User:Tennis expert/Date delinking arbitration evidence: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 14:48, 14 April 2009

NOTE

The evidence on this subpage was moved here by the arbitration clerk per this thread.

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

Ohconfucius has been and continues to be incivil, disruptive, and unconstructive. He has called Tennis expert stupid. He has said that certain administrators are communists and Stalinists. He has said that certain people he disagrees with are terrorists. He has denegrated a contributor with "BIG YAWN" and another contributor with "ZZZZzzzz". He has accused Tennis expert of being a drama queen and a princess. He has accused a contributor of being defensive-aggressive. He has accused Tennis expert of being part of a clique. Concerning this arbitration case, Ohconfucius said, referring to Locke Cole and Tennis expert and with an obvious failure to assume good faith and in furtherance of his clique theory, "The shooting from behind Locke's and Tennis' trench is getting more intense if anything, not less. anyone who has ever dared to cross their paths is fair game. I don't think they have ever cared who gets caught in their crossfire, or how much damage is caught". Ohconfucius deleted my post on a third party's discussion page on January 20, 2009.

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

On the Arbitration workshop subpage, Ohconfucius has repeatedly changed his contributions "on the sly", without explicitly striking obsolete wording or in any other way making it clear that the current version of his contributions is not the original and also making it difficult to understand the responses of other editors to his original contributions, i.e., ruining the context of those responses. See (1), (2), (3), (4), (5), (6), (7), (8), (9), (10), (11), (12), (13), (14), (15), (16), (17), (18), (19), (20), (21), (22), (23), (24), (25), (26), and (27). This is disruptive and unconstructive behavior. Tennis expert (talk) 07:59, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

On the Arbitration workshop subpage, Ohconfucius accused Tennis expert of being a "Tennis warrior".

On November 25, 2008, Ohconfucius was blocked for, according to the blocking administrator's edit summary, "exceptional incivility" and edit warring. In response to the block, Ohconfucius was unrepentant and continued the incivility by saying, "The two serial stalkers/trolls/talk page spammers acting in concert in a desperate attempt to derail an on-going debate at WT:MOSNUM. I am acting under extreme provocation, but have remained as cool as I can in accordance with WP:Vandalism in removing unwanted remarks in userspace." "I feel this is rather trumped up. How is my behaviour 'far outside the bounds of what is acceptable'? and what incivility towards him? Oh, if you mean by that calling him a troll and spammer? Very droll indeed...." He then continued to edit war using his alternative Date delinker account. When he was caught and had the alternative account blocked, he tried to weasel his way out by saying, "Whaddaya mean? I have not been date-delinking since the block. Please check the articles in my edit history for yourself. I will gladly accept the block if you can show me one article which has had any primary/prominent dates removed by me in the last 24 hours." When the blocking administrator responded by saying "I care nothing for the prominence. Don't weasel.", Ohconfucius responded with an admission of his disruptive behavior, saying "What can I say? I didn't think there were any at all, but said that just to cover myself. Perhaps you were 'lucky' ;-)"

In December 2008, Ohconfucius stalked Locke Cole and Tennis expert to Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/NuclearWarfare. In response to a post there by Tennis expert that had nothing to do with Ohconfucius, Ohconfucius said, "Note: the above editor's primary agenda since his 'retirement' appears to be stopping the delinking of dates which was used solely for the purposes of date-autoformatting - a guideline which has been deprecated for some time. If you want a really good chortle, be sure to visit his talk page.". In response to a post there by Locke Cole that had nothing to do with Ohconfucius, Ohconfucius said, "Note: the above editor is a habitual edit-warrior whose vehemently opposes delinking of dates which was used solely for the purposes of date-autoformatting. ... How dare anyone who supports a guideline stand for administrator!" Those comments triggered a complaint on Ohconfucius's discussion page by a third party, "May I suggest that casting aspersions about the behaviour, history, and conduct of editors who oppose this RFA is not very good behaviour?" To which Ohconfucius replied, "Perhaps it may seem a bit unwise, but if you have been watching and been on the receiving end of the antics of the two editors, as I have, you may feel differently. They have been pulling out the stops to harass several of us who were delinking dates, and continue to indulge in forum-shopping.... I certainly felt that they are venting their anger against NW out of 'revenge' for opposing them at Wikipedia talk:AutoWikiBrowser#Controversial edits by Lightmouse|WT:AWB, and felt dutybound to say something in that forum. ... That others may feel my comments unappropriate is, well, too bad. As the saying goes 'it's a lousy job,but someone's gotta do it.'

More stalking behavior here by Ohconfucius, where he says some amazingly incivil and disruptive things to a third party.

When Sarcasticidealist complained to Lightmouse about the latter's edits to an article, Ohconfucius interjected, "In case nobody has noticed, the Category:Elections in Edmonton|whole category of 97 articles is WP:OWN|owned by User:Sarcasticidealist. That kind of explains why he is being so very defensive."

On February 8, 2009, calling Tennis expert a pig and a hypocrit on the arbitration workshop subpage.

On February 13, 2009, on the arbitration workshop subpage: (1) labeling Tennis expert a fanatic and intolerant; (2) saying that a proposed remedy is merely "a case of Don't Rain on My Parade"; (3) claiming that he cannot control his own disruptive behavior whenever his is "baited" by others.

On February 14, 2009, on Tennis expert's discussion page, Ohconfucius said this: "I am beginning to be concerned about your delicate mental balance. I would be extremely wary of repressing my anger in the way you seem to be doing. Gritting one's teeth as in the above message could be a store of problems for the future, as it could destabilise even a healthy psychology."

On February 14, 2009, on Locke Cole's discussion page, Ohconfucius said this in reference to Tennis expert: "Do you really think it's wise to be egging him on, implying he's doing good work, when deep down inside you know he's in the deep end? You should perhaps encourage him to take up yoga, qigong or somesuch. Please do not push him over the edge".

On February 14, 2009, on Arthur Rubin's discussion page, Ohconfucius said in reference to Tennis expert: "Don't you agree it's time to call time? Have either of you tried talking some sense into TE, before he has a nervous breakdown and/or doubles the size of the arbcom page again?"

On February 14, 2009, on Colonies Chris's discussion page, Ohconfucius said in reference to Tennis expert under a section header entitled "Extra! Extra! Read all bout it!": "I'm now extremely concerned that he may be repressing his anger, which may lead to severe problems down the line."

In a self-confessed effort to conceal evidence about his past date-delinking, incivil, and disruptive behavior, Ohconfucius had his discussion page archives deleted on February 10, 2009, including their contribution histories, making it impossible for anyone but administrators to see those archives or the contribution histories. This is merely the latest example of his ongoing disruption and blatant disrespect of this arbitration.

On February 16, 2009, on this evidence subpage, Ohconfucius again questioned the mental condition of Tennis expert and claimed that any evidence posted here by a lawyer is inherently suspect, without actually offering any evidence of either.

On February 17, 2009, on the arbitration committee discussion page, Ohconfucius accused an unnamed major contributor to the evidence subpage of having an "obsessive-compulsive disorder" and equated date delinking opposition to "religious fundamentalism".

Ohconfucius has repeatedly violated the date delinking/linking injunction, both before and after he was blocked the first time for doing so. See this on the arbitration enforcement page, this edit of the Politburo of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, this edit of the List of Prime Ministers of Haiti, second block of Ohconfucius for violating the injunction, and the list of 21 articles he date delinked, which precipitated the second block. While blocked the second time, he used various IP accounts to attempt to avoid the block, which resulted in a third block for two weeks. During that extended block, on March 17, 2009, he again attempted to evade the block with an anonymous IP account. Tennis expert (talk) 06:39, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

On February 21, 2009, Ohconfucius posted yet more incivility here.

On November 24, 2008, Ohconfucius (using his alternative Date delinker account) said this about Locke Cole on Seicer's discussion page: "Firstly, someone's being a nasty little snitch here. ... I assert that Cole is totally lacking in WP:AGF|good faith (and has been from the very start)."

Tennis expert (talk) 21:32, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Colonies Chris repeatedly has edit warred to delink dates and been incivil

Here are some examples (45 edits spread over 21 articles):

Alexandra Fusai (1), (2) (repeatedly unlinking "November 22, 1973")
Anna Kournikova (1), (2) (repeatedly unlinking "November 20, 2000")
Anna Smith (tennis) (1), (2), (3) (repeatedly unlinking "25 August 2008")
Casey Dellacqua (1), (2) (repeatedly unlinking "July 28, 2008" and "September 29, 2008")
Christine Truman (1), (2) (repeatedly unlinking "January 16, 1941")
Debbie Graham (1), (1) (repeatedly unlinking "August 25, 1970")
Flavia Pennetta (1), (2) (repeatedly unlinking "25 February 1982")
Guillermo Vilas: (1), (2)
Jelena Dokic (1), (2) (repeatedly unlinking "August 19, 2002.")
Jill Craybas (1), (2) (repeatedly unlinking "July 4, 1974")
Judy Tegart Dalton (1), (2) (repeatedly unlinking "December 12, 1937")
Kelly Liggan (1), (2), (3) (repeatedly unlinking "February 5, 1979")
Lesley Turner Bowrey (1), (2) (repeatedly unlinking "August 16, 1942")
Marion Bartoli: (1), (2), (3)
Mats Wilander: (1), (2)
Mel Purcell: (1), (2)
Roscoe Tanner (1), (2) (repeatedly unlinking "October 15, 1951")
Stan Smith (1), (2) (repeatedly unlinking "December 14, 1946")
Stephanie Rottier (1), (2) (repeatedly unlinking "January 22, 1974")
Tatiana Panova (1), (2) (repeatedly unlinking "August 13, 1976")
Wilmer Allison (1), (2) (repeatedly unlinking "December 8, 1904")

Tennis expert (talk) 22:30, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

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) 23:18, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

On April 14, 2009, Colonies Chris said this in response to a proposal to delete a disruptive user subpage belonging to Greg L: "Or could it just be that we find it a useful page and object to this vexatious attempt to delete it? Of course you'd prefer to nominate it for deletion without telling any of the people who use it. Go away and take your spiteful paranoid accusations with you." Tennis expert (talk) 11:34, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Dabomb87 repeatedly has edit warred to delink dates

Here are some examples (117 edits spread over 37 articles):

Ana Betancourt: (1), (2), (3) (repeatedly unlinking two dates)
Ann Kiyomura: (1), (2)
Carly Gullickson: (1), (2), (3) (repeatedly unlinking various dates and years)
Casey Dellacqua: (1), (2), (3), (4), (5)
Catherine Hagel: (1), (2), (3), (4) (repeatedly unlinking various dates and years)
Christina Fusano: (1), (2), (3), (4)
Clement Atlee: (1), (2), (3), (4), (5)
Donald McGill: (1), (2), (3) (repeatedly unlinking two dates)
Edna Parker: (1), (2) (repeatedly unlinking a year)
Elizabeth Needham: (1), (2), (3) (repeatedly unlinking various dates)
Emily Hewson: (1), (2), (3), (4) (repeatedly unlinking various dates)
Evonne Goolagong: (1), (2), (3)
Gabriel Fauré: (1), (2), (3) (repeatedly unlinking two dates)
Hurricane Allen: (1), (2), (3)
Hurricane Carla: (1), (2), (3)
Hurricane Fifi-Orlene: (1), (2), (3) (repeatedly unlinking various dates)
Jamal Sutton: (1), (2)
James Lucas: (1), (2), (3), (4) (repeatedly unlinking various dates)
Jessica Moore (tennis): (1), (2), (3), (4) (repeatedly unlinking various dates)
Josephine Kablick: (1), (2), (3), (4) (repeatedly unlinking years)
Julie Coin: (1), (2), (3), (4) (repeatedly unlinking various dates)
Karl Popper: (1), (2)
Lazare Ponticelli: (1), (2), (3), (4) (repeatedly unlinking various dates)
List of the verified oldest men: (1), (2) (repeatedly unlinking numerous dates)
List of the verified oldest people: (1), (2) (repeatedly unlinking numerous dates)
Maria Sharapova: (1), (2) (repeatedly unlinking several dates)
Martina Hingis: (1), (2) (repeatedly unlinking numerous dates)
Mel Parnell: (1), (2), (3) (repeatedly unlinking various dates)
Ramsay MacDonald: (1), (2), (3) (repeatedly unlinking numerous dates)
Robert Ssejjemba: (1), (2), (3)
Roscoe Tanner: (1), (2), (3)
Steve Shak: (1), (2), (3) (repeatedly unlinking various dates)
USS Monitor: (1), (2), (3), (4) (repeatedly unlinking numerous dates)
Vietnam Veterans Memorial: (1), (2), (3) (repeatedly unlinking numerous dates)
Vultee Aircraft: (1), (2), (3) (repeatedly unlinking various dates)
Winston Churchill: (1), (2), (3), (4), (5) (repeatedly unlinking numerous dates)
Worteh Sampson: (1), (2) (repeatedly unlinking "25 June 1981")

Tennis expert (talk) 07:55, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Notice this disruptive and conspiratorial thread involving Dabomb87, Ohconfucius, Tony1, and SkyWalker. Tennis expert (talk) 21:38, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

HJensen repeatedly has edit warred to delink dates

Here is the list (16 edits spread over 5 articles):
Alexander Vladimirovich Volkov: (1), (2).
Guillermo Vilas: (1), (2), (3), (4).
Maria Sharapova: (1), (2)
Mats Wilander:(1), (2), (3), (4), (5).
Novak Djokovic: (1), (2), (3).
Tennis expert (talk) 21:17, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Most, if not all, of my edits were good faith applications of the MOS at the time. All of my edits have edit summaries that explain this. All are reverted by Tennis Expert, sometimes beginning with a, by him, unexplained edit. So, I cannot see how these few edits can in any way be considered edit warring.--HJensen, talk 14:48, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

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

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?".

Here are some examples of his date-delinking edit warring (31 edits spread over 15 articles):

Anna McCune Harper: (1), (2)
Billie Jean King: (1), (2), (3)
Bill Johnston: (1), (2)
Bobby Riggs: (1), (2)
Ellen Hansell: (1), (2)
Francesca Schiavone: (1), (2)
Hurricane Allen: (1), (2)
Jeanne Arth: (1), (2)
Jérôme Inzerillo: (1), (2)
Joe Hunt: (1), (2)
Juliette Atkinson: (1), (2)
Phil Dent: (1), (2)
Rosemary Casals: (1), (2)
Roy Emerson: (1), (2)
Tennis: (1), (2)

Tennis expert (talk) 22:33, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

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.

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

Here are some examples of his date-delinking edit warring (136 edits spread over 45 articles):

Tennis expert (talk) 21:58, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

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.

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

Here are some examples of his date-delinking edit warring (134 edits spread over 53 articles):

Andriy Medvedev: (1), (2), (3)
Ann Kiyomura: (1), (2)
Anna McCune Harper: (1), (2), (3)
Barbara Jordan (tennis): (1), (2), (3)
Bernard Mitton: (1), (2)
Bill Johnston: (1), (2)
Billie Jean King: (1), (2), (3), (4)
Bobby Riggs: (1), (2), (3)
Brian Teacher: (1), (2), (3)
Carling Bassett-Seguso: (1), (2), (3)
Casey Dellacqua: (1), (2), (3), (4)
Christine Truman: (1), (2), (3)
David Rikl: (1), (2)
Don Budge: (1), (2), (3)
Eddie Dibbs: (1), (2), (3)
Ellen Hansell: (1), (2), (3)
Evonne Goolagong: (1), (2)
Françoise Durr: (1), (2), (3)
Fred Alexander: (1), (2)
Guillermo Vilas: (1), (2), (3)
Helen Jacobs: (1), (2)
Helen Wills Moody: (1), (2), (3)
Hurricane Fifi-Orlene: (1), (2)
Jamal Sutton: (1), (2)
Jessica Moore (tennis): (1), (2), (3), (4)
Jill Craybas: (1), (2)
John Bromwich: (1), (2)
Judy Tegart Dalton: (1), (2)
Juliette Atkinson: (1), (2), (3)
Karin Knapp: (1), (2)
Lesley Turner Bowrey: (1), (2)
Mabel Cahill: (1), (2)
Magnus Norman: (1), (2), (3)
Mara Santangelo: (1), (2)
Margaret Court: (1), (2), (3)
Margaret Osborne duPont: (1), (2)
Maria Bueno: (1), (2)
Marion Bartoli: (1), (2), (3)
Martina Navratilova: (1), (2)
Mary Carter Reitano: [(1), (2)
Mathilde Johansson: (1), (2), (3)
Mats Wilander: (1), (2)
Maureen Connolly: (1), (2), (3)
Mel Purcell: (1), (2), (3)
Michael Jeremiasz: (1), (2)
Nancye Wynne Bolton: (1), (2)
Philipp Kohlschreiber: (1), (2), (3)
Robert Ssejjemba: (1), (2)
Steffi Graf: (1), (2), (3)
Stan Smith: (1), (2), (3), (4)
Steve Shak: (1), (2)
Tatiana Panova: (1), (2)
Tennis: (1), (2)

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.

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

Here are some examples of his date-delinking edit warring (131 edits spread over 51 articles):

Ana Betancourt: (1), (2)
Andrea Villarreal: (1), (2), (3)
Angéle de la Barthe: (1), (2), (3)
Anna McCune Harper: (1), (2), (3)
Battle of Midway: (1), (2)
Bill Johnston: (1), (2)
Cédric Pioline: (1), (2)
Christine Truman: (1), (2)
Corrado Gini: (1), (2)
Don Budge: (1), (2), (3)
Ellen Hansell: (1), (2), (3)
Emilio Sanchez: (1), (2)
Evonne Goolagong: (1), (2), (3).
Fred Alexander: (1), (2), (3)
Emilio Sánchez: (1), (2)
Harry Hopman: (1), (2), (3), (4), (5)
Helen Jacobs: (1), (2)
Hurricane Carla: (1), (2)
Hurricane Fifi-Orlene: (1), (2), (3)
Isabel Le Brun de Pinochet: (1), (2)
Jeanne Arth: (1), (2)
John Bromwich: (1), (2), (3)
John Sutton (rugby league): (1), (2)
John Tamanika: (1), (2)
Juliette Atkinson: (1), (2)
Karl Marx: (1), (2)
Karl Popper: (1), (2), (3), (4), (5)
Kenyon College: (1), (2)
Kim Clijsters: (1), (2)
Laurie Brett: (1), (2)
Lazare Ponticelli: (1), (2)
Lee Rogers (baseball): (1), (2)
Lesley Turner Bowrey: (1), (2)
Linky Boshoff: (1), (2), (3)
Louise Brough: (1), (2), (3)
Luke Stuart: (1), (2)
Manon Bollegraf: (1), (2), (3)
Margaret Court: (1), (2), (3)
Maria Sharapova: (1), (2)
Martina Hingis: (1), (2)
Martina Navratilova: (1), (2)
Mary Browne: (1), (2), (3), (4)
Michael Jeremiasz: (1), (2)
Nova Scotia: (1), (2), (3)
Ole Clausen Mørch: (1), (2), (3)
Oliver Campbell: (1), (2)
Paul Haarhuis: (1), (2), (3)
Roscoe Tanner: (1), (2), (3), (4)
Stanley Mitchell: (1), (2), (3)
William I of England: (1), (2)
Wilmer Allison: (1), (2), (3), (4)

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.

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."

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

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. Here are some examples (954 edits spread over 154 articles so far):

These edits were part of a pattern of mutual interaction and support by these editors to impose their date delinking agenda

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. For instance:

a) Tony1 said on 2008Olympian's discussion page: "Hi Olympian. Your contributions on the date-delinking issue are well-judged and most welcome in the current efforts to improve a major aspect of WP's formatting. My advice is to disregard the threatening post above."

b) Tony1 asked Ohconfucius to oversee Tony1's talk page. Ohconfucius occasionally treated Tony1's discussion page as if it were his own.

c) Tony1 said on SkyWalker's discussion page: "I see that we occasionally leapfrog over each other there. You're doing good work, I must say; one of the most valuable aspects of running the script is educative—editors see the links to MOSNUM and CONTEXT, which they may never heard of before. Word is spreading!"

d) Tony1 gave detailed instructions to SkyWalker on the latter's discussion page about how to use the date-delinking script and saying, "Biographical articles are a sure bet for linked dates. You may also wish to go through whole categories of topics that are of concern to you.".

e) This thread entitled "Watch your back" involving Ohconfucius, SkyWalker, Dabomb87, and Tony1 on the latter's discussion page makes it undeniable that these editors were working in concert concerning date-delinking. "You could be next." "I feel greatly honoured to be in such esteemed company." "Who the heck cares. I keep on delinking the dates." "Indeed. Threats, bullying and gratuitous orders flung around like confetti should be flushed down the pan immediately." "It seems to be an increasingly desperate campaign, picking us off one by one. It's not working." "Yea desperate campaign, desperate people."

f) Tony1 said on The Rambling Man's discussion page concerning the Cedric Pioline article: "I saw your revert just a few minutes ago and added a note at the talk of Cedric Pioline asking T F to put his case. I've let user Maedin know. I think the best strategy is to gather together those at Tennis WikiProject who are on board." "T F" was short for "Tennis Fanatic", Tony1's derogatory term for Tennis expert.

g) Tony1 said on HJensen's discussion page: "Please let me know whether you'd like to install the script that semi-automatically removes date autoformatting and other trivial links. You seem to be doing good work, but manually."

h) Tony1 said on Dabomb87's discussion page: "I see that Mandrax has sniffed out this location and is stirring up trouble by reverting back to the date links and autoformatting."

i) Colonies Chris said on SkyWalker's discussion page: "Hi Skywalker - just to let you know, Tennis expert undid a lot of your unlinkings, and I've subsequently repeated the unlinking exercise, in an attempt to bring these articles in line with the MoS, but he's now busying himself undoing my work on those articles too."

j) Colonies Chris said on Dabomb87's discussion page: "Hi Dabomb87 - just to let you know, Tennis expert undid your unlinkings, and I've repeated the unlinkings, in an attempt to bring these articles in line with the MoS, but he's now busying himself reverting my work on those articles too."

k) Dabomb87 said on Colonies Chris's discussion page, with the edit summary of "lay low on the tennis articles": "Let Tennis expert stay in his bubble of non-compliance. When he tries to bring an article to GA or FA, then we can justify the delinkings (comply with MOS) without getting into a long, drawn out argument. For now IMHO, the best bet is to let him relink the tennis articles and only delink the well-known articles, i.e. Maria Sharapova, Andre Agassi, Andy Roddick, Rafael Nadal, Roger Federer, the Williams sisters, etc. The present delink-revert cycle is getting us nowhere."

l) See this thread on Colonies Chris's discussion page involving Dabomb87, Tony1, and Colonies Chris about their determination to continue their date delinking activities.

m) Dabomb87 warned Tony1 on the latter's discussion page that an edit warring complaint concerning his date delinking activities could be imminent.

n) Dabomb87 congratulated Tony1 on the latter's discussion page about being quick to revert date relinking.

o) See this thread on Tony1's discussion page where Tony1, Ohconfucius, and Dabomb87 quickly express support for each other concerning date delinking and where Tony1 specifically admits that "The people involved are in continual contact about such matters as this".

p) Dabomb87 complained to The Rambling Man on the latter's discussion page, "Looks like they (Tennis expert and Locke Cole) want to pick us off one at a time, and I'm first on the hitlist." In an expression of solidarity with Dabomb87 and The Rambling Man, Ohconfucius replied on the latter's discussion page, ""WP is a big place. Those paramilitaries are outnumbered by official forces."

q) In a post on Tony1's discussion page, SkyWalker said, "User:Lightmouse is linking the dates?. I thought he was on our side?"

r) In a post on Tony1's discussion page, SkyWalker said, "Wow tony. After delinking the dates tennis expert and his crew is reverting and linking dates.... If i may ask how long do you think we have keep on delinking the same page over and over and over again?"

s) In a post directed at Tennis expert on Tony1's discussion page, Tony1 said, "Remember that your actions have upset quite a few people, including Colonies Chris, The Rambling Man and me. We believe that you went far beyond your brief as a member of the WikiProject Tennis, or of any editor, in conducting a campaign against our reforms. This has lost you respect among many editors, and you must expect that people will treat you differently because of this."

t) In a post on Tony1's discussion page, Dabomb87 said, "Hi Tony, could you explain to a couple of editors why linking years, especially on a Featured Article, is not helpful and goes against a definite consensus. I would do it myself, but one of the editors seems determined to disregard whatever I tell him."

u) Tony1 said on SkyWalker's discussion page: "Tennis expert is stalking us and reverting our delinkings of dates and date fragments...."

v) In October and November 2008, The Rambling Man and HJensen engaged in a group "us versus Tennis expert" discussion on the tennis Wikiproject talk page.

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

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 using hyperbole and exaggeration, denigrating the work of editors, and 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." [1]

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." [2]

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." [3]

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." [4]

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." [5]

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." [6]

g) Post directed at Tennis expert on Tony1's discussion page: "Haven't you retired yet? ... Enjoy retirement." [7]

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." [8]

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." [9]

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." [10]

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...." [11]

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." [12]

m) On his own discussion page in response to a post from Alonsornunez: "I've seen with considerable sadness the goings-on in various Tennis Wikiproject articles. It seems inconceivable to me that such a large project with so many keen contributors cannot produce a single decent article i.e. featured between them. Various edit wars and continual reversions have left the articles in very poor states, in particular the many biographies which go into absolute minutiae, paying no heed whatsoever to the summary style required of an encyclopedic article. I have also tried my hand at driving a few of these articles in the right direction but have myself been warned that changing articles from their current state breaks some kind of current consensus. While I will continue to try editing one or two articles, I fear that my attempts to produce a featured-quality article will soon be thwarted. So, in answer to your question, sure, I'll have a look but until the various RFCs, requests for mediation etc have any kind of resolution, I think most of us are wasting our time." [13]

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." [14]

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?" [15]

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." [16]

"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." [17]

"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." [18]

"Your edits prevent any tennis bio from ever becoming featured. You know that. Please stop." [19]

"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." [20]

"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." [21]

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." [22]

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?" [23]

Lightmouse ignored Tennis expert's September 2008 complaint about Lightbot's date delinking edits of tennis articles

On September 6, 2008, on Lightmouse's discussion page, Tennis expert said this: "Please figure out a way to at least temporarily stop Lightbot from changing tennis-related articles. A discussion is ongoing in the tennis project about date linking. Lightbot should refrain from doing anything until that discussion has ended. Thanks." The request was ignored by Lightmouse. Lightmouse also reverted, without explanation, the "stop" that Tennis expert had put on Lightbot's homepage only 43 minutes earlier. Lightmouse then archived the request 4 days later.

@@ Line 134: / Line 134: @@
 [[Novak Djokovic]]: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Novak_Djokovic&diff=241972012&oldid=241945397 (1)], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Novak_Djokovic&diff=242084693&oldid=242070936 (2)], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Novak_Djokovic&diff=242733649&oldid=242672180 (3)].<br>
 [[User:Tennis expert|Tennis expert]] ([[User talk:Tennis expert|talk]]) 21:17, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
+: Most, if not all, of my edits were good faith applications of the MOS at the time. All of my edits have edit summaries that explain this. All are reverted by Tennis Expert, sometimes beginning with a, by him, unexplained edit. So, I cannot see how these few edits can in any way be considered edit warring.--'''[[User:HJensen|HJensen]]''', ''[[User_talk:HJensen|talk]]'' 14:48, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 ==[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/SkyWalker SkyWalker] repeatedly has edit warred to delink dates, including blind reversions that harmed Wikipedia==