Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Date delinking/Evidence

Consensus

For NuclearWarfare, but others are welcome to discuss

The historical issues are important because this arbitration is about behavioral issues (how was consensus reached, were massive site-wide delinkings supported back in August, etc). Hence why I mention the original discussion from August. At any rate the RFCs since then do not support mass delinking, they support deprecation with date links still being okay in articles "sometimes". The important thing here is the "sometimes"; a bot/semi-automated script cannot discern between a link made only for auto formatting and a link made because the editor genuinely believed it improves the readers understanding of the subject. —Locke Cole • t • c 00:58, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with just about everything in that post. Tony (talk) 16:22, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Same old, same old organic fertiliser. Ohconfucius (talk) 01:50, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I also respectfully disagree with everything said save the first sentence. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:00, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Concur with Locke. The previous consensus for deprecation is limited. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:14, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Didn't notice this till now. I'd agree with some of that, mostly just the first sentence. I strongly disagree with your interpretation of consensus here. Also, per this excellent suggestion, there is no reasons to let bots not run. NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 23:51, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Question

Say I have evidence that indicates one of the named parties of the RFAR has a highly significant behavioral history under a former account (dozen plus blocks, RFC/U, SSP accusations, etc), however the accounts have never been connected publicly to my knowledge. What would be the appropriate manner in which to present this evidence? MBisanz ^talk 16:11, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

It would be best emailing this directly to the arbitrators and they can do the checks required to determine whether or not they are the same person and whether or not it matters in the arbitration. Revealing anything here is likely going to cause more drama than anything else. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 17:06, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Okey, sounds like a good idea to email them. MBisanz ^talk 17:51, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Okey, I emailed them, if someone could let me know the result of my email and if/when/where would be best to present workshop commentary related to it. MBisanz ^talk 00:03, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Complete denial of natural justice

I see that MBisanz is diffing evidence about me that only admins can see. From what I can tell, it has nothing to do with the date-linking issue. Can someone explain how this is acceptable? I'd like to see the evidence, please. Tony (talk) 16:21, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

The page was deleted as the talk page of an indef blocked user, so I see no harm in posting the contents of this diff here. Karanacs (talk) 16:32, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Deleted revision of User talk:Monkhat123 (as of 25 October 2008, at 04:27) by Tony1 (Talk | contribs | block):

Vandalism: Please note that adding "sex" to an article will lead to the blocking of your account. Desist. Tony (talk) 09:27, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

1. I'm desperately trying to determine the context. Since I'm not an admin, I can't threaten to block; I believe it was advice intended to inform the vandal of the consequences—that blanking and substituting obscene sexual references would lead (as it inevitably did) to a blocking. It's not a post I would normally make, but my concern for the vandalism was such that I thought I was being a good citizen here; why is it now being used against me in an accusation of incivility? I'm confused.

2. Why does my comment about "naming and shaming" at the AdminReview talk page appear diffed here (a comment I later withdrew, conceding that it was an inappropriate objective for the page—although I believe that withdrawal is irrelevant here).

• What policy or guideline does it breach?
• Why does MBisanz think that this is relevant to the issue of civility, in particular as it relates to the current case?
• Why does he focus exclusively on accusations of me alone on this count?
• Why does proposing that a process name and shame admins who abuse their obligations amount to incivility? If so, why did he not raise this explicitly at the time? On the contrary, can he explain how his posting here does not breach the requirement he is bound by, to accept that "editors are free to question or to criticize administrator actions"? Tony (talk) 16:54, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Can someone explain why MBisanz has not breached the policy on admin conflict of interest WP:UNINVOLVED in making these claims against me, in the light of his attempts to delete my AdminReview (formerly "AdminWatch") page here? Tony (talk) 17:11, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

(1) Any editor may make a statement or present relevant evidence in an arbitration case. The limitations on action by "involved" administrators are irrelevant, because by definition many of the parties to an arbitration case are involved in a dispute with each other, and in any event, the editor/admin presenting evidence is not going to take any action; any action will be taken by the arbitrators. (2) I have reviewed the diff from the deleted page and it strikes me as pretty clearly irrelevant to the issues here, so I don't think that issue needs to be pursued further. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:17, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Tony, sums up it pretty well with his bullet point up above, but I'd also like to point out that these two cases of "incivility¿" have nothing to do with date de-linking. Ryan4314 (talk) 17:21, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Um, NY Brad, the "involvement" concerns his leading an (unsuccessful) attempt to delete my AdminReview page, and the potential for conflict of interest in attempting to slur me in this judicial context by quoting me from that page he tried to delete, representing a comment I made which has nothing to do with either this case or incivility. I believe that both diffs should be withdrawn immediately: one as irrelevant; the other as in bad faith with potential conflict of interest. Tony (talk) 17:38, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

This whole case seems to be descending into the same kind of unfocussed mess we've seen in so many other debates. How on earth is it relevant to anything to drag up alleged examples of incivility which have nothing to do with the subject at hand? Can these please be withdrawn, if they haven't already.--Kotniski (talk) 19:49, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Neither diff is related to date linking, which this case concerns. On the first (deleted) diff, I don't see what is uncivil about it. Is it not true that if the user continued to post such material, they would be blocked? As Tony said, he did not himself threaten to block the user; note the use of the passive. The second diff is more complicated, but in the end is not at all relevant. I would hope that the Arbs realize that these cases are not cases of blatant incivility (furthermore, one of those comments in the diffs has been retracted), and have no relevance to the current case. I support Tony in his urging of Mbisanz to remove those diffs as irrelevant. End of discussion. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:52, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

But both diffs are still there. I'm waiting. Tony (talk) 01:27, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

With all due respect to Newyorkbrad's comment that"Any editor may make a statement or present relevant evidence. The limitations on action by "involved" administrators are irrelevant, because by definition many of the parties to an arbitration case are involved in a dispute", the part that Tony challenges, and which I agree with 200%, is how this is "evidence" is in any way related to the case. It is only a secondary issue whether MBisanz is or isn't allowed to present evidence because of his/her "uninvolvement". It strikes me this would fall outside the scope of the arbitration, as much as offering as evidence MBisanz' attempt disrupt/curtail a discussion on a wholly different subject which took place on a userpage. This sort of retribution/intimidation is totally out of order, and I agree that it should be struck forthwith. Ohconfucius (talk) 02:02, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Are you really trying to argue that Tony is not generally uncivil? Whether he has been uncivil on this issue is another question; much of his conduct here has been unusually courteous - for Tony. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:58, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

• There we have it, from Anderson! The cited diffs are completely irrelevant from an evidential point of view. What's more, I believe User:MBisanz is doing himself absolutely no favours here. If the best he can do is dredge out a single Tonyquote from March 2008 and reference to 'name and shame' of errant Admins to 'prove' Tony has been uncivil, he's really pushing the boat out. Biz will make himself the laughing stock of ArbCom and the community (if he isn't so already) ;-). I have already pointed out to him that burdening ArbCom with irrelevant "evidence" is being in contempt of the process/system. He says he cares about the system, he needs to prove it. Ohconfucius (talk) 04:35, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

These "RfA" tempests usually leave me cold, but having invited Tony (a good fellow with whom I often disagree and with whom I've had at least one blazing row) to take a look at something (irrelevant to any of this) that I'd written, I wandered around his talk page and found that he was in deep wikishit (an analogy prompted by the quotation of his rather droll "stool" remark) so I thought I'd take a quick look. And what I saw amazed me. I thought I'd skip the charges and countercharges among the participants in the teapot-tempest, and instead look at the observations of somebody who'd been above the fray.

So, MBisanz posts the following two examples of Tony's "incivility":

Rudeness comes naturally to me. when responding to a question over editing at FAC

...the strongest muscle we have is "name and shame"... when describing how to respond to disputes with administrators

Both immediately looked bizarre in this context. The first seemed if anything a more or less sardonic confession of a personal failure, hardly an example of incivility unless the subject of the incivility was the author. The second seemed a straightforward proposition, arguably an unpleasant one, but a proposition nevertheless, and, well, about "how to respond to disputes with administrators" (as opposed to people with the temerity to have other tastes in date formatting).

I then clicked on both diffs.

The first one (actually not the right diff, though it does display the sentence in question), shows Tony using it as a reply to Elonka, who's both thanking him for his input and also harrumphing about about, his perceived incivility somewhere else that's irrelevant to dates. Anyway, this is his rather terse reply, which gets an amicable response from Elonka, who implies that she (he?) too will be rude, but who actually isn't rude at all. Whereupon the conversation continues most amicably among others.

The second diff shows that the sentence quoted is missing its second half. Here's the full sentence: Yes, the strongest muscle we have is "name and shame", but there's something to be gained by avoiding negativity where possible (it's not entirely possible, but there is some leeway). So, within this date-(de)linking-irrelevant discussion, Tony is advocating an alternative to unpleasantness.

Tony may for all I know have been uncivil all over the place. (Elonka seemed to think he'd been uncivil elsewhere.) But in the second of MBisanz's examples he's just curt (if not merely self-deprecatory), and curt in a way that doesn't seem to offend anyone; while in the first he's not even slightly uncivil, and he's striving to avoid unpleasantness. And neither of these have anything to do with date formatting.

While a "complete denial of natural justice" seems to aggrandize the tempestlet, the allegations here are very dubious and totally unfounded by turns, and anyway they're both irrelevant to "Date delinking", the ostensible subject of this wikijousting. MBisanz may wish to retract them. -- Hoary (talk) 14:56, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree with Hoary, I can't see how these contribute to the issue at hand. — Hex (❝?!❞) 15:10, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

A better heading for that evidence section might have been WP:BATTLE, but yes I do believe it is relevant. In the same way I would believe a serious comment later retracted by a candidate standing for RFA that administrators should decide content would be something I would oppose their RFA on as lacking judgment for what administrators should do or if an administrator blocked someone they were in a conflict with and then undid the block would be something I would cite at an RFC on their conduct. In this case I am presenting the concern that Tony1, someone who actively participates in the heated discussions of MOSNUM, has felt in the past that shame is an acceptable method of addressing issues on Wikipedia. This piece of evidence I believe responds to the behavioral/environmental concerns that Vassyana and Coren indicated they would like to hear evidence on. MBisanz ^talk 15:19, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree with MBisanz in the fact that ArbCom needs to be aware that MOSNUM presently is being run like a battleground, and that we are only here at ArbCom because both sides of the issue cannot discuss it in a more civil tone. I don't feel ArbCom needs to issue any edicts on correcting behavior, nor do I think assigning blame to any specific person or party at this point is needed, but it is partially the reason why we are here, and thus in ArbCom's best interests to understand how that fits into the big picture. --MASEM 15:30, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

In battlegrounds, the civility of one's opponent has rarely been an issue since at least as far back as the first world war. (My foes are welcome to use all the incivility they like, if they spare me the bullets and bombs.) But anyway, if somebody has been frightfully uncivil in MOSNUM, then show where he has been frightfully uncivil in MOSNUM. It should be easy, no? And if it isn't, well, conceivably he wasn't all that frightfully uncivil after all, ¶ In this case I am presenting the concern that Tony1, someone who actively participates in the heated discussions of MOSNUM, has felt in the past that shame is an acceptable method of addressing issues on Wikipedia. Uh huh. So your presentation is something like a character un-reference, selectively drawing the attention of the peanut gallery to past indiscretions by the defendant? (And is this an example of "mediation"?) -- Hoary (talk) 15:48, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok, per your request I expanded my evidence at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Date_delinking/Evidence#Civility_and_Battle with a focus on MOSNUM and date related comments. And no, none of this is the application of mediation techniques. Someone asked at AN for a mediator, I offered if others were willing, one person said "no" and others didn't respond, so the mediation was dropped before it occurred. MBisanz ^talk 04:18, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Response to Septentrionalis casting doubt on Lightbot's approval

Septentrionalis, for all that you complain about the approval given to Lightbot to perform its tasks, the fact is that Wikipedia admin User:ST47 properly closed the proceeding as "Approved". No posts on that page have been made since September of last year. If you were still unhappy about this Approval, you should have raised your concerns on the WP:Bot owners' noticeboard. I see no posts from you there.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 23:51, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I deny that that approval was proper. I deny that there was any consensus to approve Lightbot, and if I been able to find where to complain further, I would certainly have done so. Perhaps ArbCom could do worse than to review the BAG, which seems to have made itself a tangle of bureaucracy even worse than the rest of WP-space. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:18, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

The BAG has complete authority over bots on Wikipedia. Like bureaucrats at RfA, you can complain, but in the end, it is their call to make. NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 03:23, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Source for this? But I stand by my position: User:Lightbot should be blocked, which should make the question irrelevant. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:24, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

WP:BAG: "This page lists the members of the Bot Approvals Group which approves or denies requests for approval for bots"

WP:BOT: "Bot Approvals Group, which supervises and approves all bot-related activity" NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 04:37, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Widely parallelled language; OC asserts more than this: that ArbCom cannot oversee their decision. This would have to be explicitly stated, and even then, by some force sufficient to overrule ArbCom; genuine project-wide consensus might well be enough, but shaky inferences from ordinary WP-space boilerplate won't do it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:35, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I would not say that ArbCom cannot revoke Lightbot's approval, as they can with administrators. But they can't go back to a BRFA/RfA and declare it illegitimate. NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 23:54, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

FAR "evidence" on Lazare Ponticelli

I find Locke Cole's recent "evidence" on the FAR of Lazare Ponticelli to be quite misleading. Tony1 is a respected FAC reviewer, primarily for prose, and his statement at the FAR nomination makes it quite clear that he is primarily nominating the article for prose and comprehensiveness issues. If this nomination had been frivolous or based primarily on MOS issues it would never have gotten to the FARC (removal candidate) level from the review level. Other editors, after examining the article, found serious copyvio and comprehensiveness issues. If necessary, I can post a huge section showing that Tony is a a respected FAC/FAR reviewer and why this nomination was valid, but I am hoping I won't have to go to all that work. Locke, can you please reconsider your inclusion of this? It appears that you may not have completely understood the featured article processes and the role Tony generally plays in them. Karanacs (talk) 20:47, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I understand the sequence of events leading to him making the FAR nomination. I'm aware of his FAC/FAR work, but this does not excuse him from using FAR as a means of revenge as seems to be the case here. Taken together with the pattern of behavior he's exhibited elsewhere I think this evidence is compelling as a behavior study of all the parties (particularly the ones involved in delinking, given the repeated delinkings done to the article over a period of weeks). —Locke Cole • t • c 20:58, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

There does seem to be problems beside that one linked date; note Tony's comments on the prose. Also, Locke Cole believes that I was involved with the FAR becuase I listed the notifications; that was merely out of courtesy, it is actually the job of the FAR nominator to notify relevant parties and list the notifications. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:54, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

How much did Tony magnify those flaws to get his way over the date-link? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:57, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

And again note the link I've since added to that evidence showing a diff from the time the article was promoted to FA status (some 6+ months prior) until right around the time of the dispute; very few changes had occurred to the article, and nothing substantive. —Locke Cole • t • c 23:04, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

That simply means that the FA "fell through the cracks" and did not receive enough constructive criticism in that regard. FAC often suffers from a dearth of reviewers, especially in terms of professional prose. See Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates#FACs requiring extensive third-party copy-editing, even current FACs are suffering from similar problems. Note that Tony didn't just sit on his feet after the FAR nomination; he backed up his words with a substantial copy-edit of the lead. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:30, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

The issue here isn't a lack of oversight at FAC, the issue here is the timing of his FAR on this article (and his choice to include "date links" as an issue in the FAR knowing full well that an RFC was underway and was already showing consensus for keeping some date links). Again this goes back to behavior. Further there are now additional FAC/FAR abuse examples in both my evidence and Pmandersons. This is an undeniable pattern of conduct. —Locke Cole • t • c 23:37, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Clarification: I am not disputing that the year link influenced Tony's decision to start the FAR, I just want to say that there were other, more important issues with the article also. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:39, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Madness! I've been sitting quietly reading the nonsense "evidence" regarding the Lazare Ponticelli article—but can no longer be passive. The FA review process for the article was a self-serving farce—permitting poor English, questionable structure (and other problems), and should never have been considered "the best WP has to offer". Since the article first came to Tony's attention, there have been over eighty improvement edits (most by the article's main contributor)—so that should give some idea as to the efficacy of the FA review process. The article deserved to be reconsidered for FA status, and as has been stated, Tony assisted with improving the article. Tony should be commended for shaking that particular tree. This "evidence" has nothing to do with date delinking, and the contributors using it (in a distorted and disingenuous way) have (in my opinion) now discredited themselves.  HWV 258  23:58, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry but taken as part of the larger evidence of misconduct it's irrefutable. This isn't the first time Tony has engaged in this kind of behavior and it wasn't the last. If this was an isolated incident I would see your point and reconsider, but it's not as the evidence supports. —Locke Cole • t • c 00:07, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Tony's "behavior" improved WP, and there was no misconduct. Have a read here as to why his action was needed. Here's hoping that Tony shakes the tree of every badly-written article he possibly can. He should be commended for his actions.  HWV 258  00:21, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

The ends don't justify the means. And I find his actions deplorable. —Locke Cole • t • c 00:27, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Get a grip—we're not talking about Nazis or similar here. We must have very different definitions of the word "deplorable".  HWV 258  01:00, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Most FACs are farcial; one of the problems with the present status of MOS is that some FACs get bogged down almost entirely in such questions (Consider Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/William Claiborne/archive1; briefly: a handful of typographical errors (many fixed), and a barrel of MOS complaints.) But the fixes to Ponticelli remain a few sentences, and Tony's motive remains all too clear. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:34, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I dispute your claim that most FACs are farcial; that is an insult to the few reviewers who actually put in the time and effort to review FACs. One example does not make every FAC that way. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:54, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

There are a dozen reviewers or so whose reviews are consistently not farcial; I am perfectly willing to believe that Dabomb is one of them. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:57, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) To Pmanderson: Thanks for that; but I was talking about FAC in general. In my time at Wikipedia, I have never seen an FAC fail solely because of MOS issues. The William Claiborne article may be an exception; then again, the general lack of commentary may have played a role. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:01, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

It is rare; they are rarely considered at all, and when they are, they are the favorite MOS issues of whatever reviewer put them in; some reviewers also have a mindless checklist. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:08, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Those "few sentences" should have been enough to fail FA review, however there were many more problems, including: sub-standard sentence structure, over-linking, irrelevant linking, and even things like a logical mistake with dates. I brought the article's problems to Tony's attention via communication on 3 December 2008. Reacting to my complaints about the article, Tony's response included the following: "OK, let's take it to FAR. That's where it lies for about two weeks in a queue where people make negative comments and hope it will be improved by the authors". I know that Tony's motivations in acting on the article were to improve WP. It couldn't stay "the best WP has to offer" the way it was. Surely you're not suggesting that out of the thousands of articles delinked, Tony chose this one (the one that should never have been made a FA) to make some sort of point? (I'll end as I started) Madness!  HWV 258  01:00, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

You say your communication occurred on 3 December, but Dabombs call for help regarding unlinking dates occurred on 2 December, with Tony first revert warring on the article also on 2 December. It seems unlikely that it was your communication that inspired him to bring the article to FAR, especially given the other evidence of misusing FAC/FAR to attempt to influence disputes. —Locke Cole • t • c 01:09, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

It was absolutely my email that started the FAR process. There are so many things you don't take into consideration when replying (including time-zone differences). Pity.  HWV 258  01:20, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

• If Tony had another reason, well and good; I would like to believe Lazare Ponticelli just happened to be the article where there was controversy about date-delinking and which Tony then brought to FARC.
• But really, most FAs have similar flaws. Today's includes Eventually, nine women including Hedgeman were involved in the instrumental phases of organizing Alpha Kappa Alpha in fall 1908. in the first section. What the &)&_) is an instrumental phase? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:15, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

"most FAs have similar flaws"—well, bring 'em on! I'll email Tony directly. :-)  HWV 258  01:20, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

In the interests of transparency it's best if you keep your discussions on-wiki. E-mails are about as reliable as IRC chat logs (actually, IRC chat logs can at least be independently verified, an e-mail can't except between the two people who were involved in it; sender and recipient). Save e-mail for truly private things. —Locke Cole • t • c 01:24, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Note that the Alpha Kappa Alpha article had several editors comment that the prose needed significant work. By measuring those comments, the article would have probably failed because of lack of consensus. However, a stream of 7 or 8 supports (most of which had little to no actionable comments attached) toward the middle and the end of the nomination turned the tide and led to the article's promotion. Not assuming bad faith here on the behalf of those supporters, just making a note. As a suggestion to that phrase, would "Eventually, nine women including Hedgeman were instrumental in organizing Alpha Kappa Alpha in late 1908" do? Dabomb87 (talk) 01:37, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

• So I see. I also see that Tony did review this; indeed he suggested the pointless inversion To implement her idea, Hedgeman began recruiting interested classmates during the summer of 1907, which happens to be the sentence before this one. Instrumental depends on what exactly the source said; it would probably be better away, but it may reflect some fine distinction between nine major and lots of minor workers. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:52, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Regarding email and transparency—agreed.  HWV 258  01:44, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

The premise of this line of questioning is completely faulty. Of course he intervenes frequently - FAC is Tony's stomping ground and his forte. However, omnipresent though he may appear to be at times, Tony cannot be everywhere. The "evidence" looks entirely circumstantial. This continuous questioning of Tony's actions is the inability to assume good faith, and should stop. Lock may perceive that Tony's actions were deliberate in light of the war on MOSNUM, but the tea leaves have an even chance of getting it wrong. Ohconfucius (talk) 05:52, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Major overhaul required: focus and evidentiary rules are desperately needed

The ArbCom hearing process is a major embarrassment for the project and undermines the authority of and respect for the Committee itself. What would a visitor think of WP to have a peak at what is supposedly the peak judicial process? I mean no disrespect to the arbitrators themselves or the clerks—it is not they who designed it. But the time has come for a major overhaul.

It is not easy to create rules that enable clerks to filter out lengthy and/or irrelevant posts (on the page and here), but it is possible to do the basics. It is also not easy to expect the managing clerk to take a more hands-on role, but it is absolutely necessary if the process is to be fair and digestible.

Can you imagine having to wade through this cream-bun fight of irrelevant muck-raking, CoI and filibustering to arrive at a decision? I don't envy the Arbitrators.

The first measure is to make it easier (mandatory) for the filing party to state the boundaries and the focus of the application/hearing, and the sought-after remedy. This probably needs to be negotiated with the filing party in some cases by an assigned Arbitrator and/or clerk.

The second thing is to vastly reduce the allowance of 1000 words and 100 diffs, and to allow third-parties either no right to post or a limited right. Currently, everyone and their dog is encouraged explicitly to post at the top of the page; Ryan has pointed out the great "leeway" that is permitted; I believe this is a big mistake, and if instituted long ago in a good-faith yearning for democracy and openness, has turned out to be naive—judicial processes can be open to readers just as the courts are open to observers and the press; but allowing everyone into the witness box ....? Hopelessly unwieldy and a danger to the notion of fairness and NPOV.

The third thing is, as I said, that greater supervision/mediation is required. We require this disclipline if the process is to run smoothly and fairly. Just as importantly, the poor Arbitrators deserve to read through a reasonably concise, focused page of evidence. That they are denied this is of major concern.

At the moment, it's a joke. Tony (talk) 15:02, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I feel sorry for the ArbCom, but both you and Locke have committed more than 100 different kinds of actions which have been accused of being disruption. Do we need to break this up into multiple RfAr's in order to meet the diff requirements. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:13, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Try to avoid the continued muck-raking, Arthur, and practise focusing on the issue raised, which concerns the process, not a particular case. Tony (talk) 15:32, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I've seen ArbCom handle worse (Episode and Characters, anyone?) I do agree that the scope in this case that users are implying is a bit broad (which in deciding to take the case, the ArbCom stated where they thought it should be), but 1) users are free to provide any evidence/comments they feel help the case, and 2) arbcom is free to ignore any of these if they are not targetted to the resolution of the caes. There's a reason why the pages are set up in this manner that makes this process for them easier. --MASEM 15:16, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh really? It doesn't work. Tony (talk) 15:32, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with limiting the words and diffs, how can they take it all in when there is so much! Ryan4314 (talk) 15:18, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

It's really hard to present evidence from six months of a dispute without hitting or going over the limit. And I've actually intentionally skipped some stuff for not wanting to overload arbitrators/clerks. —Locke Cole • t • c 15:22, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Comprehensiveness is not required to get across the point, which can be conveyed with representative information and diffs in almost every instance. I believe parties should have to apply with good reason to post more than a certain (modest) amount. The divorce court doesn't want to hear about every slanging match the parties ever had: it gets the picture remarkably early in a hearing; in many cases, it doesn't want to hear about slanging matches at all, since they tend to be highly subjective in context and intent. A competition to swamp the page with as much as possible just makes it unreadable. ArbCom had appalling backlogs last year. Tony (talk) 15:32, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Plot? (Lost)

Note to arbitrators: I notice that one editor has been accused of: denigrating another contributor with a "BIG YAWN". That's it—close everything down—QED on Date delinking—no more evidence needed. I feel I'm in some sort of alternative reality.  HWV258  02:13, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

It's unnecessarily incivil. Not the worst thing one can say or do, but needlessly provocative when it's clear people are clearly unhappy. As to date delinking, they may not issue a decision on that (they rarely, if ever, take up content disputes; but having said that, they're not deciding a content dispute in this instance so much as looking at what's been said and deciding if there's even consensus). I noticed the arbitrators seemed to lean towards the behavioral issues in their acceptance of this, hence why much of the evidence is slanted that way. —Locke Cole • t • c 03:58, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I really didn't expect this whole thing to be an airing of grievances (fine for Festivus, but for WP arbitration?). If judgements are made on such slanting, then the process has lost the plot. Pity. (As a proportion of the number of articles delinked, there really aren't that many unhappy editors.)  HWV258  04:32, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

As I indicated in the Workshop, silence means nothing. Further, many edit summaries use language which would appear to give them the appearance of legitimacy (particularly for people using AWB, which most people already know and use here). Besides, while I agree settling this is important, isn't it at least as important that we don't have this kind of problem again in the future (or at least not this drawn out)? That goes back to behavior. —Locke Cole • t • c 05:02, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Of course it doesn't mean "nothing". It is a an indicator that can (to more or less a degree) be considered. For example, one interpretation (and the one I'm going with) is that the edits were seen and agreed with as being beneficial to WP. It is still a fact that of the (at least) many thousands and thousands and thousands of editors who saw their cherished work delinked, only a handful have felt the need to "take it up a notch".  HWV258  05:18, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

You can infer nothing from silence. At all. Zero, zilch. That's why we held an RFC, so we wouldn't need to guess what people thought, we'd know. It always perplexes me why people keep going back to "but, but we ran through 40,000 edits and hardly received any complaints!". That's great, but that doesn't mean anything more than you got no complaints. People could have missed the edits. Assumed they were backed by the force of guideline or policy. Assumed the AWB devs wouldn't add something that was disputed. Etc. There's an innumerable number of excuses/reasons for why nothing was said and they all are as equally likely (and therefore, irrelevant). —Locke Cole • t • c 06:44, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

No they are not equally likely. Wikipedians generally understand WP:Consensus. You revert a change if you disagree with it, and then seek discussion. Our policy - and that is not irrelevant - is that silence implies consent and we would be very ill-served to abandon that fundamental plank in our process of establishing new consensuses. --RexxS (talk) 07:46, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

You make a good point since silence has to be treated as consent to promote making even minor edits without discussion. However, consensus is not immutable and there doesn't currently appear to be silence on the date delinking or date autoformatting issues now. Saying that there was prior consensus is hardly an end-all argument, especially with muddled responses in the two RfCs. —Ost (talk) 14:44, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Indeed consensus can change, and one of the ways it changes - particularly on issues of policy or guideline - is by RfC (which is designed to encourage wider participation). One of the uncontested results of the recent RfC's confirms that the current date autoformatting is deprecated. One of the strands of the plaintiffs' arguments is that the respondents made numerous edits around October/November last which had no consensus. To do that, they have to challenge the consensus formed on 24 August and argue that "no consensus" existed until the RfC's clarified part of it. The respondents maintain that consensus was established on 24 August and was either affirmed or not overturned by the recent RfC's. They then may claim the plaintiffs edit-warred by reverting changes which had consensus. Hopefully that clarifies the relevance of this particular issue. --RexxS (talk) 16:04, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

They had limited consensus (MOSNUM-local) for deprecating date links purely for auto formatting in August. They did not have consensus for delinking dates that may have been linked due to a desire to link to that date. There's also the matter of what "deprecation" means: does it mean go out with bots and kill all date links? I (and others) say it doesn't. In the RFC there was clearly no consensus for any of the options, but there did appear to be a desire to limit the kinds of dates that could be linked. Again, this is not consensus enough to warrant mass delinkings by bots. We still need to work out which date links are acceptable and which aren't. As to edit warring: I note some evidence has been presented about that regarding me, but truthfully the mass edits by bots was the worst kind of edit warring as it spread this issue far across the wiki. —Locke Cole • t • c 23:13, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

There is no such thing as "limited consensus". Once consensus is established, it can only be replaced by a new consensus - see WP:CON. There has been consensus that dates are not be linked for autoformatting since August. The majority say that an autoformatted link can be removed. An editor who reverts that is editing against consensus and the onus is on them to show that such a link benefits the encyclopedia. The purpose of guidelines is to ensure that editors do not have justify edits in line with them every time, putting the onus on those who feel that are particular edit should be an exception. If the RfC did not reach a consensus to change the existing consensus, then that consensus stands. That is part of the process of changing (or not) to a new consensus. Edit wars will occur when the parties concerned are unwilling to move from their opposing position towards a consensus. Nobody should be willing to condone such action anywhere on the wiki. --RexxS (talk) 02:24, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Still disagree that no inference can be taken from silence. However I do now understand why it is important for you to believe in your point so fervently—what's left of your case depends on it. Tony's script-assisted edits where applied to such notable pages as Marilyn Manson, Economy of Europe, New Guinea, York University, United States elections 2008, Oxford, Grand Canyon, Street Fighter IV, England national football team records, Religion in Australia, Nova Scotia, Guns N' Roses, and the list just goes on and on. Those are popular pages, so your suggestion that "people could have missed the edits" is absurd. There are plenty of other edits after Tony's on those pages—so there is no way that they went unnoticed. On this issue, the silent majority haven't just spoken—they've screamed support for the delinking of dates. The only reasonable conclusion is that consensus supported Tony's edits. You are chosing to ignore what is obvious. (Are you now going to go for the what I tell you three times is true approach to debating?)  HWV258  04:47, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

The matter of silence here is not relevant. We held an RFC to settle this, not so we could return to trying to read the tea leaves of "what was unsaid". —Locke Cole • t • c 04:53, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

It's depressing (and now boring) that you can't see what is obvious to the majority. (Actually I believe you can—you've just gone too far now to be reasonable and turn around). The fact that the delinked dates were not reverted in thousands of places speak volumes.  HWV258  04:59, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Please don't engage in personal attacks. I'm sorry we disagree, but there's no need for that. —Locke Cole • t • c 05:19, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

A ridiculous interpretation of "personal" and "attack". Time to chill and find something better to spend your valuable time on WP?  HWV258  01:41, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

It's worth noting that while I'm not familiar with Tony's edits in furtherance of de-linking, I am familiar with Lightbot's edits in that regard. HWV258, I'd invite you to look at the evidence I've presented with regard to some of those edits. Those edits did not not in fact meet with silence — in some cases, following unsuccessful attempts at discussion, they ended up at AN and AN/I. I have reverted a number of edits related to those issues, as have other users. In most cases, the edits reverted were not simply a matter of a disagreement about whether or not linking in the body of an article is useful, but rather were to revert edits that de-linked infoboxes, which are explicitly envisioned by the MOS as being valid links. It's really important that people understand this is not just about a couple of people setting themselves on fire while climbing the reichstag — it's a lot more nuanced than that, and it's more than a little dismissive to those of us who have been engaged in rational discussion about the issue. Mlaffs (talk) 05:35, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

It was expected that there would be some manual fixes after the auto-scripting did its job. Doesn't change the fact that there are still thousands of satisfied customers who accepted the improvements to WP.  HWV258  01:41, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

From Wikipedia:Consensus: "Silence implies consent if there is adequate exposure to the community". I guess that's the common-sense approach I've been suggesting above.  HWV258  05:32, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

• "BIG YAWN" is simply shorthand for: "I've heard it now for the umpteenth time, and it's getting extremely tiresome and boring." Of course, the longhand version has been repeated before ad nauseum. How is that particularly insulting?? Ohconfucius (talk) 06:21, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

• Because that's the way I took it given your other comments to me. And it's not so much insulting as incivil. —Locke Cole • t • c 06:44, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Civility has (now how does it go) "Zero, zilch" to do with evidence on date delinking. As you believe that "the arbitrators seemed to lean towards the behavioral issues in their acceptance of this, hence why much of the evidence is slanted that way" it is obvious that you are playing politics here. Please stick to evidence to do with date delinking. (P.S. I give the arbitrators more credit in terms of seeing through the sort of rubbish that's been entered onto the evidence page).  HWV258  04:55, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

From when the arbitrators accepted, five of the eight mentioned behavior and conduct:

• I support just keeping it to the date delinking conduct issues - Wizardman
• the issue pivots around large scale implementation of style changes, and the behavior surrounding the propriety of such changes. - Coren
• address any user conduct issues that may be causing local article discussion or global topic discussions to stall without forming consensus. - FloNight
• I'd like to see more input on behavioral issues related to MOSNUM and attempts to resolve them. - Rlevse
• I think there are clear behavioral issues for ArbCom to examine here. [...] There is also a broad range of alleged behavioral issues surrounding these cirucmstances, including but not limited to (semi)automated tool abuse, incivility, OWNership, forum shopping and system gaming. - Vassyana

Nothing is obvious except that I read what the arbitrators asked for, and responded in kind. I'm sorry you think I'm "playing politics", especially as I think some of the behavior exhibited in my evidence is very problematic and makes discussion and consensus seeking extremely difficult. —Locke Cole • t • c 05:19, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

• It's a technique that Anderson and a few others employ, as well as this crowd: frame just about anything as a personal attack or incivility. Even an expression of boredom with what they're saying ("how dare you express boredom: I'm extremely insulted"). Tony (talk) 07:39, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

• Are you familiar with the old saying "If you don't have something nice to say, don't say anything at all"? —Locke Cole • t • c 07:49, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Insults to Tony and available software patches

Although I don't think it's really relevant to the discussion here (since it happened on a different website) and despite already having apologized to the community at that other site, I figured I'd say at least a little bit about my insult to Tony, especially since some of the participants to this discussion seem to be implying that the insult was in direct response to Tony's request to the developers to fix date autoformatting. What actually happened was that I created a patch within a few hours of Tony pointing out that bug. He complained that the patch wasn't satisfactory, so I created a different one. In the end, I created four different patches for that bug, all in response to suggestions from Tony and others. One of the patches has the effect of completely nullifying date autoformatting and linking (except for explicit [[:]]-style links or piped links, both of which are presumably intentional links) — in other words, it does automatically and in one fell swoop what Tony and others are doing manually using their script. It was Tony's failure to recognize that fact (and his constant anti-technology/anti-developer insults included in pretty much every message he wrote) that prompted me to call him the names I did, not his request for bugfixes, which I gladly provided within hours of each request.

Creating a technical fix for date autoformatting is a trivial task that any reasonably competent PHP programmer could handle. The hard part is (and always has been) getting the community to agree on what they actually want. The delays in getting that bug fixed never had anything to do with a lack of skill or interest on the part of the developers, and have always been the result of the pointless bickering that the discussions always end up becoming. I tried to engage Tony (and others) in discussion about how they'd like to see date autoformatting fixed, and asked that they demonstrate good faith in the discussions by holding off on their mass delinking (I won't discuss things with a proverbial gun pointed at my head) but they've always disparaged such requests as some sort of dishonest filibustering, which is not only insulting but is completely off the mark in this case. If they'd simply held off and discussed things in good faith, then this would have been resolved months ago, and with much less work on everybody's part (since most of the text changes to articles could have then been handled by a genuine bot, if they weren't already made moot by updates to the mediawiki software.) --UC_Bill (talk) 19:42, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

• This is the one where you called me "an idiot" and "asshole-ish", is it? Tony (talk) 11:34, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Possibly relevant proposal

I'm recused here, but I saw the following proposal (started in December) while reading wiki-en-l, and I checked to see if it was linked from any of these case pages, and it wasn't, so I'm putting it here in case it is relevant: Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)/Proposal on international date format. Carcharoth (talk) 00:34, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

That mess? That's a different petty date issue: User:Skyring's insistence that all non-American articles use 18 January 2008 in text, because it's the "international" way. It took up about three archives marked with D in the Archive link boz, but has not much to do with this arbitration - except insofar as it may be evidence for conduct. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 06:07, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I think my point was that with the demise of auto-formatting, such disputes will become more common. I agree that having non-registered readers see a mess of date, while logged in users see autoformatting, wasn't sustainable, but really something should have been done to enable all readers (logged in or not) to set a date preference, or for article-specific date preferences to be possible. As it is, we face the prospect of a future where bots enforce Wikipedia's MoS, despite clear evidence presented in this case (see here and here) that bots and bot operators are not perfect and need to resolve concerns, not just be responsive to them. Carcharoth (talk) 15:27, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

The problem is a human one, but from my experience of delinking, some have expressed bewilderment at the decision flip-flop on linked->delinked. However, the prevailing consensus is that linked dates are generally speaking unpopular. the vast majority of editors generally accept or welcome delinking (executed at the same time as harmonising formats within articles). The "problem" you appear to be commenting on was created because years of autoformatting have created a fantastic legacy of anarchistic/inconsistent date formatting too large to be cleaned up effectively by humans within a short period. Machines are unintelligent, but good at performing just those types of repetitive tasks. However, just like the term "computer error" is a phrase often used to describe automated human error, the problem here and now is that some humans are trying to create exceptions to the rule, which prohibit bots from operating effectively and efficiently. Ohconfucius (talk) 16:50, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Now, see, you say "some humans are trying to create exceptions to the rule". On the other hand, I say that some humans are trying to remind others that there already exist exceptions to the rule, as outlined in the very manual of style that many of the editors on both "sides" of this case defend with such vigour.

The "rule" to which you refer, I'm assuming, is the one in Wikipedia:CONTEXT#Chronological_items, which currently begins "Items such as days, years, decades and centuries should generally not be linked…". It then articulates three very specific exceptions to the rule. First, "unless they are likely to deepen readers' understanding of the topic". Second, articles about other chronological items or related topics. Third, piped links to "Year-in-X" articles "in some tables, infoboxes or lists where compact presentation and uniform display are important".

I confess to knowing less than nothing about how to program bots or write scripts. I suspect that it would be possible for them to pass by links meeting the third exception. I suspect also that it would be possible for them to pass by links meeting the second exception. I am quite confident that it would be impossible for them to respect the first exception.

So, the real problem that needs to be settled here as I see it is this. Even if consensus existed that autoformatting was deprecated, and even if consensus existed that dates should generally not be linked except under those specified guidelines, was it appropriate to let loose the hounds upon the entire article base removing date links en masse without there being a requirement that bots and scripts be coded to respect the third and second exceptions, and without there being a mechanism for human editors in their good judgment to first code links under the first exception in some manner so that bots and scripts would pass them by? If you'll pardon an unfortunate military analogy, it's like the choice between carpet bombing and a surgical strike. While both approaches will likely get the job done, I'd prefer the one that brings with it the least collateral damage.

I believe I'm fortunate in that I'm one of the more "shades of gray" types, and so it shouldn't necessitate me being firmly on the other side of the issue to you, Ohconfucius. Even though I don't agree with it, I'm able to see how those in support of mass delinking without controls feel that said approach is the most efficient method. I do believe you all believe you're acting in the best interest of the project — in that regard, I think some of the blocks that are being proposed from both "sides" are a waste of good pixels, although I certainly would support some findings reminding everyone to treat each other with at least a little respect. That being said, while I can see where you're (generic, not specific) coming from, I'm equally bewildered how you (again, generic, not specific) don't seem to be able to see the inconsistency in the idea of a bot whose remit is to perform edits to bring articles in line with the MoS, but that's removing links that are fully in compliance while it does so. If I could just find one editor from the "other side" who was able to see where I'm (very specific, not generic) coming from, I'd be a much happier man. Mlaffs (talk) 19:48, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Mlaffs, have you checked with the bot programmers and script authors that your allegation of "carpet bombing vs. surgical strikes" is correct, and that they are not in fact providing for exceptions in line with the MoS?--Goodmorningworld (talk) 15:30, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, given that there's no coding in place yet for the "unless they are likely to deepen readers' understanding of the topic" exception, I'd argue the analogy would hold regardless, but it's a fair question. Yes, if you look at the evidence page, I've presented examples of where mass edits have failed to account for at least the year-in-X articles within infoboxes, tables, and lists exception. I understand anecdotally that Lightbot at least is coded to bypass articles about chronological items or related topics; while I don't have any specific knowledge whether or not that's true, I don't have any reason to doubt that it is. Mlaffs (talk) 16:48, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

No need for anecdotes. Lightbot does not target 'chronological articles'. I believe that the specific point of concern to Mlaffs is 'years-in-radio' and possibly the general point of 'years-in-<subject>' even if not 'radio'. There are several issues that I see:

• 'Years-in-<subject>' are frequently added to autoformatting to produce a broken format. These broken formats need fixing. There are at least three ways in which they can be fixed, none of which will apply to all cases. But I am sure that it can be solved.
• Years in <subject> are sometimes concealed (e.g. [[2009 in music|2009]]) to look like solitary years. Some stakeholders (e.g. the music project) specifically deprecate concealed links. Other stakeholders, such as the radio project (and Mlaffs) seem to like them in some circumstances. The different preferences make the problem non-trivial, but it is solvable.
• Some 'Years-in-<subject>' links were added simply as a substitute for solitary year links during the culture of "all dates must be linked". In some cases, editors just did global search&replace of 'Year-link' to 'Year-in-<subject> link'. Thus it makes sense to trim many of them. This may be more difficult for a bot, but it is certainly within the capability of humans.

I am sure that a combination of bots, scripts, and humans can cooperate and focus on different issues using the strengths of each. We should be able to move Wikipedia towards smarter linking. Lightmouse (talk) 17:45, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

For what it's worth, Lightmouse, as much as we've been in conflict on this issue and in opposition on the correct approach, I couldn't agree more with the spirit and sentiment of your last paragraph. I truly believe that there's common ground and an approach to be found that will satisfy most editors' concerns, or at least enough of them to develop a consensus that cannot reasonably be questioned. We just need to figure out how to stop the culture of name calling and hair pulling surrounding this issue for long enough to give those who are interested in finding it the chance to do so. Mlaffs (talk) 20:25, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I believe this also. All my interactions with Lightmouse have been reasonable. I do not see how sanctioning editors for "edit wars" will solve anything, nor will sanctioning Lightmouse's bot solve the underlying issue. Editors must willingly reach some sort of mutual compromise on the issue of date linking/delinking. —Mattisse (Talk) 20:42, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

"New evidence" presented by Locke

This is getting soooo personal it is untrue. This seems to be a very old unsettled score, and is hardly relevant evidence as to editor conduct on the date linking issue. Placing it surely implies Locke believes it's "useful", although Cole is intelligent enough to know this is outside the scope, and must be 'trying it on'. Bringing it up here was clearly intended to taint not only on the part of Locke, but also the editor who left the message on Cole's talk page. This is just like the "evidence" by User:Omegatron, and User:Thunderbird2 (who admitted xhe was asked to provide evidence), although they were not even tangentially involved or had observed any 'problematic behaviour' concerning date-delinking/relinking. Let's bring out the boxing gloves; Queensberry rules please. Ohconfucius (talk) 02:41, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Coming from someone who repeatedly points to my three year old block log (which is totally unrelated to this) you'll forgive me for not taking you seriously. —Locke Cole • t • c 02:54, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not convinced it would have made a squat of difference. Ohconfucius (talk) 05:46, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

To Ohconfucius: No one approached me to supply evidence. Please withdraw the statement to the contrary, as well as the clear implication in your statement that my evidence is less valid than yours. The purpose of my post is to make editors aware that the behaviour to which I refer is not a new problem. I cannot be held responsible for the misleading assertions of others. Thunderbird2 (talk) 17:06, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

• I stand corrected. I had made an incorrect inference from Omegatron, who admitted xhe had been asked to make a statement. Ohconfucius (talk) 04:06, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Lightmouse

I have no new evidence, it has all been said in various forums over months and years

I have no new evidence, it has all been said in various forums over months and years. There will always be some people upset when a policy has changed and other people may simply be curious about the changes that happen during a transitional period. The vast majority of editors see both date formats (13 January/January 13) and see both English spellings (color/colour). Spelling variation is a worse problem than date formats because spelling can be *wrong* but unambiguous date formats are not wrong. Autoformatting was a cure that is worse than the disease, with many defects, and it was mandatory mass medication even to healthy people. We don't need mass-medication. Spelling variation is just part of English on the web and so is the lesser issue of unambiguous date format on the web. I was impressed by what Colonies Chris said. It's ironic that many people on all sides of the debate support removal of autoformatting and many ordinary editors think Lightbot already removes autoformatting, but Lightbot doesn't. I didn't apply for Lightbot approval to remove links to autoformatted dates. If people here support Lightbot removal of autoformatting, just say so and I will apply for approval.

dynamic dates implementation

When was "dynamic dates" implemented onto English Wikipedia? John Vandenberg ^(chat) 23:10, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I have no exact idea when it was implemented, but based on your evidence I'd guess sometime between 2003-2004. Not sure if looking at the revision history for the software would help since we won't have any idea when it was actually uploaded to the servers and enabled (is there a revision history available for the config file for en.WP's MediaWiki installation that we could look at to see when it was turned on?)... —Locke Cole • t • c 23:58, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

According to mw:Manual:Dynamic dates's page history, it was a proposal 22 June 2003 and was considered "long ago implemented" on 21 June 2005. MBisanz ^talk 01:33, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

More research mw:Special:Code/MediaWiki/1424 says it was implemented at 10:18, 3 July 2003. MBisanz ^talk 01:36, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I know that. See Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Date_delinking/Evidence#Evidence_presented_by_John_Vandenberg. I'm wanting to know when it was first used in production, so to speak. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 01:41, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Ahh, ok, according to [1], it was July 29th, 2003. MBisanz ^talk 01:46, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! John Vandenberg ^(chat) 02:54, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

What is the purpose of the evidence added by Vandenberg? We have been told that the scope of the arbitration is behavior of named parties involved in date linking/delinking debates. This was cited as the reason why Arbcom would not issue a finding on the community's consensus or enjoin the "date linkers" from warring against that community consensus evidenced by the December 2008 RfCs. (Although that is really what they should have done.) Now Vandenberg posts links to discussions from 2003. How does that fit into the officially stated scope of the arbitration?--Goodmorningworld (talk) 14:19, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't have phrased it in the aggressive way that Goodmorningworld has done above, but I am also wondering what the relevance of your evidential links is, John. — Hex (❝?!❞) 15:52, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

My apology for not answer this question sooner. I was looking to obtain this information primarily for a "Finding of fact" that establishes the background to the date debate. This implementation date also helped me find the "initial end-user feedback" to see how the feature was recieved by the community. I have been considering how the community has viewed these software "features" since they were introduced in an effort to understand why there is a mounting sense of urgency to delink, and why the parties are so incivil (and obnoxious!?) to each other. Understanding the history helps to put current actions into perspective. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 00:34, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

by the way, John Vandenberg, the line in your evidence starting "'Someone else' raises the problem of Julian dates, and Tim replies ..." incorrectly attributes 'Someone else's' statement to Tim. Tim's response to 'Someone else' was a question about specific solutions to the problem. Sssoul (talk) 06:26, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Date formatting and linking poll now open

The date linking and formatting poll is now open. All users are invited to participate. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 23:01, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Why is this even still open?

The poll shows consensus strongly leaning in favor of Tony1, et al., as they've said all along. The complainants have forumshopped their butts off. This is a farce. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 03:42, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

In fact, it shows nothing of the kind. There is (almost) consensus on wording, but wording which supports neither linking all dates or delinking all dates. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 05:33, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Being correct about policy or content does not preclude conduct issues. On the contrary, doing the right thing the wrong way is considerably more harmful to the project than just outright disruptive behavior, especially when the offender in question has an established reputation as a valuable editor. That negative behavior becomes associated with the rules that are used to justify the actions. BLP is a great example of this. Many people who oppose stringent BLP enforcement or otherwise giving admins "more power" in the area had very poor experiences with BLP enforcers whose BLP actions may have been correct, but whose behavior was certainly not. --Vassyana (talk) 05:57, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

enigmatic "'missing' evidence"

i hope Vassyana will clarify what her/his "'missing' evidence" section represents: the statement "No substantial evidence indicating a pattern of misconduct has been found for Sssoul, Pmanderson, Hex, or Gerry Ashton" is pretty loaded with implications that deserve clarifying. why, for example, is my name listed there, as if i were a "suspect" and/or a subject of some sort of "investigation"? Sssoul (talk) 05:28, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure he went down the major contributors, and checked off those who seemed to have done nothing, rather than tally all the charges and countercharges. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 05:36, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Correct. I was simply noting involved parties where I did not find substantial evidence, or indications of a pattern of misconduct. I would be glad to alter the wording in order to make this clear, if there are suggestions. I will be adding summary evidence for a number of parties over the next day or so, if that helps provide a bit more context. --Vassyana (talk) 05:51, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

thanks for the response, Vassyana, but it's still not clear why you/ArbCom went looking for "evidence" about me. why was i considered a "suspect" who warranted "investigating"?? Sssoul (talk) 06:12, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Nothing quite so adversarial. You contributed evidence. I also noted (in a neutral fashion) seeing your name in looking over everything. In reviewing the evidence and histories, I noted that there was no reason to consider you a disruptive party in any fashion. In large sprawling conflicts like this, it is not uncommon to see the "other" side painted with a broad brush when accusations are thrown out. Thus, I felt that an absence of evidence regarding misconduct should be specifically noted. I have rephrased and provided further clarification to that section, which I hope lays some of your concerns to rest. If you have any further questions, or I can otherwise be of assistance, please let me know. Take care! --Vassyana (talk) 08:07, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

having slept on it: i appreciate that your rewrite tries to tone down the insinuations in the statement, but the way it's now phrased still implies that "accusations made" might apply to me; i feel you need to specify why each party is named, not make it a "ragbag" of reasons that leaves readers to guess which applies to whom. i also object to the implied association with other parties you name in the sentence; plus which i feel you have no reason to name me and not (for example) Masem or anyone else who's contributed without being combative or disruptive. thanks for caring enough to get this phrased fairly Sssoul (talk) 06:18, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

No problem. I will just remove mentions of specific names from the section, rather than continually tweak it. It probably does more harm than good, as implied by your responses. As such, I have simply left it as a generic statement about users not named. Thank you for being appreciative of my responsiveness and attempts to address your concerns. --Vassyana (talk) 06:37, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

extraordinary omission

... that Locke Cole's continual incivility has been passed over in the voting proposals while others are focused on. I wonder whether this is inadvertent. Tony (talk) 06:54, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Discussion on the proposed decision should take place on the talk page of the proposed decision. See Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Date_delinking/Proposed_decision. Thanks. —— nixeagle^{email me} 07:04, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Build the Web

This evidence has been moved to talk, per length constraints. The issue is now largely moot, since Kotniski has gone back and obtained consensus to merge.

This page has now been protected, until the conclusion of this case; itt is therefore clearly relevant to the case. The provocation appears to be the series of edits by Kotniski, in a two-hour period, which include this effort to declare a long-standing guideline (briefly merged) a proposal, this reversion to the merger, and this exact reversion.

I should explain that Kotniski's claim, in the summary to the first edit above, that linked dates were being added to the guideline is misleading. The guideline had always had a date example; it was briefly removed, on the grounds of WP:LINKING, and restored with an example where the date was particularly relevant to the context. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:10, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

While I have lost confidence in Kotniski's neutrality, I do not believe that ARbCom should be asked to desysop him; a warning would seem justified. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:51, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I may have to reconsider this; Kotniski has been systematically removing the content of Build the Web from the supposedly merged text. This is disingenuous, and I will consider whether to propose he he desysopped; he does not merit the public confidence. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:30, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Since when is Kotniski an admin? Or am I missing something. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:02, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh, if PA thought all along that I was an admin, and acting in that capacity, then that might explain a lot of the invective. Nope, I'm just an ordinary mortal editor like you, trying to make WP better in a civilized way. (Not that I see how any of this has any relation to date linking, but never mind.)--Kotniski (talk) 10:24, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

tennis wars

I have tried to present a chronological version of the first few days of the "tennis wars", as it is both formative and illustrative. There are a few details I would like confirmed:

• I was not able to find any further tennis related edits in mainspace by Tony1 during September. Could someone please verify that?
• I have not checked whether there are any further tennis related edits in mainspace by The Rambling Man during September. Could someone please check that?
• Was anyone else involved in the mainspace battle during these first few days? I think I saw a few reverts by PMAnderson, but they may have come much later.
• Lightbot was asked to stop delinking tennis articles, and I did not find any tennis related delinking until the next major AWB run, which would suggest that Lightmouse did decide to honour the fact that there was ongoing discussion regarding tennis articles, and chose to leave them alone. When was the next tennis related edit by the bot?

I do know that both Tony and The Rambling Man returned in October/November, but by then the situation had become quite different as there was very little support within the Tennis WikiProject for the desire for tennis articles to be treated differently. Also in October/November, Lightbot 3 was running and making the situation more dire for those who wanted to keep their dates linked. This evidence section will be linked to as reading material for the arbitrators, so if there are any errors or important points omitted, please let me know here. Cheers, John Vandenberg ^(chat) 18:37, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

• I believe this (and a comment on the same discussion) is my only sports-related edit in September; it isn't a tennis player, but any that I missed are likely to be the same question of spelling. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:22, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Jayvdb, you said that my evidence shows " '954 edits spread over 154' [articles] mostly performed by 8 editors (not all of these are tennis articles)". That's factually incorrect. The total is significantly higher. The 954 edits statistic includes only the edits that involved organized, mutually supportive tag team edit warring. Individualized edit warring (not involving other "members of the 8") in the evidence I presented should be added to that total, giving 1,081 edits spread over 202 articles:

• Tony1 (additional 41 edits spread over 18 articles): Ana Betancourt (2), Andrea Villarreal (3), Angéle de la Barthe (3), Battle of Midway (2), Corrado Gini (2), Isabel Le Brun de Pinochet (2), John Sutton (rugby league) (2), John Tamanika (2), Karl Marx (2), Kenyon College (2), Laurie Brett (2), Lazare Ponticelli (2), Lee Rogers (baseball) (2), Luke Stuart (2), Nova Scotia (3), Ole Clausen Mørch (3), Stanley Mitchell (3), William I of England (2)
  
• The Rambling Man (additional 21 edits spread over 9 articles): Carolin Babcock (2), Elena Dementieva (2), Hana Mandlikova (3), Kevin Curren (2), MaliVai Washington (2), Mary Joe Fernandez (3), Nathalie Tauziat (3), Rafael Nadal (2), Richard Krajicek (2)
  
• 2008Olympian (0): None
  
• SkyWalker (additional 2 edits in 1 article): Francesca Schiavone (2)
  
• HJensen (additional 2 edits in 1 article): Alexander Vladimirovich Volkov (2)
  
• Dabomb87 (additional 61 edits spread over 19 articles): Ana Betancourt (3), Carly Gullickson (3), Catherine Hagel (4), Edna Parker (2), Elizabeth Needham (3), Emily Hewson (4), Gabriel Fauré (3), James Lucas (4), Josephine Kablick (4), Lazare Ponticelli (4), List of the verified oldest men (2), List of the verified oldest people (2), Mel Parnell (3), Ramsay MacDonald (3), USS Monitor (4), Vietnam Veterans Memorial (3), Vultee Aircraft (3), Winston Churchill (5), Worteh Sampson (2)
  
• Colonies Chris (0): None
  

Because I have not yet researched their individual edit histories, I have not provided evidence of individualized edit warring by the following people who participated in the tag team edit warring: Ohconfucius (the last of the "members of the 8"), Lightmouse, Dudesleeper, Seicer, Lightbot, TimVickers, Gareth E Kegg, Juliancolton, John, Peter Ballard, BlackJack, Dweller, Rettetast, and Kotniski. Tennis expert (talk) 05:46, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I have updated the totals. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 06:23, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Jayvdb, I could try to find the information you requested in your first post in this section. But I need more specific criteria. (1) You are interested in Tony1's, The Rambling Man's, and Lightbot's tennis edits after which exact dates and times (UTC)? In my evidence subpage, I've already presented all the evidence I could find about Tony1's and The Rambling Man's individualized edit warring (defined as at least 2 date delinking edits in a single article without participation by other "members of the 8") and tag teaming. (2) "These first few days" are which dates and times (UTC)? Tennis expert (talk) 06:04, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I am interested only in 1) date delinking on 2) tennis articles in 3) prior to October. Even if a contributor only performed a single delinking edit, it would be worth mentioning it here. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 06:23, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Tony1's date delinking tennis-related edits in September 2008, after September 7, 11:10 UTC: Mary Carillo, Davis Cup, The Championships, Wimbledon, and Rafael Nadal. Tennis expert (talk) 08:32, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

The Rambling Man's date delinking tennis-related edits in September 2008, after September 6, 20:44 UTC: Billie Jean King, Beverly Baker Fleitz, John Newcombe, Darlene Hard, Margaret Court, Carole Caldwell Graebner, Stefan Edberg, and Jimmy Connors. Tennis expert (talk) 08:54, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Dabomb87's date delinking tennis-related edits in September 2008, after September 6: None Tennis expert (talk) 09:14, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

2008Olympian's date delinking tennis-related edits in September 2008, after September 6: None Tennis expert (talk) 09:14, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Colonies Chris's date delinking tennis-related edit in September 2008, after September 6: Justin Gimelstob Tennis expert (talk) 09:14, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Dudesleeper's date delinking tennis-related edit in September 2008, after September 6: Anke Huber Tennis expert (talk) 09:21, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

SkyWalker's date delinking tennis-related edits in September 2008, after September 6: None Tennis expert (talk) 09:28, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

HJensen's date delinking tennis-related edits in September 2008, after September 6: Andre Agassi (1), Jarkko Nieminen, Andre Agassi (2), Novak Djokovic (1), Patrick Rafter, Novak Djokovic (2). Tennis expert (talk) 09:43, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Lightmouse's (not Lightbot's) date delinking tennis-related edit in September 2008, after September 6: Types of tennis match. Tennis expert (talk) 09:59, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Ohconfucius's date delinking tennis-related edits in September 2008, after September 6: None Tennis expert (talk) 10:10, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Lightbot's date delinking tennis-related edit in September 2008, after September 6 (not a comprehensive list - just the ones I already knew about): Lindsay Davenport, Stefan Edberg, and Darlene Hard. Tennis expert (talk) 10:24, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I suspect Jayvdb already knows the reason why tennis has been such a hotbed of activity. I don't get why he paradoxically said in one breath tht "there was very little support within the Tennis WikiProject for the desire for tennis articles to be treated differently", yet now appears to be treating tennis differently. Perhaps he is considering rolling the Tennis expert RfC into this case? The request for specific information about the tennis wars will effectly keep one specific person fully and delightfully employed for another week. Thanks John. Ohconfucius (talk) 15:13, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

What is the aim of this section, and why is it happening now? Regardless, and as this section is titled "tennis wars", I'll add a few points so that perspective is not lost:

• Tennis_expert performed (at least) 750 reverts in tennis-related articles (the largest amount by any single user).
• Tennis_expert received a block in November 2008—with a block comment of "(Edit warring: Mass reverts over countless pages)".
• There is (unanswered) documented suspicion regarding the support claimed by Tennis_expert for his editing in tennis-related articles (see this and the preceding posts). (We're all still waiting for Tennis_expert to explain his relationship to User:My first is in ptarmigan—now removed).
• There is compelling evidence that Tennis_expert violated WP policy by trying to inflate support (here) by editing anonymously (there is discussion about this here).

 HWV258  23:47, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I received a block and never again relinked a date or undid a date delinking. Nor have I participated in the unseemly debates about the Manual of Style. That's six months worth of "good behavior". Contrast that with, for example, the behavior of Tony1, Colonies Chris, yourself, and the repeatedly blocked Ohconfucius. Tennis expert (talk) 03:10, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

"yourself"—could you please provide some examples of the "behavior" to which you are alluding (in regards to myself)?  HWV258  22:57, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Sure, I'll start compiling it and add it to the arbitration case. Tennis expert (talk) 01:02, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

You're too kind. (Can't be too serious I trust—as you haven't felt the need so far.)  HWV258  01:21, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I added this evidence now because User:Tennis expert/Date delinking arbitration evidence and User:Ohconfucius/Tennis wars present two different sides of the story, which are hard for arbitrators to meld together into a useful picture, and neither give an "as it happened" view.

This talk section is named "tennis wars" as that is the name used by Ohconfucius, and I thought it was apt without being inflammatory.

I have quickly looked at My first is in ptarmigan (talk · contribs) and it doesnt appear to be Tennis expert, if that is being insinuated. Please provide evidence to this page if you believe it should be considered. I have briefly mentioned it in my section. They appear to have a different style and position on the issue.

If "My first is in ptarmigan" is a real life friend of TE, and I can see that as possible, maybe you would like to consider this person as one of the readers of tennis articles that is so often touted as being foremost in the mind of the MOS people.

I looked at 75.63.7.15 (talk · contribs) previously, and while I agree it is quite possibly Tennis expert, I didn't see any violation of policy. That said, we would welcome evidence about this anon, both to link it to Tennis expert and to indicate violation of policy. I see that you have asked the IP, but as that IP hasnt edited in five months, it is a silly question and without justification unless the IP has done anything wrong.

I have not closely looked at that particular discussion on Talk:Billie Jean King, but if there is a strong suspicion of wrong doing, please submit evidence and stop making allegations against Tennis expert without first having them being evaluated by uninvolved parties. We will look into it if presented, and wont think badly of anyone who presents evidence that is deemed inconclusive.

John Vandenberg ^(chat) 06:50, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

"without first having them being evaluated by uninvolved parties"—I am pointing to just such a discussion. Regarding the user My first is in ptarmigan (talk · contribs), please note that the very first edit (a tennis-based article on 27 October 2008) by that user was to re-link two dates with an edit comment of "birth and death dates in biographical articles are high value links, so I have added them". Hmmmm, a pretty sophisticated and targeted edit by a newbie at WP. Anyhoo, I think I'll vote "against" if the topic of deifying Tennis_expert arises.  HWV258  22:54, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

If the edits by this IP could be a violation of WP:SOCK if it was Tennis expert, please put your concerns together into an evidence section. Otherwise, why are you raising it? John Vandenberg ^(chat) 06:10, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Because the "evidence" being presented in this section was at risk of appearing one-sided to an independent observer. In terms of raising an "evidence section"—perhaps that would be a good idea. On the other hand, I'm a reasonable editor, so I'll now give Tennis_expert a chance here to deny that he made edits under the user name "My first is in ptarmigan".  HWV258  06:36, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

If you cant find a violation of WP:SOCK with 75.63.7.15 or "My first is in ptarmigan", your raising it here doesnt address the one sided nature of this. Quite the opposite actually; it suggests that you are poking without a decent rationale. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 06:52, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

For the record, I didn't create the 75.63.7.15 section that begins "Appears to have an overlap of 32 articles with Tennis expert..." (so what it has to do with "If you cant find a violation of..." is anyone's guess; not to mention that the discussion there is on-going, so "cant" is terribly premature; not to mention that other editors are obviously worried about the behaviour of the user in question). I notice that you are a member of the Arbitration Committee, so (as I'm naive in the ways of authority at WP) could you please begin the process of a formal investigation into whether Tennis_expert (talk · contribs) has edited (with the intention to deceive the community) under the cover of the user accounts 75.63.7.15 (talk · contribs) and My first is in ptarmigan (talk · contribs)? Of course the user in question can put an end to such potential actions with a clear and straightforward denial of such behaviour.  HWV258  23:03, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the correct place to go is WP:SSP. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:42, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Disavowing all my contributions to this evidence page and the arbitration in general

Certain administrators have thwarted my effort to disavow and strike every contribution I have made to this evidence page and the arbitration in general. It would be very regrettable for the arbitrators to use anything I have submitted. Tennis expert (talk) 23:22, 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 

Further evidence by John

I support the sentiments presented by John in his further evidence. John's editing was well-intentioned and resulted in no long-term adverse effect or hostility. It appears that action is planned against John largely for one revert-type edit, however (as my table here showed), date-delinking is continuing in large quantities, so the question remains begging as to which editors over the previous few months have delinked dates in a "warring" manner (if John's in, so too should the others). Perhaps it would be better to contain evidence to those editors who had a much deeper involvement with the date-delinking "war" over the previous year or so? I have never had any communication with John, and I believe he should be removed from the proposed decision page.  HWV258  23:28, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

• Fully endorse as one who has been unwittingly dragged into the vortex. His evidence is clear enough that there was no intention of edit-warring on his part. It would be clear to anyone who has used AWB that the most effective way of using the tool is to run systematically through categories. His happening upon two articles which was the subject to a tug of war was unfortunate because he became de facto involved according to the wide net cast, in the sense there is the Arb's apparent assumption that he was part of the "tag-team". It is important to note he never repeated the edit in any sense that would reasonably be considered edit-warring. It appears that good faith was not assumed with the tag-team hypothesis adopted, but I urge it should be assumed towards him. declaration: I also do not know John from Adam. ;-) Ohconfucius (talk) 02:13, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

• i've never had any communication with John either, but having looked at the edit history presented as evidence, i find it incomprehensible that the committee decided to mention his edit at all in this proceeding, let alone propose any action against him. (see my questions here as well) Sssoul (talk) 04:47, 26 May 2009 (UTC)