Jump to content

User talk:Ryan Postlethwaite

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 154.20.131.164 (talk) at 05:54, 29 April 2009 (→‎Pre-Mediation Member). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

User:Mixwell/scrolling

Archive

Dates:

Sathya Sai Baba article

Sathya Sai Baba is a living person, who lives in a small city called "Puttaparthi", in South India, state of Andhra Pradesh. Thousands of people gather everyday to see him, in a place called Sai Kulwant Hall, inside a complex called "Prasanthi Nilayam", where Sai Baba's residence is located. This people believe he is a saint.

On the other hand, there is a group of people who believes he is a criminal.

So, we have two radically opposite points-of-view.

The article in Wikipedia is being used by the group with the "anti-Baba" point-of-view to do theirs propaganda. This group is engaged in a strong effort to avoid the article to be a truly representative of NPOV.

Currently, the article suffers from:
- lack of NPOV
- offends Basic Human Dignity
- suffers from Information Supression

Link to the article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sathya_Sai_Baba

In the brief description of the case, above, I myself have assumed a neutral point-of-view.

Below, a link to my first comment about the article. There, I write with my own POV feelings, but using NPOV arguments, so neutral editors could follow and, with common sense, agree: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sathya_Sai_Baba#What_if_Sai_Baba_is_really_an_Avatar.3F

But, after that, I found many unpleasant things:
- trying to edit results in "removal of large-scale vandalism", and the edit vanishes from the history; (thus, the history itself is biased)
- there is an editor, "White adept", acting as policeman to maintain biased, not-NPOV status quo;
- there is another user, "Andries", faking a positive POV; (thus, you are mislead)
- their combined actions drive anybody who arrives to read all negative-POV references;
- also, they managed a pack of ready-made arguments that classifies the huge amount of positive-POV references as "not reliable";
- making, in this way, extremely difficult, if not impossible, to restore or improve the article's quality.

This article constitutes a very serious issue for Wikipedia itself. Millions of people around the world support Sai Baba's efforts (six million, in the negative-POV estimate; from 50 to 100 millions, in the positive-POV estimate). The current article is an offense not only to Sai Baba himslef, but also to all of them.

Thank you.

Moved from your userpage

I tried to use the mediation window but couldn't. My concern is simply that the article "Pro Se Litigation in the United States" is missing essential information. Most particularly the Rules of Conduct for U.S. Judges and its changes in March 2009 that affect pro se litigants. This information has been deleted and should be available to the public

The current code of conduct for United States Judges requires "A judge should accord to every person who is legally interested in a proceeding, or the person's lawyer full right to be heard according to law". On March 17, 2009, a new code, going into effect on July 1, 2009, was announced requiring "A judge should accord to every person who has a legal interest in a proceeding, and that person’s lawyer, the full right to be heard according to law." The wording was changed from a person "or" their lawyer to a person "and" their lawyer.[8][9][10]

Cooling my jets

Hello, Ryan Postlethwaite. You have new messages at Greg L's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Request for Mediation

I filed a request for mediation (Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/Li_Yong_(Tang_Dynasty)). According to the instructions, the main request for mediation page would link to it automatically within about five minutes, but so far I'm not seeing it. Can you look into it? Thanks. --Nlu (talk) 17:33, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strange, the bot is meant to list it but it hasn't. I've gone ahead and listed it manually - hope that helps! Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 18:36, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 20 April 2009

Delivered by SoxBot II (talk) at 19:11, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy note: my request of ArbCom about timing

Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard#.22Dates.22_case_and_temporary_injunction:_likely_timing.3F. Tony (talk) 09:04, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Tony, I'll take a look in a bit. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 18:40, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Date linking poll implications

Can you trot over to Wikipedia talk:Linking#Remove dubious. I'm almost certain the edit should be made, but I want to check with you so I'm 100% certain. My reading of the poll on when to link dates, in which I did not participate, would lead me to believe it is no longer dubious to state dates should generally not be linked. But I will defer to your opinion, if it differs. Hiding T 10:53, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for bringing this to my attention - I've commented on the talk page. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 18:40, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers pal. Hiding T 19:30, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Date autoformatting

Ryan, I strongly disagree with your view on how to handle the results of date auto formatting. Yes the community has rejected most date links, but the way forward should not be mass bot edits when small software changes would have the exact same effect (while keeping auto formatting in place). I suggest contacting the devs and asking them to remove the links currently output unless the date is prefixed with a colon. For example, [[April 1]] [[2001]] would produce an auto formatted date, but no link. [[:April 1]] [[2001]] would produce an auto formatted date and links to April 1 and 2001. Such a software change would have the effect of immediately unlinking all dates, while maintaining the auto formatting. Further, it would provide a way for intentional date links to be made. The devs could then work to address the perceived shortcomings in the current auto formatting system without having bots/scripts performing massive syntax removal of the auto formatting that's already available. —Locke Cole • t • c 11:44, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but I disagree. A good majority of the community (I think it was 40% supported autoformatting against 55% against) opposed autoformatting - this means we should waste no more time on it and given that the majority of dates are no longer going to be linked, the current system won't work as intended. This means that we need to move quickly to remove the current autoformatting syntax (which in the case of many of the links simply means removing the square bracket). We have a good list of articles that will be broken when dynamic dates is turned off - a bot run to fix these articles up will quickly enable us to make the change and for everyone to get on with more important tasks here. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 18:51, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's quite clear that people don't want to complicate things further. The main impression I got from the RFC was that simplification was a key desire: for both the "opposers" (complete removal of square bracket links for autoformatting), or for a portion of "supporters" (streamlining through the currently hypothetical "son of autoformatting"). Further complexities to provide a function currently used by a minority is not desirable. Also, it would be inconsistent as most users would not seek to apply it when they do not get the benefit. Sillyfolkboy (talk) (edits) 21:51, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, and any system that uses something more complicated than [[November 1]] [[2008]] will just be more fodder for the "we're making the syntax too complicated crowd". Ryan, again, the community rejected LINKS from dates, not the formatting. PLEASE don't confuse the syntax used with the functionality exposed by the software. The simpler and easier way forward is to ask the devs to turn off links for dates, something that should be remarkably simple to do. Please ask Brion or Werdna if you won't believe me. —Locke Cole • t • c 23:08, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well part of my point was that actually linking dates would be harder. I imagine IP and new users would find it quite difficult given that no other links would work in the same way as a date would (i.e. " [[: " links) - thus the complexity. My other point is that autoformatting would be inconsistent in its usage: most users will not automatically place the square brackets. As a non-preferenced user, I myself will not go to the minor hassle of adding the brackets, as it is of no gain to the vast majority of the readership. I can fully understand your reasoning and desire for autoformatting, but the RFC showed it has much opposition. I just don't think it is an appropriate use of our time unless we activate it for all our users. Sillyfolkboy (talk) (edits) 23:46, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Where do you get the idea they didn't reject the formatting from? 55% opposed autoformatting whilst 40 % supported. To me, that shows the majority of the community don't want autoformatting. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 06:30, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well spotted, but please note that numbers and concepts such as "majority" don't influence Locke_Cole's posts (hence the reason we are still going with this issue). It should be very simple now: use bots to remove square brackets (in order to remove the linking syntax), globally disable date auto-formatting/linking (in case people start to re-add the square brackets), and then let the pro-formatters (the 40%) argue amongst themselves so as to propose a system of auto-formatting that can then be put before the community for (possible) consensus. Why are we waiting so long to rid WP of the idiotic date linking/formatting system that should never have been foisted on the community in the first place?  HWV258  06:52, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, "well spotted". Apparently WP:CON is no longer relevant. As long as your position has a majority apparently the minority opinion can simply be ignored outright.. way to go Ryan. How do you edit Wikipedia and become an admin/clerk/mediator without even the most basic understanding of how Wikipedia works? If this goes forward, please endeavor to change WP:CON, as it is very misleading right now. —Locke Cole • t • c 14:10, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We work on consensus, not votes. There is no consensus to abandon auto formatting, there is a consensus to abandon date links, but that literally means the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/November_1">November 1</a> variety, not the actual markup that also supports auto formatting. Wikipedia is not a democracy. —Locke Cole • t • c 14:10, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Have you forgotten that there is clear consensus against any kind of linking for autoformatting purposes? Dabomb87 (talk) 21:33, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That same RFC also showed majority support for "some form of auto formatting". The first question was about dates being linked purely for auto formatting, and if we take this literally, we can remove the linking in software (thus leaving dates marked up, but not linked). We can resolve the issues the community has with the current auto formatting system, and it's win-win for everyone. Far better than ignoring such a large portion of the community that seems to place value on auto formatting.. —Locke Cole • t • c 03:27, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • (outdent). Ryan is quite familiar with WP:CONSENSUS, Locke. What we’ve got here is a galactic-level ability on your part to read whatever you want into things. Do you see anywhere on WP:CON where it specifies the vote percentage required to define what constitutes a consensus? There isn’t one. We have now had an RfC that
  1. had been fairly shepherded with arbitration oversight to ensure a lack of bias,
  2. had been very widely advertised to solicit a wide diversity of expert input,
  3. there had been a large degree of input from the community, and
  4. the views of the majority had a consistent opinion that even registered editors should see precisely the same content that we make I.P. users see and that date formats just isn’t worth all the damned fuss.
Those four attributes are sufficient to establish a consensus.

Ryan and the arbitrators understand that this dispute mustn’t be allowed to rage until the heat death of the universe. Notwithstanding your protestations that the RfC results were closer than you would prefer, they don’t see it that way. Sure the community is divided in its opinion. But the decision apparently is going to be that the minority is not going to prevail; the clear majority will, and that’s the best we can do.

The simple reality is that some editors can get so wrapped up in achieving a certain desired outcome, the objective becomes part of their Wikipedian identity. Individuals like this can find fault in everything and anything that is contrary to their wishes. Life goes on. The rest of the community has had a belly full of the wikidrama surrounding this issue and wants to get on with normal editing. Greg L (talk) 16:40, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • P.S. As regards the linking portion of the RfC: The consensus on that point is exceedingly clear. The double-brackets are, for the most part, toast. 16:52, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
You have a slim majority and are attempting to use it to silence the minority. That's not how we work here, at least it's not how we used to work. Apparently times have changed, and maybe it really is time for me to move on. The environment here is too hostile to reason and logic, and more accepting of hysteria, conjecture and innuendo. My ability to understand this discussion is in no way flawed, I posit that it is you and others who believe this view is correct that have the flawed point of view here. —Locke Cole • t • c 19:25, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"...hysteria, conjecture and innuendo" and "The environment here is too hostile"?—will the disingenuity never end? Please note user Locke_Cole's recent (strenuous and persistent) allegations of sock-puppetry involving Tony1 and myself—followed by his "...I withdraw my claim of sockpuppetry" (contained in this post). If Locke_Cole got that so badly wrong (not to mention his unrepentant support in the UC_Bill/Sapphic debacle), one can only wonder about what else his judgement has been seriously flawed lately.  HWV258  22:44, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Locke, we have a clear majority (not a “slim” one) and are certainly not trying to “silence” the minority. Everyone associated with this latest RfC has done our best. And it has reached an end with a clear majority in opposition to autoformatting and to most dates being linked. Wikidrama simply can not go on forever. You want it to. But it won’t. Quoting Wikipedia:Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass:

There comes a point in every debate on Wikipedia where the debate itself has come to a natural end. You may have won the debate, you may have lost the debate, or you may have found yourself in an honourable draw. At this point you should drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass.

As for your positing that I, the rest of our team, Ryan, and the ArbCom members are the ones who have a “flawed point of view”, I respond as follows: Thank you so very much; your point speaks volumes as to why a truly scandalous number of man-hours were wasted on this issue. As to your maybe it really is time for me to move on, well… if and when you do, have a nice life. Greg L (talk) 22:42, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Guys, please don't start belittling Locke Cole - he's discussing in good faith and he has a right to an opinion on the results of the poll (the sock allegations should probably stop unless there's serious evidence). I disagree with him rather strongly, but that's no reason to start making nasty, sarcastic comments against him. Please don't antagonise him or the situation further. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 22:48, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is a slim majority. And it is being used here to try and silence a rather sizable minority. This works in politics, but it should not work here (where we operate through consensus). A better way forward is to find something that addresses as many of the concerns of those who oppose auto formatting (such as it also resulting in links to date articles) as well as the concerns of those who support it (such as fixing how it works for anonymous editors, and perhaps making linking an optional feature). We can only realize these compromises through reasonable discussion which doesn't take an "I want to win and get my way, exactly, with no compromise" approach to things. That sort of attitude never helps. —Locke Cole • t • c 03:27, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • To be absolutely clear here, the percentages keep getting tossed around, but strictly by the numbers: 287 editors opposing auto formatting are being used to make the encyclopedia less desirable for the 209 who support such a system. Is that really what we're going to do here Ryan? Ignore, entirely, the views of 209 editors to give 287 editors what they want? Is that how consensus works now? I think we can do better, and I think we owe it to the 209 who supported such a system to try harder to find some common ground here before calling the whole thing off. —Locke Cole • t • c 03:31, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Too little, too late Locke_Cole. The handful who have pushed the miracle technical cure have had months to come up with something. Not only have they not managed to even start a functional specification, but the only coding progress (aka demo) has been summarily deleted by a particularly nasty editor (now blocked and defunct). In addition, there is now doubt as to whether a technical solution can ever be 100% effective in handling the dates found on WP. The only way forward is to undo the current hideous date linking/formatting system (something that was never introduced with "consensus"). The two sides should now diverge: one side to remove the current date/linking and formatting; the other side to begin the process of trying to specify a date linking/formatting scheme that can be put in front of the community (for consensus this time if you please).  HWV258  03:43, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Go ahead and ask Brion Vibber or Tim Starling for a "functional specification" for MediaWiki. You won't get one. That is some odd obsession of yours, and as someone who has been involved in professional software development, I can tell you that not all changes require a specification before implementation. They do require some agreement about what the desired outcome is, but most devs are fully capable of working out the details on their own. Besides, we did work on the so-called "Son of auto formatting" specification subpage at MOSNUM, though nothing ever seemed to be enough for you (and this despite the fact that it was clearly unnecessary). As for "too little, too late", that has been the mantra since last October when I joined this discussion (it was originally said by Tony though, claiming he'd already exhausted the technical solution path, when in fact we had people willing to work with MOSNUM to try and come up with a solution that was at least workable to all as a compromise). —Locke Cole • t • c 04:24, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmm, so a specification before programming is "some odd obsession" of mine? Just incredible. I'm convinced that both Brion Vibber and Tim Starling would prefer to work with a specification than without (as does any professional programmer). I'll tell you what though: the current date formatting/linking "solution" is a classic case of software implementation without agreed specifications—a shambles. The so-called specification for 'son of autoformatting' to which you refer remains as a sad reminder of the indecision around this topic (and to tell the truth, I was the only one pushing for a comprehensive specification—purely so that the community could be aware of what it was getting this time). I'm not overly convinced we need a "compromise" solution at this time (and according to the RfC results, neither does the WP editing community). Let's wipe the slate clean and then see what can be put before the community for a consensus decision—later.  HWV258  05:05, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute on Falun Gong

Hello Ryan Postlethwaite. I was wondering if you can comment on the issue here.[1]. Since editing of the article is largely between me and another involved party, I was wondering if ad admin can comment on the dispute, and whether it complies with NPOV, RS policies and the arbcom sanction [2].--PCPP (talk) 14:09, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I promised myself to stay away from the FG pages some months ago. Silly me, walked straight into another polemic. Duh!

    I gave up FG because I found myself constantly at war with fascist devotees and other transient cranks that I felt completely squeezed by both groups. The editor referred to by PCPP is argumentative but remains polite at all times. However, another editor, Dilip rajeev, a single-purpose FG account, aggressively removes any {{NPOV}} tags (and any information he does not like) which are placed there. In general, I find the tendentious style, over-reliance on apologists-academics "studies" and attempts by FG propagandists to discredit the mainstream press as "regurgitating CCP propaganda" a bit too stressful to handle. Little has changed since Arbcom - except a very dogmatic opponent of FG has been removed. I noticed that few editors unaffiliated with FG ever edit there any more. Good luck! Ohconfucius (talk) 07:22, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A couple things..

One, I'm not an administrator any more (turned in the mop a couple months ago, due to health and family health issues). Two, with the low amount of admins who actually give a damn about AE, if he won't, no one will. And Three, by putting doubt in everyone's mind whether it is an operational remedy or not, you're opening the door for trouble to come in, make themselves at home, and eventually, a trip back to ArbCom to sort it all out. I'm not going to let the hard work that Alison, myself, and the other folks who burned out because they got no support in the area from above, go that easy. SirFozzie (talk) 22:58, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Article list

Hi Ryan,

You referred to Lightbot running through this list. My impression was that Lightbot would be tasked with removal of autoformatting from the whole of Wikipedia (except so-called 'chronological articles'). Are you merely seeking to ensure that those articles are de-autoformatted first or are you suggesting that the rest of Wikipedia should retain autoformatting? I am a little confused about this. Regards Lightmouse (talk) 19:43, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We're nowhere near ready to start removing links from all articles. The list contains the articles that will be broken when dynamic dates is switched off so only the dates which will broken should be delinked. As far as removal of links across all articles is concerned, I'm not sure a bot could do the task - it's going to need thought that a bot that a not can't give. --Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 20:15, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ryan, I don't understand why we'd want to leave non-autoformatted full dates linked. There was never a proposal to remove linking from date-fragments at all in this bot run, and they are the only ones that require human judgement. Tony (talk) 02:10, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Say what, Ryan? As far as removal of links across all articles is concerned, I'm not sure a bot could do the task. Have you asked Lightmouse whether this is possible? I sure hope it is; because there are (literally) over a million of them to be delinked. That is simply too large of a task to be done manually. My proposal—that Lightbot be run on a hundred or so articles, tweaked based on feedback, and then try perhaps a thousand articles (etcetera) before going full speed—applied to making dates MOSNUM-compliant project-wide. Greg L (talk) 02:22, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • P.S. The RfC results on date linking couldn’t have been clearer as to what the community wants. Moreover, the consensus was a landslide. That RfC was started after the bot was doing its thing and then Locke stopped it with his ArbCom wikidrama. That’s all over now. There is no reason in the world to not let the bot demonstrate its capabilities in a well-controlled ramp-up and then let it go back to what it was doing—only tweaked to be ever better than it was before. It’s really quite simple for a bot: according to the new MOSNUM guideline, it will be an exceedingly rare date that is supposed to stay linked if it isn’t in a chronological article like 1995. Greg L (talk) 02:34, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes I think Ryan needs to please clarify. The community, which hates date links, was promised in the RfC that the linking markup would "continue to be removed, and any dates that are inconsistent with the overall format for their article will be corrected, manually or using automatic means". So that promise should be honoured. My reading of Ryan's words above, based on the sum total of discussion, is that delinking under human supervision will be permitted (once the injunction is lifted), but bots will be able to clean up the articles with problems which will be apparent when DD is switched off. Ohconfucius (talk) 03:12, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh whatever Greg, you know there's a reason not to delink dates right now. Because it would remove the auto formatting that was not rejected at this latest RFC. Don't confuse the effect (a hyperlink) with the cause (the markup). Further, it doesn't matter what Lightmouse thinks his bot is capable of, unless he's come up with some amazing form of artificial intelligence which can discern a valuable date link from one that's worthless, there is not a bot he could run that would comply with the RFC results. —Locke Cole • t • c 03:18, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not the point at all. The idea of the bots is to wipe the slate clean so that the (small number of) relevant dates can be manually recoded by hand. This issue was quite clear in the debate. It is not a problem.  HWV258  03:25, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The explicit promise to the community is good reason enough to remove the markup, IMHO. We do not know what form the markup will be for any future DA which may/may not be adopted, so it's a bit too much like trying to use a crystal ball to keep it just in some vague hope that it will be one day useful. The community clearly believes that most links are irrelevant (as not being germane to any given article), and that few links, if any, are "valuable". Ohconfucius (talk) 04:17, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Locke, regarding your comment unless he's come up with some amazing form of artificial intelligence which can discern a valuable date link from one that's worthless: I found one! I found a simple, non‑aliased, tri‑component date in regular article‑space that should be linked!  It’s here in our Trivia article.Footnote #1 Beyond that one, they don’t appear to exist in in regular article‑space. Accordingly, it will be a simple issue for the bot: avoid the chronological articles like 1995. Like I’ve said before, in a forty‑article test analysis, Lightmouse’s bot produced 0% false positives and 0% false negatives. On the off‑chance that there is another trivia-related article, we can manually restore that one. Lightmouse can handle the technical aspects of making his bot comply sufficiently well with MOSNUM; he just needs the universe to stop looking over his shoulder, get out of his face, and stop making a mountain out of a mole hill. To Lightmouse: Be sure to make your bot leave Trivia alone; all its dates and date fragments should be linked. Greg L (talk) 05:12, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    1) Indeed, in the date “September 13, 1965” in our Trivia article, if you click on either the September 13 component, or the 1965 component, you will be taken to two articles that have nothing whatsoever to do with trivia other than the fact that they are random lists of historical trivia, which therefore makes them suitable candidates to link to.

  • Exactly. And one more thing—I'd like to repeat my call for a link in the bot edit comment to direct the interested editor to a page that explains exactly what is going on (following a bot script-based edit). Where could that link point, who should write the page, and what should the page contain? I'm happy to start the page if someone could indicate where it should live.  HWV258  05:27, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There was no consensus on wiping the slate clean - none at all. No bot will be used (or get approval) to do a task where it removes some good work from the site. If you use a bot to do a task, it should do the job at hand. I'd welcome removal of date links where the article is germane to the date, but thought needs to go into each and every one to decide whether that is important. Greg, I'm not going to bother asing LM - I know for a fact that a bot can't decide on the importance of a date. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 07:17, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) during the drafting of the April RfC i asked whether the bot-implementation question was going to be included, and Ryan Postlethwaite stated that implementation would be settled in a subsequent RfC. until further notice i reckon that's the route you intend to pursue to determine whether or not there's consensus for the "wipe the slate clean" approach? Sssoul (talk) 07:38, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, but I would suspect that the community would reject a wipe the slate clean approach. I'll set up an RfC to determine implementation, but it's going to be much less profile than the poll. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 07:43, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yet another' poll? Many voters expressed irritation at having to vote again in virtually the same poll. What bothers me is that many people will just ignore another one, which runs the risk of distorting the result. And I think we are all sick to the gills with polls. I'd have thought the four RFCs against DA were quite enough to get rid of the old system. And the fiction being put about that somehow the linking around full dates is precious ... no, it is totally irrelevant to any subsequent scheme, if it ever gained consensus to implement. The community has shown that it does not like the old system. A sizeable proportion of the minority who didn't oppose DA in concept did not want the blue-link system. It should be removed as promptly and easily as possible, IMO, and Lightbot appears to be an easy and safe way of doing this. Tony (talk) 09:01, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, Lightbot wouldn't be involved in this - if dates are unlinked by bots, new bot operators will take over who aren't involved in the dispute (Lightbot won't get approval to do anything related with dates in the future because of the problems associated with the past). He is of course within his rights to help code the bot, or offer some of his code to another bot operator. Secondly, an implementation poll looks like it's required - we know what we want from the previous poll, but we don't know how to go about doing it yet. You guys look at me in disgust when I say that delinking all dates isn't going to happen - well I put it to you that the rest of community will think it's a bad idea - there will be millions of edits from a bot needed to do this and that's far from desirable. Nobody is going to get consensus from BAG to run that bot without some serious community consensus on the actual implementation, rather than just the task. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 09:50, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not going to start the implementation poll just yet however because it would delay the posting of the proposed decision further. It's important we get that before we start thinking about how we move things forward. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 09:52, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "delinking all dates isn't going to happen"—Why would some dates be left blue-formatted and others not?
  • "well I put it to you that the rest of community will think it's a bad idea" .... um ... why? What evidence do you have that having said multiple times that they don't want DA, especially the old system, that people don't want it removed?
  • "there will be millions of edits from a bot needed to do this and that's far from desirable"—this is why you'd use a bot. Millions of edits is not a lot for a bot, particularly given a simple brief. Why is it "far from desirable"? Tony (talk) 10:46, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
and how do you know that they want it removed by a bot making millions of edits? You'd don't and that's why we need an implementation poll. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 11:08, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • An implementation poll is fine. It should be pithy, exceedingly clear and with a lack of techno-babble as to what is being contemplated, and binary. I’d also suggest that it run for only a week; that will help with participation too. Over and over now in RfCs, nothing changes in the poll balance after the first week (often even the first 48 hours). Greg L (talk) 17:05, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Quoting you, Ryan: No bot will be used (or get approval) to do a task where it removes some good work from the site. What “good work” is that? We’re talking about removing the double-brackets, which is to say, removing the links. There is no “good work” whatsoever which would be undone that I can discern. If someone editor of Cold fusion wants to turn this…

Cold fusion, under this definition, was first announced on March 23, 1989 when Fleischmann and Pons reported producing nuclear fusion in a tabletop experiment…

to this:

Cold fusion, under this definition, was first announced on March 23, 1989 when Fleischmann and Pons reported producing nuclear fusion in a tabletop experiment…

…under the delusion that they are “doing good work” by linking that date to two articles that have nothing whatsoever to do with cold fusion, they will be reverted soon enough by editors who will point to MOSNUM.
Challenge: Perhaps I need an education here. Maybe there are more dates in non-chronological articles that should remain linked than I can imagine. I suggest we randomly chose ten non-chronological articles and find a date that is supposed to be linked. I propose we chose from the top 1000 most-view articles and select the ten least visited ones by using the prime numbers just smaller than one-thousand: 937    941    947    953    967    971    977    983    991    997. Thus, the last two articles in the list are Guitar Hero III: Legends of Rock and Fuwa. I challenge you, Ryan to find a date in those ten articles that ought to remain linked. Keep a tally of the dates that should remain unlinked (or be unlinked) versus the dates that should remain/be linked. The litmus test to be used in deciding whether it should be linked or unlinked shall be the current wording on MOSNUM. Greg L (talk) 17:36, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If a bot removes one link that should be kept then that's not good enough. We aren't delinking everything then starting from scratch relinking. I'm not suggesting loads should be kept, but every date that is unlinked should be evaluated for its merits - the poll didn't say unlink all dates, non-trivial dates should still be kept. The key is going to be start off very slowly when the injunction is lifted, not the delinking editors bulldozing their way through the encyclopedia. The proposed decision on the case will be here within a week or so and it's going to be best to wait till that comes before we look further at implementation - I've been told that another poll will delay the decision further and it's been long enough already. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 17:44, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"...the poll didn't say unlink all dates, non-trivial dates should still be kept". The more you consider the question, the more you'll realise there is no other way to go about it. Running over millions of articles is exactly what was always proposed, and it was then assumed that interested editors can relink any relevant dates. A link in the bot script edit comment pointing to a page explaining why the delinking has just happened, as well as giving an indication of the nature of "relevant" will assist with the process. WP has no deadline, and the end result can be achieved in just such a manner.  HWV258  22:43, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
One important thing I want to add is this; It looks as if I'm coming across as completely opposed to the idea of unlinking all dates - I'm not. I am however considering the entire community - any bot task that will involve millions of edits and lead to clean up work being required (to relink some dates) needs to be fully agreed by the community with a good number of users having the chance to express their opinion. We've heard what the community want, but they didn't say that they wanted this to be achieved by adding edits to almost every single article on the wiki. Hopefully the implementation poll will give community members to express how they want the poll results implementing. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 17:50, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fair enough, Ryan. Years ago, when I was quite the newbie, the first time I ever clicked on a date link was the above-mentioned sentence in Cold fusion. I thought “Oh man Wikipedia is cool! I’m going to go to an article that is a detailed account of the Fleischmann and Pons tabletop experiment.” Instead, my reaction was “Awe… shiiiiiiiit.” If the ArbCom wants another RfC, then that’s what’s gonna happen. But it would be beneficial if you all had a more accurate estimate of what is at stake in order that the RfC as accurately as possible describes the issues. So it would be nice if you guys would accept my above challenge. Can anyone find just one in those ten articles? Greg L (talk) 17:57, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The reason the dates link to 1896 is "because the dates are ISO"??? That sounds like exactly the reason why the dates need to be unlinked. There's no point in trying to save space in that table, since the table above is already 200px wider, so why not use an accepted format? None of those dates need to be linked in this case, since there's a link to the article Athletics_at_the_1896_Summer_Olympics in the "Earlier gold-medal events" column in the table anyway - and the same for all the other Olympic games the table refers to. How much overlinking does anybody need? --RexxS (talk) 03:00, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
One of several fixes the article could use. Others include linking to 1896 once and only once in each table; but the question was a useful date-link, not a perfect one. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:31, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
An even better fix would be to link to 1896 exactly zero times in that article. Quad erat demonstrandum. --RexxS (talk) 19:44, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, don't link to 1896 at all. I suggest adding 1896 in sports to the see also section; that is much more germane and we don't have to worry about easter-egg links. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:14, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The "community" that "hates" date-links consists of Tony, Greg L, HWV258, and Ohconfucius; most of the rest of us simply want the warring to stop, without too much unnecessary meddling. That's why they need to use a bot; they can't persuade the rest of us to routinely unlink everything. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:41, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a fair characterization. There are a great many editors who hate the date links and want them all to go away as soon as possible. (Although I won't argue that Tony, Greg, et al are really, really vocal.) I'm very interested to see what the results of a further RfC will be, although I suspect we've already crossed the line into "I'm-sick-of-this"-land. Karanacs (talk) 18:45, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • PMA, quoting you: It would be better to link 1896 Summer Olympics and mask. A good point. That’s what I’ve been saying all along, including here at WP:Why dates should not be linked. Once bots go through and clean out all these non‑MOSNUM-compliant links, editors can go in and do what you propose.

    Mind you, I’m not sure what you mean by “mask”. If that means alias 1896 Summer Olympics so it looks like 1896, that’s the last thing any editor would ever want to do. For one thing, many readers now habitually know not to click on links that look like that. For another, it is simply sound technical writing practice to write links so readers have a clear idea what they would be taken to if they click on it. One could, for instance, put it in the form of a parenthetical like (see 1896 Summer Olympics), or they could add it as a bullet point in the article’s See also section.

    HWV258’s phrase “wipe the slate clean” is quite appropriate. That’s precisely what Wikipedia needs so we can lose these links that go to non‑germane trivia and provide editors a fresh opportunity to consider whether there is a germane and relevant article to which one can link. Greg L (talk) 20:02, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • The text being linked is the date of the event for which the gold was awarded; it is undesirable to change that, especially since the tables fill a screen as they stand. On Greg's line of reasoning, 1896 is the best available link to give the reader more information, which Wikipedia does have. Quod erat demonstrandum. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:41, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

<--Because of Date autoformatting, linked dates have spread throughout WP like Ground-elder in our Wiki-garden. As with the weed, linked dates are pervasive, and they keep coming back because new editors keep linking (old habits die hard). In this most overgrown garden, the most efficient way of ridding ourselves of the weed is to nuke it with a selective weedkiller, rather than spending endless hours pulling each rhizome out manually. Because WP is 'organic' in a broad sense, desirable plants will grow back once the weeds are eradicated, and manual effort can be targeted on its upkeep. In the vast majority of articles, there are no "relevant date links", in some articles, these dates may be in their small numbers. Many articles get few visits a year, and even if they do, editors may not think to unlink dates, so these are unlikely ever to be touched without a systematic methodology. Poll results indicate that there is slightly more support for certain [relevant] years to be linked, whereas the overwhelming consensus is that links to the [dm] or [md] component bring nothing to the party. Bots, which are the best means to systematically and efficiently "weed our garden". They can be 'regulated' to go at a certain pace, their action can be made specific to avoid certain articles or certain types of articles. Ohconfucius (talk) 03:38, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Gosh, you almost sound reasonable with that comment above. I believe the suggestion is a one-off massive blitz to eliminate the worst overgrowth, to be supplemented in future by largely manual effort. Ohconfucius (talk) 00:37, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ryan Postlethwaite, you pointed out above that "Nobody is going to get consensus from BAG to run that bot without some serious community consensus on the actual implementation" - i understand that, but can you clarify, please, what you meant by "I'll set up an RfC to determine implementation, but it's going to be much less profile than the poll"? that sounds almost like an intention to deliberately keep the "implementation RfC" unpublicized, which isn't a good way to sound. of course it's dismaying if yet another RfC on this subject is deemed necessary, but if it has to happen surely the point is to get as much input as possible. Sssoul (talk) 06:48, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What I mean is, it's not going to get a watchlist notice which will almost certainly mean it isn't going to be as high profile. I'll post to all the noticeboards and project talk pages like I did with the main poll. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 18:24, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
... really puzzled: why would it not get a watchlist notice? everyone understands that it might not attract as much input as the previous RfC, but planning to keep it off the watchlist doesn't serve the stated aim of getting "some serious community consensus on the actual implementation". Sssoul (talk) 06:32, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Do you not understand how hard it is to get a watchlist notice? Whilst this dispute might be really important for you, the rest of the community are sick to death of it. This isn't the sort of dispute that normally gets a watchlist notice because it's not big enough, yet date linking has had two already - there's not a chance it's getting a third. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 06:41, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) no, it's not necessarily common knowledge that it's very hard to get a watchlist notice, and it's good that you had the opportunity to clarify that. and i'm one of the people who's tired of this - it's not me who's saying another RfC is needed. Sssoul (talk) 07:25, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question Regarding Mediaton

The web page Ecological Forecasting has recently had changes added to it that I believe are incorrect. The page was started with scientific evidence and research and has gotten an editor who is changing and rephrasing the article to make it seem like Climate Change is not an actual occurrence. If there is a way to get a new editor, we would be greatly appreciative. —Preceding unsigned comment added by EcoForecast EcoForecast (talk) 16:44, 24 April 2009 (UTC)(talk [reply]

Is your statement based on an imminent Arbcom ruling?

Hi Ryan,

On 21 April 2009 you said:

  • "Is your bot ready to start working through this list and removing only the dates that are problematic when dynamic dates is turned off?"

On 23 April 2009 you said:

  • "Firstly, Lightbot wouldn't be involved in this - if dates are unlinked by bots, new bot operators will take over who aren't involved in the dispute (Lightbot won't get approval to do anything related with dates in the future because of the problems associated with the past)."

Those two statements contradict each other. Is your statement based on an imminent Arbcom ruling? Lightmouse (talk) 19:32, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually no it's not - I've spokenbto a number of people in the know how regarding how a bot might be involved, they suggested that you might be a little too involved to carry out an effective job. To be blunt, your edits wouldn't be respected in this area. On a side note, arbclerks get no information regarding the work the arbs do other than what normal editors do - I have found out however through prodding that the decision will be within a week. --Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 20:17, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would say that Lightmouse has done an excellent job in creating a bot with a relatively low false-positive rate and being sensitive to others requests. However, it is probably not for me to say. I can understand (if not agree) with the other points of view. Anyway, Who would be a respected and sufficiently neutral bot operator for this task? Dabomb87 (talk) 02:09, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tennis expert exceeding limits again

Ryan, at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Date delinking/Evidence I've noticed that user:Tennis expert is again exceeding the quantitative limits applicable to submissions. A quick check using one of the freeware word counters on the web shows his material to run over 2500 words. The limit, clearly stated in a box at the top of the page, is 1000 words. Could you please trim the material to make it conform, thank you very much. --Goodmorningworld (talk) 15:49, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I'll take a look. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 16:35, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pre-Mediation Member

Hey Ryan,

I'm currently interested in joining the Mediation Comittee and solving some disputes. As for the present, I am really not quite sure if I should go ahead and volunteer myself to take a task, or nominate myself. I would like to have a few guidelines on what should I do before I send in my nomination. I'd also like to know what processes and steps a Mediator takes in a case, and what the job involves. Currently I'm not really wanting to go ahead and volunteer myself for a task just for a plain reason that if I mess anything, I make myself look like I'm some nut case who doesn't know what he's doing, given adequate powers as well. I hope you can help me! Thanks! Renaissancee (talk) 02:27, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked User requesting help

G-day Ryan- I was blocked for being disrepspectful about a year and a half ago, and the offended admin was subsequently banned & sent off to jail for another matter. In the interim, I was unable to login, nor request help on my user page since I was totally blocked by the departed admin person. After some time spent studying the matter and repenting, I decided I could make a fresh start under the Wikipedia:Sock puppetry "Clean start under a new name" section. Needless to say, I was spotted recently (not doing anything rude or naughty) and blocked again. The new blocking admin claims what I was doing was Sock Puppetry, but I thought I was making a "Clean Start" under a new name. Today I'm contacting you under as an IP only since I can't contact anyone as a logged-in user. Is there any hope that I can get past this? I'm a useful editor with almost 400 edits under my "Clean Start" name (none for 1-1/2 yrs under my previous name, which also had hundreds of good edits). Note that I've never Socked or vandalized, didn't go back to troublesome articles, and the only friction I've caused is calling an admin (who was himself banned) a bad name (I think "demented" was the expression I used). Since I can only communicate as an IP, how should I go about getting help? Bushcutter<-- this was my "Clean Start" name. Thanks.

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 27 April 2009

Delivered by SoxBot II (talk) at 04:45, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ryan_Postlethwaite&oldid=286800906"