Prevention of falsehoods

So long as date autoformat continues to function, and so long as the MOS and/or MOSNUM and/or numerous template documentation pages describe the format YYYY-MM-DD as being the ISO 8601 format, linking a non-Gregorian calendar date in a way that allows it to be displayed in the YYYY-MM-DD format is a falsehood. The correction of such falsehoods should be allowed even during periods when MOS or MOSNUM are disputed. --Jc3s5h (talk) 21:29, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't believe that; [name deleted] is overreading the ISO protocols. In any case, the proper solution, which I would support, is to disallow autoformatting into YYYY-MM-DD. (Possibly limit this to dates before 1752.)

Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:43, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

The MOS says "A decimal point is used between the integral and the fractional parts of a decimal; a comma is never used in this role". Therefore, if an article contains the number 16,952 and the value is actually 16 and 952/1000, the article contains a falsehood. The MOS also says "ISO 8601 dates (like 1976-05-13)..." so an article that contains the date 1572-05-13 means that date in the proleptic Gregorian calendar. If the article were actually describing the date Gregory XIII became pope, it would be false, because he became pope on May 13, 1572 of the Julian calendar.
The only real question is whether a logged-in reader who specifically chooses the ISO-8601 format as his/her date preference is making an informed assumption of the risk that some of the dates displayed will be false because the input to the autoformatting function was a non-Gregorian date. My position is that those who choose this option have not been adequately warned; Pmanderson seems to think these people will have no expectation of correct handling of non-Gregorian dates.
No, my position is that readers have no solid ground to expect 1001-10-01 to represent a Gregorian date; the ISO protocol advises that the situation will be troublesome, and should be avoided. 1001-10-01 O. S. should be perfectly clear in intent as the first of October, 1001 Julian style; it is probably undesirable for a reader to be able to force that reading on to the screen, but that's a developer problem. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:05, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

This is why I was leaving anyways...

...clearly the committee is happy to accept the behavior of the delinkers, handing out limited topic bans, but nothing that truly reflects the disruption they caused with their fait accompli. Meanwhile, it appears trying to shine a light on this behavior (while at first trying to actually work with these editors) warrants a year long block.

I'm glad the constant preening about my block log (the vast majority of which is from over two years ago, going on three years) also gained traction with the committee. Meanwhile the delinkers and their supporters seem to be taking a "you're getting what's coming to you" (quoting HWV258, further above) stance to this. Is this really the behavior and the attitude you want to reward on here? Is this really the kind of environment you want to foster? I hope the committee thinks long and hard on whom is causing more problems here for the project.

PS: As regards my block log, most of it was inappropriate anyways... any arbitrator wanting insight in to this is welcome to contact me via e-mail, but there's at least three blocks which I think any objective person would view as inappropriate or incorrect. —Locke Cole • t • c 04:45, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi Locke_cole (talk · contribs). Please note that "you're getting what's coming to you"-type comments were said in the realised context that "it" is coming to everyone involved (however Pmanderson (talk · contribs) seemed keen to try a little transparent wriggling trick at this late stage). It was worthy of comment. Bye bye.
(Regarding "I hope the committee thinks long and hard on whom is causing more problems here for the project"—I'm sure they did.)  HWV258  05:27, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
Behavior like this is precisely why I wouldn't want to be here, especially if by inaction the committee is condoning this behavior. —Locke Cole • t • c 05:57, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

This punishment being voted on appears to be along the "shared misery" model. So should I also contemplate setting myself on fire as a protest? Being Chinese, I guess the Tiananmen Square self-immolation incident may be an inspiration to me. Please have the fire extinguishers ready. ;-) Ohconfucius (talk) 06:23, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Now be fair, Locke_Cole (talk · contribs) does have more on his plate to worry about than you.  HWV258  06:31, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

(ec) As for Locke's comments about his block log, his case record suggests there may have been another (partial?) malfunction at ArbCom - systematic failure, maybe? He's clearly learned from that episode. I, on the other hand, sure as hell would hate to be struck by that same lightning twice. Ohconfucius (talk) 06:36, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Disavowing all my contributions to this arbitration

Certain administrators have thwarted my effort to disavow and strike every contribution I have made to this arbitration. It would be very regrettable for the arbitrators to use anything I have submitted. Tennis expert (talk) 23:24, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

What are you talking about? The time for submitting your "evidence" was long ago. Arbitration based on your "evidence" was made, and results based on your "evidence" are now being recorded. Why do you think you have the right to change the "evidence" that you submitted? It is important that everyone in the future has the ability to see exactly what sort of "evidence" you presented. Just leave it alone please.  HWV258  23:52, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
I see that Tennis doesn't actually want to go quietly. Last time, we had a diva-esque retirement on his being blocked. He was back within days working without logging in. He's now behaving like one of those innumerable spree killers that we hear about on the news. Plus ça change... There will be no eulogies from me - you will excuse me for be saving that for when his departure is definitive. Ohconfucius (talk) 01:57, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
I hope the mentality and behaviour of such editors is becoming clearer to all concerned. Please note that the two (main) editors who dragged the community through this intolerable mire (quite against the wishes of the greater community) are the only two who have petulantly deleted their user pages, made parting verbal shots, and scurried off somewhere (yes, no doubt to resurface as and when the mood takes). Says a lot doesn't it? What a pity their collateral damage is allowed to remain. Still, there's always hope that some part of the remaining arbitration process will recognise what has really happened and will vote accordingly.  HWV258  02:50, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

What is this about?

“Greg L is topic banned indefinitely from style and editing guidelines, and any related discussions”

I’ll remind the committee that I have been an important contributor to getting the ((val)) template made and getting its use into MOSNUM, and for contributing to number and unit-related items there. Even when I helped Headbomb on getting Wikipedia back to using the ordinary binary prefixes (like “megabyte” instead of the IEC prefixes like “mebibyte”) I kept the arguments limited to the MOSNUM’s talk page and didn’t editwar on MOSNUM. Nor did I edit war on MOSNUM as regards date-related stuff and I never engaged in date-related edit wars on articles. The only serious conflict that has arisen is due to Locke’s refusal to abide by RfCs and all that had been limited to talk pages. Short of one conflict (dates) and related ArbCom, which Tony and I both asked to be dismissed rather than accepted—just how can you justify a indefinite ban from MOSNUM? Greg L (talk) 00:04, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely concur. Greg_L (talk · contribs) has been a tireless contributor to the MOSNUM article (including discussions), and unlike certain other editors, has obviously worked hard to improve the MOSNUM for all editors. Also unlike certain other editors, he has a strong belief in the existence of MOSNUM, and in its ability to help improve the readability of all articles at WP. His scientific knowledge has proved essential to many debates at MOSNUM, and the page will be diminished without his input.  HWV258  00:19, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Thank you, HWV258. And please note this: Whenever I could pull myself away from this blessed date battle, I’m busy vastly expanding science-related articles. Check out what out how Wikipedia’s Fuzzball (string theory) article used to look like several months ago. Now look how Fuzzball (string theory) reads. Note too its talk page. I’ve been speaking with the Ohio State University Ph.D. professor over the phone and corresponding via e-mail to ensure it is accurate. As I work on the citations, I’ve got my working assumptions used in the article recorded here on the talk page.

    I did the same thing on our Kilogram article: I’ve exchanged over 50 e-mails with an NIST researcher who works on the kilogram during my expansion of that article. That’s my computer-generated illustration at the top of the article. In fact, over on Thermodynamic temperature, most of those illustrations are mine (as is the “featured picture” animation and most of its text).

    My contributions to Wikipedia are related to science and the math and language used to convey that world. MOSNUM is part of this. When there things are “normal” over there, my ability to “play well with others” can be characterized by this months-long effort to rally support for the ((val)) template, which I promoted here on WT:MOSNUM. Voting on it occurred here. I then went over to WT:MOS, where a related issue was being discussed and resolved that and got their buy-in there. I think there has been way too much focus here on the negatives (that’s been the only “news” about Greg L here) and—judging from just that—one might conclude that negatives are all there are. Far from it. A topic ban from MOSNUM would simply take all the fun out of this for me. Greg L (talk) 00:37, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

No consensus

Rainbow of Light is quite right, in the section above; there is no consensus on a final solution. I hope he reconsiders; we have much else to do, more important than this lame dispute.

The question, however, how we are best to get on in the meantime, until the spirit of Consensus descends from heaven. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:01, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Maybe purge the venomous atmosphere around this issue? I asked a simple question about linking dates of births & deaths almost a year ago & instead of a reasonable answer I had a chunk of the MoS tossed at me. Throughout this dispute whenever I added my two cents, I found people ignored what I wrote (which I admit often happens) & instead claimed I said something entirely different (which does not happen often), & treated rudely for it. I'd like to discuss my one issue & how it should be handled by the MoS, but with all of this vicious assumption of bad faith in other people, I'm far happier to return to my conclusion that the MoS best serves as a tar pit to keep the wikilawyers occupied so the rest of us are free to quietly improve the content of Wikipedia. -- llywrch (talk) 18:48, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Draft consensus statement on date delinking by the Bot Approvals Group

Greeting, Arbiters. The "Date delinking" case prominently mentions the Bot Approvals Group in it proposed decision. In order to assist the Arbcom, we at BAG have put together Wikipedia:Bot Approvals Group/Draft consensus statement on date delinking. Once a majority of active BAGgers sign off on it, it will become "approved" and not "draft". I hope this is useful to you. All the best, – Quadell (talk) 12:52, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Quadell; I think that it will be very helpful in this arbitration process. John Vandenberg (chat) 15:02, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Expunged edit—why?

Hi. Why was evidence of this edit expunged from the record? It should have been enough for the edit to be reverted (as it initially was). If someone is starting to do stupid things at this stage (and there can't be that many candidates for the author of the anonymous edit), I would like evidence (e.g. the IP address, as well as the date and time of the edit) to remain so that investigation can at least be attempted (should it become necessary).  HWV258  04:02, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I suppressed the text and IP of that edit because it was Rlevse unintentionally voting whilst logged out. The edit text contained the IP due to "~~~~", so it also had to be suppressed. Later he voted whilst logged in. If you think an investigation is necessary, the audit subcommittee handles that; I will recuse of course. John Vandenberg (chat) 15:13, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

"Date delinking" case now involves restrictions on grammar and redundant wording. Why?

This wording is extremely broad:

X is prohibited from reversion of changes which are principally stylistic, except where all style elements are prescribed in the applicable style guideline.

I wonder whether arbitrators realise that this will prohibit an editor from reverting the insertion—even by an anon.—of redundant wording into an article. Redundancy, the most common stylistic issue, is for good reason not covered by the style guides. Further, there is no hard-and-fast distinction between grammar and style, and the style guides cover only a small proportion of such issues.

I cannot see the purpose in this measure. If the fear is that parties here will war over dates, why does the proscription not concern just "chronological items"? There was never any dispute over grammar or redundant wordings, and this is the most important contribution to WP of some of the editors who would be involved. Tony (talk) 04:38, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I was about to ask the same, but wanted to wait until the final verdict was out. But I take a more pragmatic stand. If the ArbCom does not want me to edit for 12 months because I did 16 edits in two months following the applicable style guideline, so be it.--HJensen, talk 06:28, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
As someone who has received several copy-edit requests of sizeable articles recently (see Ice hockey at the Olympic Games as an example), this would impede my efforts to make purely beneficial contributions in the most important area of the encyclopedia. Dabomb87 (talk) 12:45, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
Yes, the wording seems very unclear. Under the proposed sanction, would I be in trouble if I reverted a reversion of an edit like this one? If so, it will prevent me and others from doing any effective copyediting. This seems daft. --John (talk) 13:33, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
That edit isn't a reversion, so it would be fine. John Vandenberg (chat) 14:15, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
But I was asking, if someone undid this edit and I reverted it, that would attract further sanctions? --John (talk) 15:30, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
Note the key word, reversion. If you're making actual edits to an article, and not simply reverting an editor, I doubt you would fall under the remedy. —Locke Cole • t • c 13:43, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
For those editors heavily involved at FAC, it is not uncommon to revert well-meaning edits that violate various style guidelines. FAs are required to meet the manual of style, and placing this restriction could inhibit both Tony and Dabomb's invaluable work at FAC. Karanacs (talk) 14:19, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
If an edit violate various style guidelines, the violations can be removed. If there are elements of an edit which are stylistic and are not prescribed as inappropriate, a partial revert would be the solution. Or, the problems with the edit can be mentioned on the FAC discussion, and someone who isn't restricted can then do the revert if they agree. Has discussion gone out of favour recently?? John Vandenberg (chat) 14:36, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
This wording only prohibits reversion where the edit includes style elements that are not prescribed.
If an editor adds a redundant word, common sense says that is not a style issue. But it would still be appropriate to think carefully about which word is more useful, and possibly even try to understand why the editor thought the passage needed another word. Wikipedia:Avoid peacock terms will cover a lot of scenarios where redundant words usually pop up.
If an editor adds a redundant passage, there are two passages, and again a bit of thought can go into which is more appropriate. If there isnt already an editing guideline about conciseness, I am sure one can be written.
If an obviously erroneous edit contains a style element considered undesirable by a restricted editor but not covered by the style guideline, the restricted editor would be expected to edit the article and remove the obviously erroneous component. i.e. a partial revert of problems would be the solution.
Also, it is always possible to take a problematic edit to the talk page and ask the editor to improve their own edit, in which case they learn a little along the way.
John Vandenberg (chat) 14:30, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
The wording covers the 90% of style issues that are not in the guidelines. Redundant wording concerns matters such as are present in about one in every three or four sentences on WP, where at least one word can and should be removed without loss of meaning.
"If an editor adds a redundant word, common sense says that is not a style issue."—It is the essence of style, and an admin would be entirely justified in interpreting it that way (I would). Peacock words are quite different (self-promoting). Redundancy, grammatical problems and issues of logic and flow are all aspects of style, and are mostly inappropriate to cover in style guidelines. Why does this proposed judgement concern aspects of linguistic style that are not in the styleguides. The relevance to the case, to any presupposed wrong-doing, are very hard to determine—unless the object is to hobble the best copy-editors WRT what they do best. I thought this case was about date-delinking, and I thought ArbCom determined remedies to protect the project, rather than to disadvantage it. Why is it now about the editing of style in articles? Tony (talk) 15:30, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
(reply to Jayvdb) That's seems like a reasonable response that will no-doubt receive an equally reasonable counterargument, clogging this page up further with needless discussion. The more pertinent thing to ask here is why such a proscription is necessary in the first place. This is the proposed decision for date-related issues; to include this feels arbitrary and outside the scope of the case. Steve T • C 15:26, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
Jayvdb, I suppose you're aware that having "someone who isn't restricted" do some revert in the place of someone like Tony is a pointlessly humiliating system, and one that has little to do with the date delinking case as originally conceived? Altogether, I'm not happy about the opportunity seized in the section above to send people (generally grownups, hardworking, and hard-thinking wikipedians) to their rooms, and generally diffusing the original scope of the case. Wasn't the case supposed to be about reverting "chronological items", as Tony says? Please don't turn it into a grab-bag of all sorts of general behavioural issues. Bishonen | talk 15:50, 19 May 2009 (UTC).
I concur. I read through Jayvdb's answer a couple of times, and I am still puzzled. Actually, I still have no clue as to the purpose. So a direct question: Would changing 2002-12-12 into December 12, 2002, as I often do in a lot of reference clean ups, be prohibited? Should I go to the talk page and request another editor to do the correction? I am sorry to reveal this to you, but there is not that many editors out there as you may think, and many can't handle the reference templates.--HJensen, talk 21:37, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Bishonen's view.  HWV258  01:02, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Is it really that hard to edit without edit warring? Really? -Chunky Rice (talk) 01:39, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Scattergun justice

Tennis expert may be gone (for the time being) but this proposed decision is largely his monument: it has been shaped by his hostility, his accusations and his desire for revenge and punishment. ArbCom's approach to the administration of justice seems to be that old favourite of the undiscriminating: 'kill them all and let God sort them out'. I'm prepared to be admonished for my part in the 'tennis wars', which were no-one's finest hours, but to find myself, and other even less blameworthy editors such as HJensen and John (not even a party to this case) stigmatised as 'edit warriors' and put on probation is grotesque. ArbCom seems to forget that we are all volunteers, editors who have given many hours of our time to Wikipedia, not hirelings. Encourage and praise us and we stay; beat us and we walk away. Colonies Chris (talk) 15:58, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

the march/april RFC

is there some reason why the RFC that Ryan Postlethwaite oversaw in march/april isn't mentioned at all? while it was being drafted it was implied (if not stated outright) that it was proceeding with ArbCom's approval and might be involved in the decision-making process; now it seems like it's being disavowed or something. is there some reason for this? thanks for any available clarity (and apologies if this has already been discussed somewhere i haven't noticed) Sssoul (talk) 05:03, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

My understanding is that the March/April RfC is distinct to the current arbitration process. I was young and naive when the whole lot started, but I too thought that they were linked in some way. As it turns out, arbitration is only about behavioural issues. Ryan Postlethwaite was nice enough to push the RfC through so that some (useful) outcome might emerge out of this whole sorry mess. I too have been wondering what has happened to the results of the RfC. For example, if the eventual results of the RfC are that date-delinking is an okay thing to do, it would tend to make the punishments handed out by the arbitration members (to the people who only ever wanted to do what the community has repeatedly said was fine to do) seem a little (how to put it nicely)—unnecessary.  HWV258  05:25, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
I guess the reason is that this decision should actually have been made in February. So they stick with things happening before.--HJensen, talk 06:31, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
I recall Ryan saying, in connection with the RfC he initated, that phase 2 of that RfC would delay the decision of this case..... So it appears now that RfC1 was totally irrelevant, thus wasting the time of several hundred editors and bringing on false hopes of a solution; by the same logic, RfC2 would not have delayed now't coz it would have mattered now't. Ohconfucius (talk) 13:26, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
Many of the editors (from both sides of the issue) worked constructively together in creating this RFC. A few editors worked to disrupt and discredit this RFC. The Community assumed this was an RFC sponsored by the Arbitration Committee. -- SWTPC6800 (talk) 15:53, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
That is not the edit history. The final text was imposed by GregL, reverting constructive opinions from both sides. Ryan expressed concern about the pressure from that side of the table here. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:03, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
and here is where Ryan Postlethwaite states that he supports the format GregL reinstated. episodes leading up to that are here and here and here. Sssoul (talk) 05:56, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) thanks for the speculation, everbody, but i'm hoping a member of the Arbitration Committee will clarify why that RfC is being ignored in the proposed decision so far. it was a large-scale and widely-publicized undertaking initiated and closely overseen by an Arb Com clerk, who also promised a follow-up RfC to establish how the community wants to implement the preferences that the community expressed in the first one. so what happened? why has Arb Com decided to forge ahead as if that RfC never took place? Sssoul (talk) 05:03, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I am looking over the RfC with an eye towards crafting a finding noting the RfC results. Of course, I may not be successful in crafting one that everyone agrees with or another arb may beat me to the punch or craft a better finding. Regardless, I believe a relevant finding would help add further context about the evolving state of things, if nothing else. --Vassyana (talk) 05:54, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
thank you, Vassyana. in case it's helpful, here's a diff where the clerk asserted (during the drafting of the march/april RfC) that there would be a follow-up RfC to establish consensus on implementation: [1], and here's where (on april 23rd) he reverted his own announcement of the start to drafting that RfC: [2]. whatever was going on there seems relevant to the finding about RfCs not showing consensus about when to unlink: if the march/april RfC doesn't show that, it's at least partly because of the instructions to leave "implementation questions" for a subsequent RfC, which was then abandoned without any explanation. Sssoul (talk) 06:59, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Rephrase?

The Manual of Style is a set of guidelines governing appropriate editing on Wikipedia. The Manual is prescriptive in areas that enjoy broad consensus; The Manual of Style is a set of guidelines governing appropriate editing on Wikipedia. The Manual is prescriptive in areas that enjoy broad consensus; where there is no such consensus, the available options are described, but no prescriptive guidance is provided. Editors are expected to follow the Manual of Style, although it is not policy and editors may deviate from it with good reason.. Editors are expected to follow the Manual of Style, although it is not policy and editors may deviate from it with good reason.

I am glad to see that this has wide favor, and it is what MoS ought to be; but does ArbCom really believe that this, especially where there is no such consensus, the available options are described, but no prescriptive guidance is provided, describes what MOS actually does? Should this say should be? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:35, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Stating that "[t]he Manual is prescriptive" in certain areas (whatever they are) conflicts with the WP:NOT policy stating that "Wikipedia's policies and guidelines are descriptive, not prescriptive", and implicitly even with the fifth pillar. --A. di M. (formerly Army1987) — Deeds, not words. 12:25, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

  • I'll review this aspect of the ruling before I vote to close the case, and make changes if I think they are warranted. FloNight♥♥♥ 15:05, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
The degree to which the style manual is prescriptive affects the factual accuracy of the encyclopedia. Some statements can be ambiguous due to style, such as "the distance was 15,792 meters". If the MOS requirement that the comma be used for grouping digits and the period be used as a decimal point, the object in question is around the cise of a city. If the requirement is not binding, then it might only be the size of a house. If the MOS cannot be relied upon to specify how to choose among potentially ambiguous styles, then the choices must be explicitly stated in every single article. (Of course, Wikipedia contains many errors and readers always need to use caution when relying on articles, because even if the MOS is binding, some articles do not comply). --Jc3s5h (talk) 16:13, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
In that particular example, there is only one style commonly used in English and this is the English Wikipedia, so "15,792" is no more ambiguous than chair (which means "meat" in French). On the other hand, in cases where there do exist two different styles in English, and a statement can be interpreted differently depending on which style the reader will assume it to be written in (e.g. 15.7(2) which can mean either 15.7 ± 0.2 or 15.722222...; lousy example but I can't find any better one right now), and both meanings are plausible in the context, then I do believe that the choice should be explicitly stated in the article, rather than assuming that the reader will be familiar with the most obscure parts of the Wikipedia MoS explaining which of the two styles is the intended one. --A. di M. (formerly Army1987) — Deeds, not words. 19:52, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, this is one of the underlying issues in this case (as can be seen by searching the Workshop for prescriptive. I see three possible positions (again ;->):

I read PMA's comment to outline three positions taken by contributors to the debate, and I think it is a fair summary. Most will fail into the second and third groups, although individuals will vary in precisely what they feel MOS should prescribe, As an example, MOS describes the use of either a spaced en dash or an unspaced em dash to delimit interrupted thought; but prescribes that only one style of the two options should be used in an aticle (see WP:EMDASH). I find that valuable guidance, and cannot see a problem in prescribing a singular style in any one article. Strictly speaking, that would disprove the notion that the policy "Wikipedia's policies and guidelines are descriptive, not prescriptive" (WP:BURO) enjoys consensus, since that contradicts a fundamental element of style: consistency within an article (a guideline). Nevertheless, there exist a broad range of opinions on the degree to which each element of the MOS might be considered prescriptive. --RexxS (talk) 23:43, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
I think WP:BURO, which is policy, and which reflects almost universal practice, has much greater consensus than the present phrasing of MOS. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:52, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Well said. — Hex (❝?!❞) 10:48, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Please do not make this dispute longer

The situation is simply that most of the community do not want date links for the purpose of auto-formatting. This dispute will continue until those links are removed, either manually or automatically. --Apoc2400 (talk) 09:32, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

We got those date-links because many people were convinced to add them when they came across a date. If Apoc2400's claims were true, and it were no longer the case that the majority doesn't care one way or the other, most editors would remove date links when met, and the problem would disappear in a few months, without any bottery at all. We still don't have a deadline. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:11, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Most people learn by imitation and use the same style as they see in other articles. Now, many are removing date links for autofomatting, but many links remain. --Apoc2400 (talk) 18:01, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
If most people actually advocated delinking, clueless newbies would not be a problem; they'd be straightened out like the other clueless newbies who "correct" the spelling of color. If many are delinking, Apoc1200 has no real problem but impatience, which ArbCom cannot fix. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:57, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi Apoc2400 (talk · contribs)—well spotted. We got date linking/formatting because a developer thought it would be a really good thing to do (without any sort of wider community-based consensus). The RfC here (the voting comments are illuminating) indicates that the vast majority of the over 90% of editors who voted "oppose" don't want date linking. Don't forget there are editors who like to lift their edit-counts by doing really "useful" activities such as linking dates. The slate should be wiped clean—thus allowing those interested the chance to specify a date linking/formatting system that can be put before the wider community for the RfC process. There will be disputes forever whilst attempts to bash the current (flawed) system into a workable shape continue. The process of: removal, re-specification, RfC, and (if consensus prevails) implementation, also fit into the definition of "we still don't have a deadline".  HWV258  23:10, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Also note Apoc2400 that the desire to delink dates is mighty powerful: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:AbuseLog&wpSearchFilter=106 (over 500 in the previous 24 hours!).  HWV258  00:41, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Last time I checked, the injunction was still in place, wasn't it? Mlaffs (talk) 02:27, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
95% of thia is from two editors: Quadell and RandySavageFTW. Just imagine what we would get if the delinking brigade actually went out and persuaded editors to their point of view.... Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:33, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
I'd appreciate any hints or tips you could give on how that could be done. --RexxS (talk) 03:05, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
If you find a page that seems to have unnecessary date-links, ask if you may unlink them on talk, explaining why (citing the advantages to Wikipedia, not "because MOS says so"). If anybody reads and discusses this - active articles will - there's your chance to persuade them. (And if you fail, leave the article alone, per WP:CONSENSUS. If nobody comments, delink as MOS seems to indicate.
For those to whom this seems too much trouble: if this starts a chain reaction, by each persuading two editors a day to do likewise (as it may, if the delinking case is as persuasive as you think it to be), delinking will be permanently done, possibly before this Arbitration is closed. The terminally lazy can make the initial pitch a template. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:07, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Date-delink page edits 22 Apr 2009 to 22 May 2009
Please note Apoc2400 that there is still a strong desire to delink dates. For example, in the previous month, there have been 2,997 page edits involving (at least one) date-delinking. The table opposite gives a summary of the page edits by editor. Injunction? Yeah right. Nobody should be stopping what the community has said it doesn't want, and what it is demonstrating it doesn't want.  HWV258  04:16, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
OK, that's not two deeply concerned editors, that's four (perhaps five). Neither of you is in on the fun, although neither of you are parties to this case.... Quaddell does seem to be approaching automated rates of editing, doesn't he? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:21, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Of course another way of looking at it is: that's 165 editors in the previous month who have felt the need to delink dates (in 2,997 articles).  HWV258  04:26, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
The list appears to include Wizardman and Tcncv. LOL Ohconfucius (talk) 04:32, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Do you two have an actual point? I have never denied that some dates are unnecessarily linked; almost everybody agrees on that - I think Locke does. If NuclearWarfare has found four, does that alter his testimony? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:50, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm sure you have sufficient intelligence to figure out for yourself. Ohconfucius (talk) 04:57, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Well yes, I think I have figured out the answer, but I thought I'd check to see if there was another. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 05:01, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
"Do you two...". I don't know why our arguments have been linked, but I can only speak for myself. I would have thought it was more than obvious (and brilliantly brought up by Apoc2400) that the community do not want the date-linking that is in place throughout WP. The table I presented demonstrates that the removal of date links is continuing just fine thanks—despite the fact that there is an injunction. Imagine how things will gather momentum when the injunction is lifted. Drool drool.  HWV258  05:42, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
It's interesting that I (Tcncv) showed up on that list, since the probable suspect edits (here) only removed underscores from date links, but left the links themselves intact. Seems like we are getting some false hits. I am however concerned that some of these other editors are using unrelated AWB activity as a excuse to apply date delinking in possible violation of the injunction. I believe that much of the adversarial tone of this dispute is a direct result of the aggressiveness of such editors. -- Tcncv (talk) 07:17, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I occasionally remove date links when I see them. That is still allowed, right? However, it is very boring and wears on my backspace key. I feel like I am wasting my time doing something that a bot could do much faster. I rather spend my time baking, where the result tastes better than the machine-made version.

To ARBCOM: Take a look at the number of people you are about to punish, many of whom appreciated community members. This is not a case of a bunch of misbehaving users causing trouble. This is a style dispute that needs to be decided. If ARBCOM is not willing to end the dispute, then get off our asses and let us settle it with style RfCs. Go on a banning spree, and you will have to do it again every few months. --Apoc2400 (talk) 08:12, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

A note of caution to both sides: I don't think that letting "amateurs" loose on date-delinking is a good stategy. Before anyone draws conclusions from HWV258's table, look at these two diffs [3], [4]. The first one replaces a sensible piped link in an infobox by a bare date link ([[1987 in music|1987]] -> [[1987]]): an edit that makes the article worse. The second creates this "[[October 21]], [[1987]]" - kind of DA, but with a mid-comma: not what anybody actually wants. So the programme of "spreading the word" may not be quite the panacea we want. My conclusion: using a bot would do this sort of work more accurately and avoid turning good links into garbage. Others may disagree. --RexxS (talk) 13:08, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
No, a bot cannot do what the last RfC came up with; it cannot recognize germane links. There is no panacea, but at least human editors can be reasoned with.
I don't understand Rexxs' second example; "[[October 21]], [[1987]]" is the format autoformatting expects. (This also shows that the list includes cases, as here, where links are added, which would seem to make any conclusion about its tendency -er- unconvincing.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:57, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I really didn't explain the above at all well. Those two diffs are consecutive edits by the same same editor to the same article (one of them was the at the top of the Abuse filter log that HWV258 gave a link to, when I followed the link last night). The effect of the two edits was to destroy a good (imho) link to 1987 in music, and create an autoformatted date, presumably in mimicry of other DA dates. The current format for autoformatting is, I believe, deprecated. I guess I should have said "not what most folks want". I do accept that date autoformatting will cope with [[October 21]], [[1987]] just as well as [[October 21]] [[1987]] or many other variants, and I was badly clouding the point by worrying about commas. Anyway, the point is that an editor thought it more important to autoformat a date (benefiting 0.1% of readers) than to have a good, unquestionably relevant link. Surely if all of the autoformatted dates had been removed by a bot, such a thought would never have crossed that editor's mind? --RexxS (talk) 21:03, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Greetings. I heard my name was mentioned here, so I thought I'd weigh in. The injunction does not prohibit all linking or delinking of dates, obviously. It prohibits "mass delinking", which I read as blindly making automated changes to large numbers of articles. I asked the Arbcom for further clarification on this point, but they have not yet responded. I've made well over 7,000 total edits from April 22 to May 22 (as well as over 7,000 logged admin actions), so the number of edits that changed date formats should be seen in this context -- and every such edit has been individually made, done with the intention of improving the specific page it was used on, and done in the context of other changes that I was making on the page anyway. If the arbcom wants us to leave all date formatting alone, I'll be happy to do that, but that doesn't seem to be what they've instructed. – Quadell (talk) 14:14, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

If these are not automated diffs, then they are part of the balance of public opinion which ought to settle this matter in the long run. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:21, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Super-proposal

ARBCOM ditch the whole mess, require all involved parties to abstain from any date linking or de-linking for 18 months. ARBCOM request a small group of editors with MoS and BAG people in it, and preferably a clerk and an ARBCOm member, to put forward proposals to resolve the whole situation to the community.

Rich Farmbrough, 18:54 21 May 2009 (UTC).

I'll settle for that. I would presume that an equal representation of the two sides will be included in this group; which could be none, for all I care. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:46, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Wizardman's date delinking

John is up for a year of restriction for a minor "edit warring". John_restricted John's edit warring appears to be one edit on the article Karl Popper and 3 edits on Clement Attlee over a three month period in 2008.

I wonder if Wizardman knew about the injunction on date delinking? [5]

Arbitrator Wizzardman made 15 delinking edits in a two hour period on May 21. I think all of his delinking follow the Community consensus and improve the articles. However, other editors have been blocked or threatened with a block for a similar amount of delinking.

I find the application of evidence a bit uneven in this proceeding. The RfC conducted by Ryan Postlethwaite is ignored and the serious disruptions of Bill Clark result in a positive remark on his work as a developer.

I am reading the proposed remedies as maintaining the status quo until MOSNUM is stable. This is an incentive to the "date linking" proponents to keep MOSNUM unstable, locking the articles in the "Wrong Version".

-- SWTPC6800 (talk) 15:19, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I am probably ruining everything for myself now. But I am closing in on being on a 12 months rediting restrictions due to 16 edits over two months where I delinked dates in according with the MOS at that time, and where I noted it in my edit summary (so I honestly thought I did what was "right"). Now Wizardman has voted for my restriction, the day after he made 15 delink edits (called them e.g. "cleanups"). And in total he has made many more recently. I don't know, but I hope I am not breaching any policies by saying that I am quite confused about this whole ordeal, and this particular piece of observation.--HJensen, talk 22:16, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
I believe MOSNUM is stable WRT dates; the entire page is even unprotected. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:19, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Arbitration committee is exceeding the scope of its mandate and is in violation of Wikipedia policy

Why does the arbitration committee think it gets right to expand is scope of authority so widely? In Locke’s request for arbitration, he petitioned as follows: If accepted I would request that the committee pass a motion stopping all automated or semi-automated edits of this fashion until the conclusion of arbitration. He didn’t ask that the ArbCom committee go digging through years of past conduct to see if a case can be made that an editor had been uncivil on numerous occasions. Blocks and bans are not supposed to be punative; they are to protect Wikipedia from current disruption. Certain editors here, other than having argued with Locke on ArbCom-related pages, have had pretty good track records (as evidenced by their block logs). If past conduct hasn’t warranted a block on a case-by-case basis, then it is against Wikipedia policies to dig through months—even years—of cherry-picked lists of grievances put forth by enemies of editors and use that as justification for life-time bans or months-long blocks. Few of us here would look all that saintly if we had our worse enemy digging through years of posts intent on making us look bad.

Wikipedia:Block is quite clear on blocks: Blocks are used to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, not to punish users. Now that MOSNUM has a guideline that correctly reflects the community consensus as a result of Ryan’s RfC, the dispute is over. The remaining editors here have peaceably gone on to their regular business of editing articles and improving Wikipedia.

If any administrator wants to block an editor, they have to show that their current behavior presents a threat to Wikipedia. Since there is no damage or disruption to protect Wikipedia from now that the disputed guideline on MOSNUM is settled, many of the proposed sanctions are contrary to current Wikipedia policy and are wholly invalid. Greg L (talk) 21:47, 22 May 2009 (UTC) Struck Greg L (talk) 22:24, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly agree (see #Witch hunt above). Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 21:55, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
You left out something critical from my request Greg: I urge the committee to accept this case so the behavior (incivility, edit warring, stalking, personal attacks, and so forth) of those involved can be looked at. The issue in this dispute has always been the behavior. If it weren't for the poisonous atmosphere created by this behavior I think this dispute could have ended differently. —Locke Cole • t • c 22:06, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Arbitration committee is violating Wikipedia policy

Blocks and bans are not supposed to be punative; they are to protect Wikipedia from current disruption. Certain editors here, other than having argued with Locke and others on ArbCom-related pages, have had great track records (as evidenced by their block logs) and are productive, helpful Wikipedians. If past conduct hasn’t warranted a block on a case-by-case basis, then it is against Wikipedia policies to dig through months—even years—of cherry-picked lists of grievances put forth by enemies of editors and use that as justification for life-time bans or months-long blocks. Few of us here would look all that saintly if we had our worse enemy digging through years of posts intent on making us look bad.

Wikipedia:Block is quite clear on blocks: Blocks are used to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, not to punish users. Now that MOSNUM has a guideline that correctly reflects the community consensus as a result of Ryan’s RfC, this dispute is over. The remaining editors here have peaceably gone on to their regular business of editing articles and improving Wikipedia.

If any administrator wants to block an editor, they have to show that their current behavior presents a threat to Wikipedia. If there are still editors conducting mass delinking and if the community consensus is that this is undesirable, then blocks must be narrowly tailored to the circumstances and should be no more onerous than to narrowly accomplish the goal of protecting Wikipedia. Now that the once-disputed guideline regarding date linking on MOSNUM is settled, there is precious little damage or disruption by the remaining group of editors that Wikipedia needs to be protected from. Accordingly many of the proposed sanctions are contrary to current Wikipedia policy and are wholly invalid. Greg L (talk) 22:18, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Punitive blocks are not being proposed in these remedies. Blocks are to be used only to enforce the other sanctions; as technical measures to protect Wikipedia from what has, through the full process of our dispute resolution system, been determined to be a significant threat requiring such sanctions. Bans are "formal revocations of editing privileges", as invoked either by the Community, by ArbCom, or by Jimbo. Blocks are technical measures used to enforce bans. ArbCom are in the process of "formally" instituting such remedies, as they deem to be necessary; and the use of blocks in such circumstances are entirely appropriate and within policy. Whether ArbCom is correct to judge that these sanctions are necessary is a legitimate point of argument. Arguing that they are somehow not empowered to institute such sanctions is indefensible. Happy‑melon 22:35, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
People always quote "Blocks are used to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, not to punish users." but then ignore the following line, "Blocks sometimes are used as a deterrent, to discourage whatever behavior led to the block and encourage a productive editing environment." While it's certainly true that blocks should not be used for the sole purpose of punishment, it is NOT true that they are only used to prevent active, current disruption. -Chunky Rice (talk) 22:46, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Well, that’s a fine bit of quoting how the ArbCom is defining its own scope of authority.

    OK, let’s look at reality: ArbCom is considering to ban me for three months. What have I ben up to lately? Why, collaborating with the Ph.D. researcher who advanced a string theory about Fuzzball (string theory), which I’ve been working hard on. Wikipedia needs to be protected from that for three months? Hardly. Wikipedia needs more of that sort of thing.

    If you don’t want me arguing about date linking, there is no need to even give me a prohibition on that activity since I’m entirely satisfied now that it’s all over and MOSNUM properly has the guideline we all knew had community consensus all along.

    Perhaps the ArbCom committee could look into banning me from edit warring over date linking. Trouble is, I never did more than (perhaps) about one date link or de-link per month; I don’t care that much about the issue.

    Civility? Looking at my block log, all five of my blocks were, when you really get down to it, for lipping off or not being deferential to admins, not for being uncivil to regular editors. In fact, two of the blocks were by Rlevse for lipping off to an admin, yet Rlevse not only didn’t recuse himself from this, but was second in line to vote for banning me for three months. So, going back to my original post here in this thread, this appears to be using an 80-power retrospectoscope at past behavior and has precious little about protecting Wikipedia by discouraging future bad behavior.

    Both of you, Chunky Rice and Happy-melon, speak of “disruption”. But it’s not passing most any reasonable editors’ *grin test* that, now that the MOSNUM guideline is settled and stable, that there is going to be any further disruption whatsoever from editors like Ohconfucius, Tony, and me. What is being contemplated simply looks overly draconian and makes ArbCom look like its a lose cannon ball that can spin itself up on things. Again, many of the proposed sanctions are simply detached from reality and don’t fit the circumstances. Accordingly, the contemplated sanctions are contrary to current Wikipedia policy and are invalid. I’m afraid that if you persist, you will lose the confidence and respect of the community. Draconian measures tainted by tinges of bias rarely elicit admiration.

    I think the ArbCom would be wise to cool off for a while, and go back and take another, fresh look entire scope of what you think really needs to be accomplished coming out of Ryan’s RfC now that all that is settled. Greg L (talk) 23:15, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

  • I think you're missing the point. The content issue is separate from the behavioral issue. If you are banned for 3 months, it'll be because of your behavior. Not because you supported date delinking. And the purpose of that ban will be to discourage you from partaking of that behavior in the future. Would that be draconian, as you say? Perhaps. But it is certainly not a violation of the blocking policy, as you claim abpve. -Chunky Rice (talk) 23:29, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
  • If you are banned for 3 months, it'll be because of your behavior. No. I think you, Chunky Rice, are missing the point. Now that Ryan’s RfC, which only validated that what we all knew about the community consensus before Locke complained that black is white, there is no future “bad behavior” out of me that Wikipedia needs to be protected from.

    It passes no one’s *grin test* that editors like User:Tony1, who has only one block to his record (and that was reverted as being in error in the first place), needs to be banned from MOSNUM for life. The notion is simply absurd to anyone who knows about this sort of stuff. Perhaps more unfortunate, is the whole ArbCom committee loses respect and makes it look like it needs to be reorganized by the community.

    Again, I think the ArbCom would be (very) wise to cool off for a while, and go back and take another, fresh look entire scope of what you think really needs to be accomplished coming out of Ryan’s RfC now that all that is settled. Greg L (talk) 23:46, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

  • I really don't understand why you keep on bringing up the RfC. It's irrelevant to the behavioral issues being examined in this matter. This is not a content ruling. Also, I don't know what a grin test is. -Chunky Rice (talk) 00:02, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
I have followed this case from the start and had high hopes that it would live up to its position as a final step in dispute resolution. I have felt from the start that failing to resolve the underlying problem - a sincere difference of opinion between two groups of editors - would be a failure of the dispute resolution process. Now I look at some of the possible "remedies": productive editors banned (and I include in that all those targeted from both sides); editing restrictions across the whole of wikipedia; an editor forbidden from using automation despite never having used it, much less abused it; editors prohibited from editing via another account, despite no shred of evidence that they had ever engaged in that; and so on. What will be the outcomes from that? A number of justifiably aggrieved editors; perhaps the loss of some. In 25 years of managing badly-behaved adolescents, one thing I learned was that punishment needs to be perceived as fair if it is going to achieve its desired result; if not, it's counter-productive. How much more so does this apply to dealing with adults.
I will point out that ArbCom has always reserved the right to examine the behaviour of anyone and to expand its scope if needed. I would not disagree with its right to do so, but I would also point out that that it has always been a principle of ArbCom that it use the least sanctions required to produce the desired outcomes (and probably to err on the side of leniency if unsure - ArbCom always has the right to revisit a case). And what are the actual desired outcomes? I would propose: an end to edit wars; a stable MOS; an end to disruption. What is actually needed to produce those outcomes? Put the involved editors on 0RR on style issues for three months; topic ban all the involved editors from altering MOS for three months; civility parole for the involved editors for three months; and take another look at it then. If behaviour has not been modified in that period of time, then it's probably not going to be, and that's the time for rolling out the heavy sanctions. It is not good behaviour management to have disputes running for the best part of a year, then to dish out heavy sanctions, without most of those involved having received little in the way of previous warning. For ten years, I was empowered to cane miscreants - barbaric, isn't it? - but I never had to use that power once, or even threaten it. I have to disagree with Greg L: ArbCom is empowered to enact harsh sanctions, with no violation of Wikipedia policy, but I would remind them that they don't have to, just because they can. --RexxS (talk) 00:58, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
  • I think some of the editors are disappointed to see an RfC organized by the ArbCom clerk totally ignored. These editors worked hard to create a meaningful and unbiased RfC to determine the Community consensus on date linking. The Proposed Decision was written in February, before this RfC, and does not even acknowledge this effort. TennisExpert's 200 k bytes of edit diffs will have a larger impact on the outcome. This tells future ArbCom participants to dig up as much dirt as possible on everyone remotely connected to the case. Don't waste any time on trying to resolve the issues. -- SWTPC6800 (talk) 01:02, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Thank you RexxS. Everyone should read (twice) what you wrote. And I agree with you SWTPC6800.

    Quoting you, Chunky Rice: I really don't understand why you keep on bringing up the RfC. It's irrelevant to the behavioral issues being examined in this matter. Well, there you go; we’ve identified the key disconnect to why we aren’t seeing eye to eye. Don’t you think it rather odd that a long-time editor like User:Tony1, who has only one block on his record (reverted three hours later for being a mistake) is up for lifetime bans of one sort or another to protect Wikipedia from harm? That is such a bizarre outcome; Tony has long been seen as a key shepherd on MOSNUM who was of great help in maintaining order.

    This date linking /delinking issue was a content dispute that boiled over into testy behavior on everyone’s part. I got blocked by Gwen for being lippy not too long ago, and then Tony got all over into her face with Rlevse, and Rlevse still remembers all that. He should have recused himself rather than try his best to be first in line to whack Tony. What Tony has really done, in my opinion, is stirred the pot and threatened key portions of Wikipedia’s power structures. Nevertheless, he has, all the while, been quite civil. Moreover, he has never pulled mean-spirited stunts like Tennis_expert did or Locke Cole with childish deletions of RfCs or mean-spirited MfDs on another users own userpage.

    This content dispute brought out bad behavior and bitter feelings with all the parties here—admins included. The result has been pretty much everyone here busying themselves with flowery, high-brow oratory trying to justify this position or that.

    Now that the content dispute is settled, the behavior has settled down to the way things have long been. We have a long-term editor like Tony going back to what he’s long done on MOSNUM (effectively too). A common thread amongst most of the editors like Tony and Ohconfucius is they are all around 50 years old, intelligent, multilingual, well-traveled and worldly, and mature. They aren’t kids and Wikipedia is better off for their contributions. Moreover, they are prolifically productive. There is a colossal disconnect here between some editors’ near-blemish-free block records, their long-term track record of making Wikipedia better, versus some of these absurd looking “remedies to protect Wikipedia from future harm.” It’s truly absurd what this fiasco has brought out in everyone.

    I propose that this whole ArbCom be put on hold for a three-month-long probation period and we’ll see how much harm occurs to Wikipedia during that time. About the only three rulings the ArbCom needs to make leading into that cooling-off period are 1) “No editing against current MOSNUM guidelines on date linking”, 2) “Mass date delinking by parties to this ArbCom shall be subject to prior approval of Ryan,” and 3) “Everyone play nice; we’re watching.” My prediction for the outcome of these three simple rulings: nothing short of a metric ton of weapons-grade peace. Greg L (talk) 01:19, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Greg's proposals are not unreasonable, and I hope ArbCom will answer with what those of us who are tired of dates can now do. I've expressed my hopes at WT:MOS, and will let others engage in them. I do, being me, have quibbles:

  1. It should be obvious that we disagree about which specific edits the current text of MOSNUM prohibits; so did the majority that approved that wording. That's not a problem for me; I don't intend to fiddle with date formats, and therefore propose: The parties including me shall not change the format of dates for three months.
  2. Why bother Ryan? Can't we survive without the joys of mass delinking (or mass linking) for three months? If he wants to lead another discussion on the subject, he's braver than I am; but the results might be useful. Instead: The parties to this case agree not to edit the text of a MOS page for three months.
  3. Everybody play nice. I agree, and intend to; those who are mystified by ArbCom's strictness may do well to remember that this includes not writing about excrement nor distorting usernames. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:44, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
  • I deeply suspect the bitter truth is that WP believes grass root editors are a commodity - for there are thousands outside who are coming in each day replacing those who leave. For the powers that be, it's just like managing the subscriber churn rate within a mobile phone network company - so long as churn does not exceed a certain level (analogous to no depletion of people willing to do the grunt work), there will be no warning bells. However, lose those who genuinely seek to expand the knowledge base, and we are left with only those with agendas/conflicts of interest - of which we have enough already, but are kept at bay for the time being.

    We must not miss the 'big picture' of this dispute. It is no longer about content nor editors' behavioural issues - that was a very long time ago. A flawed mechanism can work for quite a long time without problems, but the dates case has proven to be a real stress test which amply demonstrates the weakness of the system. The faults of editors (like myself and Kendrick7) have been compounded by actions of some of its admins, and magnified many-fold by the faulty structure and premises of Arbcon, WP's "supreme court", the incompetence of its clerk(s) and conflicts of interest of its Arbs. So long the punishments against us can be spun as part of the microcosm of daily operations of WP, all will remain well. However, this case has shown the very worst side of WP, for all the world to see. It is only a short hop to a general realisation that the problems are intimately related to the organisational vision and the deep flaws within WP's power structure. As RexxS said above, the fact that Tony appears to have been shaking the tree may be the root cause of Arbcom's discomfort.

    Today, the organisation, through GFDL, lives off the labours of those who have brought it to where it is today. Arbcom can give the finger to small editors, but is potentially biting the hand that feeds each time it does that. Do that enough times, and the churn will hit the ceiling, and the wake up call one morning will be that there are no small editors to do the serious lifting. I'd like to see bots creating knowledge! Wikipedia has become one of those organisations whose a pernicious bureaucracy is a serious threat to its own existence, but I'm not convinced it realises this. Its business model might have succeeded up to now, but nothing in the world is static. Ohconfucius (talk) 03:54, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't actually disagree with much of this. I don't want to make any sweeping statements, since I'm not fully familiar with the situation and the caveats of all its participants, but if you are correct that the dispute has been largely resolved by the most recent RfC, then the only requirement of sanctions is to prevent a relapse back into that dispute. My first comment was merely to point out that this should be the core of any such argument: it is wikilawyering to attack the situation purely from a "this is against policy X" approach. Cases only come to ArbCom where policy has failed to contain and control the dispute, and where binding sanctions are needed. Sanctions which do indeed need to be appropriate to the current and future situation. Happy‑melon 09:13, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Thoughts for Kirill

Looking at Kirill's opposition to FoF 4 and other such proposals:

The developers are never shy about letting us know if something we're doing is a problem; we do not need to seek their approval for routine editorial decisions

I think the point with this decision is that it is not a routine editorial decision, because it is a massive, site-wide change. The developers may well be able to make suggestions to make the change easier and smoother. It is far from unreasonable to say "we're looking at making this massive change -- can you help us?"

Allowing the developers proactive input in shaping the implementation of the change is likely to have far more useful results than waiting for them to come along afterwards and clear things up. These proposals are sensible when we are discussing a change of the magnitude of this one.

[[Sam Korn]] (smoddy) 16:59, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

That seems fair enough; but the finding is written in a way that gives the developers a veto over such changes (cf. "A request to disable mw:Manual:$wgUseDynamicDates was not initiated") rather than merely allowing their input. I do not accept the argument that the developers can force the community to use an optional feature by refusing to disable it at the software level. Kirill [talk] [pf] 19:47, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
The other side of the problem, Sam, is that there is no co-ordinator for making changes such as these - someone who actually is expected to take on the job of informing the developers. We all know Wikipedia does not work like that. If the developers are left out of the loop, when it was nobody's job to tell them, it seems rather unfair, imho, to draw findings of fact that implicitly blame someone for not doing that. Maybe a more structured system of implementing changes would avoid this, but Wikipedia's great strength lies in its lack of hierarchy, and I prefer it that way. --RexxS (talk) 00:29, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
This is a reasonable policy proposal, one that many people seem to have thought was obvious, but is it stated anywhere? It will probably be more useful somewhere like WP:POL than here. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:04, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Renegade developer

Another curious item in the Proposed Decision is that developers walk on water and must be respected by the community. Totally missing from the case is the renegade "developer Bill Clark" who caused extreme disruption in the delinking case. Bill known under various names (UC_Bill, Sapphic and more) caused many other editors to respond in ways that is now being used as evidence against them. Bill Clark has had many Wikipedia user names over several years. Each was abandoned after creating a controversy. The only mention of Bill in this Proposed Decision is a positive comment in Bug 4582. (Ryan Postlethwaite and the arbitrators have the evidence on Bill Clark.) -- SWTPC6800 (talk) 15:36, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes indeed. "Bill" influenced a great many people with his contributions to the debate (including Locke_Cole (talk · contribs)—whose oft-cited technical "solution" disappeared without trace when "Bill" shut up shop—complete with his usual petulant hissy fit). I'm certain the arbitrators have the evidence on "Bill" (which makes his absence in these proceedings all the more baffling), but just in case observers of this page aren't aware of the background, here's a summary of the Sockpuppetry by User:UC_Bill, alias User:Sapphic alias User:Wclark_xoom and User:169.229.149.174 and Bugzilla’s Bill Clark:
Why is "Bill" not up for: "indefinite blockage" or "is required to obtain the Committee's approval if he wishes to use an account other than {insert your choice here} to edit"?
 HWV258  03:57, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Don't forget the very recently active (May 16, 2009) account, Overweight and Ugly. NW (Talk) (How am I doing?) 04:08, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Ah geez, you blink and you miss something around here.  HWV258  04:16, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

A week has passed since the original point was raised by SWTPC6800 in this section. To the various arbitrators: when will each of you be acting on this evidence? If poor John is mentioned for little more than one (well-meaning) revert-type edit, then to omit evidence/action against "someone" who actively defrauded and influenced the Wikipedia community, can only serve to undermine the credibility of Wikipedia's self-regulation. (It should be noticed that evidence has been officially presented in this regard.) To each arbitrator: if you have no intention of acting on the evidence regarding "Bill", could you please explain exactly why that is? Thanks.  HWV258  00:28, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

He's already banned, in all his various guises. Given that, there's not much point in considering any secondary sanctions; if he makes any further attempts to edit, he'll simply be blocked on the spot as any other ban-evading sockpuppet would be. Kirill [talk] [pf] 02:39, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for your quick response. If "he" is (as you say) banned, then it would be trivial to include him in the current proceedings. That way, the permanent record of this arbitration would acknowledge and record his part in the events. At a minimum, something like the following is essential: ' "UC_Bill, Sapphic, Wclark_xoom, Thiasos, Bill_Clark, Overweight_and_ugly", is required to obtain the Committee's approval if they wish to use an account other than "UC_Bill, Sapphic, Wclark_xoom, Thiasos, Bill_Clark, Overweight_and_ugly" to edit '. It should be noted that a similar statement has been applied to Tony1 (although to your credit you have opposed that—and quite rightly as Tony1 has never demonstrated such behaviour), so it is mystifying that such a proposal hasn't been applied to an editor involved in the date debate who demonstrated a great propensity towards such behaviour (especially noting that Overweight_and_ugly (talk · contribs) was added after the ban to which you linked). Could you please add something similar to my suggested statement to the Proposed decision page? Thank you.  HWV258  03:09, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Leaving aside the somewhat prejudicial "renegade developer" epithet, no editor here is allowed to abusively use multiple accounts. It doesn't matter what ArbCom says about it, the community says it's not allowed. If you're found to be doing such, you get blocked - and this has happened. (That said, there's also tacit community acceptance of the obvious, if a banned user comes back under a different identity and never ever repeats the same problem behaviour, we're none the wiser and everyone is happy)
Your contrasting case with Tony1 as an example is a proposed preventative measure to ensure there's no further disruption (no matter how unlikely, and as you note, the measure is being opposed on that basis). In general, AC stays out of what the community has already got under control. Franamax (talk) 03:34, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
And thanks for your input. I was hoping (and am still hoping) that an arbitrator would comment/act on my question. However, I am now especially interested in the role that anticipative preventative punishments play in the proceedings.  HWV258  03:52, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
No prob, I'd be interested in the arb comments too. But I can be as BOLD as anyone else to suggest the AC should stay out of the community's affairs wherever possible. I think you may be conflating "preventative" with "punishment" though: the preventative nature of such an AC remedy is to make the user aware that were they to undertake the action in question, they would be subject to more severe and immediate sanctions than the norm, i.e. via the WP:AE noticeboard. In the case of UC_Bill, they are already subject to the maximum possible sanction - they are flat-out banned. So there's no need for AC to say anything more. I'll stop commenting now, but indeed the point you discuss was what led me to comment in the first place. Franamax (talk) 04:12, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Witch hunt

Okay, I came here to get an update on the situation and I'm simply BAFFLED at the way the "ruling" is developping. Banning Greg, Tony1, ... these are powerhouse users, known and respected for their knowledge and graps of stylistic issues. I mean Tony wrote the damn guide everyone uses to write FA! And you want to indef block the guy? What the hell? This ARBCOM is by far lining up to be one of the most epic failures of Wikipedia, where longstanding, respected editors get banned because they are getting annoyed by the two-chumps newbies who can't grasp that sometimes [clarification: not saying the anti-delinking side are all two-chumps newbies, but rather that we're punishing people because they're fed up with the crap they have to put with], things don't go your way. The one size fits all rules where ARBCOM treats those who edited dates 7 times on the same footing as the guy who reverts 750 times in beyond insane... Wow... Just wow... I am speechless. This is not a ruling to settle things, this is a damned witch hunt. Their the ones editing in line with consensus and their getting banned because some people can't accepted it. Wow. That's so repulsing it makes me want to leave Wikipedia. Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 05:14, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your honesty, and I agree completely. Let's hope that common sense prevails before WP becomes a laughing stock.  HWV258  05:36, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
ArbCom needs to make a decision here. Do "super contributors" get to ignore our core policies (WP:CIV, WP:NPA, etc) or are they treated equally like other editors? One wonders too whether all these contributions you speak of would have even been possible were it not for how these editors react to disputes. Bullying gets you your way, yes, but does it really make you a "valued member" of the community? That Tony in particular has used FA and MOS to push his point of view should be telling to the committee, and they should react in kind. We don't need that type of editor here, and any gap made by their departure will be filled by other volunteers. —Locke Cole • t • c 10:09, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
They are certainly more needed than people who systematically disrupt Wikipedia because they can't accept consensus is against their personal preference. Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 12:50, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
There is no consensus, and that's the problem. These editors routinely disrupt attempts at finding consensus because there's only two solutions for them (which works perfectly for them because they know nobody will support the strawman they continue to erect): 1) link and autoformat all dates, or 2) unlink all dates. Sadly the community seems to agree with them generally on the issue of date linking, but as regards auto formatting (which is implicitly tied to the linking) there's not consensus. And even as far as linking goes, there's still no consensus for delinking all dates, only consensus that links are okay "sometimes" (what is still under dispute there is when are date links acceptable). The behavior of Tony, Greg, Ohconfucius, etc. are the real problem here. Whatever else they've done is irrelevant if they insist on disrupting discussions by claiming they've "won", had some "victory", or don't need to compromise to find something the community actually will agree on. —Locke Cole • t • c 12:55, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
There IS consensus, just not one you recognized. Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 13:19, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
There is no consensus. Saying otherwise in the face of evidence to the contrary does not make you right. Or anyone for that matter. —Locke Cole • t • c 13:48, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
There is probably consensus against both extremes; Rexxs and I agree on that here. I see no other. If ArbCom does, they should say so. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:19, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Equal accountability has the same goal as what you're describing though. To me it's just semantics, but as these editors seem unwilling to accept that their behavior is what is causing the problems we've had (or at least a large part of the problems we've had) then something must be done to correct that behavior. If this behavior is not discouraged (through inaction, for example) then others will be emboldened to continue the behavior or adopt it for themselves (as it obviously works, why not engage in personal attacks, incivility and bullying). —Locke Cole • t • c 15:28, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Equal accountability has the same goal as what you're describing though. I don't disagree with the goal of equal accountability, I disagree about whether it is probable to achieve that goal in practice especially when approached from the angle you suggested. While I support Equal Responsibility, I am not sure Equal Accountability is any different than Justice. Something to keep in mind as you deal with reality, but not actually part of reality. While we are all are equally responsible to do various things (i.e. protect BLPs), some are better informed, others more capable, and others have the actual time to devote. I am afraid Equal Accountability, if you mean it the way I suspect, just encourages everyone act along lowest standards bearable out fear of raising the bar instead of inspiring people to the highest standards possible. It is also extremely susceptible to baiting, discourages intervention, and favors the malicious who have self-control at the expense of the naive. Everything has a downside of course, but if you really think about it enough you will realize Equal Accountability is impractical for the purposes of Wikipedia.
  • (as it obviously works, why not engage in personal attacks, incivility and bullying). It doesn't work. If anyone thinks it has worked, they are either too focused on the short-term or not philosophical enough to work out what they really wish to accomplish and instead acting in a reactionary manner.--BirgitteSB 17:28, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Headbomb: Very well said, and note how per usual as when they have been criticized, no arbitrators deign to answer you. They're like like Lily Tomlin. Remember Lily Tomlin? "We don't care… We're the phone company: we don't have to!"--Goodmorningworld (talk) 16:47, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

It would have been nice, in general, to get more feedback from ArbCom throughout this arbitration; on the other hand, they do have other things to do. I don't think silence here can be rationally construed as an admission of anything. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:47, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
No, but it's apparently a great opportunity to get in a shot. Besides, there's really nothing to be answered, as even though there were question marks in the opening post to this section, there was no actual question asked. It was a statement of one user's opinion and, despite all evidence in the history of these talk pages to the contrary, not every opinion needs a response. Unfortunately, I will say that it includes an all-too common mistake, in perpetuating the belief that this entire case is all because of two-chumps newbies who can't grasp that sometimes, thing (sic) don't go your way. That's a dramatic and incorrect oversimplification of what this has been about. Not everyone who's expressed concerns about the events that led us here is an autoformatting-addicted, date-linking druggie with ownership issues who's been climbing the Reichstag while their hair was on fire, nor have they sometimes — or even often — been particularly happy with the actions of those who might otherwise be described as on the "same side" of this case. The complete failure of some people to understand that, and the delay of others in doing so, is for me by far the saddest part of this whole ugly chapter in Wikihistory. Mlaffs (talk) 18:50, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Re to BirgitteSB My problem is not that ARBCOM is banning people, my problem is that ARBCOM's idea of a solution is banning people. Banning Tony, Greg, OhConfucius, Locke, etc... won't solve the issue, the only thing it'll to do is draw people into yet-another RfC on this issue, then another to see if that previous RfC was really conducted according to the principle listed in Alphabet Soup #234, which will trigger another RfC because someone objects and takes offense to the wording of the previous RfC about the RfC and so on. ARBCOM is not tackling the core of the issue, they are dodging it. The only reason why we're at this point is because ARBCOM systematically refuses to address issues when they arise, but rather only after all hell broke loose. It took over three years to settled the damned IEC prefix war (with 15 MOSNUM archives, and about 5 RfCs in the last year of the war alone). The delinking war started one year ago and ARBCOM is refusing to settle it. Would it be nice if everyone would send each other flowers? Yes it would. But you're being pretty damned naive if you think this is what is going to happen. We're shitcanning our first round of powerhouse editors. Then there'll be more shitcanning in two months. And then in another two months. And so on until one side runs out of members. Now just look at the number of people involved in this, are we really willing to shitcan 20–40% of our more active and passionate editors, including a good chunk of people who are extremely versed in style issues and who are de facto MoS gurus who can answer questions and offer guidance to newbies and experts alike? Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 18:45, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Your first problematic assumption is that Arbcom could solve this. Do you really think that Arbcom writing bot-code and delivering it as the law of date linking would put an end to the battlefield tactics over style issues? You just gave a very good description above about why which dates are linked is irrelevant to the real problem. This is not about date-linking, it has merely concerned date-linking most recently. Anyone who thinks this is about which date have wikilinks, needs to take tens steps back, get some sleep, get up and drink some coffee, read the newspaper, and then turn their mind back to what is the great significance between a date with a wikilink and one without one all other things being equal. Without something being done to seriously cause everyone to contemplate and alter their personal approach to this issue even with an "Arbcom law", it would something else in two months anyways. Will this decision "seriously cause everyone to contemplate and alter their personal approach to this issue"? I don't know. If this approach repeatedly fails to do so, I expect Arbcom will abandon this type of decision in future cases and try something else.
Your second problematic assumption is that it is possible for one side to run out of members. This is an open wiki, they either aren't really going anywhere or will be quickly replaced by others even more intent of doing battle. After all future members must be even more aware they are joining a battle then those who originally got swept up in it all. The real problem is that our most active and passionate editors don't understand when to disengage. When to say, "This issue seems more important to him than is to me so I should let it go". Instead they say, "I can't back down over this, because it is the principle of the thing." Because of the very reasons that are behind them being our most active and passionate editors, they treat the opinions they hold with equal passion and want to see the every problem they have identified solved with immediacy and strong advocacy. Their strong self-confidence which gives them the drive to step-up and fix things when other hang back, gives them difficulty accepting the validity of differing views. My support of Arbom is not based on my belief in the perfection of their handling of this case, or confidence that this particular solution will work. It is based on the fact that supporting Arbcom and giving them the chance to try different approaches, whether any particular approach succeeds or fails, is the only way we will ever find a workable solution to inherent flaws in Wikipedia that lead to Abcom cases in the first place.
So I believe everyone should give this decision a fair shot. However much anyone might disagree with it, I hope they will be open-minded that following the decision might improve things. I know it will be very hard for the people who deeply affected, who are possibly offended by my abstract views on a situation that is very personal to them. But I can only say the following to them, I am sorry they are here. I truly empathize with them and understand that were only doing what they thought was right to make Wikipedia a great as possible. I wish I could go back in time and get involved early on and do my best to push things towards one of the good solutions. I hope that they can understand that that they all were swept up in something bigger than any one of them and it took them all down the vortex. I truly hope they can recover from this case and find the joy in Wikipedia again or in meatspace if they leave.
A long time ago, I wrote a piece on why every Arbcom case was a failure of the community and it kept the Community Noticeboard open a little longer (which probably was a bad thing, but you have to try things to learn). I hate Arbcom cases. Arbcom is a horrible solution. All the good solutions are only available way before Arbcom. There are no good solutions left once things come this far. You are right that it is naive to really think people might actually come out of Arbcom seeing their opponent's vulnerabilities with new found empathy as they become clear-gazed towards their own flaws. The best probable outcome is that people will come out saying, "The other guy was horrible and did way worse things than me and got off easy, but I do see how I could have handled things slightly better on my end." That the best we are likely to get, and that sucks. There is no winning here, we can only hope that everyone learns a little bit. And maybe that will be enough for them to recognize the good solutions available early on in the next topic. That there will be a next topic, I think you understand.
As for date-linking. I don't think it will be as hard to hammer out the details, as you do. It's not the Baltics. It doesn't have to be done all at once either, nor does it need does every type of date-link situation need to be decided on before some can be agreed upon. Forget the perfectionist approach and start with the obvious. Principle of good enough and all that. But that probably isn't an good discussion to start here considering the topic bans in the works.--BirgitteSB 20:20, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Of course this is about date links, what else would it be about? Do you think all these people just like fighting and choose this issue to fight over because there is nothing better? --Apoc2400 (talk) 15:54, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
No I don't think they just like fighting, I think that something in the situation of Wikipedia can make it near irresistible for some people to adopt a battleground mentality. There is nothing inherent about date-linking to stir this sort extremity up, like some other topics. I think it was probably something more to do with the particular personality mix and the approach involved early on in the dispute. And I think that such a situation is likely to occur again concerning a different topic than date-linking, if all everyone concerned was able to go back to doing what they were before this became such a quagmire, without recognizing they needed to change their approach. Of course I could be wrong, whether date are linked or not could be on the level of religious opinion in some circles without my knowledge.--BirgitteSB 17:28, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
Birgitte, I can't let that go unanswered. Personally, I found the tension distressing. I believe my colleagues on both sides of the debate would attest to a similar feeling, and that the tension arose from two deeply held opposing beliefs—possibly akin to ideology in some ways—not from a personal enjoyment of in-fighting. It would be a blessed relief not to have deal ever again with another date. Tony (talk) 17:47, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
I am sorry that you believe I think any of you take pleasure in in-fighting. I don't and I said as much above. Perhaps I should not say any more at the risk of being further misunderstood.--BirgitteSB 16:26, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Relevant, effective and hopeful remedies are expected

I expect I am speaking on behalf of some, if not all parties, and of many people in the community.

I draw your attention to these aspects of the Guide to arbitration, which instructs parties in bold to please read this page carefully:

"Arbitrators focus on the risk and benefits for future, not on past historic issues. It aims to find the best way to move forward, so users can get beyond the dispute. Arbitration is more likely to ask if a user can change or what restrictions would have an effect, than "who said exactly what"."

"Arbitrators focus on the risk and benefits for future, not on past historic issues. It aims to find the best way to move forward, so users can get beyond the dispute. Arbitration is more likely to ask if a user can change or what restrictions would have an effect, than "who said exactly what"."

By clear implication, if restrictions are "to focus on the future not the past", to "find the best way to move forward" and to enable users to "get beyond the dispute", they need to be relevant, in proportion and effective, and thus acknowledged by the community and the parties and fair and reasonable Permanent and seemingly harsh and irrelevant restrictions are unlikely to arise from asking whether "a user can change", or consideration of what restrictions would have the best effect for the project.

Let us examine wordings that appear repeatedly in the proposed judgement:

Both proposed "remedies" appear to be almost casually punitive in their permanence (No. 1) and their scope (Nos. 1 and 2). They go far beyond the issue that caused the dispute in the first place, the behaviour that was the subject of the case, and the necessary means to protect the project. It is extraordinarily harsh to ban experienced editors for life from editing such a broadly defined set of pages. Both "remedies: seem to be based solely on perceived disruption in the past, and to allow absolutely no latitude for changed attitudes and behaviours. Permanent restrictions expunge the notion that an editor might learn to do things differently, but instead brand them for life. They construct the human spirit as negative, mean and uncooperative. They remove hope and provide negative motivation to stay the same rather than positive motivation to change. They are a hammer-strike to the skull by removing forever an editor's sense of self-worth. I am sure that most WPians, including Jimbo Wales, would be surprised that ArbCom is not taking simple measures that are relevant and constrained to the dispute and its resolution, that encourage stability and cooling off, and at the same time hold out hope for the future, as set out in the quotes at the top. Like this, which would be simple to enforce:

Restrictions on parties: For a 12-month period, [named parties] are forbidden to:

Enforcement: Similar to now, but reworded as appropriate.

Review: ArbCom appoints a subcommittee of arbs, mediators and a BAG rep. to review after ? months (i) the parties' behaviour on this matter, (ii) stability on MOSNUM, MOS and MOSLINK, and (iii) bot-related behaviour as it relates to this issue.

Presumably, ArbCom, Jimbo and the community would regard a judgement as successful if everyone returned to normal, minus the issue at hand – and if this were achieved with mimum effort by arbs and clerks, and trauma to the parties. Rather than fuelling the dispute on the Workshop and Evidence pages for four months, this case could have been decided within a few weeks of acceptance, since the results of Ryan's RFC do not appear to be regarded as relevant. Something like the judgement above would protect the project from instability and tension on these matters insofar as involvement by the parties, and would encourage the parties to use their talents in other places on WP. It would be a reasonable and constructive outcome that would set an example for other editors. It would maximise the chance that the parties would mature out of the dispute while remaining productive contributors.

By contrast, the current swathe of proposed draconian punishments seems designed to damage the parties. Rather than feeling utterly resentful at inappropriate, disproportionate, demeaning and irrelevant punishments, the parties (and the community) are far more likely to react positively to restrictions that are honed to the nub of the matter and that set the direction on a positive, controlled course. The remedies need to leave the parties (on both sides) feeling chastened but reasonably positive about the future, not personally embittered by punishments they see as unjust, disproportionate and undermining of all they have done in years of contributions to WP. ArbCom is quite able to re-open the matter whenever it chooses, if it felt it was necessary to extend the restrictions in time or scope, or to act otherwise. Tony (talk) 07:26, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

A few points in response:
"Indefinite", in Committee parlance, is not the same thing as "permanent"; we regularly rescind indefinite restrictions after a period of time has passed, when the editor subject to them makes a reasonable display of having reformed. By making the restrictions indefinite, we are simply making sure that anyone wishing to have them removed must actively demonstrate improved conduct, rather than merely waiting on the sidelines for a few months and then jumping into the fray again.
Some of the restrictions you've proposed would actually prohibit a wider range of activity than some of the ones being voted on. Consider:
  • Your restriction (B) has explicitly been omitted from, e.g. remedy 9.3.
  • Your restriction (C) prohibits any changes to linking, whereas the editing restrictions (e.g. remedy 10) being voted on prohibit only reverting changes, and only when those reverts are not compliant with the relevant style guide.
The significant difference, as far as I can tell, is that you'd like restrictions specifically on the points of style which were the root cause of this dispute, whereas the Committee is proposing restrictions dealing with all points of style generally. Unfortunately, the behavior of many of the parties during this case has left us unconvinced that (a) the ongoing disputes over the MOS would not shift to a slightly different set of points of style if you were prohibited merely from fighting over this particular one, or that (b) very narrow restrictions would not be gamed by editors claiming to be disputing a slightly different point of style. It's unfortunate that we've had to go down this route—we would generally prefer to keep experienced editors involved rather than simply removing them from the area—but we are quite wary of allowing the fighting to continue, at least in the short term.
Perhaps any restrictions imposed here can be reviewed following the stabilization of the MOS (per enforcement 3.1), however. Kirill [talk] [pf] 16:09, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
A restriction wide enough to encompass all edits which reformat dates is probably a better idea. Is a specific edit in accord with MOSNUM, which now says:the content of the linked article should be germane and topical to the subject? That's a judgment call, and judgments differ.
Some people think, and have said, that no date article meets that criterion; others disagree; there are a wide range of middle cases, like links to the years of the Second World War. The present wording expects an enforcing admin to second-guess those cases.
On the other hand, there is no real likelihood that this dispute will simply metastasize to an unrelated area of style. Everybody disagrees on those matters, including the frequenters of MOS not involved in this dispute; but there have been no cries of we must act now, and no bots producing protests. If it had not been for the massive linking done in order to autoformat, we would not be here now. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:33, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
thanks, Kirill, for providing some insight into the thinking behind some of these proposed "remedies" - the principle of basing punishments on what the committee imagines "might happen if" is quite alarming, but at least now it's clearer what the idea is. if the people involved in this dispute have not been fighting over other points of style, i don't understand what grounds there are for imagining they would do so. as RexxS pointed out above: punishment needs to be perceived as fair.
i hope some explanation behind Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Date_delinking/Proposed_decision#John is forthcoming as well.
and indeed: "If it had not been for the massive linking done in order to autoformat, we would not be here now." has that been entered as a proposed FoF? it should be. Sssoul (talk) 05:58, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
If it is a FoF, it should make clear that the linking goes back to 2003, if not further, and was done for a few years with almost universal consent. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:00, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

It appears that the restrictions proposed are extremely broad, and automation has very broad connotations which could arguably include the use of multiple edit windows. I am a habitual and long-time user of pop-ups, for example, and this use has never been the subject of any controversy. So, would the sanction, if passed, deprive me the use of this tool as well as the others which I may be using unwittingly? Ohconfucius (talk) 03:49, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

It has been generally agreed that any tool which requires willful, positive, intervention by its operator for every edit (or, sometimes, a small group of directly related edits) is not "automation" in that sense of the term. Using Twinkle to close an AfD debate, for instance, causes at least three consecutive edits but is done by an active request from the editor that does one, well defined, set of edits. I suppose we could find a better term "assisted editing?" to describe those marginal cases, but then we enter the territory of trying to coin new terms with all the attendant ambiguity.

The simple rule: if the tool you are using allows you to make systematic repeated actions, then it is automation; if it only allows doing one "logical" operation (however much easier) it is not. — Coren (talk) 02:20, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Deflagging

It may be worthwhile to write an explicit instruction to 'crats into the remedy to deflag any bots run by users who are being restricted from automation (see Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard#Potentially dangerous situation with Lightbot). –xenotalk 12:57, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

If Lightmouse is site-banned from Wikipedia, then both his main account and his bot will be blocked, which strongly implies that the bot will also be de-flagged. Even if he somehow manages to escape the one-year ban, any reasonable bureaucrat reading this, as a passed remedy in a final decision, would readily conclude that Lightbot should be de-flagged - we don't have insult the bureaucrats' intelligence by spelling it out for them. The only actual controversy here is whether Lightbot should be prophylactically de-flagged before the banhammer actually falls, which I would favor simply because by the time five arbitrators vote to site-ban an editor for a year, he has long since lost the confidence of the community as a bot operator, who, as I have explained at here and here, really needs to be a trusted editor. Erik9 (talk) 19:02, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
There's nothing intelligence-insulting about being explicit. –xenotalk 19:08, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
Arbcom decisions are not customarily written to the level of deal you describe. For instance, this remedy simply states "Lightmouse is banned from Wikipedia for a period of one year.", without a corresponding enforcement provision such as

In order to effectuate remedy 5.1, all accounts controlled by Lightmouse, including, but not limited to, Lightmouse (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Lightbot (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) are to be blocked for a period of one year, except to the extent that blocks for greater periods of time on accounts other than Lightmouse's main account are necessary for the enforcement of other remedies pertaining to him.

If administrators can enforce Arbitration Committee decisions without specific instructions as to which buttons to press, surely bureaucrats can do the same. Erik9 (talk) 19:24, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
Fair enough. Guess we'll leave it for the arbs to decide. –xenotalk 19:34, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Why is the proposed remedy for Locke Cole so severe?

A year's ban? Compared to Lightmouse, AKA Bobblewik? I don't get it. — Hex (❝?!❞) 19:34, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Probably as a result of the events which Locke_Cole (talk · contribs) brought upon himself. In addition, I gather there is a dim view of people with long block logs.  HWV258  22:33, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
Over half that block log is from 2005-2006. And a few of them were done by admins with a conflict of interest. The more serious blocks ended up overturned, and if you look closely you'll see some blocks were maintenance blocks to try and force my block to expire. The length of it is, IMHO, misleading. And unlike some here (Lightmouse/Bobblewik) I'm not carrying on the exact same disruptive behavior for years and years under various aliases. —Locke Cole • t • c 03:30, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Hey, I didn't say it was fair.  HWV258  03:47, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Defeat barbarity, uphold civilization

WHEREAS, "incivil", while a word, is a rare word in the English language, which already has the perfectly functional "uncivil", a word with a long history going back to at least the 1550s, and a word with the exact same meaning as "incivil", and

WHEREAS, nothing in this resolution is meant to deprecate the fine, upstanding and perfectly righteous word "incivility", which should itself never be replaced with "uncivility" if anybody was getting that idea, and

WHEREAS, the use of computer searches means that alternating the use of these two words makes such searches take longer, creating a noisome, pestiferous, inefficient situation for editors who could be using their precious minutes to instead build the encyclopedia or be on vandal patrol, therefore

BE IT RESOLVED, now and forevermore, that ArbCom decisions must NEVER, EVER, and to repeat and emphasize, NEVER, EVER, EVER, EVER use the word "incivil" and instead use "uncivil" in any proposed decision from this point forward, and did we mention NEVER?

Civilly submitted (and don't make me do an RfC on this, I mean it -- don't make me) -- Noroton (talk) 18:04, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Heh, oddly I prefer "incivil" to "uncivil", the latter seems wrong to me. =) —Locke Cole • t • c 18:14, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
Searching for "ncivil" will find them both. --A. di M. (formerly Army1987) — Deeds, not words. 18:55, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
As an admittedly uncisive unquiry shows, that's not the case. Sorry ;) Paradoctor (talk) 21:10, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
I meant browser searches (Ctrl-F with many browsers), which also find word fragments. With search engines you can use "incivil OR uncivil", or whatever. Frankly, forbidding the use of synonyms so that one can search for one word rather than for two doesn't sound terribly useful to me... --A. di M. (formerly Army1987) — Deeds, not words. 20:50, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Yes, both exist, but it's extremely unpopular in English (very likely almost always a back formation from "incivility"), and the Hispaniquicity and Lusitariocity (and even Italomasitocity) of the word screws up simple search results online, so it looks even more popular than it is. See here: When we keep out those pesky foreign tongues and just do an English-language search: incivil -- 32K results vs. uncivil -- 813K results Spanish: incivil -- 35K results and a Portuguese search comes up with 16.5K results and there are even 3.5K results in Italian. I'm all for cosmopolitan tolerance and all, but they've got their own arbcoms on their own 'pedias, and as they say, basta es basta! -- Noroton (talk) 20:31, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
I second the motion! — Hex (❝?!❞) 19:16, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
If the motion is that "uncivil" and "incivility" are the correct forms, I'm in. I'd wish to tag an unrelated amendment to the motion though, "WHEREAS infintives should always be split". This would help us all to boldly go toward the future of our language. ;) Franamax (talk) 06:28, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Question for the ArbCom regarding Tony

I haven't followed this case, so I apologize if this has been asked and answered.

I'm concerned to notice the proposed remedies banning Tony from editing style-related policies and guidelines. Tony is possibly the only active editor on Wikipedia (that I'm aware of) who is truly qualified and willing to oversee Wikipedia's style issues. He has transformed the MoS from a rambling mess to something approaching a professional document. I say that as someone who hasn't always agreed with his changes, but I've always appreciated the professionalism. Is it really in the interests of the project to topic-ban him? SlimVirgin talk|contribs 23:56, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

My realist side tells me that Arbcom will not reject a topic ban, but I propose that at the very least, Tony be topic-banned for an allotted amount of time, then have his behavior reviewed to see if he deserves a second chance (with a 1RR restriction and/or civility parole). Dabomb87 (talk) 00:15, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
SlimVirgin, in fact Tony is not the only person "truly qualified" for coordinating work on Wikipedia style issues, but he is certainly among the most qualified. He has undoubtedly been the most energetic.
It is futile to appeal to ArbCom on such common-sense grounds as you do, SlimVirgin – and do not imagine that anything about your competence or experience will carry weight with them.
Certain admins are routinely excused their flights of incivility and highhandedness; but a professional editor of Tony's calibre, donating vast amounts of time to the project, is reviled for much less. I restricted myself to one official contribution in this saga, at the Workshop page. I pointedly did not embroil myself in the bickering all around me, but called for the perpetrators to back off and keep the peace. I introduced myself, as Tony's colleague in bringing order to MOS (since we have been the two most prolific editors there). I called for there to be no specific sanctions against anyone, especially Tony. I pointed out that I found conditions so bad at MOS that I had withdrawn from it, for now. Constructive work had become impossible at MOS; and ArbCom, I said, had better take note of this and address the underlying issues. (It has not moved to do so, except in the most punitive and unimaginative ways.)
My solitary submission was removed by an officious clerk, without explanation. I called for an explanation, and an apology, and restoration of my contribution. No deal.
Day by day it becomes clearer that the ArbCom process is as compromised as any at Wikipedia. Who can blame its members for closing ranks, and for their special pleading when its regular mistakes and injustices are brought to light? They are working with deeply flawed protocols, and behind a screen of confusions: failure to interpret for the people the scope of the matters lying before ArbCom for decision; pretty well absent rules of evidence; and, most pressingly, obstinate refusal to publish certain crucial dates. By what date will evidence cease to be admissible, for example? No one can say, so far as I was able to tell. Yet this is absolutely basic to accountable and open procedure.
The Date Delinking case has most effectively exposed these problems with ArbCom. It is unfair to expect the victims of ArbCom's chaotic and opaque operations to bear all of the consequences. If I thought anyone cared or would listen without bias, I would call for all proposed sanctions against those victims to be summarily dropped, and replaced with some more effective, more flexible, and more communally determined alternative. But in my experience, as you can see, I have grounds for concluding that no one is listening without bias, and without vested interest.
–⊥¡ɐɔıʇǝoNoetica!T– 03:39, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

In response to the original post, another editor has expressed a relevant opinion that is insightful, eloquent, and broadly applicable.[7][8] I agree with those comments and believe that they effectively address the substance of your query. --Vassyana (talk) 07:14, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Please forgive the length of this response, but there are issues here that go beyond this case. Vassyana linked to two posts from Birgitte, which say (quoting a bit from each):

Everyone who did not act to deescalate the dispute damaged the project. And those who acted overtly to escalate or prolong the dispute, really are not getting it. They fact that your opponents are wrong, has no relevance to the accuracy of your own position. None. The fact that you find yourself at Arbcom should give you a clue that regardless of your position, the way you promoted it was wrong ... Because of the very reasons that are behind them being our most active and passionate editors, they treat the opinions they hold with equal passion and want to see the every problem they have identified solved with immediacy and strong advocacy.

There is a lot of truth in those points, but they're not the whole truth. There's an increasing tendency at ArbCom to punish all "sides" equally, as though no distinction can or ought to be made between editors. If you've edit-warred at all, or been uncivil, and you're before ArbCom (even if you initiated the case), you're likely to be penalized.
We had an ArbCom that used to do this (I believe the 2005-6 one or thereabouts). The upshot was that people were afraid to use dispute resolution. When that was put to one of them, the answer was (paraphrased), "Good, the fewer of you we see, the better." It's unfortunate that this new ArbCom has headed back in that direction.
To fail to distinguish (radically) between Tony1 and Locke Cole, for example, really is to make a gross error. Locke Cole is a consummate edit warrior. He almost never backs down, so matter how trivial the point, as his block log shows. Tony, on the other hand, will respond constructively to reasoned argument. He is trying to do something almost impossible: turn the Manual of Style into a professional-looking document. The reason it is almost impossible to do this is that, for years, a certain kind of personality has tended to hang out on the Manual of Style. People who like serial commas will stand guard over the serial-comma section to make sure that not one single word is changed by anyone for any reason, and they will stand there for years if they have to, contributing little else to the project. What Tony has done is try to break through that mindset. Very few people would even have tried to do that, because it is incredibly time-consuming and depressing.
Now he is criticized and topic-banned for the very passion and professionalism he's been using on behalf of the project for years. It's all very well for Birgitte to write as she does, but (with no disrespect intended at all), she doesn't edit in contentious areas. The MoS really is one of those things that would make an angel tear his hair out.
The idea that editors who've donated years to the encyclopaedia can't be given a pass from time to time is almost offensive, though it's something we hear increasingly often—someone else will come along to fill the gap, no one's indispensable, and so on. It's the very definition of Marx's idea of alienation. Human beings give their labour (whether for money or for free), then a point arrives where you're told to bugger off, because you're too old, or too crotchety, or because you said a rude word. You say, "Hang on, I've been here for ages, I've done this, I've done that!" but suddenly it's "We have no time for super-contributors. We know thee not, old man. "
The truth is that not everyone is dispensable. Tony is one of the indispensable ones, if we want a decent MoS. He has probably forgotten more about style and grammar than I ever knew, and he's willing to give it all away to Wikipedia. I appeal to the ArbCom to find a solution that allows him to continue to do that. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 07:59, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
While I agree more with Brigette's rationale, I do certainly appreciate your point. However, I'm unsure of how we can effectively address it without encouraging grossly unfair double standards. I'm also at a loss over how to distinguish the positive contributions from the disruptive conduct in the form of an arbitration remedy, without resorting to a vague discretionary standard that would (given prior trends) only lead to further community division and potential wheel warring. I quite earnestly welcome any good suggestions that acknowledge and address Tony's misconduct while permitting him to continue his positive work, without the remedy being relatively toothless and/or effectively granting a free pass. If someone could help craft a more nuanced but sufficiently firm remedy, we'd all be the better for it. --Vassyana (talk) 08:42, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
SV In all honestly, a part of me truly sympathizes with your position a great deal. And I really, really wish someone like Tony1 could write something that shows a good understanding of exactly how they went wrong and pledges some concrete reforms to their personal approach in the future. That they might give Arbcom a good excuse to show some leniency. (The more detached part of me, thinks that lenient decisions don't exactly have a good track record of success and maybe harsh ones will do better). If the parties here could suspend disbelief for a moment and think of what their response might be if Arbcom were correct in this decision, they then might have more success in arguing for lighter remedies. To look at it with detachment, the parties are highly unlikely to convince Arbcom its decision is outright wrong. To write about how wrong a decision, which Arcom believes to be correct, is will most likely give the impression the author is a) not able to understand the substance of the decision b) understands the substance but holds irreconcilable views about the functioning of Wikipedia c) is not able to admit personal fault d) other things I not imaginative to come up with. And, imagining this speculation is on target, it hard to argue that someone in the situation of a, b, or c will not run into more problem if given a second chance. The best chance of an argument for leniency being successful is if a person can demonstrate that they understand and appreciate the substance of the decision. Otherwise they will not have much common ground to use to convince a body of people who do understand and appreciate the substance of the decision to give them another chance.--BirgitteSB 15:41, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Pff. Quit whining, Slim. Tony threw away his future with the MOS by behaving in the way he did. If you're going to complain at someone, complain at him, not the arbitrators. It's not their fault that some people choose to make asses of themselves. — Hex (❝?!❞) 10:50, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Vassyana, thank you for your response. Thinking outside the box here, would community service make sense? The Committee could ask Tony to spend the next six months creating a "good writing" wikiproject—not for copy-editing or style issues, but for writing. We have Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors, but we don't have Wikipedia:WikiProject Good writing. The project could look at how to identify good writing, and who the great English-language writers are. He could be asked to write essays on these issues— basically extending his writing tutorials—and make reading recommendations; to hold classes on particular writing issues, where people could ask him questions, or could submit their writing for him to critique. The details could be left to him. The aim of the project would be to help Wikipedians develop whatever writing skills they have.
At the end of the six months, the sanction is over, and he can return to MoS if he wants to. He could be asked to choose between that option and whichever topic ban the ArbCom decides on. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 11:33, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
In some ways, Dabomb87 is wrong: Tony would be better off with an indefinite ban from MOS. The onus would then be on ArbCom to accept a review of his conduct and work at some point in the future. Since the sanction is preventative, not punitive, it must be aimed to prevent Tony from edit-warring and incivility, per the Findings of Fact. ArbCom in Principle 13.1 links to WP:Policies and guidelines#Proposing guidelines and policies as a model. It seems then that anyone can set up a page (in user space if need be) and invite all interested editors to contribute in forming a consensus there for proposals to amend MOS. I am certain that if Tony were allowed to participate, then he would show his ability to interact in a civil manner and without edit-warring - the very outcome that ArbCom wants, with the bonus that MOS is free of the to-and-fro that ArbCom wishes to avoid. Of course, this would require a slight amendment to the sanction, such as adding a rider to Remedy 9.3 "... excepting essays or his own user space" (or something like that). But if ArbCom is serious in wanting to modify behaviour, it seems unreasonable not to allow someone a chance to prove that their behaviour has changed. What's the risk? that I'm completely wrong and problems recur on some backwater userpage. I really doubt that, but even so, I say the risk is worth it to prove a highly valued contributor should be allowed back to work as soon as possible. Any downsides? --RexxS (talk) 12:07, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
As user subpages are, by definition, not "any policy or guideline page related to article or editing style", they're not covered by 9.3 & 9.4 in any case. Tony is perfectly free to discuss anything he wants in his own userspace; the restrictions only become applicable if or when whatever is being discussed is moved from being a personal discussion to an official policy or guideline.
Note also that, at least under 9.3, Tony would remain free to comment on MoS talk pages, and to suggest changes there; he would only be prohibited from personally applying those changes to the MoS. Kirill [talk] [pf] 12:17, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for your response and clarification, Kirill. I apologise: I think I must have had in mind the "...and any related discussions" phrasing of 9 / 9.1 / 9.2. I can see that those have garnered little support, and would obviously urge arbitrators to favour 9.3 (if they feel a sanction is required). That would give Tony the best chance to demonstrate the value in lifting such restrictions and for Wikipedia to regain his contributions as soon as possible. --RexxS (talk) 17:20, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
I would ask that the same language "as well as the talk pages of those policy or guideline pages, and any related template pages." instead of "related pages", be considered for Kotniski, Kendrik, Locke, and myself; after all, the specification of edit-warring against me (with Tony as the other party) was on a template, and Kotniski's was on a guideline. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:04, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
I would certainly second PMA's request. If the proper purpose of any sanctions is to encourage editors to work collegiately and avoid further conflict, then giving each some room to demonstrate this would be entirely sensible. --RexxS (talk) 20:24, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I've only followed bits of this depressing process, but I also think that the proposed "spank everyone in the room for the crime of being present" approach is dismaying. If the transgressions are not individually actionable, then their temporal connection to a larger dispute really doesn't make them become actionable. I also have trouble convincing myself that a wikilink should be considered "content" instead of "formatting", or that editing Wikipedia using multiple windows is something that the community considers to be a problem. (I have three tabs open at the moment, and I begin typical editing sessions with eight.) This feels... odd. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:32, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

The sport of Lightmouse-bashing

As though fox hunting by the obscenely rich in England, the sport of Lightmouse-bashing is incredibly easy to pursue once you join the crowd; the fact that the prey has steadfastly refused to write a word in his defence during this date debate—his silence among the hubbub—is taken as a sign of admission, of guilt. Perhaps this has fostered the increasingly creative claims about him that have little or no basis in fact, but are rather rooted in conjecture, gleeful guesswork and plain falsehood.

The effortless fun has been an effective mechanism for drawing together the linking extremists and the anti-metrification crowd, programmers and developers who have felt their sense of control over the technical features of WM usurped by Lightmouse's expertise and success at running bots and scripts, and WPians who are at their core conservative and unsettled by the use of fast methods to clean up the vast text we are meant to be managing and improving. Now a game has been hit upon, based on the construction of a common enemy that doesn't answer back and has a long history that can readily be made to appear murky. The game involves the lynching, shooting and skinning alive of the fox and its hanging in the village square for all to gasp at as an icon of evil. It is a good way to warm up the arbitrators for the vote.

Let us start by having a quick look at just one of the so-called "Findings of Fact" in this judgement. It is entitled Bobblewik familiarity.

Bobblewik (talk · contribs)'s inherent familiarity with Wikipedia procedures, policies and automation suggest that the account does not belong to an entirely new user and may indeed be a sockpuppet account.[9] (LevelCheck#Potential sockpuppet?)

It is odd that a Finding of Fact comprises little more than suggestions and wild guesses without the credible support we require in our articles. The "fact" starts with a claim that there was inherent familiarity with WP procedures, policies and automation, yet I find no basis in fact for this assertion. The link leads to the Bobblewik contribs page from the very start. It shows careful manual edits that waste no time in fixing formatting and units of measure, particularly metric ones. I see no particular familiarity born of previous experience as a WPian, but instead the first edits of a man whose hobby had always been metrification (however nerdy that might have been). Perhaps he went straight to the guidelines on metrification and read "how to edit" before leaping in to edit. There is utterly no evidence of automation at the link.

In any case, the language of this "Fact" gives it away: "suggest .. and may indeed be". This is not the description of a fact, but mere whistling in the dark. Lightmouse has authorised me to quote his statement that "I had no accounts prior to Bobblewik, nor did I run any in parallel." Has someone bothered to follow through the LevelCheck#Potential sockpuppet, which I presume is like a CU? Without that confirmation, it is logically impossible that Bobblewik was a sockpuppet.

Coordinating Arbitrator Kirill has Opposed this "fact" on the basis that it is irrelevant, but had no time to point out that it's not a fact, and that even if it did look, sound, and smell like fact, the evidence provided still undermines it as such. Yet the five other voters have all magnetically attached themselves to the Support column, without comment except one, in which this "fact" was billed merely as complementary to other "findings".

This would be quickfailed as a featured article nomination for its lack of evidence and its inadmissibility as a fact as worded. In a normal article, it would be tagged with a citation template. I invite the arbitrators, who were understandably pressed for time and no doubt need to go through this process at speed, to revisit this particular "Fact" and reconsider their responses on the basis of what I've said here. Tony (talk) 23:57, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Bobblewik may very be a sock, but the eagerness with which people people holds Lightmouse as the being sockmaster is disturbing. If there was a checkuser, it's very weird that it hasn't been linked even once in the whole things (unless I missed it). More evidence that this RfA is little more than a witch hunt rather than an attempt to calm things down and settle the core issues. Especially considering that Bobblewik has been inactive since 2006. Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 02:19, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
It has been clearly established that Bobblewik was a previous account of Lightmouse.[10] Considering the topic matter, the history is relevant. Considering the history of undisclosed accounts, typical signs of sockpuppetry are also relevant. --Vassyana (talk) 06:34, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
So arbs believe that, by Lightmouse's mere failure to declare the previous incarnations (Bobblewik), they can validly deduce by inference that Bobblewik is a WP:SOCK without the support of a shred of additional proof? and his RFC/U had but 4 user entries - pretty damning for someone who disruptively made 65,000 edits. Ohconfucius (talk) 07:13, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Headbomb, It doesnt matter that the BobbleWik account has been inactive since 2006 - this user has remained active using different accounts (fresh starts), but has pursued the overlinking & date delinking issue with each, and in a manner that has upset the community enough to result in blocks:- four accounts with blocks for the same underlying problematic behaviour every time. Wikipedia does encourage fresh starts, however it is expected that they start afresh and not repeat the same problematic behaviour. If a user persists with the same behaviour or editing pattern, and they are caught, the consequences are harsh because they abused the opportunity of a fresh start. Locke has his detractors due to his block log, but at least he has stuck to the one account and lived with the consequences of his past mistakes. John Vandenberg (chat) 17:11, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Tony1, "LevelCheck#Potential sockpuppet" is not related to Checkuser as you will see if you follow the handy link provided (although I can see how this has confused you). It is a decision in a 2005 case that was worded precisely the same way - the person operating user:LevelCheck was disruptive and started editing with a very clear objective and with an unusual familiarity with Wikipedia. Checkuser does not help in these situations, as the edits of any earlier accounts would be prior to the records available to a Checkuser. Our task is to make decisions based on the information we have available to us. In this case, it looks probable that he has a prior undisclosed account. The "fact" is that it looks probable, and some of the arbs are of the opinion that it is pertinent enough that it should be included in the decision.
If he wishes to explain how he came to start editing as Bobblewik with this level of familiarity, he can email arbcom-l@wikimedia.org or an individual arbitrator that he trusts. If someone else knew Bobblewik well at that time, and is willing to state that they believe he did not have a prior account, they are also welcome to provide us with a statement, publicly or privately. Did you know him back then? Will you give us a citation for or against? If not, we are left without hard evidence for or against, but the fact remains that it looks highly probable and we can not discount it. If I had my way, we would all be using our real names, but that isnt the way this place works. If it did, he would have only had one chance, and that block log would have grown rather long, or he would have been told quite firmly to find a new interest.
Tony1, you might trust Lightmouse when he says that Bobblewik was his first account, but it was only after someone found his socks that Lightmouse admitted to his undisclosed block log.
With your penchant for dramatics and hyperbole, this protestation on his behalf doesn't warm my heart, especially after your recent shenanigans of ill-founded accusations against Rlevse and I. If there is an explanation, we are reasonable folk and will listen to what Lightmouse has to say. He would be much better off talking for himself to an arbitrator he trusts. John Vandenberg (chat) 13:23, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
WP:COI and WP:UNINVOLVED are quite clear, and seems Rlevse really should have recused, like Casliber, instead of sticking it out. With him amending his vote, there appears to be at least an admission that there was there was something amiss which he had to "clarify", as he put it; at worst, it looks like he's covering his tracks because an abstention is not a recusal unless so declared. There is a slightly unpleasant odour about it, and the fact that you, John, used those words "ill-founded allegations" indicates to me you have strayed well beyond your comfort zone. Your rather out of order attack on Tony would indicate that you may have become personally involved, beyond the bounds of neutrality. Ohconfucius (talk) 15:32, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm comfortable with calling it a spade. How would you describe this: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Archive 1#Jayvdb and the Dates Case: the question of recusal? To my knowledge, Tony1 has still not produced the information that was leaked to him. John Vandenberg (chat) 15:44, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Reply to John Vandenberg (jayvdb): (edit conflict) "With your penchant for dramatics and hyperbole ... your recent shenanigans of ill-founded accusations against Rlevse and I"—John, this sounds like a personal attack. The irony is that it's exactly the type of statement you are holding against many of the parties in this case, having both written the motions and voted for them. I find it odd that you should regard my raising of the issue of conflict of interest against Rlevse and yourself (never, in my view, properly resolved) as ill-founded. In the case of Rlevse, two of your colleagues at ArbCom have emailed me over the past 24 hours and provided opinions that are opposed to your assumption of "ill-founded". I wonder whether, in addition, you have read my more recent post over there. Concerning my earlier allegations of conflict of interest on your part, I framed it as a series of three questions. As you may recall, I promptly replied that, prima face, your responses to two of those questions were satisfactory (I'm sorry to sound imperious—I don't mean to, but can't think of a better way of wording it at the moment).
Above all, will you please use polite, moderate language and assume good faith on my part? I think it is reasonable that I request that you withdraw the personal attack.
Concerning your comments about Lightmouse: thank you for clarifying the reference to user:LevelCheck. If Checkuser wasn't started until 2005, I believe it is unjust to use this absence of information as a reason to turn what appears "probable" or "pertinent" to you and—as you claim—more than one other arbitrator into a "Fact" by default, if I take your meaning correctly. You say, "The "fact" is that it looks probable"; I think you're not beyond opinion yet, on that one. I'll be pleased and relieved to see the "Fact" supported by the evidence, not opinion. As you say, all you can go on is the information at hand. I did not know Bobblewik at the time (I started much later in 2005), so I'm no good as a witness, and there would be a conflict of interest anyway. "we are left without hard evidence for or against"—I agree. I will try to assist in any way that would provide the information you require. Tony (talk) 15:40, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Sorry, I got logged out for some reason. Ohconfucius (talk) 15:50, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Agreed. I know the ArbCom members mean well, but they’re human. Some, should have recused themselves but didn’t. Frankly, it seems to me that arbitrators are unconsciously trying to demonstrate to the rest of the community and to themselves, just how vital and crucial they are to Wikipedia by being overly anxious to utilize draconian punishments to “protect” Wikipedia from over-inflated, imaginary hazards like Lightmouse. The bot he operates, Lightmouse, does a huge amount of routine housekeeping on Wikipedia to improve articles, clean them up, make them more consistent, properly formated, and easier to edit. Sometimes the logic underlying such housekeeping is too arcane to even be described. But Lightmouse does this for the community because it is an interesting challenge he finds rewarding—or at least used to.

    It’s a natural tendency of any organization to perpetuate, protect, and expand itself. Still, it is the community, as expressed through RfCs, that ultimately has all the power on Wikipedia. If ArbCom processes are to serve the interests of the community, it can’t lose the confidence of the community by acting as if it is an insular organization with ivory towers and the power to administer draconian measures against well-meaning editors.

    The entire date linking/delinking argument was a content dispute over a MOSNUM guideline. Three RfCs, all conducted on WT:MOSNUM, *should* have settled the issue. But one editor refused to abide by the clear community consensus and petitioned for the intervention of ArbCom by repeating the standard refrain every such editor who refuses to abide by community consensus claims: “The community consensus is really for what *I* want but it can’t be properly determined because of incivility by others against me and biased RfCs.”

    What arbitration committee should have done is simply looked at the complaining editor’s block log (24 blocks for edit warring and a month-long block for stalking another editor with a vendetta) and then looked at the block logs of of the editors he was complaining about. For instance; Tony, who is a long-time editor with one block to his record—and that was reverted three hours later for being in error. These facts alone should have given given anyone with a common sense God gave a goose, the big picture overview of what was going on: a complaining editor who was editing against consensus and disrupting Wikipedia through wikilawyering. But they didn’t.

    So what were the facts of the mater? Well, the ArbCom clerk, Ryan, ran his own, completely unbiased RfC to gauge the true community consensus with regard to date linking and autoformatting. That RfC showed that the first three RfCs, all conducted by the parties on their own on WT:MOSNUM, had properly measured the desires of the community and that all the editwarring by Locke et. al to the contrary was in error and/or in bad faith. Not surprisingly, Locke complained, when it was all over, that Ryan’s RfC—a fourth one—was also fatally flawed and wasn’t a true measure of the community consensus and that editors didn’t understand what they were really voting for. (*sigh*) Most unfortunate was that Ryan had invited all involved parties to participate in helping to write that fourth RfC. But it was like pulling teeth to get the complaining editor, Locke, to contribute wording. Ryan had to pound the bushes looking for volunteers from that camp. Perhaps, Locke knew how the community really felt about the issue all along…

    After that much was settled, everything pretty much went back to normal, except for a self-perpetuating ArbCom that seems to feed on itself. And the result of all those efforts? Absolutely absurd proposals such as indefinitely banning Tony from MOSNUM, even though the editor has been an integral part of MOSNUM for years and has been a voice of reason and has only one block to his record (and that one was in error too). Such absurdities simply point to the shortcomings of the current ArbCom system and how it needs to be reformed.

    The community doesn’t need hardly any rulings out of the ArbCom committee on this issue any more; Ryan’s efforts settled the issue. I can only think of one ruling that the community really needs in order to be properly protected from future disruption: “Locke Cole is prohibited from engaging in any date-related activities on MOS or MOSNUM for life.” That’s all the community needs. All the other editors who cried foul, and told the ArbCom committee what this was really all about, and were proven to have been properly defending the community consensus all along, should be patted on the head and given an award for having had to go through so much to settle what should have been settled with Tony’s first RfC, which was clear as glass and concluded back in December.

    As for bots, Wikipedia has all the committees and organizations it needs to properly oversee Lightmouse’s bot activities. It’s over. Peace had broken out and the issue has been over ever since Ryan’s RfC established the guidelines on date linking and autoformatting that had properly belonged on MOSNUM all along and there was (finally) no more edit warring by Locke and his followers. It’s been all over since that time, except for this self-perpetuating phenomenon. If the ArbCom committee can’t see that fact, it runs a great risk of looking like a lose cannon that needs to be reigned in via a community-wide RfC.

    Perhaps this is the point where the ArbCom tries to publicly protect itself by forever enjoining me from starting or participating in any RfCs regarding the ArbCom processes or any of its members. That would look especially good. Greg L (talk) 04:33, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

  • "Locke Cole is prohibited from engaging in any date-related activities on MOS or MOSNUM for life". LOL. Well, I'll be the first mug:
Support. (Sorry Locke).  HWV258  04:56, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Oppose. Nobody should be getting these sort of sanctions on either side. Locke is entitled to his views; Wikipedia is a broad church and we are going to have to learn how to get on with those we disagree with. --RexxS (talk) 12:21, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
(Umm, it was an attempt to lighten the mood.)  HWV258  22:16, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I know it was. It was appreciated. Please accept my apologies for being a kill-joy, but I'm rather depressed about the way this case is turning out. --RexxS (talk) 22:27, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
What about a humorous counter proposal that Greg L is restricted to one paragraph, 10 sentences, or 60 words (whichever is shorter) for all replies on talk pages. dm (talk) 04:36, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Weak Support. (Sorry Greg L).  HWV258  04:41, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
  • he obviously believes they are useful. ;-) Ohconfucius (talk) 05:59, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Of course, but remember that someone (way back when) thought that linking and formatting dates would also be a good idea. (From small seeds, great root systems grow.)  HWV258  06:35, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Isn't that a paraphrase of something about little acorns? Ohconfucius (talk) 07:04, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Yep, but on WP we need to be concerned not only with the weeds that grow on the surface, but also with the enormous and difficult to remove root system that spreads uncontrollably under the surface.  HWV258  22:19, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I am familiar with, and have used, the analogy to a plant such as ground elder. Ohconfucius (talk) 01:44, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Ah, aegopodium podagraria—what a scallywag.  HWV258  01:52, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
(ec) I was also going to say I am aware that editors are creating articles by copying former practices. Ohconfucius (talk) 01:56, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Dabomb87, to answer your question (down here because Greg L has waxed lyrical up there, breaking the benefits of standard indenting) here are three examples of Lightmouse using WT:MOSNUM inappropriately, specifically as a platform/battleground:

Here are more of his edits to MOSNUM: [11][12][13][14] John Vandenberg (chat) 17:06, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree that it is very implausible that someone who has never edited Wikipedia before creates an account and then proceeds to perform 50 such edits in less than three hours. But without any clue about which other username that person could have used before, and considering that that was five years ago, I don't think that FoF is terribly useful. --A. di M. (formerly Army1987) — Deeds, not words. 10:03, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Comments on April 30 Draft by RexxS

Proposed Principles

Optional styles

8) "When either of two styles are acceptable it is inappropriate for a Wikipedia editor to change from one style to another unless there is some substantial reason for the change." - "substantial reason" is undefined and a recipe for WP:Battle. Is "consistency within an article" a substantial reason? Yes, of course. Is "local consensus"? I say no; others will say yes. The problems inherent in this dispute remain and this PP does nothing to address them.

"For example, with respect to British spelling as opposed to American spelling it would be acceptable to change from American spelling to British spelling if the article concerned a British subject." - It is interesting that this Principle uses an example about spelling as this case concerns dates. There is a perfectly good example available: WP:MOSNUM para 2 states "For example, with respect to British date formats as opposed to American it would be acceptable to change from American format to British if the article concerned a British subject." Are we to assume that since ArbCom chose not to use this more appropriate example, it does not agree with it? To paraphrase CHL's comment, "I've not sure why the arbitrators are certain that dates are different". CHL's comment in itself concerns me. I fail to see how anybody could read through this case and conclude that any of the involved editors thinks anything other than "British dates are dmy; US dates are mdy" at the simplest level. The arguments are whether dates should be autoformatted and whether they should be linked. Nobody has been arguing that we should use anything but "19 February 1942" in Clement Attlee; the dispute was always if it should be "19 February 1942". It does raise the question of how this principle, as stated, is relevant to this case. --RexxS (talk) 16:47, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I already read it. Yes, "British dates are dmy; US dates are mdy" is merely the first stab (or "at the simplest level" as I stated). The point you're missing is this: read what SV said in her last contribution to that inconclusive debate: "... that the MoS has no preference, except that articles be internally consistent. (my emphasis)" Now look at the Clement Attlee article on 5 September 1998 with DA prefs turned off. Don't you see any good reason to change date formats? In the infobox, there is "19 February 1942", but look at the next part of the infobox: "October 25, 1935". Now please tell me if you disagree with changing that "October 25, 1935" to "25 October 1935" (the recommended standard for dates related to a British subject). If you do disagree with that change, you would be in good company: John made that change with the very next edit, and 7 arbs have agreed to sanction him for it. You would also be agreeing with G-Man who reverted John without summary, but maybe the reasons were different.
I'd be interested to hear if any of the Arbs share you skepticism of the line I quoted from MOS - which is why I asked the question. --RexxS (talk) 21:18, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Uniformity within an article is a good reason, provided the two instances are close enough to clash; as the two infoboxes are. No one denies this; what straw man are you hunting? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:10, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
One that goes: Principle: Optional styles --> Finding of Fact:John has edit-warred --> John restricted would be a good example (follow the links in the FoF to the evidence it relies on). --RexxS (talk) 22:37, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Manual of Style

11.1) There is an implication that because "it is not policy, editors may deviate from it with good reason", whereas editors may also deviate from policy with good reason WP:IAR. What is the point of the last clause?

11.2, 11.3) Calling MOS a style guide misses the point that it is a WP:Guideline - defined thus: "Policies and guidelines describe standards that have community consensus" - failing to recognise the consensus inherent in any guideline allows editors to treat them as optional. Therein lies the route for further dispute, rather than a resolution.

This is wrong. Guidelines indicate general directions; they have exceptions. Policies are statements of principle and should not. (In the case of MOS, there is usually no genuine consensus even on the general direction; but that's another problem entirely. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:44, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
No, it's right. It's a direct quote from the policy page WP:Policies and guidelines (para 2, line 1). Feel free to establish a consensus to change that policy if you don't like it, but for now, it's policy. As for exceptions: "Policies have wide acceptance among editors and are considered a standard that, with rare exceptions, all users should follow. ... Guidelines are considered more advisory than policies, with exceptions more likely to occur." (quoted from WP:Policies and guidelines#Policy and guideline pages, line 1). I hope that accepting this wikipedia policy will help us all debate within an agreeable framework. Sincerely --RexxS (talk) 20:27, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
As usual, Rexxs quotes incompletely and misleadingly; but I suppose this is the only way to defend his position. Policies have wide acceptance. True. Guidelines are not policies, and MOS (all of it) is a guideline. It would be nice if it did indeed represent general consensus, but it usually doesn't. What his position is on exceptions, I cannot tell; I do not hold that WP:OR has exceptions. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:37, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
Ah, Ad hominem again. I'm sure you don't want me to quote all of WP:Policies and guidelines, and of course when you simply call it misleading, it doesn't make it so. Argue your case if you're so sure of it.
I'm glad we agree that policies have wide acceptance. I'll ask you to explore with me what that means: since a very large number of editors are comfortable with the consensus that a policy documents, there will be few occasions when an exception improves the encyclopedia; guidelines (as stated above) also document consensus, but exceptions are more likely. I don't think we are going to differ by much on that.
As for exceptions, I'm happy to be guided by the relevant policy pages. For example, WP:OR admits to Citing oneself, Original images, Translations, and Routine calculations - as I'm sure you're aware, being an expert on Greek and Maths. However, I take your point that MOSNUM is problematical and invite you to join me on the MOSNUM talk page to discuss improvements. After this case is closed, it looks like we'll be the only ones there. --RexxS (talk) 23:06, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
Don't worry, there are a couple of new voices who would like to simplify MOSNUM, and make clear the rare occasions when MOS in general needs to be prescriptive. Needless to say, Tony is attacking them as my co-conspirators; after all, they threaten "the authority of the Manual of Style", which is (according to Tony) indispensable. But if they stick around, we should have plenty of company. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:33, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Changing a guideline such as Manual of Style

13.1) "see how policies are decided." links to an irrelevant section. It should link to WP:Policies and guidelines#Changes to guideline and policy pages.

13.2) MOS should contain nothing that does not have broad consensus (by definition of a WP:guideline). The difference between prescriptive and descriptive elements is not that the former has consensus and the latter hasn't. Where options are described, the fact that options are acceptable must have consensus.

All guidelines omit some qualifications which would be necessary for literal truth.
Perhaps MOS should "contain nothing that does not have broad consensus", but the implication that it does contain no such thing is fantasy. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:48, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Role of bots and scripts

14) "Approval from the Bot Approvals Group is generally required before an editor may use a bot for automatic or high-speed edits." There's no "generaly" about it; approval from BAG is a pre-requisite for bot operation (see WP:Bot policy#Approval: "All bots that make any logged actions (such as editing a page, uploading files or creating accounts) must be approved before they may operate." - and that's policy.

BAG

17) I have seen no suggestion anywhere on the pages of this RfArb that any "consistently or egregiously poor judgment" has been exercised by any member of BAG, much less any opportunity for members to respond to such an accusation. This PP is irrelevant to the case as presented and needs to be struck.

--RexxS (talk) 19:27, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Didn't we? Then I'll suggest it here: approving the blank check Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Lightbot 3 was "egregiously poor judgment". If it is overridden, nothing more than a reminder is necessary. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:54, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
Well, if you are about to accuse User:ST47 of "egregiously poor judgment" on an ArbCom case page, don't you think it would be courteous to inform him at least, in case he wishes to dispute the charge? --RexxS (talk) 21:00, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
I didn't write the proposal; and if he has remained oblivious to the discussion of that unfortunate approval, a reminder (and this is no more) will be just as well. If you (or a clerk) feel like stepping in, go ahead. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:40, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
I see no FoF deriving from this principle, so it seems superfluous. Moreover, I see no direct indictment of ST47. It's a copy from a somewhat different case. My reading of it is more towards a general comment on the occasional failings of the BAG process, where a single member can "approve" a bot and on (rare) occasions, approvals slip through without sufficient specification and assurance of community consensus for the task. Franamax (talk) 21:43, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Proposed findings of fact

Engagement of technical staff

4) "the decision to decommission this functionality, and the mass delinking of dates from all articles in mainspace should have involved the technical staff" - absolutely not. The decision on delinking of dates must be in the hands of the community. Style may not be a pillar, but consensus certainly is. It is untenable to suggest that developers should have any greater voice in a community decision than anyone else. John has seemingly confused the desirability of consulting with developers on how best to implement a decision, with the decision itself. If not, then this PFoF is unhelpfully ambiguous. Either way, it needs to be redrafted before it causes further confusion. --RexxS (talk) 01:04, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Tony1 has contravened the Manual of Style

21) "Tony1 has intentionally and belligerently removed all date links from a large number of articles, even when a reason for the link has been provided, contravening the manual of style." The link to evidence for this leads to five edits by Tony1 to Karl Popper (a British philosopher). The first (and most extensive) edit was on 7 October 2008.[15] Tony1 changed dates in mdy form to dmy, such as "[[July 28]], [[1902]]" to "28 July 1902" and removed linking to common places, such as "England" and "London".

On 7 October 2008, the MOS stated: "The use of autoformatting links for dates is now deprecated"[16]; MOSNUM stated: "Articles on topics with strong ties to a particular English-speaking country should generally use the more common date format for that nation. For the U.S. this is month before day; for most others it is day before month"[17]; and MOSLINK contained the html comment: "The names of geographical locations that are likely to be well-known to English-speakers should generally not be linked where, in the context, they are unlikely to be confused with other locations of the same name, and the linked article would not specifically add to readers' understanding of the topic at hand—this includes the names of: countries such as United States, UK, ...; major cities such as New York City, London, ..."[18]

So the question must be: What part of the manual of style did Tony1's edits contravene? --RexxS (talk) 02:39, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Ohconfucius has contravened the manual of style

27) Anyone who follows the diffs provided will arrive at these two diffs [19] [20].

The first one clearly shows Ohc cleaning up a rag-bag mixture of dates, for example "23 May 1945" followed by "October 25, 1935" in the next part of the infobox. That's what the article was presenting to 99.9% of readers (and was hidden from the few by date autoformatting). Setting a consistent format within an article is improving it, and to use that to support a FoF "... contravening the manual of style" shows a failure to read the evidence or a lack of understanding of MOS.

The second diff (dated 10 November 2008) shows Ohc removing date autoformatting in response to Jheald's revert of Lightmouse. Jheald used the edit summary "rv - no consensus to unlink dates of birth and dates of death - script-assisted tools should not be used for this purpose". Ohc replied with the edit summary "manually delinked dates. ;-)". Jheald was wrong: date autoformatting had been deprecated since August 2008 (and still is). Ohc clearly stated that he was removing the deprecated formatting manually, not by script. So how is this evidence that "Ohconfucius has intentionally and belligerently removed all date links from a large number of articles, even when a reason for the link has been provided"? It is nonsense to suggest that it is wrong to remove date autoformatting "when a reason has been provided", if the reason given is patently inapplicable. I would urge arbitrators to actually look at the evidence provided - I cannot believe that anyone could draw the conclusions of this FoF from what has been presented. --RexxS (talk) 23:41, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Ohconfucius - Date delinker

29) "Ohconfucius created alternative account Date delinker (talk · contribs) on November 11, 2008 with the express purpose of using it for date delinking." Simply not true. Ohc gave his mission statement thus: "I have found on my travels that a certain fraction of articles have both linked and unlinked dates, and dates with different formats. I use the scripts with AWB in order to make all date formats consistent."[21] The "express purpose" - the very meaning of those words - was to make all date formats consistent. I sampled a couple of the obvious edits from Special:Contributions/Date delinker: In Aden (a former British colony), there were 5 dates in dmy format and 2 in mdy format - Ohc corrected the 2 erroneously formatted dates to dmy;[22]; In William Hotham, 1st Baron Hotham (a British peer), there were 2 dates in mdy format (hidden to the few by autoformatting) - Ohc corrected those to unformatted dmy format.[23] This not evidence of an "express purpose of using it for date delinking" by any stretch of the imagination.

"It performed 9307 edits without BAG approval until January 30, 2009 when it was indefinitely blocked." Sorry to be blunt, but either Ohc is being criticised here by misdirection, or the requirements of BAG approval are misunderstood. There is no requirement for BAG approval for the use of AWB as an assistant, as long as each edit is supervised and speeds are reasonably consistent with that. On this point, AWB rules state: "Don't edit too quickly; consider opening a bot account if you are regularly making more than a few edits a minute." On the last day of use (30 January 2009), Ohc performed 32 edits in 2 hours - an average of 1 edit every 4 minutes. Previous uses are similar. The mention of BAG approval has no place in this finding.

It would make sense to point out that Date delinker was blocked for violation of the injunction against using semi-automated tools, but that's not what this FoF states. --RexxS (talk) 01:50, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I would still say, don't lose your faith in the system, hard as it must seem at present. The Arbs have an unenviable job in sifting through megabytes of evidence and proposals, but that's not their fault. The process allows it to happen, and you couldn't really blame them if they see lots of accusations and take them at face value, rather than investigating each one in detail. I've only found time to scrutinise a few of the most obviously unlikely FoFs, and I'm not trying to follow seven open cases plus clarifications and amendments, as the Arbs are. I just hope that some of them will look at my commentary here and approach the Proposed FoFs in a critical manner. JvdB has not yet had very much experience in drafting ArbCom Proposed Decisions, and I do not doubt that what he has set out has been done in anything but good faith. I'm sure that in future, the process will have to be amended to make it more manageable. For now, we have to trust in the good judgement and capabilities of the Arbitrators we elected, to deal with the task of reaching a just decision in such a complex case as this. --RexxS (talk) 03:03, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
I agree, and I would apologise if I had in any way implied there was any bad faith by anyone in the execution of a deeply flawed process. Ohconfucius (talk) 03:34, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Proposed remedies

John restricted

30) "John is subject to an editing restriction for 12 months. John is prohibited from reversion of changes which are principally stylistic, except where all style elements are prescribed in the applicable style guideline."

The totality of evidence presented against John is that on four occasions he changed mdy-style dates to dmy-style in articles about British people, and removed the autoformatting in accordance with MOSNUM as it was at the time. This is characterised as "edit-warring". Then he is to be edit-restricted for 12 months.

I wondered if there was any precedent for such a strong sanction being applied, so I went to look at other ArbCom cases. The first one I looked at quite surprised me. Take a good look at: WP:Requests for arbitration/Macedonia 2/Proposed decision#Nick ts has edit-warred; WP:Requests for arbitration/Macedonia 2/Proposed decision#Nick ts admonished; WP:Requests for arbitration/Macedonia 2/Proposed decision#Alfadog777 is a Macedonia-focused single purpose account who has edit-warred; and WP:Requests for arbitration/Macedonia 2/Proposed decision#Alfadog777 admonished.

Follow the diffs in the evidence, if you will, and you'll see that editors in ARBMAC2 consistently edit-warred disruptively and continued even after a block. The sanctions they are to receive for this is "admonishment". Now I understand that comparisons are odious/odorous, but I suggest that there is a fair degree of comparability here - if anything, John's misdemeanour is less. And yet there is no proposal that he be admonished. I'm willing to accept that one or the other of these two cases have reached the correct decision on sanctions for "edit-warring", but surely both cannot be right? --RexxS (talk) 22:52, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

X is restricted

"[X] is prohibited from reversion of changes which are principally stylistic, except where all style elements are prescribed in the applicable style guideline"

On reading HJensen's essay, I was struck by his view that he had always only made reversions that were prescribed in the applicable style guideline. Then I realised that nobody actually knows what that means. WP:BURO states "Wikipedia's policies and guidelines are descriptive, not prescriptive." - but of course, that's merely a policy, so it's not prescriptive! However, Principle 11.4 opines "The Manual is prescriptive in areas that enjoy broad consensus; where there is no such consensus, the available options are described, but no prescriptive guidance is provided." So it would seem possible than any principally-stylistic revert could attract ArbCom Enforcement depending on whether the complainant wishes to invoke WP:BURO or a lack of consensus for a particular style guideline. Is the MOS going to be marked "this section has consensus" and "this section doesn't"? --RexxS (talk) 16:46, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

That's a very good point. So we have editors like myself being sanctioned because they made edits to bring articles into compliance with our MoS, then the sanction being proposed is that they must only make edits which are "prescribed in the applicable style guideline" when nobody is sure what this means, then the fact that at least one of the arbitrators has made similar edits quite recently, then the fact that date linking and delinking is still going on as we speak... Fascinating case, but not one to use as an example of good problem-solving in action I think. --John (talk) 17:57, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrator John Vandenberg should recuse

On March 5, 2009, arbitrator John Vandenberg (Jayvdb) added new "evidence" to the Evidence page of the Date Delinking arbitration, here. Jayvdb actively participated in promoting "Dynamic Dates" (the older name for "Date autoformating") as late as March 2009: add class to dynamic date anchor tags (created by John Vandenberg), and brought it in as his first piece of evidence. I can't see how this doesn't make him an involved editor in the dispute, in which disputes over date autoformatting have been central. It is virtually impossible to avoid a conflict of interest as a MediaWiki developer who has dabbled in the very mechanism that has been at dispute.

I then asked Jayvdb about the purpose of introducing this "evidence" to a case that was supposed to be restricted to conduct and conduct only. It took repeated prodding (on the Evidence Talk page and the Arbitrators' Noticeboard Talk page) until Jayvdb finally posted an answer to my question one month later – an answer that I found evasive and unconvincing.

Moreover, the posting of evidence by an arbitrator to an Evidence page in and of itself is improper, given that Arbitration policy restricts such postings to "The parties and other interested editors" ([24]). Arbitrators are already Judge, Jury and Executioner. As the Judge they oversee the proceedings, as the Jury they hear the evidence and decide the outcome of the case, and as the Executioner they push the lever that sends down the guillotine on editors found guilty of infractions. Allowing them to introduce Evidence would also make them witnesses and prosecutors in addition to the three hats they are already wearing. Surely this is too much?

When I asked Jayvdb whether he had an undisclosed conflict of interest he denied this. Technically speaking he was correct as he had already disclosed his COI on the Evidence page, however, this does not make the COI go away. It has just sat there unacknowledged for all this time. Having participated in the programming aspect of date autoformatting is especially troubling in light of the many complaints that his draft judgement shows a skew towards protecting the "turf" of MediaWiki developers, as others have commented before me.

Most recently Jayvdb accused Tony1 of "shenanigans" and a "penchant for dramatics and hyperbole". In fact Tony1 was doing nothing more than exercising his natural rights as the accused in a proceeding that in my subjective judgment has lurched from Kafkaesque to Orwellian and back again. These extraordinary accusations by Jayvdb underline his deeply held animus against Tony1. He has publicly admitted the low regard in which he held Tony's RFCs of November/December 2008. Is this connected with the fact that incivility motions were added for Locke Cole and PMAnderson as an afterthought, only after pressure was applied to treat both sides in a more neutral way?

Add to this Jayvdb's eagerness to be the first arbitrator to vote on acceptance of the arbitration request, and there is cumulatively an odor about his involvement that should upon reflection move him to recuse.

Finally I wish to express my disagreement with Tony1 about the matter of a "conflict of interest" and being a "professional software developer". Although I do not belong to that profession, I have the greatest respect for its practitioners. Software development has been a profession (or trade) for barely more than half a century. In this short timespan its foremost exponents -- people like Edger W. Dijkstra, Niklaus Wirth or Donald Knuth -- have published some of the most thoughtful and introspective writings about their own craft.

Although they have had some catching up to do when compared to, say, doctors or lawyers, I believe that the best thinkers about software development (generally also practitioners themselves) have nothing to fear when it comes to comparing their intellectualism and ethics. Therefore I disagree with Tony when he says that being a professional software developer in and of itself equates to a conflict of interest in the present arbitration. --Goodmorningworld (talk) 12:56, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I'd be interested to see diffs for some of these allegations. --John (talk) 17:58, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
John, thanks for your question. At this point I am waiting for Vandenberg to reply as he is required to do under Arbitration policy. Most points I made are already backed up with diffs; here is another one: for "He has publicly admitted the low regard in which he held Tony's RFCs of November/December 2008", there is "Your belief that these polls gave you license to behave as you have is what got you into this mess. For starters, I do not hold your poll in high regard from a user conduct point of view". (In fact, 80% of the respondents said that no special consensus was required for bots or scripts implementing the Manual of Style, and the margins in the two concurrent RfCs also initiated by Tony were even more lopsided, for example 190 to 7 here.)--Goodmorningworld (talk) 12:34, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
I am required to reply under Arbitration policy? Could you point me to section and verse?
From a quick scan, you are rehashing what others have already suggested. Like Tony, instead of asking questions, you are making accusations without merit.
It is not uncommon for Arbitrators to add evidence where it is helpful. Are you also expecting Vassyana to recuse? Please see Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Date_delinking/Evidence#Evidence_presented_by_Vassyana. If you have a problem with my evidence, please explain your concerns.
It expected that the drafting arbitrator votes first - the voting phase does not typically begin until they have voted. This is standard operating procedure, but you present this as if it is part of a nefarious plot on my part.
Another point I will make quickly is that I have repeatedly said I have no conflict of interest, undisclosed or otherwise - none - nada - zero - zilch. I have already explained why I created that bug.here and elsewhere. Creating a bug is not a conflict of interest. I have said I don't give a toss whether to delink or not delink. Have you seen me campaign either way?
The main parties in this case have acted appallingly; for me to say so after having reviewed the evidence is not a conflict of interest. As far as I can recall, I have never run into any of the major parties before. The only party who has any reasonable claim that I should recuse is user:Arthur Rubin, who has the honour of being the only person who has blocked me, and I gave him a piece of my mind at the time. But he said that the block should be disregarded, which is good enough for me.[25] If he feels I have voted out of malice, I will happily move my vote to abstain on the proposals regarding him. They are however typical proposals.
If you have any remaining concerns, could you state them again, plainly.
John Vandenberg (chat) 13:50, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
After looking at this Arthur Rubin block interaction more closely, I have moved to abstain for that aspect of the case.[26] John Vandenberg (chat) 15:09, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
"I am required to reply under Arbitration policy? Could you point me to section and verse?"
Certainly.
From Wikipedia:Arbitration/Policy: Who takes part? If an Arbitrator believes they have a conflict of interest in a case, they shall recuse themselves immediately from participation in the case. Users who believe an Arbitrator has a conflict of interest should post an appropriate statement during the Arbitration process. The Arbitrator in question will seriously consider it and make a response.
"Are you also expecting Vassyana to recuse? "
Vassyana too should not have contributed evidence, however, as I said above, it is the cumulative picture that leads me to request recusal in your case; Vassyana's conduct does not rise to that level.
"It expected that the drafting arbitrator votes first - the voting phase does not typically begin until they have voted. "
You are talking about voting on the Proposed Decision, I am talking about voting on whether to accept or refuse an arbitration case, before the case as such has even begun. --Goodmorningworld (talk) 10:28, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
I have already responded to these demands for recusal a number of times. On more than one occasion I have said, without reservation, that there is no conflict of interest of any sort that I am aware of (your link above is the wrong one).
During the case I raised an enhancement request for the reasons that are explained on that bug, and have been explained in more detail elsewhere. That is not a conflict of interest. That is attempting to understand the problem and look for solutions. That is arbitration.
I am not trying to protect the "turf" of the developers - I tried to define their relationship with the editing community. This is a first. I appreciate the opinions and alternative proposals given by the other arbitrators, as well as those from the editing and technical community. The four principles in question were also distributed to mail:wikitech-l when I posted the draft here, in order to solicit and incorporate their ideas on how the wording could be fine tuned. That list has a wide distribution list. It is a shame that you don't appreciate the special role that the technical community have. As an aside, and my memory of this is rather vague, special consideration was given to technical community members in order that they could participate in the WMF Board votes in spite of the suffrage conditions that would have otherwise excluded them.
I was not the first arbitrator to accept this case - I was the first to comment. Irrespective of this you are reading way too much into that. Being a technical case, and me being a technical bloke and more familiar with bot operations, I felt it was only right that I look into it quickly so that other arbitrators could more quickly assess the request. Also timezones play a very big part of who comments first. It was afternoon for me, and you can see from my edits that I took a break from editing in order to investigate this issue. I kept looking at this request for quite a bit longer, trying to assess whether there was any user conduct problems causing date delinking to cause so much drama. By the looks of it, I was the seventh person to accept this case.[27]
I have never interacted with Tony1 before; never even knew of him in any substantial way. My proposals are based solely on his conduct in the pages relating to this case, which I have read extensively. If I had of known him in any substantial way, I would have recused as soon as I realised he was a major stakeholder. I have already said this a number of times.
The evidence against Locke Cole and Pmanderson was extremely light on, and I had collected a few extra diffs, but neglected to refer to include them in the initial draft. At that point these erroneous calls for recusal started, preventing me from expanding the case to include those two users. Simply put, Locke Cole and Pmanderson were no where near as incivil as Tony1, Greg L and Ohconfucius. I am not usually the sort to be overly concerned about incivility - a bit of rough and tumble is to be expected in an environment like this - however those three chaps take the cake for sustained incivility. From what I can see, mostly they demonstrate this user conduct in MOSNUM issues, which is why I strongly believe that they should be removed from the style discussions entirely.
I will not recuse on these fallacious and ludicrous grounds. Tonight I am going to draft an arbitrator recall procedure. You will not like it, but at least you will know your options. John Vandenberg (chat) 11:45, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
I have no opinion on whether any particular arbitrators such recuse for any particular reasons - that is a matter for the individual arbitrator to consider - but I would like to comment on GMW's assertion that arbitrators should not present evidence. The presentation of evidence is, per se, a neutral process, and moreover the arbitration process is not set in stone. In a case such as this, where huge amounts of evidence are presented, it may be beneficial for one or more arbitrators to summarise evidence - and probably even to add to it - as long as no undue weight is given to any side. I feel that nothing more should be read into JVDB and Vassyana's contributions than that, and would urge arbitrators to continue to explore whatever procedures may be useful to arrive at a fair and constructive decision. --RexxS (talk) 13:47, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
The parties in cases do not always provide the needed evidence so it has long been the practice for the drafting arb (or any other as needed) to look for evidence that explains the dispute. An users entire editing history is open for review. I always review involved parties editing history to get a sense of their contributions to the project. Other arbs do the same. Depending on the situation, sometimes the data is added to the evidence page, sometimes the data is passed on to the Committee, and sometimes an arbitrator forms opinions from looking at the data and makes their votes reflect the information. Nothing unusual happened in this instance as far as I can tell. FloNight♥♥♥ 16:02, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

My draft recall procedure is here: User:Jayvdb/recall‎. Comments and fixes are welcome. I will enact it once the wrinkles are ironed out. John Vandenberg (chat) 16:26, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

You guys could actually do something useful for once

and put "fix bug 15715" into your list of proposed remedies, which would fix what half the fuss is about. Gurch (talk) 07:54, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Bug 15715 is already solved by the ((#formatdate:)) parser function - at least for single, simple dates. You could spend your time producing documentation for it; or you could spend time sorting out how to handle date ranges, ISO, the Julian calendar and BC, etc. I'm not convinced that is actually doing something useful. YMMV. --RexxS (talk) 13:06, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Furthermore, while the ((#formatdate:)) parser function exists, there is no consensus to use it in artilces on the English Wikipedia. --Jc3s5h (talk) 16:57, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Sort of wrong. In the second RFC there was majority support for "some form of auto formatting", this is why I find one of the finding of facts particularly distressing (as the ArbCom appears to believe there was consensus against auto formatting, which simply isn't the case; the only consensus that has been established is against all dates being linked). I do wish the arbitrators would take care in making this kind of FoF as it will undoubtedly be used by others in this dispute (assuming they work off-wiki with those on-wiki to try and continue this dispute) as proof of consensus against auto formatting. —Locke Cole • t • c 17:02, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
The second RfC showed around 80 supporting and 69 opposing "some form of auto formatting", a majority indeed. But it also showed around 247 supporting and 48 opposing "deprecating the current date autoformatting" (my emphasis). I do understand that you set the bar at over 90% to establish consensus, but please try to accept that others may see consensus at lesser levels, such as the 80% wishing the current system deprecated. Arbitrators will have their own views, and vote accordingly, hopefully recognising and understanding your concerns here. Please rest assured that I, for one, have no interest in continuing this dispute, other than to see a resolution that benefits the encyclopedia. --RexxS (talk) 17:42, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
To clarify for Locke Cole, there is certainly no consensus to use ((#formatdate:)) on the English Wikipedia for general purpose autoformatting, because no such consensus was sought. Yes, "in the second RFC there was majority support for 'some form of auto formatting'" but the majority was not strong enough to be a consensus. Even if such a consensus is ever demonstrated in the future, consensus would stll be needed for any specific system, such as ((#formatdate:)).
Also, it is wrong to say "the only consensus that has been established is against all dates being linked)." There is clear consensus against the existing system of autoformatting. --Jc3s5h (talk) 17:43, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
My apologies, in my haste I left that out (though it's not like I can hide that that isn't the case). But to say that the community doesn't find any auto formatting system useful would be incorrect (which is what the current FoF seems to say). —Locke Cole • t • c 18:03, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
You're right, Locke, I think the last poll showed that the community is split on whether autoformatting in some form is desirable. Even so, we must accept that the arbitrators are unlikely to have scrutinised those RfCs and poll to the depth that you have, and JVDB may have unwittingly used shorthand when drafting the proposals. Perhaps we should ask that the final decision should amend FoF 3.2 to say "that the current system of date autoformatting is undesirable"? If not, you can always ask for a clarification at WP:Requests for arbitration#Requests for clarification afterwards, although it would be better if the decisions were clear in the first place. --RexxS (talk) 21:45, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks RexxS; I have updated the FoF text to be more clear. John Vandenberg (chat) 11:56, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

(outdent). The current form sounds like it's a scheduling problem as to when all dates should be unlinked. I'd suggest this sentence or a variant instead. dm (talk) 13:36, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Two RFCs held in December 2008 reaffirmed that the current date autoformatting functionality is undesirable, and that WP:OVERLINKing of dates is not desirable, however consensus has not been found on which date links should be preserved or whether a different form of autoformatting could be acceptable in the future.
I think there is also consensus that delinking all dates is undesirable; but that might well be a separate FoF, since it is the basis for the contention that Lightbot's results were flawed, aside from all conduct issues. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:04, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Consequences of closing

It appears the arbitrators are about to close the matter. Let me set forth my understanding of some of the consequences for editors not named in the request, so if I'm wrong, someone can correct me.

That's my reading of it too, and I think it'd potentially be disastrous. There's been enough grief, anger and sheer frustration that led us to this point - let's not create any new stuff. I urgently call on Arbcom to place a new injunction when they close this case, that: a) continues to prohibit mass linking or delinking for a limited period during which consensus should emerge b) finds a way to establish a way for such consensus to emerge (eg through MedCom) c) then stands back and lets go. --Dweller (talk) 14:54, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
I disagree with Dweller. If they want to, and if they have the authority to, the arbitrators should arbitrate, and impose an interpretation since no interpretation will ever emerge through discussion. If they are not willing to do so, they they should just get out of the way. The current system is discourteous to the International Standards Organization, in that it formats many Julian dates, and many dates prior to 1583, into the ISO 8601 format in defiance of that standard. If the arbitrators impose an indefinite ban on correcting this problem, I would regard the arbitrators as being personally discourteous to that organization. --Jc3s5h (talk) 15:03, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Out of curiosity, what is the ISO-approved way of representing such dates? That's something more people should know, including me! — Hex (❝?!❞) 21:02, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
A few ISO standards have free versions available in obscure places, but most are only available by paying substantial fees. I am not willing to pay these fees, so I cannot answer your question. I would not presume that the various ISO standards are coordinated, that is, the fact that one ISO standard prescribes a way to do something leaves open the possibility that another standard offers a diferent way to do the same thing. Within the ISO 8601 standard, non-Gregorian calendars are just not used, so any date in a different calendar would have to be converted. Dates before 1583 may be used provided the parties exchanging data agree to do so. --Jc3s5h (talk) 21:43, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
It's clear that the arbitrators do not feel they have the authority to decide these type of matters, whatever their personal opinions on it. Given that, if they "just get out of the way", we'll be back to chaos. They do have the power and authority to prevent disruption of the kind that brought us here and they should have foresight and take the responsibility to ensure that the end of their deliberations does not simply land us back in a disruptive landscape. --Dweller (talk) 15:06, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Writing percent signs without a space before them (as in "75%" as opposed to "75 %") is discourteous to the ISO, too. So what? --A. di M. (formerly Army1987) — Deeds, not words. 15:17, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
(ec) I join in supporting this remedy; any ban should not be indefinite, but six months or until consensus on MOSNUM, whichever is shorter. (We have dissension even within this section.)
The simplest solution to Jc3s5h's problem is a bug request to take formatting into ISO out of the array of possible autoformats; but this will be controversial: some editors like to do set that autoformat. However, this is not an emergency; any editor who chooses that format - and it must be an active choice - chooses whatever inaccuracy results. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:30, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
I agree that some temporary measure to prevent date re/delinking by all users for X months or until the MOS is stable, or something like that, should be stated. --MASEM (t) 15:23, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Is the MOS unstable at the moment? – Quadell (talk) 16:07, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
As best as I can figure, we've still left undecided what select point dates should be linked. It's not that this leaves the MOS unstable, but it is incomplete. I don't expect ArbCom to fill that hole, only give editors time to figure out how to fill it. --MASEM (t) 16:11, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

As this is urgent, I've posted (perhaps clumsily - it doesn't look like the right place to me, but I couldn't find a better alternative) for the Committee's attention at Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard#Date_delinking_case --Dweller (talk) 15:37, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Although I'm not fully against this proposal, I want to point out that things will be a bit different when the case formally closes:

Anxious to see a response from ArbCom as to their intent. However, I would make two observations that are interesting to me, at least:

I offer these comments only to note that precision in language is extremely important, particularly in this case. I also share Dabomb87's hope that we ought not to end up in chaos again. Mlaffs (talk) 16:54, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I hope that the language of MOS will never read "must not...". The guidance there is meant to document community consensus, rather than acting as a rule-book that can be used to hammer those who disobey. It should be sufficient simply to place the onus on those edit against those recommendations to justify their edits. As for remedy 2.1, the convention has always been that the wording is read in conjunction with the section heading. I would assume the intention is therefore: Automated date delinking will only be performed in a manner approved by the Bot Approvals Group.. Not worth worrying about a clarification, imvho. --RexxS (talk) 17:50, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
And if (as I understand) the only bot presently approved for that purpose is the banned Lightbot, watch BAG requests if you feel this is a threat; until they act, bots are forbidden in this matter. 20:48, 2 June 2009 (UTC)


As soon as this case closes, I'm going to create an implementation poll to put to the community so they can decide how they want the dates handling. We have the results of the first poll, which in a nutshell show that the community wants dates linking much less than they currently are. How to go about that? I don't know, that's why I'm putting it to the community. It will also look at the autoformatting issue in more detail. Any editor that starts mass linking/delinking as soon as this case closes will no doubt end up blocked fairly quickly, most probably by me. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 23:27, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Ryan, are you aware that there is currently an effort (by an uninvolved editor) to devise such an RfC? See Wikipedia:Full-date unlinking bot. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:43, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
When I first read Ryan's post, I was at a loss to understand where the authority to make such threats came from. But looking at the edit history of the project page, it seems he was under the misapprehension that remedy 1 had passed. In view of the fact that remedy 1 actually failed, and in view of the fact that at least one editor was banned for delinking quite a small number of dates, I call upon Ryan to refine his threat, in particular, by specifying what he means by "mass linking/delinking". --Jc3s5h (talk) 01:06, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

For the first three months and until the stability review has concluded, a strict reading of 2.1 would be preferable - any mass delinking undertaken without BAG approval should result in blocks by admins for being provocative and disruptive. Likewise any mass relinking would be extremely disruptive and should be dealt with accordingly. Enforcement 3.1 should be in peoples mind. If editors provoke or engage in edit wars on articles, it is quite likely that the stability review will result in more editors being sanctioned, as edit wars on content also affect the ability for the style manual to stabilise. The motivation of this decision is that editors work together to bring this section of the style manual to a stable state before they implement it. John Vandenberg (chat) 02:19, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Since when does BAG approve whether editors can delink or not using scripts? That seems like an unprecedented expansion of their privileges. If anything, Arbcom should just extend the injunction to last until the MOS stable on the issue. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:33, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
So John, your idea of "mass" means of a type, or on a scale that ordinarily would be submitted to the BAG for approval? Since manual edits are outside the scope of the BAG, remedy cannot be construed to apply to manual edits. --Jc3s5h (talk) 02:35, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Safe harbor for date delinking

I suggest that an editor is justified in removing, by manual or semi-automatic means, all the date links in an article on a non-chronological article, if the article has any of the following characteristics:

The reason I consider this justified is because those characteristics support a reasonable inference that the dates were linked for the purpose of autoformatting, and not because they contribute to understanding the subject matter of the article. --Jc3s5h (talk) 15:45, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Interesting proposal. But can we wait until we have Arbcom's response to the above section, which deals with the global view before we start opposing or supporting this or any other proposal on details? --Dweller (talk) 15:50, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
I believe that Apoc2400 has plans to launch an RFC to gain community approval for the removal of all triple-component (full) DA items by a specialised, narrow-task bot, which would then be put to BAG. It might be very soon—I don't know, since I'm keeping at arm's distance from it, while supporting his aim. The main problem with the injunction at the moment is this fear that one will be blocked for removing a single DA item while copy-editing an article, and the fear by wikignomes that they are not free to clean up (carefully and with human skill as Colonies Chris was doing until he was blocked for his work) formatting and other mistakes in articles, including the removal of the old DA that no one wants. The wording of the injunction has been interpreted wildly differently for different people, by different admins, at different times. I think WPians object to this extremely tight control of their project—the one that "anyone can edit"; it should certainly not be applied with different standards of what "mass" means. If the old DA has been discredited (what more evidence do we need?), the injunction should be lifted and Apoc's2400's RFC should go ahead. I don't think anyone is planning on driving some bulldozer auto-bot through the whole project on the sly, until the RFC is decided and BAG is brought in. If anyone was silly enough, why not stop them immediately using Filter 106? ArbCom might just make it clear that care should be taken, and mass automated unlinking as opposed to careful wikignoming of multiple issues in articles is unacceptable until the immediate RFC/BAG thing is resolved.Tony (talk) 16:12, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
DA has not been discredited... maybe you forgot RFC2 where the community supported "some form" of auto formatting, but I didn't. I think instead of undoing the hard work done by Wikipedians for all these years it would make more sense to FIX the current DA system to address the concerns the community expressed (not providing a consistent view for anonymous readers, linking to articles of questionable value, not being configurable for anonymous readers). —Locke Cole • t • c 16:43, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Newyorkbrad/Vassyana

Curious that we get questions from NYB and Vassyana and then, only days later, the case is closed with seemingly nothing done regarding those questions. At any rate, at least the case is finally closed, right? —Locke Cole • t • c 16:40, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I was also a bit confused. See Coren (talk · contribs) and FloNight (talk · contribs)'s responses here. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:51, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Further, I'm confused about how remedy 9.3 and 9.4 are being decided here: 9.4 has a lower majority to pass than 9.3 (due to the abstains), and yet 9.3 has more support? At the least the case should remain open so the remaining arbitrators can help decide the closer votes (such as this one) that are largely ambiguous. —Locke Cole • t • c 17:02, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
ArbCom have adopted a system of target dates - see WP:AC/N. If I remember correctly, the target for voting here was by 31 May. Also the arbs seem to be splitting themselves between the cases that they will concentrate on. I suspect that is why arbs who have been busy on other cases have now tried to get to grips with this case and vote in order to meet the target. You'll note that 7 June is the target date for finalising the case, but it could be settled sooner. Hope that helps --RexxS (talk) 17:15, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
When two mutually-exclusive proposals both pass with similar support (8-1 vs 7-0), arbs indicate their first and second preferences if they support both. In this case, 9.3 has 6 effective first preferences, while 9.4 has 3 effective first preferences. The convention is then that 9.3 will pass. Hope that helps --RexxS (talk) 17:23, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Yes, but as I indicated the larger number of arbs abstaining from 9.4 means it has more support than 9.3 (9.3 needed 6 to pass, 9.4 needed only 5 to pass; 9.3 also has the dubious distinction of being actually being opposed). :P Hence why I think it might be a good idea to wait for additional input. —Locke Cole • t • c 18:34, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Requests for clarification

An arbitrator's question for all parties

(I would like the parties and other editors heavily involved in this case to see and have an opportunity to respond to this section. Could a clerk please post a cross-reference on the Workshop or wherever else might be useful? Thanks.)

I have started to review the statements, evidence, and workshop proposals in this case in some detail. I have now voted on many of the principles, and expect to address the remaining principles, the proposed findings, and the proposed remedies within the next 24-48 hours. As in every case, I appreciate the efforts of all editors who have contributed statements, evidence, and proposals.

I must say that the level of bitterness and hostility that my fellow Wikipedians have displayed throughout this particular dispute is disheartening. This is particularly so given the nature of the dispute. The question of whether or how dates should be linked on Wikipedia is a significant one to many contributors here—but imagine trying to describe this dispute to a non-Wikipedian friend. Given the state of the real world, it is understandable that we have protracted disputes between Scientologists and opponents of Scientology; between Randians and those who dislike Rand; between residents of the Greek region of Macedonia and residents of the Republic of Macedonia; between Armenians and Azeris; and on and on. It is sad that these disputes exist—one would think that the best and the brightest representative of any point of view could work together on an encyclopedia project—but it is certainly understandable. It is less explicable that a seeming civil war between the "linkers" and the "delinkers" goes on and on.

I know that many of you have already written a great deal on the case pages, but I would welcome a brief response (I know, I know, I'm the last one who should talk about brevity) from each participant or bystander to the following question: Why has this dispute gone on so long, and become so bitter, and what can be done about it now, and what can be done to avoid similarly bitter disputes in the future?

(Useful responses will not be directed to criticism of particular editors. Please note that while my questions have no right answr, "it's gone on and become bitter because my opponents are jerks, and it'll be over when they're all indeffed" is definitely the wrong answer.)

Thank you. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:25, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you to everyone commenting below. The statements have provided some insight into the situation, along with food for thought. I have a few followup questions in light of the responses below:

Thank you for your participation and feedback. --Vassyana (talk) 21:53, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Headbomb

Because ARBCOM failed to kill/prevent the civil war we all knew was going to happen when it had the chance. Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 03:58, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm betting that Newyorkbrad now wishes you had said "it's gone on and become bitter because my opponents are jerks..." :-)  HWV258  04:13, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Since it looks like we have a bit more space, I'll elaborate a bit more. The remarks below, such as passion, or unwillingness to compromise (and I could go on about someone who pretends to be willing to compromise but exclude bots as part of the solution...), are simply givens that Wikipedia needs to work with. You can't say that you expect editors to be less-driven, and some people don't understand when they lose. While these are the root cause of the problem, the problem has been diagnosed soon enough to be treatable. It's a bit as if your friend had gangrene, but decided to wait until it gnawed through a leg before going "Hmmm... perhaps we should get this treated". Jc3s5h points an additional source of frustration; the injunction on date-edits encouraged massive and fierce debate rather than reasonable one, as the halt on linking and delinking means that those of us who would be editing, doing template maintenance, general copy-editing, etc... in all reasonableness could not do so anymore. A quick resolution was thus desired, required, and fought for by people who wouldn't normally give a damn, and the voice of those who gave a damn that are able (and therefore who have the technical know-how to see what the issues are before they arise and know best how to dodge them) to do maintenance on a massive scale was drowned into meaninglessness. Preventing the bot writers from writing and testing date linking/delinking bots meant that viable solutions could not be investigated and found. Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 04:50, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Dabomb87

Passion. It may sound silly, but everybody has a pet issue that they cannot leave untouched. Not to single out any one editor, but Tony1 (talk · contribs) is a self-described reformist (see his talk page). If you see the efforts he has taken in other important areas of Wikipedia (non-free content criteria, FA criteria), you can see where his dedication to improvement shine through. Tennis expert (talk · contribs), as his user name might imply, had this same type of passion in improving tennis article; unfortunately, he has left amid other issues. Now, obviously, the issue is to whether Tony1, Tennis expert, and the other editors (both sides of the debate) were too zealous in their passionate drive to their interpretation of improvement, and that's what you (the Arbitration Committee) have to decide. As for me: I have strong opinions, but I am more willing to compromise. Sometimes, I allow my emotions to overtake my rational self, and that's what's landed me here. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:06, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I also want to add that one thing that would have been helpful during the Arbcom is if John Vanderberg, the writer of the PD, had posted at least some proposals on the workshop to allow users and other arbitrators to provide feedback. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:48, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Second part: I cannot say that topic bans are the best way to resolve the dispute. Yes, incivility and the assumption of bad faith abounded right from the start (from both sides), but—dubious though it may seem—we all do want to improve the encyclopedia, and have the expertise to do so; we just have different visions of how to proceed in this regard. My suggestion: a short topic ban (month or two) to allow fresh blood to start discussions (as Locke Cole describes below), then implement a 0RR restriction and civility parole. In short, allow the incumbent editors back in, but on a very short leash. I think a restricted second chance is warranted because progress has been achieved (see the latest date poll, the product of collaboration of nearly all the parties). Dabomb87 (talk) 04:17, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Replies to Vassayana:

Locke Cole

It's gone on so long because neither side was willing to back down. For my part I was open to compromise and working with the other side to develop reasonable solutions (that didn't involve bots running across the wiki performing tens of thousands of edits), but it never seemed to work out. I still believe compromise is the best way forward, but that requires a willingness from both sides to entertain proposals that may not exactly meet their view of how things should be. Barring compromise, topic banning all of us and allowing fresh faces to take over the discussion (if any even want to) seems a reasonable alternative. As for the last portion of your question, I don't know, honestly. I always felt that my opinion (and those who agreed with me) were ignored, so perhaps being open to ideas rather than being dismissive would help to avoid these kinds of situations. But really, any conflict has some point where common sense seems to be ejected from the situation and gives way to emotionalism. It's at that point that we're traveling down the road that got us here. Finding a way to avoid that would probably win the person that found it a Nobel Peace Prize. —Locke Cole • t • c 04:08, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Vassyana's questions

—Locke Cole • t • c 15:00, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Dm

Jc3s5h

The outcome has many side-effects, such as the way dates are represented in citation templates. Failure to reach a conclusion irritates those who work on things that can't be specified until the debate is over. --Jc3s5h (talk) 04:30, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Ohconfucius

per Dm and Dabomb. There are deeply held convictions on both sides that what they seek is the best for WP, and the tenacity that goes with wanting to see it carried out. I suspect the dispute has been brewing for a long time, ever since the linking issue became conflated with autoformatting by implementation of Dynamic Dates on a conservative community without genuine consensus (as witnessed by the recent groundswell of grass-roots opinion). Both sides attempted good faith discussions, and the protracted debate never got past the "forming stage". It then started becoming personalised as discussions became stale and parties got tired of not hearing any breakthrough arguments from the other side, thus starting the downward spiral of recriminations. New world meets old as compromises failed to inspire, or to respond to underlying concerns how technology should be used for mutual benefit rather than being used incorrectly (for its own sake) - the "because it's there" concept springs to mind. I also believe that it may be the embodiment of a community backlash against the proliferation of components of editing "infrastructure" (ie templates/infoboxen, references/footnotes, linking and other markups, facilitation of multiple languages) which are grossly detrimental to the editing experience, not to neglect that excessive linking is detrimental to the reading experience. I believe that with the correct use of technology (for ex. if project accessibility can deliver a WYSIWYG editing interface which functions like MS Word), the resistance to technological solutions would soften, and both sides can be drawn closer. Ohconfucius (talk) 04:54, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Mlaffs

Thanks for the opportunity, Brad. This won't be as brief as I'd like, but I promise it won't be any longer than I feel is necessary. I'm also far under my word quota in comparison to many, so I'm going to beg your forgiveness and use up a small amount of that quota here.
Hope that's helpful and, again, thanks for the opportunity to weigh in. Mlaffs (talk) 04:58, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

AKAF

(Not a party, but an interested bystander)

Why did this escalate? Because the bot approval group is worse than useless.

I must admit that if I see a single great failing here, it is at the BAG. I became interested, and decided to participate more in the bot approval process after the Betacommand case. The BAG was somewhat open, and I did participate with some enthusiasm until the approval for BetacommandBot Task 9, where the BAG once again rolled on over the many community objections, with the results we all know. As in my evidence, I would strongly suggest that the answer to this problem (or at least a reduction of its scope) could have been in September 2008, when the BAG approved Lightbot task 3. This approval was done by a single user (User:ST47), who has been notably absent from this arbitration. More than any other single person, I think ST47 wasted a chance to de-escalate the situation. The approval was done over the objections of multiple other BAG members, and quite a number of community voices who noted problems with task consensus and the scope of the bot remit. Traditionally only scope has been a BAG problem, but the finding in the Betacommand RFArb went much more in the direction of suggesting that the BAG only approve bots which had consensus, since it had become obvious that many bot operators are not able to determine this. Unfortunately, I think that the BAG as remained unchanged from its previous position, where basically anything goes. Compare ST47's submission to the Betacommand case to see if anything as been learned since then. I think not. In addition, although the BAG's method for electing members changed somewhat after that case (better advertised, for one), the members are all bot specialists, rather than Wikipedia specialists, which leads to bots being approved which are technically correct, but not wanted by the community. Another recent failure of this type was that of Fritzpollbot, which should have created a large number (up to a million?) geography-related stubs. The big problems at the BAG, as I see it, are the following:

  1. Only a single member of the BAG must approve of a bot for it to be approved.
  2. Approvals are rarely, if ever, rescinded
  3. As a group the BAG tends to be out of touch with Wikipedia norms
  4. As a group the BAG tends not to admit to mistakes
  5. Processes are arcane, pages are unnavigable, archived requests are hard to find, communication is poor
  6. Comments from outsiders are ignored, or given a reduced status
  7. There is no method of making the BAG members responsible for the bot approvals which they make

As far as I can see, Lightbot (and datedelinker) are still A-OK as far as the BAG is concerned, and no motion was ever made to remove the flag, even after the opening of this RFArb made it very clear that these jobs were not uncontroversial. I cannot understand why the BAG should continue to exist in its current form (Which is not to say that some form would not be good). AKAF (talk) 06:33, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Per the discussion of this issue on WP:BN, there appears to be strong community opposition to deflagging Lightbot until Lightmouse is banned; the lack of BAG action on this subject needs to be considered in this context. Furthermore, BAG approval is a necessary, but not sufficient condition for bot operation: bots are also subject to community consensus. If the community considers a particular task to be disruptive, the bot operator can be forced to discontinue it (and the bot blocked if the operator refuses to comply), notwithstanding the existence of a BAG approval. The BAG approval process is simply designed as a prophylactic measure to prevent the operation of some particularly ill-considered bots, not to preempt community authority over bot operations. Erik9 (talk) 11:01, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
That is certainly a good summary of how the BAG sees themselves. There is an inherent blame-shifting in this method of operation BAG-->bot-->user-->complainant-->random admin, which means that the buck never stops and problematic bot operators persist for far longer than other types of problem users. I remain unsure whether the BAG is better than nothing. As far as the deflagging of lightbot is concerned: There is opposition to deflagging lightbot because of the arbitration process before the result is handed down. I do not see that revoking task permission (which would lead to deflagging) for a bot because it has been shown not to be uncontroversial independently of the arbitration process, is the same decision. AKAF (talk) 11:52, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
And observe in the workshop the opinion that even ArbCom can't shut Lightbot down, because it has BAG approval. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:31, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm not attempting any "blame-shifting" from BAG. The group shouldn't approve controversial tasks, except where necessary for image copyright enforcement or other foundation-level policy, which date delinking clearly isn't. However, like all humans, BAG members will make mistakes. BAG should be evaluated not on the basis of a few tasks which they have incorrectly approved, but rather the ratio of correct to erroneous approvals, which should be considered in light of ratio beneficial to disruptive tasks for which approval is requested at WP:BRFA, as well as the many bizarre tasks that would be run, at least until stopped administratively, were no prior approval required. To claim that bot tasks, once approved by BAG, cannot be stopped by the community, is to elevate BAG members to the status of autocrats, which presents the some of the same problems as despotism in national government: those whose judgment is not infallible cannot safely be entrusted with absolute authority. Erik9 (talk) 03:20, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
I don't think anybody, but AKAF in his annoyance, has proposed taking down BAG, and their consideration of how such situations will be avoided is the most useful thing to come out of this controversy; possibly the only useful thing.
To claim that bot tasks, once approved by BAG, cannot be stopped by the community, is to elevate BAG members to the status of autocrats...those whose judgment is not infallible cannot safely be entrusted with absolute authority. Very true, indeed a possible principle.Septentrionalis PMAnderson 13:46, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
My comments were particularly coloured by remedy 2.1 : "Date delinking will be performed in a manner approved by the Bot Approvals Group", which completely ignores the fact that date delinking has always been done with the approval of the BAG. In fact the BAG, still (officially) approves of datedelinker and lightbot, and had no problem with a single BAG member writing lightmouse a blank cheque. There is a huge disconnect between what the BAG claims to do, and what it actually does, which is reflected in the regular occurrence of problem bots. I think that the BAG is probably necessary, but this is not to ignore the divide between the BAG norms and those of the rest of the community. AKAF (talk) 14:28, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Since this seems like the best place to insert it, I did invent a Bot-centric dispute resolution (DR) procedure over a year ago at WP:RFC/BOT, it was used once for an anti-vandalism bot and has never been used since then. Personally I think the LightBot issue should have been handled at such an RFC before or during this Arbcom case, but it seems the overall trend at Arbcom is away from RFC as a mandatory preliminary step in DR. MBisanz talk 15:04, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Reply to Vassyana

I think that the Arbcom could do a lot of good by providing some ground rules as guidance to the BAG. I see the following as procedural problems which are soluble:
  1. It's hard to know who to contact when you have a legitimate problem with a Bot's operation. If a bot is "functioning as intended", "functioning according to the BAG approval" and the operator is relatively polite, there is currently nowhere to turn except to persuade some random admin to take an interest.
  2. The "Project pages" of the BAG are a godawful mess, where it's impossible to find and guidance or information without reading through a lot of pages.
  3. The BAG does not take responsibility for anything that happens after the OK is given for a bot
I would like to see some changes in the way bots are approved. I very much respect the members of the BAG individually, so I think that the most productive way to go is to use the individuals to help the community, since I think that in this case the group is considerably less than the sum of its parts. I would like to suggest that the Arbcom suggest to the BAG that:
  1. At the bot approval stage, each approval should be "signed" by three BAG members.
  2. It should be clear that these members are "interested parties" who should be the first point of contact if there is a gripe about the bot approval (not for a malfunction), and this should be on the bot's user page along with the bot operator. A "mentorship" if you will.
  3. Rescinding the approval for a bot is "no big deal", and there should be a no-fuss way for the mentoring BAG members to do that.
I think that this would take a lot of the complication out of this type of case. AKAF (talk) 19:16, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
As a second point, I think it would be a good idea for the Arbcom to have some private discussion about non-bot scripting through Monobook.js, since some editors here have used this extensively. I considered Ohconfucious' use of this option was excessive, but I'll admit that he's an editor who I find abrasive. More to the point, it seems that some types of edits using this method are not being properly checked as manual edits, and it may eventually be necessary to ask the developers to think about some rate limiters. As a rough suggestion: Something like limiting the text addition rate to 5000 bytes per minute, with the editing of every apostrophe in an article having the same wordcount as the entire article, so editing a 50000-byte article in this way would enforce a pause of 10 minutes before "save page" could be pressed the next time. For people who are manually checking every edit this should hopefully be no problem. The bot flag should lift this limitation. Regards, AKAF (talk) 19:16, 28 May 2009 (UTC).

Colonies Chris

Why has this dispute been so long and bitter?
It is inherently a difficult dispute because it affects a large proportion of WP's articles, two different issues (autoformatting and linking) are entwined, and there have been some very difficult personalities involved. However, it has been made much worse by ArbCom's mishandling of the whole affair. In my opinion they should never have accepted the case at all. However, I had some hope that with their help we could find a way out of this dispute. This was not to be. Having accepted the case they proceeded to make every possible mistake in handling it.

The proposed decision will stigmatise, restrict and embitter many editors who’ve never been in any trouble before. It seems to me that on 31 May, when the judgment becomes official, the arbitrators will dust off their hands, walk away from the pile of Wiki-corpses and go home for their tea congratulating themselves on a job well done. And nothing will have been resolved, valuable editors will leave, and all respect for ArbCom will have been lost. Colonies Chris (talk) 12:18, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Masem

I'm uninvolved in terms of the ArbCom case, but was involved in trying to mediate a solution (I created one of the Nov/Dec RFCs).

To me, the core dispute is not really about date delinking, bot use, and all that. This was the perfect storm, though, to pit the core group of the notable MOS maintainers (Tony, Greg, etc.) against those with the just the right chips on their shoulders to fight the change aggressively (Locke Cole, Tennis Expert, etc.) In the case's evidence, I put forth that the current atmosphere, even outside of date delinking, is rather antagonistic, as the core groups of these pages generally work together as a whole to move, and at times, quickly move, forward changes to MOS they see as improvements. Most of the time, they are right that these are improvements (and I will say that they were right in why date delinking is bad), and we've never really hit a point where there was tremendous backlash against it - the only two times I can recall were for how to handle US vs Brit English on pages, and the use of base 2 vs base 10 prefixes for byte sizes. Maybe we were lucky before in that neither of these exploded beyond MOSNUM, but it could have been those watching the pages looking for a third strike, or that the influence of these decisions didn't affect a large number of articles compared to date delinking that caused what occurred to come about.

This could have and should have been avoided. I believe the core aspect of this case is the nature of which Tony et al edit and maintain the MOS seemingly without feedback save between themselves, and do not deal well when those changes are challenged, adopting a cabal-like attitude that only served to fuel the argumentative nature of LC and others. Given the way that the remedies are given, and comments from Kirill and other Arbitrators on this case, I feel they have correctly identified the editing nature of the MOSes as the key issue here. The fact that only just after the case started there was a push by the same group to get rid of WP:Build the Web (a more holositic approach to how link) in favor of WP:LINKING (a more descriptive means of linking) shows that there's potential for this to happen again. I agree that Tony et al need to step back from the MOSes - certainly not from providing input, but to realize the MOS are representation of community consensus and not just a panel of interested editors. It is good to be ambitious about improving the MOSes to make WP a better work (and its a job that someone should be doing), but it not good to defend that ambition at the cost of seeking consensus.

This is not to say the debate was onesided; LC and the others in the case had just the right personalities and interest in dates to make this spin out of control, and they themselves could have shown some restraint (LC's "crying wolf" to ANI a lot, for one). It just happens that this issue was the one that sparked the brewing storm; if no one fought back at date delinking, maybe the "Build the Web" would have launched it. Or whatever the next major change at MOS would have been. This was always something waiting to happen, but without it occurring, one could only watch. I think the remedies that ArbCom have suggested is the need to prevent this situation from happening against while still allowing the flexibility needed by editors to continue to improve the MOSes. --MASEM (t) 13:51, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

In response to Vassyana's questions:

Pmanderson

I believe that Mlaffs and Masem are substantially correct; Mlaffs on the root cause, Masem on why it has exploded on this issue, and no other.

I doubt Ohconfucius' history of Dynamic Dates is supported by the diffs; DD was accepted by consensus back in 2003, with the only issue being the inclusion of all-numeric dates in the choice of formats - resolved by concession. Tony and others began pushing back at this, I believe in 2006 - Tony began editing in 2005 - at first to do autoformatting without links. They feel they were ignored by the developers, and they may have been; this has now become a drive to tear out autoformatting by the roots, and they have convinced themselves in their frustration that datelinks are just plain evil.

Beyond Mlaffs and Masem, the conflict has exploded about dates because several of the delinkers have given a plausible appearance of wanting to delink all dates whatsoever - this would ignore the wording of the present text of MOSNUM, which represents a large body of opinion that some dates, however rare, should be kept - and that respect for fellow editors and for ArbCom will not stop them. (Particulars on this can be seen on the proposed decision page and the list of blocks; if anybody wants details, write me.)

This has inspired severe distrust; it seems to have been met with a conviction that everybody else wants to link all dates, and preserve autoformatting as it now is. That is clearly false: I don't see anyone involved in the case wanting to link all dates (there have been a handful of such voices in the RFCs, but there is probably consensus against them); Locke wants some system of autoformatting, but does not insist on linking; and I think autoformatting was a mistake and should be replaced.

The Workshop had the added aggravation that without much comment from Arbitrators, the parties had little to do but answer each other. If NYB had asked this question there, as he has at more recent workshops, it might have helped.

Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:26, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Addendum

HWV258 says: The only way forward is to remove the faulty underlying issue, and to start again. Specifically, the removal of all linked dates on Wikipedia (which can only reasonably be achieved via the use of scripts and bots), and the removal of the underlying mechanism that supports the linking of dates (the availability of the ... syntax for dates).

In short, the "only way forward" is exactly what he wants to do.

I regret quoting at such length; I noted this in a much briefer reply immediately in response to the statement. HWV258 refactored it twice (or rather, removed it from this page, which obliterated my sentiments) and then asked my consent to move the response; he has ignored my answer, which was "No thank you", except to make a reply which suggests that he thinks asking is enough; the courteous and helpful thing would have been to restore my original response.

These attitudes (my way is the only way; I don't have to listen, because I'm doing the right thing) are not unique to HWV258; they are endemic among the delinkers, and have done more to make this a bitter controversy than any feelings about issues. It is characteristic of the way this has propagated that Locke Cole was drawn to counter HWV258's reversions; but that is why there is strong guidance against refactoring (without express consent) in the first place. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:03, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Again, Locke's comments suggest that some of the second fallacy has rubbed off on him; I hope, however, that he can learn from bad example, and will disengage from it. His conduct is mitigated by his reliance on a long-established, undisputed, and widely used guideline, WP:TPO, which was not written for the occasion. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:41, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
I have proposed two FOFs on this matter. Comments are acceptable; I am pondering what remedies to request. (Comments of the form "HWV258 did nothing wrong" had best be well and concisely argued; they are unlikely to make much difference to what I say unless they are coherent, polite, persuasive, and short.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:54, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Karanacs

I got a gentle introduction to the whole drama - Tony1 posted at FAC that they would like to delink all featured articles and did anyone have a problem. No one seemed to mind. I was surprised to see later that there was so much turmoil about this issue on the talk page. I see several problems with how things went:

What could prevent this in the future?

Karanacs (talk) 16:48, 27 May 2009 (UTC)


Tony1

Brad, you asked three questions (which ArbCom might have put to the parties right at the start).

Why has this dispute gone on so long and become so bitter?

(1) it involves value systems, (2) it involves basic issues in almost every article; and (3) without intending to, the ArbCom process has sadly has made it much more intense and longer. Details:

  1. Overlinking and date autoformatting (DA) are multifactorial issues involving the psychology of reading, the dilution effect, and the imposition of extra syntax for editors balanced against utility for readers—and for year and day-month linking, the use of a relevance test. This is fertile ground for the development of diametrically opposed views based on how these issues are valued; in this respect, it is akin to religious and left–right political disputes, and adherents tend to gravitate to one or the other view in a way that is not easy to resolve with the opposite view.
  2. The value of month-day or day-month order in DA is similarly valued differently by different editors, although most do not care about it. Perceptual viewpoints tend to be deeply held and hard to shake off. This may be tinged by national associations, even though "the other" format is used in every anglophone country.
  3. Some programmers/developers have a strong objection to the discarding of computer functionalities; this can take on associations with self-worth in a hobby or profession that is close to those users' hearts, while some non-programmers have a different set of values that may place greater emphasis on usability.
  4. Compromise on DA has been difficult because it's an all-or-nothing function; compromise on (over)linking has been difficult because both sides fear that giving anything away will lead to a slippery slope (many editors simply follow what they see in articles).
  5. The ArbCom Workshop, and to a lesser extent Evidence and other pages, encouraged bitter warring rather than healing and cooperation. This intensification has been by far the worst phase of the dispute, and for it to have lasted for nearly five months is unconscionable.
What can be done about it now?

Two things.

(2) Appoint a trusted and uninvolved admin to keep an eye on things and liaise with /report to ArbCom or clerks if necessary. ArbCom's new policy explicitly allows this, and there's nothing under the current policy to stop this. Happy-melon is uninvolved, neutral, has a feel for process: he seems like an ideal choice as Special Delegate on this matter if he were willing.

What can be done to avoid similarly bitter disputes in the future?

Please fix the ArbCom process so that it is short, properly scoped with tighter evidentiary rules, and has proper and enforceable rules for COI (separate possibly elected official, please, for COI issues). The cases are too big a deal and too elaborate and long. Keep them relatively brief and lean, and allow an uninvolved admin or clerk or arbitrator to initiate a case at an earlier stage if it looks really serious. That would transform ArbCom's role. Tony (talk) 18:10, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

RexxS

Thank you, Brad, for taking the time to review these comments. This dispute has gone on so long and become so bitter simply because no means of dispute resolution has produced consensus and I worry that it never will. There are a range of views on whether dates should be autoformatted and which ones should be linked. See the opening statements in WP:Date formatting and linking poll#Autoformatting, WP:Date formatting and linking poll#Month-day linking and WP:Date formatting and linking poll#Year linking for succinct summaries of the reasons (and that's as succinct as it gets). Consensus forms when a compromise is reached that each side can live with. My observation is that this dispute has sufficient numbers of editors who hold such diametrically-opposed views of the values of DA and linking that nobody has been able to find a solution that all can live with. Hence the spiral into incivility and edit war.

One solution might be to ban everybody with a strong view from the arena. I think that would cripple any progress on finding a solution, since this dispute is almost unique in the contrast between its triviality and the strength of feeling it provokes. Anyone attempting to discuss this part of MOS will inevitably form an opinion on the issues above. In my humble opinion, the underlying dispute has to be resolved by a (short?) cooling-off period followed by further attempts to discover what the community's views are on the key issues - and that would have to include how to implement whatever has already been established.

As for the future, this dispute is a prelude to the next linking debate: whether to link common geographical locations like United States in every article where they appear. When to link "Item X" is going to be a bug-bear for this encyclopedia until somebody refines how consensus is reached. --RexxS (talk) 22:17, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Response to Vassyana's questions
I have not changed my original opinion that blocking is a blunt tool to achieve desired outcomes, and still believe that blocks of any of the participants would not be productive when more nuanced sanctions are available. If sanctions are to bring about an improvement, then two things need to be tacked: editor's behaviour and the ground where battles are fought. I suggest that ArbCom could impose an indefinite (i.e. untimed) ban against editing the style guideline pages and templates on all editors they believe should be sanctioned. Then follow it up with a scheduled review after three months, with a view to lifting sanctions on those editors who have demonstrated behaviour of which ArbCom approves. I know that's more work for ArbCom, but the new calendar adopted ought to make the task manageable.
I also believe that MOS itself is part of the problem. We already have good advice at WP:PG#Changes to guideline and policy pages. ArbCom could make what is written there prescriptive for changes to MOS, and insist on its implementation for all editors. I would also suggest WP:1RR should be enforced there, other than for instances of incontrovertible vandalism.
Consensus may never be achieved on some of the issues before us. At some point somebody is going to have to interpret the results of the RfCs and poll, then state "A sufficient majority of contributors want X; X is to be the policy/guideline - even though there is not full consensus". ArbCom could do that, or ask a group of involved, respected contributors to make those determinations. Whatever came out of that, we would all have to live with.
If it is felt that BAG processes could be improved, I suggest that ArbCom would do best to encourage participation in BAG from more editors. That is the wiki-way; more voices may be make process slower, but there's no deadline.

I see the concerns of the last two questions as tied up in the first two points I make above. --RexxS (talk) 16:17, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Arthur Rubin

I think the dispute has gone on so long because this, although minor, affects millions of articles in that minor way, and that WP:IAR suggests that all who wish the best of Wikipedia should violate the other rules in order to get the option they believe to be best in place. The fact that many of the parties had been uncivil and edit warriors from way back didn't help matters much, either. (I can't comment as to whether some of the delinkers were working on this for years. If accurate, it does suggest that they should have a "time out" from working on and enforcing style guides.)

Many of the RfCs, (possibly) apparent consensus on talk pages of subpages of the style guideline (which clearly was not consensus once the changes made it to MOSNUM), etc., seemed designed to push apparent consensus to the proposer's POV. In spite of Ryan's neutrality attempts, I believe the latest RfC to have had been pushed to the point that it is unclear whether date linking options 1, 2, or 4 (unbiased by the incorrect titles and the confusion between autoformatting and linking) would have have had a consensus.

As to what could be done to avoid this in the future, I had previously suggested that a committee (I hear you all groan) be set up to determine consensus in disputed areas, and that we (all editors, including those banned from style edits, if some of the remedies apply) try to put together a way of determining what the consensus is in those disputed areas. (I feel it might be better if "the banned" had a "time out" from participating in establishing this consensus, but might still be able to rationally participate in the process of determining how to determine consensus.) If such a committee were set up, had the trust of the community, and had determined what had consensus at each step, successive RfCs could be written to clarify the consensus, rather than obfuscating it.

The bot question is another one; whether bots which frequently (in absolute terms) make mistakes should be allowed to operate is a question which should be left the community, rather than to the Bot group. There is no doubt that, even if the delinkers' interpretation of the MOSNUM has consensus, that the bots would have improperly delinked a few thousand articles.

(Written without looking closely at the other comments.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:31, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

As for Vassyana's questions:

HWV258

(I write the following from the point of view of someone who has been involved in software development for over 20 years.)

Why has this dispute gone on so long and become so bitter?

This dispute is a natural consequence that results when human nature acts upon a faulty framework. Specifically, the problems stemmed from the introduction of a flawed technology-based "solution" (for a problem that largely didn't exist). The system of linking and formatting dates was introduced without community consensus (and every subsequent RfC has shown that more editors would prefer not to have the current system, than those who would). Once a faulty system (e.g. one that can't handle date ranges, all date formats, ISO issues, AC/BC, the interaction with user preferences, issues with anonymous viewers, etc.) is introduced, no amount of discussion or patches will be able to fix it (simply due to the diverging opinions that influence future development). We have all seen this now happen (note that developers have been working at fixing the date-related problems at WP for years—without success).

What can be done about it now?

The only way forward is to remove the faulty underlying issue, and to start again. Specifically, the removal of all linked dates on Wikipedia (which can only reasonably be achieved via the use of scripts and bots), and the removal of the underlying mechanism that supports the linking of dates (the availability of the [[...]] syntax for dates). Once that clean-slate has been achieved, the way is open for either: nothing to be done, or for the creation of a replacement system (see below). This seems (and is) dramatic, but it will achieve the desired result, and fits within the definition of "no deadline" at Wikipedia.

What can be done to avoid similarly bitter disputes in the future?

A complete revamp of the way software is developed at Wikipedia needs to be undertaken. Specifically:

Wikipedia has come a long way since it's inception. It is maturing in most areas, with one notable exception: software development. There is much to recommend Wikipedia to adopt professional software development methodologies. After all, with the large number of "users", Wikipedia shares much in common with larger businesses who naturally demand professional software development standards these days. The area of professional software development that is fundamentally absent at Wikipedia is the specification phase (and user sign-off). Note that none of the above is intended to denigrate the developers who devote their time to Wikipedia; rather, it is aimed at properly and efficiently harnessing that respected devotion.
 HWV258  00:20, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

HJensen

I have written an essay about my experiences and confusion with this whole ordeal.--HJensen, talk 15:43, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Greg L

Sorry. I’m on the road and have limited time to contribute on this issue.

I think what the community wants in the way of date linking was properly measured by Ryan’s RfC. I call it “Ryan’s” RfC, but he actually authored precious little of it since his role was to shepherd it through the authorship and voting stages to ensure it was fair and balanced. In fact, it was “the parties’” RfC because Ryan sought to give all parties to this dispute an equal opportunity to contribute to the questions posed in the RfC. The community’s votes in that RfC settled what the community wanted for date links and autoformatting and those consensus views are now properly memorialized here on WP:MOSNUM.

That settles the core dispute: “What does the community really want?” What remains now is just hard feelings amongst some of the combatants, which should be simple to solve. I propose the following four rulings:

  1. “The named parties are, for one year, enjoined from editing MOS:UNLINKDATES or advocating anywhere on Wikipedia that it be changed.”
  2. As for editors manually linking or delinking dates, I propose the following ruling: “Parties to the dispute are on probation for one year. During that period, the probationary restriction is as follows: they are not to edit against consensus and/or MOS:UNLINKDATES. Failure to abide by this ruling will result in lengthy (weeks-long blocks).”
  3. As for restrictions on what Lightmouse—an editor with three “Working Man’s” barnstars—can do with his Lightbot, I propose that the committee seek Ryan’s recommendation(s) on this matter and consider putting any date delinking aspects of Lightbot (the bot, now) under Ryan’s jurisdiction for six months. This would be in addition to the governing bodies that already have jurisdiction over all bot activity.
  4. A point of contact (Ryan or an arbitrator who has the confidence of the parties) should be assigned so we know who to go to if someone violates points 1–3, above.

I propose that this ruling be issued tomorrow, the matter closed, and we move on. Anyone who causes trouble should be swiftly blocked for two weeks with minimal fuss so it doesn’t take a protracted WQA to get anything done. Passing out one or two blocks like that should cure what ails anyone around here. Greg L (talk) 00:56, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

John

Like HJensen, I too am developing an essay on my involvement with this case. It's at User:John/ArbcomAppeal and is far from finished, but you are welcome to take a look. --John (talk) 03:28, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia

I'm sorry to come so late to this request: I've been somewhat out of commission since 22 May. There was an unfortunate clash of strong personalities early on (that was never dealt with in earlier dispute resolution, that was pursued ... I recall at least a Wikiquette alert or two, and when the belligerance from some parties was allowed to continue, I unwatched MOS), but the bigger issue IMO has been missed in the responses above, and is in the way MoS is structured, with sub- sub- and more sub-pages and no coherent structure, which leads to the bitter fighting. There were several attempts to start a WikiProject to oversee and better consolidate the whole mess, to identify and eliminate redundancies and establish a mechanism for adding new pages and garnering broader consensus for changes, but nothing got off the ground. The rambling structure of the MoS pages, where a small group of editors can put forward a sub-page or just create a new page, with no broad consensus, and add it to MoS, is a core problem. Kirill and I have had very old discussions on this matter, as only MilHist and MEDMOS seem to have really garnered community consensus (at least among WikiProject pages, outside of the WikiProject). If MOS isn't "fixed", the problems might recur. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:21, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

More