nov block ‎(Malfunctioning bot, undoing its own shutoff capability) - Bad block, based on false assumption. Lightmouse explained that he manually removed the word "stop", nothing automatic about it. -> result unblocked ‎(per owner's assurances)
• The 1 Aug block: ‎(malfunctioning bot, probably doing unauthorised stuff) - Discussion on talk page -> result unblocked ‎(issues addressed)

There were two good blocks in all that and all the evidence shows that Lightmouse took those blocks seriously and fixed the behaviour. There's the whole picture. --RexxS (talk) 01:02, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

There's also the block log for Bobblewik (talk · contribs). —Locke Cole • t • c 01:08, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, RexxS, the whole Kansas City shuffle he has run to avoid blocks is very impressive, and having a couple of heavies around to poison the atmosphere of any discussion has made for quite a long running racket. But, over and over, when push comes to shove, and he finally says he will "stop" what he means is that he'll lay low for a few weeks or months until the heat is off and prior discussion is buried away in the archives and just pretend nothing was ever discussed and keep going. That is abusing the good faith of the community. So, yeah, from the July 2007 AN/I thread which led to a quick block/unblock, he was really let off with a warning[46] the problem is a year and a half worth of warnings on his 20 month old account hasn't worked. -- Kendrick7^talk 01:17, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I think we will have to respectfully agree to disagree. I find the comparison of Bobblewik's two year-old block log with Lightmouse's current block log evidence of improved behaviour: you see it as he has become cleverer at evasion. Please don't take this the wrong way, but a comparison of Locke's two year-old block log with his recent block log indicates to me that he's changed for the better (which incidentally is why I couldn't support any suggestion of blocking sanctions on Locke arising from this case, since that would not be in the best interest of the encyclopedia - and the same for the other proposed sanctions). None of what has been presented has shaken my belief in the good faith of two groups of editors who sincerely and honestly hold very different opinions on date-linking. --RexxS (talk) 02:38, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

But "one side" has a bot and "one side" doesn't. "One side" keeps running their bot to make their view a fait accompli, despite knowing there's no consensus for the bot's edits. I'm too old and too busy IRL or I would have gone all John Henry on Lightbot months ago. But, as the Good Book says:

Again I saw under the sun that the race is not won by the swift, nor the battle by the valiant, nor a livelihood by the wise, nor riches by the shrewd, nor favor by the experts; for a time of calamity comes to all alike. Man no more knows his own time than fish taken in the fatal net, or birds trapped in the snare; like these the children of men are caught when the evil time falls suddenly upon them.

I hope the Arbitrators bring the evil time here: sometimes the race should not in fact go to the swift nor the riches (of having a bot) to the shrewd. If they fall for the next round of "Oh, gee, I'll stop until there's consensus and this time I really really really mean it" shame on them. My faith in this user is exhausted. -- Kendrick7^talk 04:29, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

"...despite knowing there's no consensus for the bot's edits" - ay there's the rub! Could you not conceive the possibility that they sincerely believe they have consensus, just as you sincerely believe they don't? A great man once said, "Honest disagreement is often a good sign of progress." If only each group could disagree honestly and focus on how to make that progress, this case could close in minutes. --RexxS (talk) 14:58, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

There may have been minor players caught up in the frenzy here on both sides, but for Lightmouse, I can conceive of no such thing. The evidence shows an ongoing pattern of behavior that speaks for itself. -- Kendrick7^talk 17:09, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Proposals by User:MBisanz

Proposed findings of fact

Locke Cole - Edit Warring

1) Locke Cole (talk · contribs) has edit warred [1], [2].

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Locke Cole - Incivility

2) Locke Cole has been uncivil [1].

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

While I agree with Locke Cole's position on date linking, I will not defend him or any other editor on that basis alone. I don't see this at all, and even if the comments linked to here were somehow construed as incivil, it is a couple of orders of magnitude less severe than the behavior of Greg L and Ohconfucius during this dispute. -- Earle Martin [^t/_c] 03:28, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Tony1 - Incivility

3) Tony1 (talk · contribs) has been uncivil [1], [2].

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Tony1 - Edit Warring

4) Tony1 has edit warred [1], [2].

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Sure, there were some "disagreements" (per Mandy's usage), but I see no evidence so far of anything which can remotely be taken to be 3RR type edit warring, or slow edit-warring by Tony for that matter. Ohconfucius (talk) 06:57, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Unsupported by evidence germane to this case. MBisanz's evidence suggests that Tony has, on some occasions, gone as far as 2 reverts in 24 hours over MOSNUM; another single instance of 2RR can be found on Lazare Ponticelli. Tony is disputatious, yes; but this is not edit-warring in any useful sense. Since the evidence against Tony is far the most extensive, the rest of these findings of editwarring should fall with it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:21, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

WP:EW != WP:3RR. To the best of my knowledge, Tony1 has not violated the prohibition against reverting three times in 24 hours. As the edit warring policy says:

The 3RR metric is not an exemption for conduct that stays under the threshold. For instance, edit warring could take the form of 4+ reverts on a page in a day, or three, or one per day for a protracted period of time, or one per page across many pages, or simply a pattern of isolated blind reverts as a first resort against disagreeable edits.

Based on the evidence documented at the evidence page, I believe such a finding is warranted. MBisanz ^talk 21:15, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

A few cases in which he has repeated a revert, however, don't amount to an edit war either. More importantly, we could all now be under the one-week parole which MBisanz proposes, and keeping it; this case would be just as much a mess as it is now. The behavioral problem is incivility and mass-editing, not edit-warring . Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:28, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Greg L.

5) Greg L (talk · contribs) has been uncivil [1].

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Tennis expert

6) Tennis expert (talk · contribs) has edit warred [1].

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Agreed A cursory investigation of edit histories of all the articles to whose diffs posted on the evidence page by Tennis (which allege edit-warring by Tony1 and by Colonies Chris) will reveal very obvious signs of slow edit-warring by him (mainly in the month of November 2008), suggesting some sort of assertion of ownership.

So Tennis expert, not being a party frees you up to edit-war? Please explain. Tony (talk) 09:46, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

I am not a party to this arbitration. See this list of involved parties. Tennis expert (talk) 12:44, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

• Meaning presumably that you believe you have immunity to sanctions? I wouldn't gloat if I were you: I'm sure ArbCom can make you a party if it so desires. Ohconfucius (talk) 09:41, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

The above is yet another example of nonconstructive slurring of the character of other editors by Ohconfucius during this dispute. -- Earle Martin [^t/_c] 03:32, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Pmanderson

7) Pmanderson (talk · contribs) has edit warred [1].

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I believe there were actually three, near as damn it, identical reversions involving reinstatement of square brackets around dates. Nevertheless, Mandy's actions did not breach the letter of WP:3RR. Ohconfucius (talk) 07:05, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Why is Ohconfucius repeatedly referring to Pmanderson in this unhelpful and irritating fashion? It is not conducive of a productive environment for arbitration. -- Earle Martin [^t/_c] 03:36, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Because Tony calls me Manderson, and Mandrax, when annoyed with me, and OC thinks Tony sans peur et sans reproche. Also, since I've remarked on it, he thinks it will annoy me and cause me to say something unwise. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:46, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

• Ça suffit, les enfants! I'm reading between the lines here, but it seems that Septentrionalis is rightly refusing to be riled by me referring to him as "Mandy". That is the important thing here, as its use is not, and has never been intended to insult. It beats repeatedly saying "the above editor" or "hey you", as I have only ever been able to deal with the handle Septentrionalis by C&P. To those of you who don't believe me: it's just tant pis! Ohconfucius (talk) 06:08, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Either PMAnderson or Septentrionalis would be fine, for those who have any regard for the opinions of living editors. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:49, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

He (or she) is not a party to this arbitration. See this list of involved parties. Tennis expert (talk) 12:49, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

The evidence for this consists of two exact reversions, in a short period of time, at Lazare Ponticelli; I also made a novel edit. After that I walked away; as did Tony, who is being accused of edit-warring largely on the same sequence. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:03, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I do not believe the accusation against Anderson is at all warranted. Tony (talk) 09:06, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

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 [1].

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I believe that Arthur may have re-assessed the importance of the "UNINVOLVED" policy. Although we disagree on some matters, he is a valuable contributor to WP and is generally a good admin. Tony (talk) 09:08, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Acknowledged. However, at least two of the pieces of evidence submitted relevant to that were not threats of _admin_ action, one of them may have been; but it's not clear that blocking an apparently malfunctioning bot, even if the proper function of that bot were one I would disagree with, would be a restricted admin action. And, considering the number of a bad edits a bot could make, block first and request confirmation probably would be in the best interests of Wikipedia. I admit that my threatened actions may have been somewhat ambiguous. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:45, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

He is not a party to this arbitration. See this list of involved parties. Tennis expert (talk) 12:49, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Lightmouse - Socking

9) Lightmouse (talk · contribs) has misused alternative accounts in a deceptive manner [1].

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

The evidence against Lightmouse appears to be circumstantial at best. Even if it were proven that Lightmouse was the user behind User:Bobblewik and User:Editore99, these accounts appear to have been abandoned since 18:31, 4 October 2006 (UTC) and 13:55, 23 May 2007 (UTC) respectively. The accounts were successive in their operation and without any overlap at all, and such use does not appear to violate policy. - I refer to WP:SOCK#Clean start under a new name. Ohconfucius (talk) 06:05, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

From WP:SOCK#Clean start under a new name, a "genuine, clean, and honest new start" would likely not involve starting right back into using the scripts that got you blocked repeatedly in the first place. I'm surprised nobody caught on to this sooner (especially considering Jimbo Wales warned him to stop on his talk page!. —Locke Cole • t • c 06:30, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

• How, pray, are you going to prove it was not a "genuine, clean, and honest new start"? Anyway, you DON'T KNOW FOR SURE it was LM; secondly, anything written on WP is GFDL, so a talented programmer should easily be able to adapt a script written by someone else. The problem lies not with the tool itself, but the use to which it is put. Ohconfucius (talk) 06:53, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

• You're changing the question. I answered your original question, if you have have doubts about the connection between Bobblewik and Lightmouse I suggest you take it up with MBisanz. —Locke Cole • t • c 07:08, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

• Call it a supplementary question, if you like - do you have problem with that? Ohconfucius (talk) 09:52, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Lightmouse has now admitted being Bobblewik. -- Earle Martin [^t/_c] 15:26, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Of course this is valid, given the FoFs above. If he has switched account in this manner, he has gotten permission to run a bot that Bobblewik, with several blocks for inconiderate delinking of dates, could never have gotten. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 06:29, 20 January 2009 (UTC)-

Seems to be clear even prior to Lightmouse's admission regarding being the owner of the previous accounts. Mlaffs (talk) 06:15, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I've placed some ponderings on this topic at Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Date delinking/Workshop, any helpful answers would be appreciated. MBisanz ^talk 17:53, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Lightmouse - Deception

10) Lightmouse (talk · contribs) has sought approvals based on community trust without revealing his prior controversial activities [1], [2] [3]. .

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I agree with Kendrick; and Lightmouse's continued dedication to the project over many years should weigh heavily against any accusations of impropriety (if there is such, which is debatable). Tony (talk) 09:11, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Oppose I am of the belief that our editors deserve certain basic human rights, and I count among them the right to remain silent. -- Kendrick7^talk 19:45, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Support. This is merely a finding of fact that is irrefutably true. Tennis expert (talk) 20:33, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

But calling this "deception" is an opinion. -- Kendrick7^talk 20:47, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I highly doubt arbcom will copy any of the proposals on this page from anyone. It has been my experience they read it over and synthesize their own decision, without regard to what we write or what our opinion is of what other people have written. MBisanz ^talk 20:56, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

In my experience as well. My point is while it's a "fact" it's a loaded fact; Lightmouse was under no obligation to reveal his prior activities. -- Kendrick7^talk 21:16, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Thinking about it, he was under an obligation to reveal his previous identity to the BAG. It's relevent, and, if they are sane, it would preclude bot approval. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:00, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Lightmouse - Socking 2

11) There is sufficient evidence to conclude that Lightmouse (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has repeatedly engaged in prohibited sockpuppetry and/or contribution history concealment.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

There was neither "repeated" nor "prohibited sockpuppetry". The 3 accounts registered by LM were used serially (and disused) and never simultaneously. They were abandoned and never used since. His actions did not violate WP:SOCK. Ohconfucius (talk) 07:11, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

At least strongly supported by MBisanz's evidence; admins may be able to find more. The end of Bobblewik's edits certainly includes editing three articles in a minute, repeatedly, under the summary "units and links"; searching for his appearances on ANI turns up several complaints about this. A similarity of pattern exists. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:10, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I suggest you look at the initial edits by Lightmouse and Editore99 to their talk pages and monobook.js files, you will see the connection stronger there than in the edit style. MBisanz ^talk 03:26, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Make that support. Lightmouse admits that he changed account twice; there's nothing wrong with that if you want to walk away from your old history, but the new accounts continued the same mass delinking that Bobblewik had been repeatedly blocked for. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:05, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

@Ohconfucius, the section of the sock policy I link to never mentions having simultaneous accounts, only having multiple accounts to conceal a contribution history. MBisanz ^talk 07:20, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Lightmouse - Socking 3

12) The evidence shows that Lightmouse (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has operated a total of at least three accounts, well outside of policy and established norms.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Hmm. If there was joint edit warring, this might be true. I think the meat of the possible problem is that the past scripting activity wasn't disclosed when seeking approval. This wouldn't be a problem at all if these were just editors. Cool Hand Luke 05:17, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Again, at least strongly suggested. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:11, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

As above, support. Lightmouse admits the three accounts; if he had done so when Lightbot was approved, it would not have been. In addition, when Lightbot began to attract criticism last October, Lightmouse requested a new bot to do Lightbot's job without admitting that this was a substitute for Lightbot, that Lightbot had been criticized, or his past history.

To his credit, the mission of Cleanbot was actually well-defined, but it was denied permission anyway. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:18, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

@CHL: Try to think of it this way. User reports Lightmouse to ANI for speed-date editing, admin warns; another user reports Lightmouse for the same thing, admin blocks for 24 hours, etc. This is all fine until you realize that his last blocks for such edits ranged from a week to month in length, with a ban threatened from Jimbo. Now it looks like he was using a new account so admins would not know how long to set blocks when his behavior was reported. MBisanz ^talk 01:55, 26 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.

Locke Cole - Banned

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Seems to mostly be old conduct. Cool Hand Luke 05:17, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

In the past few months, I have disagreed with just about everything that Locke Cole has had to say, but this is too much—unless there is something I don't know from a previous Rfar. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:55, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I'll freely admit to having engaged in behavior that probably wasn't helpful, but I avoided engaging in the same behavior that's under scrutiny here (mass edits over thousands of articles) precisely because I view that as edit warring. Is there something in particular in the evidence that you think warrants something this extreme? —Locke Cole • t • c 20:17, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

(to MBisanz) Yeah, somebody else explained that to me earlier. I will strike my earlier comment. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:13, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Reject. This is totally over the top. -- Earle Martin [^t/_c] 15:28, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Totally reject. This is becoming a medieval trial. As I've pointed out already, given the length of the debate and the importance that has been attached to it, occasional frayed tempers were to be expected. I do not believe that anyone on this page deserves to be punished like a school-child who has smoked cigarettes behind the toilet block. That would do nothing for reconciliation and harmony. Tony (talk) 09:13, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I still think it is too much. While Cole's block log may be substantial, it seems to me that he has improved significantly in his conduct in the past half year (compared to the allegations in the arbcom incident two years ago). Dabomb87 (talk) 13:28, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

• Even when he is under a microscope, Locke Cole “expressed his concern” about a new WT:MOSNUM RfC by deleting it) only minutes after it was posted only a two days ago at 01:48, 27 January 2009. This, uhm… *contribution* of his to making Wikipedia a better place for us all was ultimately resolved at this ANI, where he was advised by an administrator that he should not delete it again and Doing so is not only disruptive, but can land potential editors with additional blocks. Indeed, such behavior is highly disruptive on Wikipedia. Something less draconian than a six-month long ban is needed in my view. Greg L (talk) 04:56, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

this is not a remedy, but punitive sanction and vindictive action Ohconfucius (talk) 08:31, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

I based it on the extensive prior block log [47], the prior RFAR, and the edit warring documented in this RFAR as an indication of a long term behavioral problem that is not resolvable with other means. MBisanz ^talk 21:11, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Most of the extensive prior log is from 2006, as is the prior case; there's been one block (retracted) since June. This is a prime example of an editor who learns from his mistakes. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:34, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

One wonders just how long I'll be taken to task over things that happened three years ago. I've been far more restrained during this dispute than I was in the AUM dispute and I would hope any decision would reflect that. —Locke Cole • t • c 22:28, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

• One wonders just how long Lightmouse'll be taken to task over things which may have happened three years ago... ;-) Ohconfucius (talk) 06:34, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
  • He's being taken to task for not admitting to them last October, when he tried to get another bot (botpuppet?) to do anything he wanted. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 06:53, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Oppose I'm actually quite proud of this user for bringing this issue to the attention of ArbCom, whatever his past sins. I tried to reason with the editors at Talk:MOSNUM that just because a billion articles link to 2008, doesn't mean we need to auto-delink the 6 dozen articles that link to (e.g.) 471 but ran into an ideological wall, and decided to simply protect my own watchlist from Lightbot's non-consensus behavior. Let's not shoot the messenger. -- Kendrick7^talk 05:55, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Oppose The proposed remedy is way too extreme. Tennis expert (talk) 16:12, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

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:

I think Tony is right about the low potential for future involved acts. Cool Hand Luke

Comment by parties:

Per Arthur's comments above this is a bit much. —Locke Cole • t • c 21:02, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Arthur is almost certainly more aware of the importance of the WP:UNINVOLVED policy now, and I suspect he intends to fulfil his obligations to it; a specific ArbCom rebuke would be unnecessary in this context. Tony (talk) 09:20, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

He is not a party to this arbitration. See this list of involved parties. Tennis expert (talk) 12:47, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

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:

Agree with Septentrionalis, unsupported by the evidence. Particularly with the idea of warning against removing dispute tags (which was a big factor in the reverts over MOSNUM). —Locke Cole • t • c 21:02, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

this is not a remedy, but punitive sanction and vindictive action Ohconfucius (talk) 08:33, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Unsupported by the evidence; an admonishment to be more careful to produce new wording and not remove tags would be more suitable, and probably more useful. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:23, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

There is evidence that he has engaged in the most serious kind of revert warring: blind reversions. However, the penalty proposed here is too severe. He should instead be warned not to edit war in the future and not to remove dispute tags. Tennis expert (talk) 16:09, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

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:

Tony's usually very direct in his communication because he likes to get straight to the point -life's too short. Why employ five words when one will suffice? Sure, Tony's been blunt at times, haven't we all? Isolated comments taken out of context can easily show the wrong picture by ignoring the style of the relevant ongoing discussions. This is not a remedy, but punitive sanction and vindictive action Ohconfucius (talk) 04:41, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Suggest starting with an admonishment. Or shortening this to three months. —Locke Cole • t • c 21:02, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

That would be a block for the period of the parole less about 12 hours. I actually don't think it's a good idea, in spite of my disagreements with Tony, but let's be honest as to the consequences. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:35, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Needs to be more clear. What one person considers "uncivil", another considers a gentle prod. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:57, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Well I just copied it from the ScienceApologist Civ Parole finding, so I'm certainly no expert on how to make it read clearer. Any ideas on a better definition of the terms? MBisanz ^talk 04:00, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I guess there is nothing wrong with the wording, but I have a problem with the whole "one administrator" thing. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:10, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Science Apologist has always behaved much worse than any editor involved in this case (possibly except Bobblewik), and his sanctions have grown from an admonishment to the present mentoring over four or five cases. A finding that the community does not approve of obscenity and abuse, coupled with a warning, would seem called for here; but I would prefer to remove the invitation to offense, which is MOSNUM. If Tony didn't have his "authority" to defend, he would have no reason to be abusive. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:36, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

• Does Ohconfucius mean to defend Tony's discussing his own feces as "direct communication"? Some of us are tired of it. (See my evidence; he copyedited the remark, and defended it when challenged; it's not a momentary lapse.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:30, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
  • This is a prime example of the nonsense prevailling here about "civility". The question that Tony is responding to can be interpreted as way more incivil than Tony's response. The question implies that Tony has lost it. That is quite strong. His answer is rather composed in my opinion. As written here somewhere, all this is so subjective. So we should stop waste time on these things, unless we are dealing with direct threats and namecalling (and the examples given are not persuasive in that direction). After all this is about date delinking. Not about people's ways of expression. --HJensen, talk 17:42, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
    • The post to which Tony was responding was, in full, Dear Tony: Your frequent personal aspersions, which are personal attacks and fail to assume good faith, are uncivil and also counterproductive (that is, they are the opposite of persuasive). Please examine your behavior. Thank you. Who else responds to that from his toilet bowl?
    • This did follow a remark which could reasonably be interpreted as a personal aspersion, and Tony followed his obscenity by the declaration that that was exactly the right amount of information.
    • If WP:CIVIL is not intended to advise against posts like this, what is it policy for? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:33, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
      • Could just as well be for protecting editors about accusations of "personal attacks", "fail to assume good faith", and so on. As I said, I think the post he is responding to is just as uncivil. Talking about his "stool" is to me not "obscene", maybe just a bit childish.--HJensen, talk 22:59, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
        • No, that would be WP:AGF. But we are not required to continue the assumption indefinitely against the evidence. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:03, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

HJensen: "this is about date delinking. Not about people's ways of expression." Er? I think you've made a grave misunderstanding. The introductory statement to this RfAr states:

"This has been an ongoing content dispute for the past six months that has repeatedly degenerated into incivility and poor behavior.... I urge the committee to accept this case so the behavior (incivility, edit warring, stalking, personal attacks, and so forth) of those involved can be looked at."

The acceptance statements from ArbCom members clearly indicate that it was accepted on this basis. -- Earle Martin [^t/_c] 20:08, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I have overlooked that. What a shame that people are forced to make moral judgements on whether "stool" is "obscene" and not whether strong accusations about editors' personal aspersions are fine. I'd say that these aspects are storms in teapots. Hopefully the ruling will eventually reflect this.--HJensen, talk 22:59, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

No, what a shame that this coterie of editors chooses to conduct their affairs this way. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:34, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

• Mandy, it is evident to me that Tony's wit is beyond the grasp of many. The fact that this very humorous remark (and obviously intended to be humorous) has turned into the above *splat* is evidence enough to me. I know that all is lost if you have to dissect a joke, but I am still prepared to do so for your better appreciation of Tony's strong sense of humour. The key word linking Tony's reaction with the preceding comment is "examine". Examination of one's stools is often recommended to individuals above a certain age by physicians. Also, I sense the animosity in your communications whenever talking about Tony, and I suggest that you buried it. Ohconfucius (talk) 03:02, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
  • It is possible to be funny and not be vulgar; it is possible to be funny and vulgar; but one should be really be one or the other. I read Dean Swift for pleasure, and my edit summaries have occasionally referred to him; but this is not Swift, nor was meant to be. This is one tactic by which a bully gets his way; it should be replaced by the means suitable to reaching consensus, as policy would recommend.
  • On a minor note: one should really write better than I suggest that you buried it, if one intends to set up as a Master of English, controlling all Wikipedia from the Manual of Style. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:27, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

• Mandy, I have not inhabited MOSNUM for as long as you, so would defer to your greater expert knowledge on setting up as a Master of English. Although you did not attempt to misuse my quote, I will state for the record that "it" refers to 'hatchet'. Ohconfucius (talk) 04:29, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Of course it does; you botched the subjunctive. I see you have, in your admiration for the ineffable Tony, adopted his habit of calling me out of my username; this is one of his minor incivilities, but he has at least better sense than to display it to ArbCom. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:39, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

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:

I'll say it here (makes as much sense as anywhere else), but if one editor is placed on revert parole then everyone involved should be on revert parole (not just named parties). So if any of these are voted on and pass, it only makes sense to do them for everyone else as well. —Locke Cole • t • c 21:02, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

We may have serious disagreements, but each of us clearly believes s/he is a worthy editor who applying particular expertise for the larger benefit. Punishing people—which is what such a measure in effective would be—for energetically engaging in a long debate is likely to be counterproductive. WP (whether ArbCom or admins) needs to explore ways of improving the culture and reducing tension other than with a hammer. Such "paroles" may seem to be a simple fix, but have a degrading impact on a user that is, in the final analysis, more likely to damage the project than heal a local set of tensions. Tony (talk) 09:32, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

I am not a party to this arbitration. See this list of involved parties. Tennis expert (talk) 12:44, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

• Locke Cole's comment here is the principle that a good editor confronted with a troll should receive the sanction due to the troll. I dispute this. We will disagree, doubtless, on which the good editor is, and which the troll, but "that's quite another thing." Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:20, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
• The evidence that Tennis Expert has been editwarring over date delinking consists of two series of edits in which he does one revert every few days. That's not enough to warrant this. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:20, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Is this indication of just "two series of edits in which he does one revert every few days"? I would not think so. But I oppose any sanctions towards anyone. --HJensen, talk 21:38, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I meant the evidence in Evidence here. But HJensen's view consists largely in reverting changes to his own posts on his own talk page, sonething on which there is a sound case for leniency. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:49, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

No, my view has nothing to do with behavior on the talk page.--HJensen, talk 08:40, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Then what, if any, is the point of your link, which shows some twenty edits to User talk:Tennis expert? (Several of them do appear to be reversions.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:41, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

1) Scroll down and watch all the reversions. There are 500 edits to look at—a significant number is (to use TE's language) "blind reverts." That was the point of my link. 2) Your wording "if any" is exceptionally insulting and condescending (you are implying that I obviously had no clue about what I was doing), and is in my view way, way more incivil than Tony talking about toilet contents. There you see. Persons percieve different things differently. That is why this whole civility stuff and civility paroles are laughable in my view. --HJensen, talk 23:07, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

If this ever happens again, please include the diffs which are blind reversions, as ArbCom requests; failing that, use an offset which begins with the edits you want people to look at. I will strike the if any; but this point still seems magnificently obscure. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:32, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I see your point. I just thought a single link was sufficient to present the overall picture, given the large amount of datelinkings made within the 500 edit search frame that includes edits from five days (November 16 to November 20). Of these edits I think that more than half of them are evidence of editwarring reversions reinstating date links. These are:

diff1, diff2, diff3, diff4, diff5, diff6, diff7, diff8, diff9, diff10, diff11, diff12, diff13, diff14, diff15, diff16, diff17, diff18, diff19, diff20, diff21, diff22, diff23, diff24, diff25, diff26, diff27, diff28, diff29, diff30, diff31, diff32, diff33, diff34, diff35, diff36, diff37, diff38, diff39, diff40, diff41, diff42, diff43, diff44, diff45, diff46, diff47, diff48, diff49, diff50, diff51, diff52, diff53, diff54, diff55, diff56, diff57, diff58, diff59, diff60, diff61, diff62, diff63, diff64, diff65, diff66, diff67, diff68, diff69, diff70, diff71, diff72, diff73, diff74, diff75, diff76, diff77, diff78, diff79, diff80, diff81, diff82, diff83, diff84, diff85, diff86, diff87, diff88, diff89, diff90, diff91, diff92, diff93, diff94, diff95, diff96, diff97, diff98, diff99, diff100, diff101, diff102, diff103, diff104, diff105, diff106, diff107, diff108, diff109, diff110, diff111, diff112, diff113, diff114, diff115, diff116, diff117, diff118, diff119, diff120, diff121, diff122, diff123, diff124, diff125, diff126, diff127, diff128, diff129, diff130, diff131, diff132, diff133, diff134, diff135, diff136, diff137, diff138, diff139, diff140, diff141, diff142, diff143, diff144, diff145, diff146, diff147, diff48, diff149, diff150, diff51, diff152, diff153, diff154, diff155, diff156, diff157, diff158, diff159, diff160, diff161, diff162, diff163, diff164, diff165, diff166, diff167, diff168, diff169, diff170, diff171, diff172, diff173, diff174, diff175, diff176, diff177, diff178, diff179, diff180, diff181, diff182, diff183, diff184, diff185, diff186, diff187, diff188, diff189, diff190, diff191, diff192, diff193, diff194, diff195, diff196, diff197, diff198, diff199, diff200, diff201, diff202, diff203, diff204, diff205, diff206, diff207, diff208, diff209, diff210, diff211, diff212, diff213, diff214, diff215, diff216, diff217, diff218, diff219, diff220, diff221, diff222, diff223, diff224, diff225, diff226, diff227, diff228, diff229, diff230, diff231, diff232, diff233, diff234, diff235, diff236, diff237, diff238, diff239, diff240, diff241, diff242, diff243, diff244, diff245, diff246, diff247, diff248, diff249, diff250, diff251, diff252, diff253, diff254, diff255, diff256, diff257, diff258, diff259, diff260, diff261, diff262, diff263, diff264, diff265, diff266, diff267, diff268.

In total, 268 edits. I hope my point comes across now.--HJensen, talk 17:41, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Unbelievable! But don't worry, it still won't be enough to make the point to those who will not see.  HWV258  21:38, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I have only looked at a sample, and some of them produce the flawed result [[May 20]] [[2000]], where the comma is mandatory; but that is concealed by autoformating. Beyond that, reversion is not, by itself, editwarring; it is disagreement. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:35, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes indeed; my bad. I strike the "editwarring".--HJensen, talk 23:58, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Of course! When one side reverts, it's neatly (and globally) labelled as "edit-warring", however when the other side does it, it's conveniently called "disagreement". I wondered how long it would take for spin to be introduced. More disenguity.  HWV258  00:51, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

(left)To HWV258: No, it's when one keeps on reverting to the same text that it's edit-warring, and that goes for either side. See WP:BOLD and its frequent implementation, WP:BRD. I concur that there is "disenguity" here; but HWV258 has brought it himself. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:35, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

"Spin" seems appropriate in this topic. Oh please—of course TennisExpert engaged in edit-warring (I didn't have to look far as the first example above shows three reverts, and the second example demonstrates eight reverts!). So, the observation is still valid: you chose to apply the "soft" description of "disagreement" for one side, when a cursory examination and a fair-minded approach to the topic should have led you to be harsher in your labelling. So, now that your own definition of "keeps on reverting" has been fulfilled (with the second example above), are you willing to use a more pejorative label in "explaining" the activities of "that side" (or would you care to go for forty-love)?  HWV258  22:15, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

No, I would be all right to call all of the reverts "disagreements". However, let us just be clear that the person who is shouting loudest about edit warring is the person with the single most "disagreements" with others. I don't think anything more needs to be said. It's 'Game, set, and match'! Ohconfucius (talk) 01:28, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

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:

See my comments above. This would be a counterproductive measure. Tony (talk) 09:35, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

this is not a remedy, but an unproductive punitive sanction Ohconfucius (talk) 08:36, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

He (or she) is not a party to this arbitration. See this list of involved parties. Tennis expert (talk) 12:46, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

• My comments on this are on the Evidence page. This one I know to be weak; the evidence for other editwarring I believe to be equally weak. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:08, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

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:

Strangely this is the one I think could use some more teeth, specifically a civility parole, probably for at least six months. —Locke Cole • t • c 21:02, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Concur with Locke here. -- Earle Martin [^t/_c] 15:29, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I have proposed a stronger measure in my section. -- Earle Martin [^t/_c] 21:52, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Singling people out would be unproductive. We probably all need to be reminded. Tony (talk) 09:18, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you're incorrect. Particularly out of all the participants in this debate, Greg L has acted in a poisonous manner unbecoming of a Wikipedia editor. Any actions taken by the arbitrators to end this behavior will certainly be productive for everyone else. -- Earle Martin [^t/_c] 15:22, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Why just Greg? this is not a remedy, but punitive and vindictive action Ohconfucius (talk) 08:38, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Concur with Locke Cole here. Tennis expert (talk) 16:04, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

• I would be perfectly happy to see this extended to Ohconfucius, especially after this repetitious and uncivil sequence of edits. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:21, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

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:

Oppose this, don't think it's appropriate at this point. —Locke Cole • t • c 21:02, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree. Tony (talk) 09:18, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

He is not a party to this arbitration. See this list of involved parties. Tennis expert (talk) 12:46, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Lightmouse - Banned

9) For violating the community's trust, Lightmouse is banned from editing for a period of nine months.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Why the odd length? —Locke Cole • t • c 21:02, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Unwarranted Per my response to #Lightmouse - Socking above. LM seems to have kept his nose clean since opening of this account. Ohconfucius (talk) 06:15, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Lightmouse's nose is reasonably clean, yes — only one block, although it should be no surprise that it's the result of delinking of dates. Lightbot's nose, on the other hand, is materially less clean. Mlaffs (talk) 06:41, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Support; and suggest extension to a full year's ban for deceptive practices. -- Earle Martin [^t/_c] 15:30, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Well the longest ban the arbcom can give is one year, and I've seen far more destructive sockpuppetry than this, but at the same time this was on a massive scale of 100,000+ edits over five years makes it unique in size, so 9 months seemed like the medium between a 90 day ban and a 1 year ban. MBisanz ^talk 21:06, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Support. The record of Lightbot is part of the record of Lightmouse. Tennis expert (talk) 16:03, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Lightmouse - Lightbot

10) Because of the deception used in seeking its approval, Lightbot (talk · contribs)'s bot approval is revoked. Lightmouse must seek re-application to the bot approval's group if he wishes to resume such tasks.

Comment by Arbitrators:

There might be other reasons for revocation as well (broad mandate, controversial use, ect). Cool Hand Luke 05:17, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Agree. —Locke Cole • t • c 21:02, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Unwarranted Per my response to #Lightmouse - Socking above. LM seems to have kept his nose clean since opening of this account. Ohconfucius (talk) 06:17, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

As above, Lightmouse's nose is reasonably clean, although Lightbot's nose, on the other hand, is not. Mlaffs (talk) 06:43, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Agree. -- Earle Martin [^t/_c] 15:31, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I believe the focus should be on the approval process rather than mixing up charges of editor conduct with bot policy. The way it operates needs a thorough review, and I do not mean a witch-hunt to generally restrict bot activity—it is in the refining of bot operation that improvements are needed. Bots are a very important part of keeping WP at the top of the Internet, and Lightmouse has provided leadership in this respect, despite the complaints here. Tony (talk) 09:22, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

This, and the next, refer, it appears, to Lightmouse being User:Bobblewik, who escaped sanction for date-delinking back in 2006 by promising to stop delinking. Both premises should be findings of fact. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:05, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I saw there was date-related controversy back in 2006 that seemed to cause him to leave. But I couldn't find a specific sanction discussion, outside the old-style RFC. Did I miss something? (he did have 65,000 edits). MBisanz ^talk 22:22, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

All I find for now is Bobblewik's Block log, which ends with two long blocks both for delinking dates when several admins have told him not to, and and an unblock so he can discuss it at ANI. (date August 15,2006, for anybody who wants to check the edit history of ANI.) This is almost as old as Locke Cole's offenses, but if Lightmouse is Bobblewik, he should certainly have mentioned it to BAG. (This depends on the FoF that he is Bobblewik, of course, but I rmemember Bobblewik being used as a bad example when I began to edit.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:44, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I tacked on some more findings, take your pick. MBisanz ^talk 02:16, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Lightmouse has admitted to being Bobblewik. Tennis expert (talk) 12:05, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Lightmouse has also provided a rationale for his actions at his talk page. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:58, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Both of these comments refer to the same post. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:32, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Agree, except that a flat-out, permanent revokage of his bot usage would be more appropriate. Tennis expert (talk) 16:01, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

TE, you said on Tony's page that you were a lawyer? I always thought the noun for 'revoke' was 'revocation'. ;-) Ohconfucius (talk) 16:29, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Ladies and gentlemen, that is flat-out incivility right there. Is there anyone else here that Ohconfucius would like to suggest is a liar? -- Earle Martin [^t/_c] 16:46, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

He wrote "lawyer", not "liar", so are you being incivil? Note that the emoticon ";-)" shows that it was intended humerous.--HJensen, talk 17:34, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

You misunderstand. Ohconfucius is suggesting that Tennis expert is not, in fact, as he has stated, a lawyer, because he has made a spelling mistake. The smiley means nothing; he is fond of putting them after accusations he makes. -- Earle Martin [^t/_c] 19:45, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

No, he was asking for clarification in a lighthearted way. "I always thought" and the emoticon at the end show that Ohconfucius was not being serious. That is not in any way uncivil. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:24, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I think we've had enough "light-heartedness" of that kind; how does it contribute to the encyclopedia? I request that Arbcom put an end to it; per my FoF 5, this is an instance of abuse. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:58, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

• Earle, I know some people might be confused because both 'liar' and 'lawyer' start with an 'L', and end with an 'R'. While I am at it, let me utter a word which starts with an 'F', and end with an 'K' ;-) Anyway, I don't honestly give a toss whether TE's a lawyer or not. I would just point out that 'revocal' is nonsense, and the noun for 'revoke' is a word that even a first-year law student should be able to spell. Ohconfucius (talk) 02:44, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

• PS, did anyone guess the word I uttered above was 'firetruck' ;-) Ohconfucius (talk) 04:21, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

• No, I had a four letter word in mind (fork). And let me say that while I don't think your comment to TE was especially uncivil, I take great offense at your use of the phrase "even a first year law student". Sarcasticidealist (talk) 18:59, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

• Yeah, it's strange how we each have our own words beginning with F and ending in K. As for the other, are you perhaps suggesting I should have said Pre-law? ;-) Ohconfucius (talk) 03:34, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

• Unfortunately, ArbCom asked for it against some sage advice. I am amazed how it could imagine this being a way forward? This whole workshop page has been turned into a dog and pony show, with no end of recriminations flying. The only benefit I can see is that the rather unhealthy discussions have been drawn away from WP:MOSNUM. Ohconfucius (talk) 02:47, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Apologies for interrupting this ever-so-interesting thread of clever language and thin veneer of "humour", but support revocation. Would support the bot's operation by another user that could be trusted to operate it appropriately, as the bot itself isn't inherently bad. Mlaffs (talk) 06:19, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Lightmouse - AWB

11) Because of the deception used in seeking its approval, Lightmouse (talk · contribs)'s AWB permission is revoked. Lightmouse must seek re-application to the AWB developers if he wishes to resume using the tool.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Agree. —Locke Cole • t • c 21:02, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Agree. -- Earle Martin [^t/_c] 15:32, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Unwarranted Per my response to #Lightmouse - Socking above. LM seems to have kept his nose clean since opening of this account. this is not a remedy, but punitive sanction and vindictive action. I'll stop here, or somebody might start accusing me of spamming too. ;-) Ohconfucius (talk) 08:41, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Agree, except that a flat-out, permanent revokage of his AWB usage would be more appropriate. Tennis expert (talk) 15:59, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I think that's a little extreme. There's plenty of good and uncontroversial work that Lightmouse could still do with AWB. -- Earle Martin [^t/_c] 16:48, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Users should be judged based on their actions, not on whether a tool did them. "I was using AWB" is no defence. It is impossible to fully prevent a user from editing the encyclopedia using AWB other than by blocking them (by virtue of the fact that the tool is open source). This must be borne in mind. Restrictions on using AWB, and when AWB can be used again by the user, should be determined by the community (overkill) or by this committee at an opportune moment in the future. Martinp23 20:48, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Lightmouse - Scripts

12) For his past history of abuse of assisted and automated editing tools in editing numerical terms, Lightmouse is indefinitely restricted from making script-assisted edits.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Would need to also add language explaining what it meant by "script," just to remove any ambiguity (per comments below). Cool Hand Luke 05:17, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Agree. —Locke Cole • t • c 21:02, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Unwarranted Per my response to #Lightmouse - Socking above. He's a talented and responsive programmer, and this remedy is like try cutting off his hands. LM seems to have kept his nose clean since opening of this account. Ohconfucius (talk) 06:34, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Agree strongly. Lightmouse had his chance, and blew it. -- Earle Martin [^t/_c] 15:33, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Disagree strongly: Lightmouse has proved to be a sensitive, polite, skilled manager of automated and semi-automated means of assisting our editors to comply with the style guides and beyond to basic, intelligent formatting consistency. He is a valuable member of the community, and should play a role in WP's use of (what will be increasingly) intelligent automation. See the Wedermeyer paper at the last WikiMania. Tony (talk) 14:09, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Agree, although I would substitute "indefinitely prohibited" for "indefinitely restricted" and would specifically mention AWB. Tennis expert (talk) 15:57, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Scripts are things people place in monobook.js and monobook.css pages, AWB is a software program that runs independent of those pages. MBisanz ^talk 17:00, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Lightmouse - Accounts

13) Lightmouse (talk · contribs) is limited to using one and only one account to edit. They are to inform the Committee of the account they have selected, and must obtain the Committee's approval if they wish to begin using a different account.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Agree. —Locke Cole • t • c 21:02, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Unwarranted Per my response to #Lightmouse - Socking above. There is no evidence that LM is using any other account, but otherwise, WP:SOCK should be complied with by all. Ohconfucius (talk) 06:34, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Agree. Tennis expert (talk) 15:58, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

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 Mattisse

Proposed principles

Welfare of general reader

1) Editors of Wikipedia should edit with the general readership (that is the general public who do not have date preferences set) in mind. Therefore, any mechanism that disguises the true date format in an article, preventing article editors from detecting confusing date format inconsistency should be used only with care.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I get the point here, but the thing being missed is that it's been like this since 2003 I believe, and so far there's been no major backlash about this issue (since "silence is consensus", one might believe there's consensus amongst readers that this is okay, or at least not a big deal). Having said that, I support attempts to accommodate both sides of the argument (hence my support of a software solution, like the one being proposed now at WT:MOSNUM by UC Bill (talk · contribs); his proposal would keep auto formatting and fixing it so it works for regular readers, while allowing those of us who prefer linked dates to enable/disable them in our preferences). This is a much better solution than mass delinking, and provides net gains for both readers and editors. —Locke Cole • t • c 02:33, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Support. Finally something about our readers, and not tons of wasted time on how the Kindergarden should be run.--HJensen, talk 00:44, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Usability study proposed

2) A study, a poll, of general readership is requested, so as to determine if wikilinks to "general years" of birth, death or otherwise, are of use. (This could be along the lines of those conducted by Jakob Nielsen and other usability experts, geared to the goals of Wikipedia.) Our statements as Wikipedian editors are based on our opinions only. We have no way of knowing what the average, or above average, readership finds useful. We are speculating, according to our own biases and prejudices. —Mattisse (Talk) 02:36, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

This is an interesting idea. Cool Hand Luke 05:19, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

To Pmanderson: I don't think it was as even as you think. Do you have statistics or evidence to back that claim up? Dabomb87 (talk) 04:46, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

The only way to stop tons more wasted words and time needless spent on this issue is for ArbCom, in its capacity of the supreme ruling body of WP, to mandate a universal format/language variant covering all articles. However, I think it unlikely it will ever happen. Ohconfucius (talk) 06:51, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Despite its problems, another RfC is still the likeliest method to achieve a consensus on specific content questions arising from date-linking, given the diversity of opinion we have all seen. Perhaps ArbCom may be minded to instruct that further RfC's be undertaken to resolve as many as possible of the underlying content disagreements that continue to plague us. We have learned a lot from the two recent RfC's and I would further suggest that specific wording be used, for example "Proposal: The wording, As an exception to the general guidance that dates should not be linked, years of birth and death should be linked at their first occurrence, be inserted into {chapter and verse} of MOSNUM" - and perhaps the RfC could be closed by an uninvolved admin (or even an Arb who had a few days to spare)? I know I would oppose that proposal, but I could accept it if it were carried in an RfC. That would spare us one area of content dispute for a while. --RexxS (talk) 03:35, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

We tried that. It came out 50-50. What then? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:05, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Good question. First we haven't actually tested the precise example I offered, so perhaps a clear consensus would emerge. Second by 50-50 I'll assume you don't mean !votes, but that the balance of discussion was even. In that case, there's insufficient consensus to change the current wording, and the current unsatisfactory position continues. On the other hand, given a 50-50 debate, I would have expected an alternative proposal which better expresses consensus to emerge (e.g. in the same way that I've suggested the last RfC implied "rarely", more than "sometimes") and we would be able to move forward on that. This may be labelled "utopian", but that's the model established for wikipedia and I genuinely believe it will work, given sufficient willingness to compromise by all involved. My recipe: AGF, respect others' views, commit to working towards compromise/consensus and get back to the process of solving the content disputes by the prescribed methods. I don't want to believe that ArbCom will wish to rule on the content matters, especially while the community has the tools to solve them itself. --RexxS (talk) 06:45, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

• To Dabomb87: The birthdate poll is here. I count the results as 21 for linking birthdates, 23 against, and 1 who would only relink birthdates as part of a restoration of autoformating as normal practice. That's as close to 50-50 as we are likely to come. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:08, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

• Anderson: 50–50? Please read the analysis in which the pitfall of the three-choice model book-ended by extreme choices (thus funnelling many people into the middle road, crafted to boost the "do it sometimes" category, undermined any possible claim to consensus. Tony (talk) 14:05, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

• And yet you didn't seem to say anything prior to that RFC launching (despite participating in discussions leading up to it). Why? —Locke Cole • t • c 14:14, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Tony's also talking about a different poll, the one called RFC2. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:14, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Solicit input from the general reader on date linking

3a) Wikipedia should provide a general forum or feedback page for readers who are not editors.

3b) Wikipedia should solicit wider input than the few editors involved in this arbitration, regarding the issues of date formatting, as well as over- and underlinking, the usefulness of date pages, and the degree overlinking affects general readability of articles, not addressing the combatants involved in this arbitration but directed toward reader experience in general.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed —Mattisse (Talk) 20:05, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

• Currently there is no way for the general reader to have input. The delinking issue is being discussed without input from the millions of readers of the encyclopedia who will be affected by this change.
• This arbitration is being framed as wonky procedural issues and personal conflicts (edit warring) in policy that concern a very few number of Wikipedian editors.
• Except for the small group of Wikipedians interested in the delinking issues, no one else (neither Wikipedians in general nor the general readership) is even aware there is an option in linking dates.
• Wikipedia should solicit wider input that the few editors involved in this arbitration regarding the issues of date formatting, as well as over and underlinking, the usefulness of date pages, and the degree overlinking affects general readability of articles (as is the case with me, that is, am I unusual in having this affliction.)

Provide an ongoing forum for feedback from the general non-editor readership

4) Wikipedia should provide a general forum or feedback page easily accessible to readers who are not editors on any issues the general reader may choose, as does Wikimedia.[48]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. —Mattisse (Talk) 15:52, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

• The vast majority of readers of Wikipedia are not editors.
• Of all the people I know, all of whom use Wikipedia as an encyclopedia, none of them are editors and none of them have knowledge of Wikipedia "under the hood", the various decisions that will affect their experience of Wikipedia. This is true even though many of them are in the field of computer science and are sophisticated regarding the technical aspects of computer use and web design.
• It takes a high level of sophistication and knowledge of Wikipedia processes to become a full fledged member of the community.
• Only by becoming a member of the small group of editors who post in Arbcoms and RFC's, does the general reader of Wikipedia have any means of providing input, other than by publishing a article in a widely circulated magazine or newspaper.
• Therefore, Wikipedia is closed off from any input from its general readership, the millions of people who use Wikipedia as an encyclopedia.
• Wikipedia should provide a forum or feedback page for readers who are not editors. This could be similar to the many ways newspapers, blogs, commercial enterprises and others who solicit input on the web. This form of input is familiar to most web users. —Mattisse (Talk) 20:05, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Proposals by Greg L

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 permanent ban

Locke Cole (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) be banned from Wikipedia for being persistently disruptive and flouting Wikipedia rules. His block log shows a chronic, persistent problem with incivility towards others and refusal to abide by clear rules of conduct. This proclivity towards extreme persistence to win at all cost, no matter the consequences for other, innocent editors is evidenced in this RfA, which resulted in a month-long block for stalking another editor. In the real world, stalking is a serious enough of an issue that court orders are issued. Like some in the real world, it seems that Locke has simply managed to be more creative in the means by which he is disruptive while trying to win at any cost. His proclivity towards stating things that are not true [49] has the effect of misleading others. Being continually bombarded by misinformation impedes others’ ability to improve Wikipedia—regardless of the venue (WT:MOSNUM or any of the various articles where he is editing). His record speaks for itself.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I propose this because Locke’s persistence at winning at any cost—even to the extent of continually violating rules of conduct so severely that he gets blocked again and again and again. And his block log is just the stuff he gets caught on, like any such block log, it is the tip of the iceberg. His tendentious nature is disruptive and he appears unwilling to conform to conduct expected. Greg L (talk) 03:31, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Note that this proposal appears to be retaliation for my proposed civility injunction above. —Locke Cole • t • c 04:28, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

• Ya think?? The trouble is, every single spec of what I wrote there is the absolute truth. Your tendentious badgering and misleading and fighting everyone over everything in an absolutely uncompromising fashion is exceedingly disruptive to Wikipedia. And, like I wrote above, you haven’t been caught on 100% of the violations you’ve done on Wikipedia; your record is only the tip of the iceberg as regards the disruption you cause. Either that, or you are a misjudged angel and all the admins who blocked you were misguided. I doubt it is the latter option. Tell me I’m wrong. Greg L (talk) 05:49, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

• I would hardly call my position "uncompromising" considering the technical proposal on the table at WT:MOSNUM makes a number of concessions to concerns expressed by you, Tony and other MOSNUM regulars. These concessions are being rebuffed however in favor of continued incivility. Please explain how this helps resolve the dispute? —Locke Cole • t • c 06:12, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

• Arguing with you is clearly pointless. Fortunately, whatever you or I think, or whether we agree on anything (which we don’t) is utterly irrelevant. The only issue is: “what is the community consensus?” Ergo, my below proposal, which will put an end to this profound nonsense. Greg L (talk) 06:21, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Reject this and Cole's proposal. I thought that Rfarb was for settling disputes, not throwing successively harder punches at each other. We are not children. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:35, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

• Spot on, Dabomb87. As to your statement: We are not children. Greg L (talk) 05:49, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

• Stop it, both of you (Greg and Cole): no good comes from this kind of tit-for-tat, and you both realise that's the game here. We need to focus on measures to cool things off, please, not this mud-slinging at the personal level; might you both withdraw your slingshots? Tony (talk) 07:55, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

How sad. This is a desperation move by a bully who's found himself in a corner. What's the matter, Greg, won't you be able to cope if the ArbCom takes away your precious ability to insult and belittle other editors? -- Earle Martin [^t/_c] 10:34, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

I believe this is the only proposal for a permanent ban made (other than Lightbot itself, which is a different matter); that should in itself show it excessive. If GregL really regards wanting to win as grounds for a permanent ban, it would be straightforward (if arduous) to comb the pages of MOSNUM to demonstrate his own competitiveness. I would prefer not to do this; I hope this proposal will be withdrawn or ignored. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:58, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Looking only at one point, his removal of Greg's RfC was clearly for the good of Wikipedia. Greg would use consensus on that to support things it clearly doesn't say. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:09, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

ArbCom-crafted RfC to determine the true community consensus

The trouble here is we’ve had dueling RfC’s each crafted in a way that the likely outcome would be to support the proposer’s point of view. I think Tony’s was by far and wide, the most straightforward RfC, whereas the competing one is convoluted and contradictory at times. I would propose that the only important issue is this: “What is the true community consensus on the salient issues?”

I would propose that the arbitrators decide what questions need to be answered to resolve the dispute, and that they craft RfC wording that finally and once and for all settles the issue. For instance, complainants allege that there is a majority interest (not a clear consensus) for date autoformatting. I submit that many who held that view were under the mistaken belief that a technical means was in the offering that would allow I.P. users to see dates in a special way. Indeed not, there is no such technology. The only date autoformatting technology in the offering is simply something that would give any particular article either the Euro or American-style date format and that’s what 99.9% of our readership looks at. The only people who would benefit of all this autoformatting effort would be registered editors who’ve set their user preferences. All that effort so they don’t have to necessarily see at the date format everyone else sees???

I propose that the arbitration committee oversee the wording of a new RfC that clarifies these important issues and others, such as the extent to which bots can bring Wikipedia into compliance with various nuances of the community consensus on deprecation of linked dates. What is clear is that the community consensus is that it is a rare date indeed that should be linked. Blocking bots is just a practical roadblock to implementing the will of the community.

In summary, the only principle close to the heart of Jimbo is that the community consensus is always the right thing to do. To the extent that community consensus is not clear, we make it so and move on.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I wrote it so I like it. Greg L (talk) 06:12, 26 January 2009 (UTC) It is no longer necessary. A new RfC will shed light on what the true community consensus is on the crux of the matter. See below. Greg L (talk) 04:41, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

The idea that the existing RfC's can possibly be consistent with any community consensus on linked dates (other than that there should be fewer than there are, which may have consensus) is fantasy. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:58, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

The two previous RfC's show clear consensus on the following:

1. Opposition to "Years, months, days/months, and full dates should normally be linked" (RfC1 #1)
2. Opposition to "Dates (containing either day, month and year, or day and month) should normally be autoformatted" (RfC1 #2);
3. Support for "Dates should not be linked purely for the purpose of autoformatting" (RfC2 #1);
4. Support for "Links to month-day articles should be made no more than rarely and with good reason" (RfC2 #3);
5. Support for "Links to year articles should be made no more than rarely and with good reason" (RfC2 #4);
6. Opposition to "The use of an automatic or semi-automatic process to bring article text into compliance with any particular guideline in MOSNUM requires separate and prior consensus at the MOSNUM talk page" (RFC1 #3);

There is sufficient there to build on or to refine in another RfC. If you think my synthesis in 4 and 5 above is inaccurate, compare it with this analysis or this one. Otherwise, those statements could also be tested at the same time. --RexxS (talk) 03:14, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

No, actually I think #4 and #5 substantially correct, although they outline guidance a bot cannot implement. #1, #2, #3, and #6 are far more dubious. One of the flaws of Tony's RfC is that he failed to distinguish between opposition to the present autoformatting, and opposition to autoformatting in principle, under some other implementation. (As it happens, I join him in opposing both; but it is clear that there is at least a strong minority voice for some form of autoformatting, some of which will defend the present form. There is no consensus on either. See RfC #2, questions 1 and 2; I was surprised to see so much opinion on that side of the question.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:54, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't know whether this or the talk page is best for discussing this level of detail, but debate here might at least give the ArbCom some idea of how much common ground there is, should they decide to pursue that route. Anyway a clerk can always move it.

I can see your criticism of RfC1 (Tony's), but to take an example: RfC2#1 (my third suggestion, Dates should not be linked purely for the purpose of autoformatting) gathered 247 Supports and 48 Opposes. I know it's not a vote, but the comments there showed what I feel is an overwhelming consensus for the principle that autoformatting of dates must not by done by linking. It may seem a trivial result, but there's another patch of common ground that now doesn't need to be gone over again. Perhaps by teasing out (probably not here) other likely principles that can carry consensus, we stand a chance of moving forward on resolving the underlying dispute. In any event the point I want to make to ArbCom is that it is possible to find areas of agreement that can be built upon, and that whatever decision they arrive at should help enable that process. --RexxS (talk) 01:47, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure if I'm reading you wrong, so maybe some clarification would help, but are you saying people who !voted in RFC2Q1 were against the link syntax being used for auto formatting, or against links being made simply because the auto formatting mechanism co-opted that syntax? My reading is the latter, which is why I think the fix being discussed at WT:MOSNUM (and being worked on by UC Bill (talk · contribs)) is a good way forward. It still uses the link syntax, but doesn't actually generate links (links can be forced using a simple prefix (:, similar to image/file and category links) if desired).

Anyways, I think I get what you're saying, but I still think so long as the behavioral issues go unchecked we'll not see much in the way of forward movement (at least not without tons of disruption, incivility, bribery, threats, aggressiveness, etc). Once those are dealt with perhaps serious discussion can proceed... meanwhile, Greg has started yet another RFC (RFC3) with questions crafted entirely by him. —Locke Cole • t • c 02:19, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

That would be here. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:13, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

The real conclusion here is that there is no community consensus; some editors react to that by polling and polling and polling until they get one that goes their way. Then it becomes "consensus", and cannot be changed while the half-dozen editors who support it continue to oppose any alternative. This is not the Wikie way; but it is how MOS operates. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:13, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

New RfC on WT:MOSNUM

• There is no need to fuss and bicker over who has the better read of the community consensus as evidenced by the past RfCs. One camp says that there is a majority of users who would like to have an autoformatting feature for dates. Another camp says that many (or most) of the users who expressed such a view were under the impression that “autoformatting” meant that it would somehow work for everyone (not just registered editors). This issue, as well as the extent to which any dates should be linked, and whether bots should have a hand in de-linking dates, are all being addressed in the new RfC.

  The only thing that matters when setting Wikipedia policies, rules, and guidelines is “community consensus.” Period. We’ll run this new RfC on WT:MOSNUM out for 30 days. Except for the most intransigent of editors, who might argue that RfCs are “just !votes” (as if there is a snowball’s chance in hell that insufficient discussion has transpired before and during this new RfC), this new one, which speaks straight to the heart of the disputed issues, should resolve what the true community consensus is as regards the three major points of contention.

  Locke Cole has already “expressed his concern” about the RfC (via this deletion of it) minutes after it was posted. This, uhm… *contribution* of his to making Wikipedia a better place for us all was ultimately resolved at this ANI, where he was advised by an administrator that he should not delete it again and Doing so is not only disruptive, but can land potential editors with additional blocks. So… there is a reasonable possibility that the RfC will go forward without further disruption. Accordingly…

  I hereby retract my proposal that the ArbCom members craft an RfC; one is ongoing that will add more relevant information for the arbitrators to consider. Greg L (talk) 04:40, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

• And you were advised by two administrators to withdraw your RFC.. so will you withdraw it per their request? —Locke Cole • t • c 04:54, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

• The *advise* you are referring to are from involved admins at WT:MOSNUM. They are not only involved, by highly partisan. At the ANI, you were advised as follows by the only admin there, seicer:

Nevermind the fact that there is an ongoing RFAR... Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Date delinking, I think it is in the best interests of everyone involved to not delete the RFC. Doing so is not only disruptive, but can land potential editors with additional blocks. Let's not go down that road.

And this one too from Seicer:

Despite overwhelming consensus that your [Locke Cole’s] opinion on the entire delinking matter was ruled moot and dead? I'm sorry if you can't accept the fact that the community has voiced its opinion, and that you can't accept it without having to disrupt Wikipedia to make a point.

Seicer fairly warned you [50] and [51] that you can't accept the fact that the community has voiced its opinion, that you are disrupt[ing] Wikipedia to make a point, and that persisting as you have could land you with additional blocks. Rather than heed his advise, you argued with him. So, I will certainly not withdraw an RfC that is enjoying plenty of community input; your demand is patently absurd. The community is speaking on this issue and will not be silenced because you wish it to be so. Greg L (talk) 05:12, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't consider Seicer to be uninvolved. His very first act when made aware of the ongoing dispute was to help editors re-delink dates (see [52] [53] [54] [55] [56] [57], and the entire log of Seicer engaging in date relinking). Ever since that time he's constantly displayed a bias towards your view. As noted at that ANI I take issue with his assertion that the matter "was ruled moot and dead". —Locke Cole • t • c 05:48, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

• Oh. I see. Seicer is biased and bad. Locke is unbiased and good. I hadn’t thought of it that way. Thank you for clarifying that for me. Greg L (talk) 19:05, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

• I never said anything about myself. Please stop erecting straw men. —Locke Cole • t • c 19:46, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Further evidence of Seicer's complete lack of objectivity on this matter: (1) his blind reversions (Margaret Osborne duPont, Jimmy Evert, Lawson Duncan, Fred Hagist, Gigi Fernandez, Pat DuPre, Brian Dunn, Herb Fitzgibbon, and Herbert Flam) of useful edits in his blind rush to relink dates and then his refusal to correct those mistakes; (2) his request to other editors to engage in edit warring for the purpose of relinking dates (this post by Seicer on Ohconfuscius's talk page and this post by Seicer on 2008Olympian's talk page). Whatever he says on date linking or date delinking must be considered in this context. Tennis expert (talk) 08:33, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

The sheer gall of a combative, bullying and disruptive editor launching his own RfC with a battery of partisan proposals in a venue that virtually no-one, except the other partisan editors sharing his opinions that try to dominate discussions there, participates in, and claiming that it will fairly represent community consensus, is absolutely breathtaking. To imagine that ArbCom, or anyone else besides those partisan editors, would take the result seriously, is not only to grossly insult their intelligence, but an act of supreme self-delusion as well. -- Earle Martin [^t/_c] 12:23, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Can the focus be on ideas rather than their messengers, please? I'm sure arbitrators will be bored rigid reading these pot-shots. Tony (talk) 14:01, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

• So far this is a poll of the participants in this present discussion; ArbCom already knows what we think. If, like RFC 2, it attracts outside interest, it may contain some actual information; let's see what happens. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:32, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

• Oh come now! Cease with the end-of-the-world / Greg L-carries-tuberculosis hyperbole (sheer gall of a combative, bullying and disruptive). It is childish. The previous RfCs started off primarily only with participation by the partisan editors who had been active in debate/thermonuclear war on WT:MOSNUM. But when we let the RfCs run their course over 30 days, they enjoyed w-i-d-e participation and we obtained a true measure of what the Wikipedian community believes.

  Unfortunately, some of the past questions proved to be flawed by being too general. One question was basically, “should there be an autoformatting feature.” Many editors reasonably believed what was under consideration was a tool that would produce a custom date format for everyone. Ergo, this more specific RfC to address the community’s desire for what is actually being offered. In this case, the RfC will determine the community consensus on all three of the latest specific points of contention; the ones we’re all here at ArbCom over.

  Wikipedia operates based entirely upon community consensus; not upon who shouts the loudest and edits most tendentiously. That sort of behavior must end. We’re going to finally determine what the true community consensus is on all these matters and move on. Greg L (talk) 18:05, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

• Where do you get these assumptions about what the people !voting thought at RFC2? —Locke Cole • t • c 18:19, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

• Hopefully, it will all come together in your mind when the latest RfC is over. Greg L (talk) 19:05, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

• Restore as my proposal, as I can't see Greg's RfC as other than disruptive, regardless of his intent. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:13, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
• There's nothing in your RFC that will move us forward. So I ask again, where do you get these assumptions about what the people !voting thought at RFC2? As an aside, I still strongly urge you to close your RFC and end the disruption. It's not helping, at all. —Locke Cole • t • c 19:43, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

• You write There's nothing in your RFC that will move us forward. In the short time it has been up, over a dozen editors who feel that it will to move us forward have voiced their opinions on this matter that is so important to you and others. By the end of it all, there will likely be fifty—or more—editors who have voiced their opinion.

  While it is clear that you have sincerely held views as to what you think is best for Wikipedia (which essentially amounts to the argument that you have correctly interpreted the results of the previous RfCs and that all future activities on Wikipedia should conform itself to your views), many editors strongly disagree with you. These other editors disagree with your interpretations of previous RfCs, and they disagree with your assuming that their voices should be silenced. You clearly don’t like that very much. And even though you strongly urge that the RfC be closed, it will continue for the full 30 days and these many other editors’ voices will be heard.

  Just pardon me all over the place for beginning to wonder if it just could be that your opposition to the RfC is due to the fact that it is showing that the community consensus is 180° in the other direction of what you desire. That makes me think your bias on these issues is blinding you to the fact that any RfC that drills down straight to the heart of disputes can only be a good thing when gauging community consensus. Stranger still, your deletion of the RfC only minutes after it began signals that you may have had a premonition about the general consensus on its three points before it had even been gauged.

  Conduct on this new RfC has so far been exemplary. You disparage each editors’ participation in the RfC as a !vote, and yet, that term now redirects to Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion. That, and WP:Consensus makes it quite clear that the statements and debate that accompanies votes is a crucial component of determining community consensus. Apart from the occasional rant by a few editors in your camp, the vote statements have been illuminating, concise, and without rancor. That makes gauging the community consensus very easy.

  Seicer fairly warned you [58] and [59] that you can't accept the fact that the community has voiced its opinion, that you are disrupt[ing] Wikipedia to make a point, and that persisting as you have could land you with additional blocks. I couldn’t agree with him more. Your railing against the RfC is clearly not going to make it go away, yet you strangely persist at this. I think you and I will just have to agree to disagree here as I unfortunately see zero common ground here. Arguing with your has once again proven circuitous and pointless. Goodbye. Greg L (talk) 21:25, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

• Finding that there was no consensus on the question whether there should be date autoformatting of some kind was the most useful outcome of the last RfCs; it means several possible actions are rash.
• I would hate to think that Greg's "true consensus" means one that agrees with him; any search for "true consensus" does seem to have the No true Scotsman problem. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:43, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Proposal by Tony1

Protocol for bots/scripts that remove DA and/or delink chronological items

A protocol would be established in project space ([[WP:Protocol for bots/scripts that remove DA and/or delink chronological items]]), to which ArbCom would insist that users who operate such bots/scripts sign, with penalties for non-compliance. The wording would be something like this:

The Manual of Style, MOSNUM and MOSLINK recommend against date-autoformatting, and against the linking of chronological items except in specified circumstances. However, there are varying opinions on the exact definition of those circumstances, and some editors are unhappy at the use of bots/scripts to remove the syntax for these features.

Given the potential for these issues to cause tension between editors, ArbCom insists that users who run such bots/scripts (in the case of bots, only where approved through the appropriate channels) sign the following protocol.

I agree:

1. to respond promptly and with politeness and sensitivity to any question or complaint on my talk page concerning my operation of such a bot/script;
2. not to knowingly revert the good-faith reinstatement of autoformatting and/or the linking of chronological items in an article¹, nor to encourage any other user to do so;
3. where possible, to minimise any inadvertent removal of autoformatting and/or the linking of chronological items after these features have been reinstated in an article;
4. if such inadvertent removal did occur and were brought to my notice, to place the article specified on a list that would either automatically or through my attendance avoid the running of the bot/script on that article.

¹Here, "good-faith" reinstatement involves an explicit justification by the reinstating editor of each chronological item under the terms of the style guides.

I acknowledge that if I breach this agreement, I will expose myself to disciplinary measures.

Signatures

Sign and specify which bot(s)/script(s) you use.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I am not sure why this is necessary. However, if it helps Wikipedia move forward in its transition from 'most dates are linked' to 'most dates are not linked', I will support it. Lightmouse (talk) 10:02, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I think this is rather bureaucratic, but would support this. One major reservation I have about this, though, is the word "and" in clause 1. If I received an extremely hostile message, I may not necessarily "respond promptly", for if I am forced to comply with that part, I may do so without the amount of "politeness and sensitivity" deemed necessary. Ohconfucius (talk) 10:15, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Response to Anderson: "Many"? Perhaps I've missed something. On a practical level, this is an attempt to move towards an orderly process that enables editors who want to put a case that a chronological link should be retained in a particular article to do so, and to be treated with politeness and sensitivity, and indeed not to be reverted again if they chose to reinstate a link. It seems like the best solution that enables the project to move forward and editors to get on with each other. I recommend that the project seriously consider adopting this protocol. Tony (talk) 10:06, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Response to Ohconfucius: well, "promptly" is not defined, but I do believe that clearing up a complaint without delay should be part of the deal, given that we need to be seen as serving the community above all. Tony (talk) 10:19, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

This does not address the fundamental problem that bots cannot distinguish between the datelinks that many users find valuable and the others. Tony, admittedly, finds none of them valuable, but that is a rare and extreme view. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 06:14, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

The point being that it is far easier to manually re-add the miniscule percentage of required linked-dates (after bots have done their work) than it is to manually remove the enormous number of date-links that are not required. This has all been covered many times recently.  HWV258  06:21, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Bots and scripts should not be allowed to make errors, especially for such an inconsequential issue as date delinking. Tennis expert (talk) 14:47, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I can't quite agree with "bots ... should not be allowed to make errors"; the question should be whether it is more effort for the users to fix the (perceived) problem before or after the bot runs. However, the proponents of date delinking agree it's inconsequential — alone, apparently; those who are opposed do not think it's inconsequential, in general — and bots should not make inconsequential edits when there is a possibility that they're wrong. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:01, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Don't think about it as "make errors". Think about it as wiping the slate clean. With the number of editors available at WP, the vast majority of articles can quickly have relevant dates relinked as required. (Of course, the guidelines for which types of date should be linked have not remotely been determined.) I've suddenly realised the problem here: the people against bots think of WP being cast in stone as soon as the bots have finished their work. That's not the case at all, and there should be more confidence that manual editing will fine tune the results after the (necessary) work of the bots is complete.  HWV258  21:27, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

• PMAnderson writes This does not address the fundamental problem that bots cannot distinguish between the datelinks that many users find valuable and the others. It’s simple. No manual of style, nor any committee should have to address every conceivable atomic-level detail of what is a common-sense principle of technical writing:

Links in body text should be particularly topical and germane to the subject matter.

What’s hard about that? If I’m reading up on an article on Nikolai Tesla and how he wrote about field theory in 1925, I might be interested in following a link to Mach's principle. Indeed, if the editors responsible for our current Nikolai Tesla article had elected to link “1925”, I could click on it and wade through a list of events that have nothing to do with each other, such as…

April 1 - Frank Heath and his horse Gypsy Queen leave Washington, D.C. to begin a two-year journey to visit all 48 states.

And if I click on the April 1, I can further learn things that have nothing whatsoever to do with Nikolai Tesla and electricity, such as…

1340 - Niels Ebbesen kills Gerhard III of Holstein in his bedroom, ending the 1332-1340 interregnum in Denmark.

Links in an electronic encyclopedias aren’t supposed to be used to turn them into a treasure hunt game.

Fortunately, the editors responsible for the Nikolai Tesla article wisely did not clutter up and diminish the value of links by linking “1925”. Our Nikolai Tesla article seems to be fully compliant with MOSNUM. The year “1925” has nothing to do with Nikolai Tesla nor electricity beyond what the reader had just read in the article.

It’s double-simple: With millions of linked dates on Wikipedia, there are far, far too many to edit by hand to make Wikipedia compliant with this basic principle of technical writing. It is infinitely more practical to have bots de-link and simply re-link by hand, the few dates that should be linked.

This dispute seems to no longer be about adhering to basic principles of technical writing and seems to have degenerated into behavior that made Tony perceive he needed to go visit the unruly kindergarden class down the hall and have all the children recite “I will behave myself.” Most unfortunate. Because of the absurd depths this affair has degenerated into, I rarely visit this workshop. I seldom bother delinking dates I happen upon. I’m just editing away and improving articles I care about. Greg L (talk) 17:09, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Greg, I keep seeing it put forward that date links "devalue" other links, but I've yet to see any concrete evidence of this. Have readers protested over the linking to year articles or month-day articles? If not, wouldn't this be a classic textbook case of WP:SILENCE? —Locke Cole • t • c 17:31, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

• The vast, vast majority of Wikipedia’s readership has no idea how to go to a talk page and comment or complain; they simply accept the way things are. As most any reasonable person knows, on Wikipedia, the voice of our readership is represented by proxy though active Wikipedians debating and arriving upon a community consensus on various issues. I shouldn’t have had to explain what you and everyone else here already knows. I find your contrived straw man (‘why are there no shrieks of protest from our readership?’), and your linking to a contrived conclusion (WP:SILENCE) in your patented “if it’s blue, it must be true” fashion, to be unpersuasive. Greg L (talk) 17:57, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

• So to be absolutely clear, all this hand waving, the mass delinking, the edit wars, everything so far; is all due to an assumption without any facts whatsoever to back it up? I agree that editors act as proxies for our readership, but there's usually something more to it than "I don't like it".—Locke Cole • t • c 19:07, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

• Let’s parse another straw man: [this] is all due to an assumption without any facts whatsoever to back it up? To be absolutely clear, No.

  Like a million other issues that have been debated on Wikipedia, such as “binary‑prefix jihad” over using “kibibyte (KiB)” v.s. “kilobyte (KB)”, there are always all sorts of facts to consider. The decision on what is the wisest course of action on most debates almost always has editors in a minority camp. In the case of the binary prefixes, there is still an editor who has no other purpose on Wikipedia than keep pushing for “kibibytes” even though the rest of the real world doesn’t work that way. There were RfCs galore on that issue and much bickering. As with the binary prefixes, editors on each side can spout facts to support their position until the cows come home.

  WP:Overlinking says as follows:

[O]verlinking 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. Dense and irrelevant links also make pages less accessible for users making use of screen readers. Provide links that aid navigation and understanding; avoid cluttering the page with obvious, redundant and useless links.

Once again, in one of your “if it’s blue, it must be true” stunts, you pulled out your deflecto‑mirror and linked to WP:IDONTLIKEIT. This dispute centers, fundamentally, on the view by a clear majority that links to dates add no value to articles. The basic principle, that links should be topical and germane to the subject matter in order to avoid overlinking, is perfectly sound, simple, technical-writing 101, common sense. That’s why a clear majority of said over and over in RfCs that dates should very rarely be linked.

And to the real question we’re all here, watching you grasp at straws with link to WP:IDONTLIKEIT and WP:SILENCE, is the role of bots in all of this, since they are the only practical means at our disposal to get Wikipedia into compliance with this common sense principle.

I can see once again, looking at the shear nonsense of what you’ve written twice in a row now, that it is futile further debating this issue with you today. Goodbye. Greg L (talk) 20:08, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't say there are no facts to back it up.... Well, actually, it wouldn't be unfair, as it's all opinions on guidelines. But there is clearly no consensus as to the "facts". — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:39, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

• GregL makes a very interesting point against himself: No manual of style, nor any committee should have to address every conceivable atomic-level detail of what is a common-sense principle of technical writing. I concur. No manual of style, including this one, should address how often we should link 1685, any more than it addresses how often we should link tree, curtain or isomorphism. Therefore there should be no recommendation of MoS for Lightbot to enforce, at which point we would return to letting editorial judgment on individual articles decide what should be linked. Peace and quiet. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:41, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

• The point is not the question as to whether 1685 should generally be linked (I apologise because I've been working under the misahrehension that the fundamentals in the "which dates to link" discussion were better understood). Rather, the debates will start as to which types of dates should be linked. "1685" (in terms of being the year of Handel's birth) is a candidate for being linked, but "1685" (in terms of Titus Oates being found guilty of perjury for his part in the alleged "Popish Plot") is not (obviously in my opinion). But "my opinion" will be the continuing problem. Guidelines presented by the MOS will be of welcome assistance in terms of heading-off the inevitable edit disputes that will be fought many thousands and thousands of times throughout WP.  HWV258  00:16, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Ah, I think on this there may be some hope of agreement: the cases to be considered for linking are listed in /Evidence: birthdates, deathdates, dates of peerage creation, years of major significance to the article subject, years in which the year article gives significant further information. But these come under the same criteria we use for any other link: does the new article add significantly to this article? Are readers likely to want to go see it? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:25, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
    • I must admit that such a list alludes me at that page (and "peerage" is not even mentioned there). What I did quickly find reference to was this—which indicates that it might be harder than you imagine to agree on whether even birth-dates and death-dates should be linked. Also, "years of major significance to the article" is woefully inadequate as that will simply open the floodgates of debate. Don't get me wrong, I think a list of appropriate candidate date-types for linking would eventually be good at the MOS—it's just that I haven't yet seen anything suitable.  HWV258  00:58, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
      • Going back to the "devalue" comment; that date links "devalue" other links is a consequence of multiple statements to which there may be individual consensus. It's not the case that there is a specific consensus that date links "devalue" other links, although a specific RfC to determine that consensus might be helpful. I would go so far as to say that there would be found a consensus that excessive date links devalue other links, but there is clearly no consensus as to what excessive means nor which links are excess. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 13:48, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Segue to a highly specific guideline by Dabomb87

How about this? Dabomb87 (talk) 01:08, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

• • • • • Okay—good. That's a useful start.  HWV258  01:40, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it seems that Greg has started off a red herring in this particular debate, and so we're going around in circles again with the 'what date fragment shall we link to, if any' question. Let's get back to the protocol. Ohconfucius (talk) 01:32, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

• (ignoring blatant baiting by Ohconfucius) — I think your proposal, Dabomb87, is a fabulous bit of work. Bravo. Tony??? Greg L (talk) 04:43, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I believe while this is an effort to show good faith, it is both missing the core issue and also flowery and extraneous. On the last part, bot operators already have to meet certain requirements in how they operate, and really to have such language specifically for only date linking bots is excessive and unnecessary. But on the first point, I will argue that it is not those that have brought this to ArbCom that these bots are bad, but instead they were released "to the wild" much too early before their exact behavior based on consensus was determined. The RFCs identified that date autoformatting was to be removed, and that all but a minority of bare dates were to be delinked. However, what that minority was was not firmly established, and because it was based on the link being germane to the article, it should have been an issue left to individual page editors. Now, there could have been followup discussion after the RFCs to determine the best way to delink dates, which may have resulted in consensus for exactly what happened: Lightbot et al stripping all date links from articles and editors manually reinserting them. Alternatively, it could have been a different approach (my suggestion there was to implement a template that allowed editors to "protect" linked dates, and give them a few weeks to put it in place). Neither of these options violates any policy or guideline, but because of the contentiousness of the issue, the path to be taken should have been decided by consensus before it was started, particularly based on Lightbot's rather vague bot approval. It was not the actual actions or the intent that is the problem, it was the timing - that's the issue here. We have no deadline, and linked dates aren't damaging the encyclopedia in the short term. There was no need to rush and delink them until a good strategy that would be amenable to most Wikipedians was developed (since pretty much every article would be affected). If this required re-evaluating the minority of date links that should be made, that should have been done. If determining how to respond to those that relink dates after they have been delinked in an appropriate manner was needed, that should have been done. None of those steps were taken, even when presented before this ArbCom case started but after the RFC. Sure, sometimes the best solution is cold turkey and get it over quickly, but I would think that the RFCs clearly showed that this was the worst possible approach.

Again, this is not about long-term bot behavior. This is about making sure that behavior of a bot is well understood, that the policies/guidelines it is helping to enforce are firmly established to have consensus, and that "opt-outs" for certain cases are in place by some means before the bot is let loose. The above points are not addressing these problems at the most critical point, before the bot is run. --MASEM 14:57, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

• Masem. Everything you write above is insightful and basically true. I agree with much of it. However, I think your idea of being able to tag articles with an “opt-out” option is like democracy: a splendid concept that works for many cultures, but which just falls on its face in other cultures where they are highly polarized factions with very different world-views and extreme, multi-way predjudices.

  Do you know what would have happened if a bot had been active in deprecating “mebibyte (MiB)” and replacing them with “megabyte (MB)” and an “opt-out” tag had been available to T‑bird? Of course, he would have used it. Not only “used it,” but he would have been furiously active in using it in as many articles possible, as quickly as humanly possible. Absolutely positively this would have been the case. That isn’t a “personal attack” on T‑bird, his arguments and editing behavior make it absolutely clear that would have been the outcome.

  There clearly needs to be a guideline that prevents editwarring via “opt-out” tags.

  I would have hoped that something like this in MOSNUM would have sufficed on this issue of linking dates:

Per WP:Overlinking, links in body text should always be particularly topical and germane to the subject matter. Unless the events that happened during a year, such as 1795 is particularly germane to the subject matter of an article (e.g., because it is an intrinsically historical article and/or other world events at the time were particularly relevant to the subject matter of the article), years should generally not be linked. Editors should generally not link days of a year; e.g. April 1 unless the date itself is so notable in its own right, that events that occurred on that date throughout history are naturally germane to the subject.

Note that Locke wrote above that he didn’t believe that the RfCs and all previous discussion had demonstrated something as basic as whether or not there is a community consensus that date links "devalue" other links. To this notion, he wrote I've [Locke] yet to see any concrete evidence of this. (*Sigh*)…

Fortunately, the binary prefixes issue was, well… rather binary—a black & white issue; you either used them or didn’t. Given that the issue of linking dates is a gray area where they may be linked under some circumstances, I see no choice but to seize upon Dabomb87’s very specific guideline in order to avoid continual conflict, bickering, and editwarring about what, for instance, “germane” means (or whether linking to dates that have nothing whatsoever to do with the topic of the article is even a problem).

Well, of course linking of dates, as it had been long done here, hasn’t added value to the articles. If I’m reading up on an article on Nikolai Tesla and how he wrote about field theory in 1925, I might be interested in following a link to Mach's principle. If the editors responsible for our current Nikolai Tesla article had elected to link “1925”, I could click on it and wade through a list of events that have nothing to do with each other, such as…

April 1 - Frank Heath and his horse Gypsy Queen leave Washington, D.C. to begin a two-year journey to visit all 48 states.

Links that are not germane shouldn’t be linked. There are millions of links like this and only bots can fix a problem of such magnitude.

Now the issue comes down to what gets re-linked. Dabomb87’s proposal is comprehensive and detailed, and was clearly the product of more effort and thought than I was willing to invest to solve this issue. I suggest that we work on tweaking his wording to obtain something that meets the spirit of the community consensus.

Note that “consensus” does not mean 100% of all editors in complete agreement—and it never did. I have little doubt that some editors here will see little or no common ground with Dabomb87’s proposal. But if we can get most everyone here from both camps on board as to when the linking of dates is appropriate in articles, then we can advance that solution to the arbitrators and can go our separate ways and edit in peace. Greg L (talk) 20:22, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Even with DaBomb's proposed list (which, I will say, seems to be a fair representation of what is considered appropriate and germane) a bot cannot determine a use that's on this list from another, save for uses that fall on the chronological pages (which we've stated it should just ignore). But this argument is not about when and when not to link, this is about choosing whether to let bots wipe the slate clean of any linked dates and have editors restore what's necessary, or allowing editors to prepare to opt-out specific dates (in the case of lightbot, this only needs the date wrapped in a template to protect it) and then let the bots wipe the slate clear. You end up at the same point (even considering those strongly against delinking, they will either restore all date links after they've been stripped in the first method, or protect all dates prior to stripping in the second), so the questions to ask is which is more amenable to the community. I personally believe you will get more goodwill on the second approach, but that's me personally. Maybe the bulk of editors feel it's perfectly fine to have to restore germane dates by hand, so then we could let the bot run that way. The problem this all stems from is that we never discussed this. Or at least, brought to a larger consideration. This really should have been a new task that Lightbot or any other bot operator that wanted to delink dates needed to approach BAG with and prompted discussion (I do have to say that Lightbot's current "task" for date issues is very vague). Again, I'm not trying to argue the limiting of which dates are linked or prevent bots from delinking at some point in the near future. My whole assessment of this mess (if you read my FOFs and the like) is that those regulars on MOSNUM, as soon as they affirmed that date autoformatting was dead, wanted to pull the trigger and sweep WP clear of it forever, but there were really several more issues to work out that are side effects of disposing of the corpse of date autoformatting, and enlisting the use of bots before these were fully resolved is why this ArbCom case exists. (There are a lot of other side issues I believe to be red herrings, unfortunately). --MASEM 20:39, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Amen, Masem. Would there have been objections to delinking either way — absolutely. You're always going to have some editors who are intransigent. But if there had been way to have the delinking exercise reliably and automatically skip past certain types of articles or certain types of links, or for editors to tag certain links to protect them, I suspect there would have been a lot fewer objections from those who are more moderate on this issue. I know I'd certainly count myself among those.

Greg L, I also think DaBomb's list is a great jumping off point, and trying to get agreement on at least some parts of it is a worthwhile exercise. But Masem's right — it will be tough for bots and scripts to be coded to pass by many of those valid links. How is a bot going to know, for example, whether or not a link in a given article is one of those "very limited instances where linking to such an article would provide a global and historical context"? The only way you don't need a solution to tag or protect those links, whether it's before mass delinking or after, is if there is only ever going to be one pass through the article base to delink. But I suspect that won't be the case — there will be a desire for regular runs of the bot to ensure that articles remain compliant. Without a method for protection, you'll end up in an endless cycle of bot removal, editor relink, bot removal, editor relink, etc. that's just going to lead to more conflict and drama. Mlaffs (talk) 21:00, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

There is a major problem with this language: "Other rare instances that would be decided on an article-by-article basis and according to consensus gained on the article's talk page." The "other rare instances" language would allow the argument that an article consensus should be ignored or overturned if the consensus does not comply with someone's interpretation of "other rare instances". It would be far better to just recognize that the consensus reached by the editors for a particular article should prevail, regardless of anything else. Tennis expert (talk) 21:03, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

• Masem: Whether or not the let bots run loose was controversial because there was a huge gap in editors’ views of how many dates ought to be linked when the dust has settled—or whether any dates should be de-linked.

  If Dabomb87’s very specific proposed guideline appears to be something that passes your grin test, I suggest we ask Lightmouse whether he can make Lightbot produce a reasonably low proportion of false positives. If the answer is ‘yes’, then we give it a trial run and see if his assessment is correct. If the answer is ‘no’ we do our best to estimate the number of dates that would have to be re-linked by hand and compare that to those that would have to be de-linked by hand and go from there.

  As for the use of “opt-out” tags, I see a role for these only after we could agree upon MOSNUM guideline that is specific enough that any admin can quickly and decisively deal with a rogue editor who is editing against consensus without endlessly debating “what the meaning of the word ‘is’, is.”

  Tennis expert: Doesn’t your point of view suggest that just a global principle on MOSNUM, like this:

Per WP:Overlinking, links in body text should always be particularly topical and germane to the subject matter. Unless the events that happened during a year, such as 1795 is particularly germane to the subject matter of an article (e.g., because it is an intrinsically historical article and/or other world events at the time were particularly relevant to the subject matter of the article), years should generally not be linked. Editors should generally not link days of a year; e.g. April 1 unless the date itself is so notable in its own right, that events that occurred on that date throughout history are naturally germane to the subject.

…ought to be sufficient, and just leave the exact implementation of it to the editors on each article? Greg L (talk) 21:17, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

• Sure, Lightmouse can probably comment on how many he can identify or estimate what the false positive rate may be or the like. That's fine, but like 20/20 hindsight, that should have been done before Lightbot was let loose. And I totally agree that a user that consistently works against the MOS and opt-outs everything despite it not being MOS should have some type of dispute resolution undergone. Note that one of the nice features about using a template to opt-out dates is that you now have an implicit way of tracking their use, and thus it will become easy to find when they are overused (based on DaBomb's list, I'd estimate no article will likely ever have more than 2 or 3 dates linked) and thus problem cases can be dealt with. But again, I stress: all this discuss should have been nailed before Lightbot and other bots were turned on to delink since the issue was highly contentious. --MASEM 21:46, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

GregL, the language is not tight enough to ensure that the editors for a particular article have the final say about whether dates will be linked in that article. The language provides too much room for an outsider to come in, say "regardless of what you guys believe, these dates do not fit the rare instances criterion", and then start an edit war about whether the dates will be linked. Tennis expert (talk) 21:52, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

<eyes rolling in exasperation>Ergo, ArbCom.</eyes rolling in exasperation> Greg L (talk) 22:56, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Your response illustrates why so many people have a problem with your behavior, Greg L, and why you are a party to this case. Tennis expert (talk) 23:22, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Tennis expert, constructive feedback is welcome on the summary's talk page. I invite all parties to participate in such a discussion. After this case concludes, I intend to propose some form of these guidelines at WT:MOSNUM and invite as many parties to the table as possible. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:10, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

TE, you show concern about local consensus. There is no "local consensus" unless the there was specific discussion. I might remind you that consensus can change. The idea that in general, dates should be linked on a very limited basis should be trumps the idea that dates should be linked quite a bit. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:16, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Consensus can be arrived at through discussion or through editing. And now it should be clear to everyone that your proposal supports the idea that the outsider in my hypothetical could trump a local article consensus by simply citing the MOS. Therefore, your proposal does little to avoid in the future the problems so graphically illustrated in this case. Tennis expert (talk) 23:22, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

It is clear that TE would like to establish the principle that he can keep any form of linking he wants in the articles he owns. However, that cannot be. The policy WP:Consensus is very clear:

• "Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale";
• "'Consensus' among a small number of editors can never override the community consensus that is presented in Wikipedia's policies and guidelines";
• "The focus of every dispute should be determining how best to comply with the relevant policies and guidelines"
• "Consensus decisions in specific cases do not automatically override consensus on a wider scale - for instance, a local debate on a WikiProject does not override the larger consensus behind a policy or guideline. The WikiProject cannot decide that for the articles within its scope, some policy does not apply, unless they can convince the broader community that doing so is right".

When Tennis expert edit-wars to restore date-links to produce autoformatting, for example, he is editing against community consensus, and that cannot be overridden "locally". Whatever the outcome of this case, he will not be able to claim that his "local" consensus trumps the community consensus expressed in wikipedia's policies and guidelines. --RexxS (talk) 02:45, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes. And further, the issue of ownership is all too obvious. It is clear that TE took it upon himself to single-handedly speak on behalf of the WP tennis-article community. In fact, I believe we are still waiting for another editor from that community to support the reverts TE has made.  HWV258  03:10, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

• TE: Please explain how in the world greater specificity in precisely how editors should interpret and apply the basic principle of “being topical and germane to the subject matter” can result in greater confusion?? If a proposed guideline on any other issue had been run up the flag pole on MOSNUM that was as lengthy and specific as Dabomb87’s proposed wording, it would have been shouted down Soviet-style by banging shoes at one’s desk at the UN. So it simply isn’t meeting my *grin test* here that wording that is far more explicit than anything we’ve had before on this topic can possibly be opening a door to some sort of objection that couldn’t have been made before. Your criticism that The language provides too much room for an outsider to come in, say "regardless of what you guys believe, these dates do not fit the rare instances criterion" is fallacious. If you have a problem with what Dabomb87’s guideline says, then please state as much—directly. I can not accept that my wording, which is…

Per WP:Overlinking, links in body text should always be particularly topical and germane to the subject matter. Unless the events that happened during a year, such as 1795 is particularly germane to the subject matter of an article (e.g., because it is an intrinsically historical article and/or other world events at the time were particularly relevant to the subject matter of the article), years should generally not be linked. Editors should generally not link days of a year; e.g. April 1 unless the date itself is so notable in its own right, that events that occurred on that date throughout history are naturally germane to the subject.

…is unacceptably vague and that a possible remedy to this vagueness, Dabomb87’s proposal, somehow magically opens the door to new arguments by some hypothetical intransigent editor. It’s like Dabomb87 and I are playing pin the tail on the donkey and no matter which direction we turn here, someone from the “I wanna link” camp is saying “colder”… “colder”… “colder”. Lead, follow, or get out of the way; this battle isn’t going to go on forever and you might as well have a hand in crafting a solution. Greg L (talk) 02:59, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I think I should mention that Tennis expert has held and repeated his belief—that consensus among an article's editors trumps that of the community—since Tony1 first encountered him when he started delinking dates in tennis articles and Tennis expert was the only one (among tennis article editors) to complain. I thank Greg L and other supporters of my proposal, and gratified that it should meet with this much positive feedback. However, this is not the place to discuss it. Arbcom is only concerned with behavioral issues; this is a content issue. Since I did not start this thread, I will not move it. However, I suggest to Greg, the original poster, to consider asking a clerk to move this discussion somewhere else, preferably the talk page of MOSNUM, the talk page of the proposal, or the talk page of this workshop page. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:22, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

• If you are describing TE’s attitude correctly, then it amounts to a metric ton of weapons-grade “I wanna do it my way come hell or high water.” Style guides exist to ensure publications have a consistent, high-quality look and adhere to technical writing fundamentals that most volunteer amateur editors don’t know about. If we didn’t have guidelines on overlinking, I absolutely guarantee you that many of our articles would look like Sewer cover in front of Greg L’s house, where if it can be linked, it is linked.

  As for this ArbCom, I thought the purpose is to settle whether or not bots should be employed to delink dates. Someone please authoritatively correct me if I’m wrong on this.

  As for moving this thread, I propose that we wait until the issue of what the hell we’re all doing here is settled. If it is really about what I think it is: answering the question of what the true community consensus is on these matters as evidenced by past and ongoing RfCs and the discussions here, the value of links, how many links are supposed to exist project-wide when all is said and done, how accurate and selective a bot could be, and whether or not to let the bots loose, then your proposal, Dabomb87, and this discussion thread is highly relevant to the matter and should stay. It could be the key to being done with all of this and moving on to more peaceful waters.

  In the mean time, Dabomb87, I suggest you contact Lightmouse on your own and see if he thinks he can make Lightbot produce a reasonably low false positive error rate as measured by your proposal. Not surprisingly, we have an abundance of opinions here and a dearth of facts. Greg L (talk) 03:43, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

• As I have said many times in many different places, I couldn't care less whether dates or date fragments are linked. Therefore, I have no interest in writing my own version of a date linking section in the Manual of Style. What I do care about is respecting applicable consensus and not editing based on the erroneous assumption that the MOS is mandatory and trumps everything else, including a local consensus clearly evidenced by thousands of edits by hundreds of editors. I have suggested before that the mass date delinkers propose a change to the MOS so that it really is mandatory, analagous to making the MOS part of the Wikipedia constitution that cannot be overridden. But knowing that they cannot get consensus for such a sensible change, many of them (including a trusted bureaucrat and administrator) have instead used bots, scripts, AWB, incivility, disruption, tag team edit warring, and other bullying tactics to impose their views on the community. The still evolving evidence is overwhelmingly clear about that and while the date delinking activity itself has diminished because of this pending case, the incivility and bad faith continues unabated, as illustrated above Tennis expert (talk) 21:39, 6 February 2009 (UTC) and below. Tennis expert (talk) 21:36, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

• Thank you for your post. You are complaining about how nearly the entire observable universe is conspiring against you… many of them (including a trusted bureaucrat and administrator) have instead used bots, scripts, AWB, incivility, disruption, tag team edit warring, and other bullying tactics to impose their views on the community and incivility and bad faith continues unabated. (*Phew*) Do the forces of evil who defy your will and oppose all that is good and holy in your book have tuberculosis and cooties too? I find your above post to be a fetching piece of prose. It certainly sheds some light on the reason why we are here at ArbCom. Greg L (talk) 04:35, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

• Absurd mischaracterizations such as this do not contribute positively to your position. Your entire comment is unnecessary, inflammatory and incivil, and does not benefit this discussion. -- Earle Martin [^t/_c] 15:15, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

• I think the defenders of Greg L would say that he didn't mean it personally, that he was just using colorful language, and that once you get to know him, he's a really good guy that everyone who sees wants to hug. Or something like that. Tennis expert (talk) 21:36, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

• Something like that... ;-) but Greg's pretty capable of taking care of himself. Ohconfucius (talk) 10:36, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

• Tennis expert, I don't understand. You try to poke holes in my specific proposal, then you say that you don't even care about the subject matter covered by the proposal. No matter what you say, I am going to follow through and take to WT:MOSNUM after this Arb case. Sticking one foot in the water is not going to do it. Either jump in the lake and provide provide constructive feedback (with suggestions as necessary), or stand 10 feet away from the water and remain allow discussion and the proposal to progress without impediment (not saying you are doing that right now though). Pardon the bad analogy. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:45, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

• I regret that you do not understand. Your suggested language was posted. I took about 5 minutes to point out a problem. You then assumed bad faith and accused me of not allowing discussion, imposing an impediment, and not jumping in the lake (a confusing set of allegories, I must say). And now I'm villified for not spending hours to rewrite your whole proposal. Sorry, I won't make that mistake again. Carry on at WT:MOSNUM or wherever, and good luck when ambiguous language enables more Wikidrama instead of preventing it. Tennis expert (talk) 21:36, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

• Difficult to assume good faith in instances like this: methinks this is has the potential to be yet another 'retirement' type wikidrama from User:Tennis expert. His assertion that he "couldn't care less whether dates or date fragments are linked" does not appear to be borne out by the facts at all. Let us all be reminded that he is the one person who has executed the largest number of reverts or relinking dates, and has laid all his wares as 'evidence' against the others who have opposed him. I have found at least two examples of tennis articles which were delinked without complaint for in excess of two weeks, but which were then relinked by TE when he found out. In other instances where he reverted immediately, other editors such as HJensen and Olympian2000 who frequent tennis articles attempted to set him right, were set on by 'Tennis warrior'. Take no notice - rank hypocrisy is all it is. Ohconfucius (talk) 05:41, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

• There was no consensus for mass delinking of dates, Tennis Expert was correct to revert those changes made based on a decision reached unilaterally on an obscure MOS page that few people frequent. Those of you forcing your changes through are the ones who are at fault. Long term revert warring was totally uncalled for, further discussion to reach an actual community consensus would have been far more appropriate. —Locke Cole • t • c 06:41, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

• Perhaps assuming good faith, Ohconfucius, would be easier for you if you practiced at it. And before you go around misrepresenting my opinions again, I recommend that you do a little research to educate yourself about what I've actually said. That might help you avoid assuming bad faith yet again. The condensed version is that I was merely trying to preseve the preexisting consensus in tennis articles that dates be linked. My own opinion about date linking was and still is irrelevant. What's important is that consensus be respected until it is overturned properly. You and certain others decided unilaterally that all dates be delinked because of the unfortunately ambiguous "deprecated" language in the Manual of Style guidelines and were prepared to edit war to achieve your objectives. You and the others conspired, trash talked, and engaged in other incivil behavior as a tactic to support the edit warring. You and the others denigrated, insulted, and harrassed the editors who disagreed with you, abused the featured article and good article review process to bludgeon editors into accepting date delinking, and used automated and semi-automated means to overwhelm the opposition. And your incivility and disruption now continues unabated, despite the fact that you are a party to this case and your past and present behavior is a front-and-center issue. Adding bulletin board material isn't wise at this point. Tennis expert (talk) 21:36, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

• Gosh, I just love it when you talk dirty ;-) I need "educating" like pigs need lipstick. Ohconfucius (talk) 05:20, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Pardon me—the third RfC at MOSNUM clearly showed that separate, any requirement for explicit permission to run bots to enable compliance with the style guides was overwhelmingly rejected by the community. TE's responses in all of the RfCs showed the hypocrisy that Ohconfucius has referred to. Tony (talk) 13:51, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

• Not just “bot activity requires no community approval (beyond the standard requirements).” Better yet, Greg L was extraordinarily careful to ensure the wording of the new RfC was unambiguously specific about bots that *un-link dates*. The community consensus on this is “no problem”. Greg L (talk) 17:06, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

• As usual, Greg and Tony are misinterpreting their own statements, not to mention the replies. I concur there is consensus that a (style) guideline which can be enforced by a bot may be enforced by a bot. This guideline cannot be so enforced, absent advanced artificial intelligence, so should not. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:49, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

• There is more to it than that. A bot may certainly go to work if the number of false positives pales in comparison to all the proper hits it de-links. The challenge here then, is to…

1. agree upon the types of dates that may properly de-linked,
2. identify how much error a bot would have in trying to adhere to the rule-set, and
3. come to an understanding as to whether the disadvantages of fixing the false-positives is overweighed by the advantages of not having to manually de-link millions of dates.

Anyway, we’re beating around the bush with such details. We still have the fundamental problem here that some editors want any date to be able to be linked and endlessly proclaim that the RfCs don’t really say that it should be a rare date that is linked. Further, we have Tennis expert using misdirection by arguing that Dabomb87’s proposed guideline leaves open some sort of loophole when he has really all along opposed to the whole thrust of it. After we have had the arbitrators settle fundamentals like this and get those editors out of our hair, then we can clearly identify the cost/benefit of bot activity. Greg L (talk) 00:27, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

• We can't even agree on what should be linked, so there's no possible way to gauge the amount of false positives in this context. Arthur is correct in stating that so long as there's a possibility that bots can cause damage that they're inappropriate for this kind of work. Editor supervised scripts would seem more sensible (however the problem here, anyways, is that many of those running the scripts fail to see the value of any date links, so delink them all as the bots would). —Locke Cole • t • c 00:44, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

• We can't even agree on what should be linked. Bingo. Greg L (talk) 02:19, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

• So you agree then that bots (and to a lesser extent scripts) shouldn't be operating until those disputes are settled? —Locke Cole • t • c 03:03, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

• Yup. That’s easy enough to say, since it is the status quo, with which I take no issue.

  And, so no one can be confused about the order of the tasks ahead, I revised my above post by enumerating the steps.

  Now, we’ve been discussing Dabomb87’s proposed guideline on Lightmouse’s talk page here. The relevant question as it applies to Dabomb87’s proposal is “what would be Lightbot’s false-positive rate?” So we chose today’s date and looked at ‘What links here’. I examined the first and last ten articles and all instances of body-text linking to dates were clearly contrary to the current consensus. Based on that 20-sample analysis, it is reasonable to theorize that if the standard to which Lightbot must adhere to is per Dabomb87’s proposed guideline, then the false-positive rate (the number of links that would be improperly de-linked and then have to be manually re-linked), would be wildly offset by a much, much greater number of dates that will be properly de-linked. There are millions of these. So…

  The first task to work on is point #1 above: is Dabomb87’s very detailed proposal a good one that editors can agree upon, and/or, is it compliant with the spirit and letter of the past and ongoing RfCs? Greg L (talk) 04:42, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Proposals by Kendrick7

Proposed principles

Wikipedia incorporates elements of general and specialized almanacs

1) Wikipedia is an encyclopedia incorporating elements of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Heh, seems odd that something mentioned in the five pillars is being treated this way. Date and year articles are an important part of Wikipedia that helps tie things together in a different way (different from, say, categories or a specific listing). —Locke Cole • t • c 15:08, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed, from Wikipedia:Five pillars. An almanac being a yearly publication containing tabular information in a particular field or fields arranged according to the calendar of a given year. -- Kendrick7^talk 00:00, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Hyperlinks allow users to move between pages

2) Hyperlinks are an important navigational tool which improve the usability of Wikipedia for our readers

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Very much agree. The usability difference between a reader clicking a link carefully placed on the page by an editor and having to use the search box is a gigantic one. -- Earle Martin [^t/_c] 13:55, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Support this, the value of links cannot be overstated. —Locke Cole • t • c 15:12, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed, per Help:Links. -- Kendrick7^talk 05:25, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a work in progress

3) Wikipedia is not finished. Not even close. In fact, we're barely getting started.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Support, should be obvious but necessary I think. —Locke Cole • t • c 15:12, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed, per WP:WIP. As it goes on to say, with certain relevance to our most of our almanac articles, "Unfortunately, much of it really isn't that good. Many people have eagerly pointed this out...." -- Kendrick7^talk 05:25, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to point something out. It isn't that the year articles aren't "good", but that the way they are formatted, readers will likely glean little from them. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:59, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

But shouldn't the solution to that be to fix the articles with discussion and consensus, rather than orphaning them by removing them from articles? —Locke Cole • t • c 15:12, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes. When I first encountered this project seven years ago, most readers would likely glean little from the majority of articles. We should be taking the long view on this, not hobbling readers by shortsightedly hiding content that needs work. -- Earle Martin [^t/_c] 15:41, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Notability of pages

1) If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed in light of the suggestion to create thousands of "Year in X" articles, almost all of which would fail WP:N. -- Kendrick7^talk 21:39, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Balance and historical perspective

1) Wikipedia has been praised for the way it deals with current events. However, it may be appropriate to have some awareness of balance and historical perspective.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed per the nutshell of the WP:Recentism essay. While the essay was written with article content in mind, unfortunately this tendency has colored much of the debate in the MOS as well. -- Kendrick7^talk 17:15, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

The Manual of Style promotes consistency within individual articles

1) Style and formatting should be applied consistently within articles, though not necessarily throughout the encyclopedia as a whole.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed per Wikipedia:MOS#General principles. -- Kendrick7^talk 18:29, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Proposed findings of fact

The incorporation of almanac pages called for by the Five Pillars should continue

1) Ghettoizing almanac pages such that they only link to one another and are effectively never linked to by encyclopedia and gazetteer articles violates the First of the Five Pillars. Incorporation is not fulfilled by simply having almanac pages exist on the same webserver.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed per my understanding of what "incorporates" means in WP:5P. -- Kendrick7^talk 21:35, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Not all editorial decisions are simply matters of style

1) Whether or not to provide historical context in an article via a link or through prose is not fundamentally a matter of style in the Manual of Style sense of the word. More generally, the usage of hyperlinks, while created using "[" and "]" characters, is not simply a matter of punctuation.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. How the simple suggestion not to overlink terms and that it is wrong to link common words in individual articles got us to this point is a little baffling. But the matter of providing historical context is too broad for the MOS guideline in my opinion. -- Kendrick7^talk 18:29, 14 February 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.

Community development of a guideline on incorporating almanacs pages with the rest of the project

1) The Arbitration Committee encourages the community, acting in a spirit of civility, cooperation, and compromise, to develop a guideline addressing best practices for the incorporation of almanacs pages, via hyperlinks or other means, with encyclopedia, gazetteer, and any other pages within the project as a whole.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. -- Kendrick7^talk 20:13, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Proposal to end this all

Dabomb87’s RfC summary

Locke, what do you think of this? Dabomb87, Tony, Lightmouse, and I (Greg L), have been working on a solution to run by you all.

In a nutshell: We see resolution of this dispute as requiring the following seven-step process:

1. Identifying what the RfCs say regarding the community consensus
2. Revising MOSNUM with a detailed guideline that captures the community consensus
3. Make a bot as compliant with the community consensus as technology allows
4. Identifying the degree to which a bot’s activities can conform to the new MOSNUM guideline
5. Compare the false-positives of bot activity (incorrectly de-lined dates) v.s. those that it correctly de‑links and those it leaves alone that shouldn’t be de‑linked
6. Compare the amount of manual labor required to re-link false positives to the amount required to manually de‑link dates that should not be linked
7. Make the decision as to whether or not Lightbot should go back to the task of de‑linking dates based solely upon the metric of whether the labor to make en.Wikipedia compliant with MOSNUM’s updated guideline is less with the assistance of a bot

User:Dabomb87 produced a summary of the past and ongoing RfCs. It is titled When to link.

Below is that summary:

---

Month-day links

• In articles about chronological items (Ex: 1789, January, 1940s, Sunday). (It's unclear whether year-in-topic articles are included in this category.)
• In articles about holidays that fall on the same day every year (Ex: Christmas Day, April Fools' Day, Cinco de Mayo).
• In very limited instances where linking to such an article would provide a global and historical context (Ex: Armistice Day).
• Other instances that would be decided on an article-by-article basis and according to consensus gained on the article's talk page. Such instances should be rare and should to be limited to those in which a date link would significantly deepen reader's understanding of the article's topic.

Year links

• In articles about chronological items (Ex: June 17, January, 1940s, Sunday) and years in a specific field (Ex: 1990 in art, 1967 in sports).
• On a limited basis, in articles of a historical nature where it is not possible to link to a more relevant event. For example, in an article about German history, instead of linking to 1942, it might be more beneficial to link to World War II.
• In the "See also" section one could add a year article link if that year article puts that specific event in the context of the year. (e. g. listing "see 1346" in the "See also" section of Battle of Crécy)
• As a {{seealso}} tag in a paragraph where the date is relevant to that paragraph.
• In some timelines.
• Link to year-in-field links whenever said links' content would be more relevant to the subject than plain year links.

Centuries, decades, months and days of the week

• Centuries and decades—In articles about a certain historical period or a series of related events that occur over multiple years (Ex: Punic Wars, Roaring Twenties, Age of Enlightenment).
• Months and days of the week—In articles about a subject that concerns the nature of a month or day (Ex: April showers (weather phenomenon))

---

We would propose to update MOSNUM with this. Then…

The next key steps are to look at how compliant Lightmouse thinks he can make Lightbot with this new guideline. We worked on this here on Lightmouse’s talk page.

We twice looked at that day’s date and went to Wikipedia’s article on that date. We looked at the first ten articles that linked to that date and the last ten articles that linked to it. We then asked the question “what is the compliance v.s. error rate” if Lightbot were to go over the twenty articles that linked to it. Here is what Lightmouse said regarding this:

---

The first ten articles that link to todays date are:

• April - would not be parsed by bot: all 12 'month' articles would be avoided
• August - would not be parsed by bot: all 12 'month' articles would be avoided
• April 6 - would not be parsed by bot: all 366 'month+day_number' articles would be avoided
• April 12 - would not be parsed by bot: all 366 'month+day_number' articles would be avoided
• April 15 - would not be parsed by bot: all 366 'month+day_number' articles would be avoided
• April 30 - would not be parsed by bot: all 366 'month+day_number' articles would be avoided
• August 22 - would not be parsed by bot: all 366 'month+day_number' articles would be avoided
• August 27 - would not be parsed by bot: all 366 'month+day_number' articles would be avoided
• August 6 - would not be parsed by bot: all 366 'month+day_number' articles would be avoided
• August 9 - would not be parsed by bot: all 366 'month+day_number' articles would be avoided

The last ten articles that link to todays date are:

• Jean-Achille Benouville - All linked dates would be delinked. I count 2 linked dates and several unlinked dates.
• Nicholas Byron Cavadias - All linked dates would be delinked. I count 1 linked date and several unlinked dates.
• Kazutsugi Nami - All linked dates would be delinked. I count 9 linked dates and several unlinked dates.
• List of Cabinets of Iceland - All linked dates would be delinked. I count 93 linked dates and 1 unlinked date.
• Murray Takes It To The Next Level - All linked dates would be delinked. I count 2 linked dates and 3 unlinked dates.
• List of The Veronicas tours - All linked dates would be delinked. I count 89 linked dates and several unlinked dates.
• Institute for Health Freedom - All linked dates would be delinked. I count 10 linked dates and no unlinked dates.
• 2009 in British music - would not be parsed by bot: all '<year> in <subject>' articles would be avoided
• Il Giorno (newspaper) - All linked dates would be delinked. I count 2 linked dates and several unlinked dates.
• The Fat Tail: The Power of Political Knowledge for Strategic Investing - All linked dates would be delinked. I count 3 linked dates and several unlinked dates.

I hope that helps.

---

The bottom line: For these twenty articles analyzed, Lightbot would be 100% correct in the avoiding the dates that should remain linked, and would be 100% correct in de‑linking the dates that should not be linked.

This ultimately leads to point #7, above, “Make the decision as to whether or not Lightbot should go back to the task of de‑linking dates based solely upon the metric of whether the labor to make en.Wikipedia compliant with MOSNUM’s updated guideline is less with the assistance of a bot”.

We are mindful that even though our small sample of forty total articles produced 0% false positives and false negatives, there will clearly be an unavoidable number of dates that might improperly remain linked and some that might improperly be de‑linked that should have remained linked. However, we think the labor saved by having a bot assisting in making en.Wikipedia compliant with the new community consensus wildly exceeds the relatively much reduced amount of labor required to fix the proportionally much smaller number of false-positives and false-negatives.

What do you think?

Comment by Arbitrators:

(*sound of crickets chirping*)

Comment by parties:

I think Dabomb87 has done a great deal of much-needed research to develop a detailed analysis of the RfCs. Some Wikipedian’s here that would be considered to be avid “de‑linkers”, have had *difficulties* with Dabomb’s analysis—there are a lot of dates that would remain linked per Dabomb’s summary. I had to do some arm twisting to get these editors to agree that they should put their personal preferences aside and accept and embrace the general consensus; “compromise” on what goes into MOSNUM. And with Lightbot able to achieve such a high hit ratio on Dabomb’s clear-as-glass, highly specific summary of the RfCs, our job as editors making Wikipedia compliant is made much, much easier. Greg L (talk) 04:24, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Greg, dabomb's proposal is an impressive piece of work, and your presenting of it as partial or whole solution to this imbroglio is perfectly timed. I support the proposal in principle, but will be making a few suggestions for tweaking it (or perhaps others will pre-empt me in doing this). I'm concerned that there might be a loophole that some might argue open the dam-gates to the linking of dates of birth and death in bio articles, claiming—somehow—that they have consensus behind them. Specifically, the second point under "Year links", I believe, needs to be tightened to match the community's now-cautious attitude towards this and other low-value links. Tony (talk) 08:09, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Please do. I wasn't quite ready for prime time but if this will help move things along then I have no problem. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:27, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that this wasn't some one-sided solution; I also consulted Masem, Wrad, Locke Cole and Kendrick7 on this. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:35, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Reject in its entirety. Reject content:

1. Once again makes the claim of "community consensus" against free linking of years, a claim which has been debunked repeatedly.
2. As Kendrick7 notes below, we will end up with a galaxy of abysmal "year in X" articles.

Reject implementation:

1. Cooked up out of the public eye and dropped here as a whole largely by a group of editors all of whom are facing charges of incivility and disruption; "consult[ing] Masem, Wrad, Locke Cole and Kendrick7 on this" does not make it somehow representative of everyone.
2. Relies on an untrustworthy bot operator who has repeatedly demonstrated his unsuitability for the task.
3. Attempts to shortcut its way out of an arbitration regarding user conduct.

Nothing even remotely approaching the scale of this proposal should be considered before the arbitration has run its course. Then, and only then, the issue should be opened up publically again in a very cautious manner and proposals made. -- Earle Martin [^t/_c] 13:48, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Earle Martin, I would like to know what incivility has to do with this. I did not post this here (just as an FYI), nor did I plan to. I was originally planning to wait till after this case to finish and touch up, but it seems that the forward momentum of some users changed those plans, although I am not complaining. I don't quite understand what "free linking of years" means in this context. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:55, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

What it has to do with this is that this is the wrong place for this proposal. This arbitration was called to investigate user conduct issues, and you are using it as some sort of strange extension of WT:MOSNUM. Proposals have been made to prevent some editors from participating in guideline-making activities; how can guidelines even be suggested until it is clear whether these restrictions will be made or not?

Your proposal restricts where and when years may be linked. Free linking of years is any editor's ability to link to a year where and when they want based on the same judgment and discretion that they use for writing the rest of articles, on the understanding that our readers have sufficient intelligence to decide for themselves whether they want to follow links. -- Earle Martin [^t/_c] 14:17, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Earle Martin, this should be considered after arbitration (as should UC Bill (talk · contribs)s fix for auto formatting which would negate the need for delinking entirely). —Locke Cole • t • c 14:59, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

As an aside I resent that this proposal starts out naming me ("Locke, ...") as if I'm the only person who disputes date delinking... —Locke Cole • t • c 19:04, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

This proposal erroneously assumes that compliance with the Manual of Style is mandatory, i.e., the MOS is not just a collection of recommendations. This proposal also fails to deal with the numerous and very important behavioral issues that already have been outlined and discussed. This is not the right venue for attempting to obtain consensus on a change to the MOS. And finally, as I already have indicated, the proposed language is ambiguous and, therefore, would not prevent major future controversies. Tennis expert (talk) 05:08, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

• It appears not to make any such assumption. The principal assumption is that both sides want to see an end to this time-wasting dispute. Some may be happy to propose punitive sanctions against their 'opponents or continue spamming these pages with stuff which has no bearing on resolution or going forward. Your total opposition to any form of delinked dates (read "date and date fragments") is quite clear and quite clearly against the community view that dates should only be linked "in rare or exceptional cases". Ohconfucius (talk) 05:31, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

• Your side continues to trade on the misplaced understanding that 1312 and 1300s and the 14th century are "dates." 13 February 2009 is a date, those others are not. -- Kendrick7^talk 05:46, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
• Of course the proposal makes that assumption. That's why it has all the stuff about sending bots out to make changes in conformity with the Manual of Style and about the rarity for dates to be linked in the future. And, once and for all, stop being disruptive and misrepresenting my position on date linking. As I have said repeatedly, I couldn't care less about whether dates are linked. As for the behavioral issues involving you and certain others, I didn't set the scope of this arbitration. Your past and present misbehavior is a serious issue, regardless of what I think. (Again, you are a party to this arbitration and should be responding under "Comment by parties".) Tennis expert (talk) 06:13, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

• The proposal does not "erroneously assume that compliance with the Manual of Style is mandatory". What it does is get closer to the point where the bots can continue the enormous (and necessary) work of delinking the vast majority of dates now agreed as unnecessary. As pointed out many times before, the MoS is a guideline, so if there are local issues that require over-riding of the MoS, those can still be debated on the relevant talk pages—after the bots have finished their work. This is a subtle point that I hope you will take the time to consider carefully.  HWV258  06:56, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
• The proposal deals explicitly with the "behavioral" issues as it strives to create a tighter framework under which to move forward. With eventual consensus, there will be far less reason for the problems (reverts, etc.) recently encountered. We must all assume good-faith in future work.  HWV258  07:02, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I generally disagree with having to split every almanac page into multiple "Year in X" pages and believe the effort to track all the possible X's to be too burdensome. Instead of having one poorly written "Year" article, we instead end up with hundreds or thousands of poorly written "Year in X" articles for every possible X and every possible Year. I don't believe the Admins should give their imprimatur to this, nor do I think it would be likely that they would.

I also disagree with the notion that our almanac pages are some bastard child of the rest of the project such that links to those pages need to have second class citizenship compared to gazetteer and encyclopedia links which have always be inlined. -- Kendrick7^talk 05:40, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

• Dabomb87's summary is inadequate. It omits several useful links (for example, links from Saint George to April 23, and links to 18 Brumaire and August 10 (1792)); it misunderstands the functions of several links: for example, Battle of Guadalcanal could profitably link both to World War II and to 1942, which is substantially a chronology of that year of the war.

  The only useful sentence is (cleaning up the grammar and the thought) is Such instances should be limited to those in which a date link would significantly deepen reader's understanding of the article's topic; this is true whether such occasions are rare or not. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:01, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

• Absurd. Saint George, who died on April 23, 303, would not be linked according to the current community consensus. Why? Because if a reader clicked on the April 23rd link, they would be taken to a list of historical trivia that is not germane or topical to the subject of Saint George, such as entries like this: “1940 - The Rhythm Night Club fire at a dance hall in Natchez, Mississippi, kills 198 people.” Links are not supposed to be like a treasure hunt game; that much is clear from the RfCs.

  Tell me PMAnderson, what does a 1940s nightclub fire in the USA (a country that hadn’t yet been born, on a continent that hadn’t been yet discovered by Europeans) have to do with St. George???

  Again, MOSNUM guidelines are determined by community consensus and ignores the personal whims of individual editors who come to this ArbCom to post what they believe *ought to be the case*. Once a reader knows that St. George died on April 23, 303, they have all the date-related, pertinent information about him. The same goes for the vast, vast majority other body-text links, which, according to the community consensus as evidenced by the past and ongoing RfCs, are not supposed to be linked.

  And if someone is reading up about the Battle of Guadalcanal, there are much more germane, WWII-related articles to link to in that article’s See also section, such as Category:Conflicts in 1942 (the article-space-equivalent to this), which truly enhances a readers understanding. The See also section is also a much better place for the 1942 article because it could be aliased with a more informative name such as “• Other notable historical events of 1942”. Fortunately, the 1942 article is organized with WWII-related stuff at the top, so readers can stop reading when they get to entries like “June 19 - Michael Broggie, Disney historian and author [is born]”.

  You can point to exceptions until you are blue in the face and that simply won’t change the simple fact that Lightbot’s error rate (both false positives and false negatives) is so low that our relying upon it will save vastly more labor than will ever be required to fix its errors.

  This view of the role of bots is also in keeping with the current RfC on this issue, which is clear on the mater. Again, *community consensus* on the role of bots trumps the individual whims of any of us editors. Greg L (talk) 20:06, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Setting aside the lies on consensus, the underlying logic here is:

• GregL wouldn't navigate a date link,
• Therefore no-one wants to,
• Therefore we should make it impossible for any reader to do so.

On the contrary, we have categories and direct links and infoboxes because different readers have different tastes, and find different methods of navigation useful. GregL does not understand that, and never has. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:02, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

• To Pmanderson: Actually, an even better link than 1942 is Timeline of World War II (1942). Those were only examples. The proposal was unfinished, and I had not planned for it to be posted yet. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:28, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
  • That should probably be merged into 1942, which has perhaps three events unrelated to the war. But let us see your proposal when you are done with it, despite the enthusiasm of your friends. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:15, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Once again Greg L wheels out the same tired old arguments. First, picking a year and reeling off some random events from it as a justification to treat Wikipedia readers like children ("no, you are not allowed to browse freely"). Year articles contain many disparate events - yes, Greg, everyone knows that. Secondly, another transparent and tedious attempt to paint a giant and seething lack of consensus as "the individual whims of... editors". Even the beginning of this proposal section he addresses personally to Locke Cole, as if (as Locke comments) he is the only one in opposition to date delinking. Stop repeating yourself, please, Greg, it's not convincing anyone. -- Earle Martin [^t/_c] 20:37, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

• Pay no attention to that RfC behind the curtain. We know what you want Earle. We know you like to deminish the intentions of your evil, uncivil opponents as desiring only to treat readers as “children”. We know that you feel you have a solid grasp of what Earle Martin Universal Truth of Best Technical Writing Practices™©®. Again: what you or I think doesn’t matter here. What each and every editor here thinks is best does not matter. The only thing that matters is the community consensus. Period. And our best evidence for what this is the RfCs. This is for the arbitrators to help us on as it is clear that you and I could never agree upon the basic facts of what is the current community consensus on these maters.

  We’ve all seen your post below where you would like us all to think that no actual progress is supposed to be made here on these important issues and that the only task at hand for the arbitrators is to meet out punishment to doers of all things bad (presumably limited exclusively to those very mean delinkers) and nothing more pertaining to the meat and potatoes of what precipitated this dispute. We can all see through that tactic. I happen to think that what is at the core of this dispute is a bilateral (mostly “lateral”) unwillingness to see what the community wants and abide by that. Now…

  Some of the questions answered on the RfCs are general principles that need interpretation. Others, like the three questions in the ongoing RfCs are exquisitely explicit and unambiguous, such as whether a bot has a proper role in delinking. Everyone’s job here is to faithfully try to best implement the will of the community; ergo, point #1 from the above seven-step process. 22:31, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

• Actually, I concur with step 1. The other steps may or may not be appropriate, depending the results of that. However, we're nowhere near there. We don't have agreement as to what Tony's RfC means (it seems to me that it at most says that dates and date fragments should not be linked as a matter of course); we don't have a real consensus as to the detailed RfC, and, as I noted above, even if Greg's RfC passes, Lightbot is still off limits, as the premise is clearly wrong; a bot cannot tell if a (year) link "significantly deepen(s) reader's understanding of the article's topic." — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:52, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

• Your last point is a fallacious conclusion. If the community consensus is clear on a matter, then all of us must abide by it. That is an inviolate principle on Wikipedia. The RfC wording on this mater is exceedingly clear and detailed. It says “…all bot operators are required to do is ensure that their bot activity is as compliant as possible with the guidelines of MOS and MOSNUM.” Your assertion of fact …a bot cannot tell if a (year) link "significantly deepen(s) reader's understanding of the article's topic." is a red herring that ignores the most probative and telling experiment as to whether the bot is sufficiently accurate. Lightmouse and I examined 40, randomly-selected articles and the error rate was 0% false positives and 0% false negatives. Greg L (talk) 17:45, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

• You are lying this time, and perhaps again. It is not the case that "all bot operators are required to do is ensure that their bot activity is as compliant as possible with the guidelines of MOS and MOSNUM" (and your quotes are not compliant with the guidelines of MOS, for that metter.), but that "bot operators are required to ensure that their bot activity is compliant with the guidelines". Specific allowances for known bot errors, in a rational world, would have to be specifically approved by the community at large; the bot board should not approve bots which make known errors without wide community approval.
• Since you don't think there are any negatives, your findings that there aren't any in the sample is not surprizing. However, the latest bot written would have had false positives — your assertion that "decade in topic" articles would he excluded by the bot appears not to be the case in the latest revision allowed to run. Furthermore, there is no consensus as to whether year-of-birth in biographical articles should be linked. The !vote was fairly close on that specific question, and I don't see an overwhelming arguement for either side. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:56, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Call to Arbitrators

Much of the above is either highly off track, such as how the proposal doesn’t address “very important behavioral issues” with editors (there are scores of proposals on this page addressing this issue so there is no need to bog this proposal down by even pretending to address that), or ignores the obvious fact that a major reason for this ArbCom is to settle the issue of the role of a bot in date delinking. Thus, we have editors here with wildly divergent views on the fundamental purpose of our even being here. I believe it is high time for arbitrators to arbitrate. We have only a few editors, above, who have so far exhibited a willingness to discuss the details of the proposal in an effort to ensure its wording is the best implementation of the community consensus. I ask that the arbitrators weigh in above as to whether you view the above seven-step process as the proper framework around which editors should endeavor to craft a solution. Greg L (talk) 17:40, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

While I have to second the call for the abitrators to please do something, I object strongly to this repeated attempt to force through an illegitimate and inappropriately-timed proposal in the name of a totally disputed "consensus". Also, the major purpose of our being here has been apparent from the start. Here's a copy and paste from what I wrote further up the page:

I suggest that you look at the statements made by ArbCom when accepting this case. I'll save you some time, here are quotes:

• "There is... a broad range of alleged behavioral issues surrounding these circumstances" - Vassyana
• "Date delinking is only the latest incarnation of MOSNUM problems" - Rlevse
• "Accept... [to] address any user conduct issues" - FloNight
• "when the topic focus causes large, repeated threads... This invariably means there is a behavioral problem" - Coren
• "I agree that the issue for ArbCom here is behavioural" - Roger Davies
• "I support just keeping it to the date delinking conduct issues" - Wizardman
• "I do agree with those who have stated that this case should most emphatically be about the behaviour here" - Carcharoth

It is completely wrong to try and use a case about behavioral issues to push a proposal formulated purely by the group whose behavior is under examination. -- Earle Martin [^t/_c] 18:07, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I have contacted a clerk about this whole section. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:34, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks. This ‘hands off’ approach has been going nowhere. It’s like locking the prisoners in the courtyard and letting them riot with clubs and shanks and piling the bodies over by the exercise equipment. We can’t even agree upon the basic purpose of being here for arbitration. To listen to Earle, the only purpose of being here is for arbiters to meet out punishment to mean bad people (presumably, editors other than Earle). We’ve got a perfectly workable seven-step plan proposed. It’s time for arbitrators to act since it is clear there is so little common ground between the two camps, they can’t even agree as to why we are supposed to sit down at the negotiating table. Greg L (talk) 22:46, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

• I'm sorry you're confused about this, but unless the arbitrators say otherwise their original reasons for accepting this remain as Earle stated (the overall reason for this arbitration request stemmed from behavioral issues surrounding the dispute). Further, I disagree with your seven step plan, as I believe fixing the software is a far more effective use of our time, and UC Bill has done fine work towards that end (as you are well aware). It makes more sense to fix the software to resolve the areas of dispute than to set about unleashing scripts/bots to modify every single Wikipedia article to conform to some arbitrary standard that doesn't satisfy everyone. —Locke Cole • t • c 23:00, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

• Wow.  The *community consensus* is not some arbitrary standard that doesn't satisfy everyone. It is a fundamental Wikipedia principle that apparently doesn’t satisfy you. Issues pertaining to poor editor behavior is certainly something the arbitrators can consider. But it is ludicrous beyond all recognition to assert that a proposal that addresses the issue of community consensus, and how to agree upon what exactly that is, and how to proceed from there, is somehow invalid because it doesn’t also propose “punishment” for editors. There are more than enough proposals above on this subject to shake a stick at without trying to duplicate it. We’ve got a perfectly sensible seven-step plan proposed above. It’s time for arbitrators to act since it is clear there is so little common ground between the two camps, they can’t even agree as to why we are supposed to sit down at the negotiating table. Greg L (talk) 23:19, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

• "Wow"? That RFC is still open, and already has its critics. Calling anything there "consensus" is at best premature. -- Kendrick7^talk 23:30, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

• It's now obvious to all that the confusion rests with those obstreperous enough to refuse to move forward because "not everyone can be satisfied"-type arguments. The rest of us seem to have come to grips with the concept that it will never be possible to satisfy everyone at WP; hence the point of the above proposal in trying hard to reach a consensus.
  Regarding the work being done towards "fixing the software"—we are still all waiting for a specification that would allow the programmers to make some consensus-based progress.  HWV258  23:25, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

• Apart from the issue that the community now takes a rather conservative line on hi-tech "solutions". And we keep asking what problem it's chasing, to no avail. Tony (talk) 23:33, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

• Kendrick7: There are two closed RfCs that are quite illuminating as to the community consensus on broad principles. Arbiters can apply WP:SNOWBALL to the current one if they chose—or close it now. A lot of progress can be made. MOSNUM has been locked down because of this dispute and remains locked down until this is resolved; this is not an abstract dispute. There is now a workable, sensible proposal to consider now; it is time for action by the arbiters. Greg L (talk) 23:38, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

• A good case could be made to reject your RfC as misleading, even if there is a strong apparent consensus in favor of (some of) your proposals. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:53, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

• Rather than listen to you and Locke rant about what the previous RfCs did and didn’t say, I bypassed all that horseplay drilled down straight to the crux of the remaining issues so results were absolutely unambiguous. An outstanding case can be made that you simply don’t like the results. Greg L (talk) 00:00, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

• No, what you actually did was rephrase the disagreement yet again, this time in a manner precisely designed to express your position in the issue over any others, and presenting a perfect pile-on target for the other members of your tag team. -- Earle Martin [^t/_c] 02:08, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

(outdent)

• It’s (again) quite clear that there is precious little common ground between the two camps and arguments are (again) circuitous with nothing new being said, including the desire by the pro-linking camp that they wish the arbitrators A) should limit their activities only to meeting out punishment (not actually trying to solve the crux of the dispute), and—should it come to actually trying to settle this, B) arbitrators should ignore the community consensus as evidenced by the RfCs. They would like to dismiss solutions based on the community consensus as some arbitrary standard that doesn't satisfy everyone. I assume that a solution that satisfies Locke is something that, in his mind, “satisfies everyone.” I reject that notion. Clearly, there is a community consensus on many maters pertaining to date linking, autoformatting, and bots, and some editors just aren’t going to be happy with what that is. I repeat my call for arbitrators to act. MOSNUM is locked down until this dispute is resolved. Greg L (talk) 00:11, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Sorry, that's inaccurate. There's common ground within your WP:GANG. There's little common ground within the other camp, except an agreement that your WP:GANG is disruptive. As it stands, Dambomb's summary of the RfCs, although it takes a position further against linking than there is necessarily consensus, still makes it clear that bots should not be used until the specific standards for families of dates which may be linked are set. The delinking gang's assertion that no day-of-year or year links should be used is not supported by the RfCs. Still — this section should be on WT:DATE#Where do we go from here, rather than here, except as an example for how both the delinking gang and Locke may both still be unable to edit RfAr's properly. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:43, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
    • The indications of tag-teaming are becoming more and more obvious in this case. For example, if you look at the history of User talk:Lightmouse, in July 2008 Tony1 appears and starts deflecting queries into the validity of date delinking, a trend which continues right up to and into the beginnings of the current major round of this disagreement. -- Earle Martin [^t/_c] 02:04, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
      • Shouldn't that be in ../Evidence? The arbitrators might be aware of it. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:11, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
        • I've added a note here. -- Earle Martin [^t/_c] 02:18, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
          • Oh dear! A clear violation of WP:Starts deflecting queries. Greg L (talk) 02:51, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
            • If you're trying to get a rise out of me, you've failed. -- Earle Martin [^t/_c] 03:06, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
              • No, I was trying to show the absurdity of all this. But thanks, I enjoyed your response immeasurably. I’m nearly crapping my pants reading this stuff! Greg L (talk) 03:11, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
                • Do you have anything to contribute beyond sophomoric comments? -- Earle Martin [^t/_c] 03:17, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
                  • At the moment? Apparently not. Greg L (talk) 03:21, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
    • (r to Greg L from above) I think this current proposal is moving in the right direction. However, the pro-link camp should have an opportunity now to develop a counter-proposal. I'm going to go ahead and start User:Kendrick7/Summary of the Date Linking RFCs and maybe by Monday or so we can come up with something. -- Kendrick7^talk 03:01, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
      • Looking forward to it. Hopefully, between the two proposals, we can agree on optimal guidelines. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:25, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
        • Well, I want to get my own thoughts down and see exactly where some of the more pro-linkers are at. I'm not normally the sort to call for a partisan caucus but I hope in this case it is worth a try. -- Kendrick7^talk 04:01, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
• Having examined a few ArbCom case histories, it appears that they are usually closed within one month of opening. Cases have been known to go on for three months, maybe more. There appears to be little going on, except Dabomb's proposal, which looks remotely like proposals which could take us forward and not become a lose-lose situation for WP and its editors. Keeping this case open continues to fuel an already acrimonious dispute by keeping the door open to continued recriminations, bickering, sniping, sarcasm, spamming, and other similar behaviour. The only benefit I see to prolonging this case is that the 'verbal fisticuffs' are confined to these few pages, where few people aside from the parties involved are likely to visit. WP is a work in progress, and there is work to be done; prompt closure is much needed. Therefore, I would echo the call for ArbCom to begin their arbitration. Ohconfucius (talk) 03:42, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
  • (ec) Hear, hear. The appalling behavior by both sides from MOSNUM has been carried over here and nothing productive is happening any more. I don't see what more there is to wait for. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:54, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
    • • • • • By the way, I hope I'm not out of line, but here's an example of the confusion Greg's RfC is creating. I would suggest people don't really know what they are voting for as the definition of "date" is left somewhat undefined. This editor's vote of support will be used to further the cause of not linking to years when that isn't what they meant. -- Kendrick7^talk 04:50, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
              • Oh dear. You jumped to an invalid conclusion. The *confusion* you cite was just an editor trying to disagree with you using Wiki-polite language (Sorry for the repetitive question, but I am a bit confused…) rather than use more blunt language that might be used in real life. The editor wasn’t confused, and, only nineteen minutes after you wrote your post here, the editor struck his that text about “confusion”. [60]. The wording in the ongoing RfC are the most direct, probative, explicit ones to date on the subject of date delinking and a bot’s role in that. I think that the fact that the community consensus—as measured by the totality of the comments and collective thought of the community—is absolutely clear. I think your disagreement with the results might be making you too anxious to point out “confusion” where none exists. Greg L (talk) 18:00, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
                • That was Dabomb, not Seav, who struck his own comment. -- Kendrick7^talk 18:06, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

• Oh is that what you’re referring to. Dabomb was the only one who used the word “confused” in a post on that thread and your above comment lead him to strike his post. OK, so let’s look at Seav’s “confusion”. Seav’s comment on the RfC was—and still is (after Seav explained himself), this:

*Support. I've often wondered why we need to link to dates but I simply did it since it seems to be a tradition. I'm now not linking to dates at all if I don't feel the linked date article will provide further relevant details to the current article, which is almost all the time. --seav (talk) 03:43, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Gee, I duknow. His views on the matter seem clear to me. Not only that, they are probably the most succinct, pithy, best-written words I’ve seen on this issue (I'm now not linking to dates at all if I don't feel the linked date article will provide further relevant details to the current article, which is almost all the time.) He expresses my views on this issue perfectly. If you want him to revise his opinion and explain away his “confusion”, I suggest you go persuade him to do so. So far, based on all the objective evidence, he seems content with his statement. Greg L (talk) 18:24, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

• I don't even think dates should be linked, excepting holy days and holidays. My point is this editor said nothing about linking years. Continuing to write RFCs which conflate the two only continues to muddle the results. -- Kendrick7^talk 18:33, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks. I appreciate your candor. It’s not so much the *vote count* that matters in RfCs; an integral component of it is the accompanying statements. When you objectively read the statements, you can get a feel for what the most common, shared views of the community are. Seav’s vote statement clearly adds to the pot that the community consensus is now I'm now not linking to dates at all if I don't feel the linked date article will provide further relevant details to the current article, which is almost all the time.

  As for your insistence that the RfC wording on this point is somehow confusing, go look at the wording here. The only examples it uses are years. There is no “confusion.” There are, however, slightly different views about how best to adhere to the principle of keeping links germane and topical to the subject matter. If one looks at the totality of the votes and vote comments on the RfC, a clear community consensus emerges. Greg L (talk) 18:47, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

• Whatever, the point is this guy voted support when he had no opinion on linking years. You start talking about date links then give a bunch of year link examples, which seems to be the source of the confusion. I don't care to argue about it, as I've said in my section I believe this to be a WP:5P matter which thus can not be overridden by an RfC. I trust you will strike your inaccurate remarks above. -- Kendrick7^talk 18:56, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

• All this to say that "chronological items" should be used in these discussions whenever possible to avoid confusion. Dabomb87 (talk) 19:36, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

(outdent)
Kendrick. No, I will not strike text in a post of mine with which you disagree.

You exude a great deal of confidence in what what you think another editor believes is best editorial practices. Further, you do so over diaphanously thin evidence. If the question is “What are the editorial practices of Seav with regard to dates”, well, I think Seav’s actual contributions are a splendid way to determin this. Here is his most recent edit that involves "chronological items". Note that he edited on both sides of a MM-DD-YY date and didn’t see fit to link a stitch of it. This edit occurred one day after he participated in the RfC. So let’s not assume he *forgot* about the date‑linking issue. This practice—as evidenced by his actual editing behavior—is perfectly consistent with his statement on the RfC, where he wrote…

*Support. I've often wondered why we need to link to dates but I simply did it since it seems to be a tradition. I'm now not linking to dates at all if I don't feel the linked date article will provide further relevant details to the current article, which is almost all the time. --seav (talk) 03:43, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

If an editor’s actual editing practice regarding a sentence that had a date in it isn’t probative enough for you, and if his above vote statement on an RfC that used years in it as an example of what not to link isn’t clear enough evidence for what is in an editor’s mind, I suggest you go ask him again what is inside his head. Short of that, let’s stick with the available evidence, which is quite clear. OK?

Now, if you want to say that

1. Seav is all confused and didn’t understand the clear wording on the RfC, and he
2. overlooked the fact that the RfC wording used years as an example, and
3. he forgot to change his vote comment after you *clarified* it all for him, and
4. he actually likes to link dates, but
5. he actually forgets to do so when he edits

…well, you are entitled to your opinion. But it’s not passing my *grin test* here. Not by a long shot. And the next stretch of logic from you, that Seav’s alleged *confusion* (he doesn’t seem confused to me) somehow means the arbitrators ought to disenfranchise all the votes and arguments of all the other editors who’ve taken the time to participate in the RfC… well… that doesn’t pass my grin test either. Not by a long shot.

Finally, your assertion that WP:5P (the five pillars of Wikipedia) somehow supports your desire that we invalidate the RfCs is beyond absurd. One of the pillars is “Wikipedia has a code of conduct”, which says that consensus (which RfCs are a part of) is central to this, and that editors should “avoid edit wars”. Ahh… wouldn’t that be nice… Greg L (talk) 21:15, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Please stop saying "*grin test*" [sic]. It is starting to become annoying hearing something so meaningless so often. -- Earle Martin [^t/_c] 21:38, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

• No. If you want to argue facts, buck up (that’s another idiom). But I’ll thank you not to presume to tell me how I may think or express my thoughts here. The term “grin test” is not uncivil. Furthermore, it is not a misspelling so your “[sic]” is rather humorously in error. The definition of grin is here. And what the idiom *means*—it may be annoying (to you), but it is not meaningless—is “the most basic screening test for being remotely credible”. Greg L (talk) 21:56, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I didn't mention anything about civility, so we can ignore that non-point. Your use of asterisks in lieu of actual formatting is what merits "[sic]". And if it's hard for you to understand why your little phrase is "meaningless", try "valueless, pointless and a waste of bytes" to boot. It is of no utility to any other editor whatsoever, except as an indicator of your own inflated sense of self-importance. -- Earle Martin [^t/_c] 22:18, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh for pity's sake

Let's see. Over 442Kb of evidence, and over 816Kb of workshop. Hundreds upon hundreds of links. This little section above, addressed specifically to arbitrators, is so long that it is next to impossible to figure out exactly what the intended message is. Almost everyone posting on these two pages is usually a clear, concise communicator. What has come over you all?

Even for the most diligent amongst us, these pages have largely become unreadable; it would take at least 20 hours to move all the irrelevant commentary to the talk pages. Here's what I suggest: unless something absolutely brand new comes to light, don't add anything more to these pages. Instead, go through your own comments and strike out unnecessary ones or move them to the talk pages. Go back to your evidence and strike out anything that isn't actually evidence or move it to the talk page. This would actually be helpful in our reaching some conclusions. It strikes me as ironic that a group of people working diligently to develop standards for writing the encyclopedia have produced such a morass. Risker (talk) 22:02, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Will do. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:04, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

• Indeed; keep it simple. A total of 1227 words, right here. That sums up everything I want to say. Greg L (talk) 22:12, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Proposals by ErikTheBikeMan

Proposed principles

MoS a strong guideline

1) Too often does it come up that the manual of style is "only a guideline" in discussions where editors cannot agree on what style to use, though one or both of the proposals is against the MoS. If we wish to have a consistently formatted encyclopedia, we must make our Manual of Style more strongly binding than a guideline, though I don't want to go so far as proposing that it become policy, since that would give too little flexibility to specific cases where odd formats may be required.ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 05:31, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

This is unwise. The MoS reflects a small consensus amongst editors willing to participate in its maintenance/refinement over many months. It does not reflect the community consensus except in a handful of obvious situations. —Locke Cole • t • c 20:32, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Locke Cole, at one time there were Signpost Dispatches that alerted readers of changes to the Manual of Style—for example, Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-04-21/Dispatches. It may be time to revive a modified version of that. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:12, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

There's a chap who lived just up the road who once pointed out that A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds with which I must agree. -- Kendrick7^talk 05:58, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Per my comment on the talk page there are two aspects of the "only a guideline" idea which are completely different and are both important and should not be confused:

1. A MoS cannot cover all possibilities, therefore it is open to editors to use their discretion in special circumstances. However since this is a wiki, such should be few and far between, and maybe documented.
2. Editors are not required to write in accordance with the MoS, or indeed in an encylopedic tone, or to spell correctly. That is the nature of the wiki, that someone else will correct and improve. It would however be foolish to suggest that people should be allowed to deliberately introduce spelling errors, in the same way where an item of style is settled deliberately changing from that style (pace 1 above) is a Bad Thing. Rich Farmbrough, 09:15 14 February 2009 (UTC).

Whether or not to provide readers with links to our almanac pages, which ideally should provide historical context and satiate a reader's curiosity as to "what else was going on in the rest of the world around this time", isn't a mere question of style. It's a fundamental usability issue which isn't on the same level of spelling a building hold a stage "theater" or "theatre." -- Kendrick7^talk 17:56, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Spelling is hardly analagous or comparable to the style of an article. As for the "strong guideline" proposal, that's a completely ambiguous concept. Far better to make the Manual of Style a default policy (not a guideline of any sort) while specifically allowing editors of a particular article to make exceptions per local consensus. Tennis expert (talk) 09:23, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I concur with the sentiment expressed in the proposal. This is my position as well. I find these guidelines close to worthless. In any debate over style, any mention of MOS is just met with "but its only a guideline". Of course, there are to be room for exceptions, but there are also exceptions allowed from policies. So all this distinction between policies and guidelines is very confusing. Also for experienced editors as some of the discussions above clearly show. I mean, policies have "wide acceptance among editors and are considered a standard that, with rare exceptions, all users should follow". And guidelines "are considered more advisory than policies, with exceptions more likely to occur". This is so open for interpretation making it useless. In any disagreement, the one going against policy standards can always claim (or genuinly feel) that this is excatly a rare occasion making non-compliance with policy relevant. And when the disagreement touches on something that is covered by a guideline, anybody have an easy argument: "It's only a guideline." Therefore I think MOS should as a minimum be a policy (and generally that the policy versus guideline distinction is damaging for the project in the sense that people do not take guidelines serious at all).--HJensen, talk 09:35, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

My (expanded) personal opinion is that during the actual writing of the article, the MoS can be followed to whatever extent the author feels is necessary (to a reasonable extent). However, when a formatting/style dispute breaks out in and article, then I feel that the MoS should immediately be used as though it is policy to solve what is an otherwise pointless dispute. I'm going to post something similar to that below this. ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 17:14, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Anyone who holds this "personal opinion" is declaring an intent to be a disruptive bully. ErikTheBikeMan should be warned, if not sanctioned. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:26, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

As a practical reality, this is the way MOS and MOSNUM already work. I see no harm in finding a way to somehow memorialize the reality in wording. Now, what wording is the trick… Greg L (talk) 17:31, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

As a practical matter, MOSNUM does not work; that's why we're having this discussion at all. The only function it ever did serve is providing a bully pulpit for a handful of editors to get their way without engaging in discussion and consensus-building. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:23, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

• We will never have a consistently formatted encyclopedia as long as anyone can edit it. English usage varies, and editors will use different varieties.
  • By the same token, we are fairly consistent (typoes excluded) on those points on which English-speakers as a whole do agree, like ending sentences with punctuation (does MoS even mention this? It certainly hasn't been controversial).
  • The MoS is mostly provincial bloviation on those points on which anglophones do not agree. This is not a contribution to Wikipedia, and I urge ArbCom to reject all proposals encouraging it.
• This will only be a significant problem when we become a reliable source, offering accurate, sourced, information in clear prose, routinely avoiding copyright violation and libel.
• Even then, why? We are not consistent (and WP:MOS actively encourages this - in one of its few useful moments) on how to spell color; and yet the sky has not fallen. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:23, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

MoS in Dispute Resolution

2) While it is acknowledged that the Manual of Style is not policy and can essentially be ignored in the creation and writing of articles, whenever a dispute about the formatting or style of an article breaks out, the MoS should be used as though it is policy to end the dispute. When the MoS does not cover a certain possibility, the style that was originally used should be restored, unless there is consensus against the original style.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

It seems sensible when one looks at the outcome of ending the conflict. However, I wonder if this is realistic, since the end effect as a practical reality is that all content on MOS and MOSNUM would be policy. Since some guidelines aren’t written very well (overly broad, overly specific, incomplete, etc.), this doesn’t seem practical to me. Greg L (talk) 17:28, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Per my comments to suggestion #1 (MoS a strong guideline) above, this is unwise. The number of participants in discussions to revise/update/maintain the MoS is so small that it only reflects actual community consensus in a handful of obvious situations. —Locke Cole • t • c 20:36, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

But... it's only a guideline. Matters of style should not be dictated by policy. As the saying goes: There's no accounting for taste. You might as well try to decree that all Wikipedians wear purple on Thursdays. You'd just get endless edit wars over the wording of the decree, and not only over timezones and whether or not indigo is blue (q.v. Newton v. Von Bezold). That's what has already occurred at WP:MOSNUM as a result of trying to dictate a certain taste to the masses. -- Kendrick7^talk 17:36, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

WP:ACCESS is only a guideline (part of MOS), should we choose not to follow it either because it is a "[matter] of style"? Dabomb87 (talk) 17:48, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Editors are free to chose not to. Now, arguably, usability isn't a matter of style, so WP:ACCESS is misplaced in MOS. (That screen readers haven't figured out how to parse inline hyperlinks efficiently in this day and age is pretty ridiculous, imo.) -- Kendrick7^talk 18:17, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

• Strongly oppose. This would make nonsense of our long-standing distinction between policy and guideline; it would do so in defense of the mass of the Manual of Style which is original research by semi-literate and self-appointed language reformers. When it is not crankery, MoS is normally written as a guideline, in the knowledge that we have provided a rule of thumb to which there are exceptions.

Fortunately, ArbCom has normally declined to set policy, which this proposal effectively requests them to do; they should continue to do so - especially in the absence of evidence that any of MoS (and this would promote all of it) is consensus. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:07, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

• Shorter: On those rare occasions where MOS actually represents consensus of Wikipedians, this is not necessary nor useful; real consensus can enforce itself. On those occasions, MoS is likely to represent that consensus of English-speakers which constitutes correct English.
• The rest of the time, this is a device to evade WP:Consensus, which will certainly damage Wikipedia's harmony, and will often wind up worsening the prose of the encyclopedia. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:32, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

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:

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: