Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 05:13, 4 April 2009

Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.

Archives

/Archive 1, /Archive 2

• WT:DATEPOLL

Format unacceptable

I am afraid that the format of this poll will not permit me, and those who agree with me (if any) to express their opinion. I therefore intend to dispute it, and present a FoF that it is unacceptable.

I thank Ryan for his efforts, and regret that they have been derailed by a successful effort to distort the results. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:08, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Whilst I am disappointed that you dispute it, I thank you for your efforts with helping to create the poll. Ryan Postlethwaite 23:13, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Although I concur with PManderson, I'm not going to comment (much) further until the polls close, to avoid generating more confusion. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:39, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

:::While I haven't looked over this page's archives, I am somewhat confused. What about this poll do you feel is unacceptable? This poll is quite fair in identifying various viewpoints, I believe. NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 00:54, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

• That it does not permit opposition to the four choices, which makes my position (which ranges from strong opposition to #1 to weak opposition #3) hard to express.
• That if it must be an approval poll, it did not permit first choice, second choice and so on, which all other approval polls do.
• Both are widely discussed in the second archive page, and a majority opposes both; on the basis of this, I have ventured to strike the second requirement, which was produced solely by a single editor's editor's edit-warring and Ryan's complaisance.

Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:04, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh, it's the 'I don't agree with this poll and I reserve my right to dispute the outcome' argument. I think ArbCom and Ryan are already wise to that. Ohconfucius (talk) 01:34, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't going to reply unless an idiotic argument was presented by the date delinkers. Congratulations.

Ryan specifically said, on the archived talk page, that "vote for one" is not acceptable. That he agreed is probably an oversight on his part. It certainly was only inserted by one editor. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:50, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

God bless your kind words, Arthur. I would just point out that this objection and signalling of the dispute appears to be straight out of the Locke Cole playbook. Ryan launched the RfC without making any such amendment to the poll, and that speaks volumes to me. Ohconfucius (talk) 02:58, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I already said this on the main page's comments section - but yeah, this format is broken. It doesn't allow voters to express a spectrum of preferences correctly, and the result of trying to compress things into one "support" vote is going to result in splitting votes that don't represent an accurate picture of people's opinions. It ought to be an up/down vote on each item. Of course, changing it now would mean potentially distorting the votes of early voters. Not well done, guys. — Gavia immer (talk) 03:18, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Comment We all know that this poll is not perfect—far from it. However, it is better, more specific, and was worked on more than previous RfCs combined, and I think we need to appreciate that. Whatever the problems are, we must accept that this is the RfC to end it all. The community nor the editors who have debated and debated over date autoformatting and linking can take another one. All we can do now is wait for phase 1 to end. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:19, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me, guys above ... the instructions make it amply clear that comments are important in the interpretation of consensus. Everyone is invited to write comments after their choice (and to choose "Neutral" if they wish). There is even a separate comments subsection beneath each response section. There should be no doubt that the RfC provides lattitude for expressing individual feelings. At the same time, let's be practical: the community has to come to some kind of decision, and making it likely that the results will be melted treacle spattered all over the place is not practical. I think Ryan has come to a reasonable solution, and both camps had a lot of prep. time in which they were able to comment on the structure and shape. Tony (talk) 09:07, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Why on earth should anyone feel constrained to only vote for one option? If ever there was a place to ignore all rules, then it's in ignoring one line of instructions in multiple pages of text. I'm just not understanding why everyone's suddenly feeling so constrained. AKAF (talk) 09:41, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Ah, one reason is that it would distort the numbers in what is a poll. Some people vote once; some vote multiple times. How that would be interpreted would need to be agreed beforehand. The process cannot be treated seriously if it allows such looseness in registering choice. The latitude comes from our ability as voters to express our views in writing after we have declared our first preference. This does not seem to be bothering people. I wonder why you are concerned? Tony (talk) 10:14, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't know what your definition of "people" is, but numerous editors appear to be complaining both here and in the poll itself... this last minute change (the change to "approval voting" was made within the last 72-96 hours before the poll went live) was terrible IMO. I've never participated in an RFC on Misplaced Pages which used this method of voting (and up until now, I thought I never would). —Locke Cole • t • c 11:08, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

If it is important to you, why then, did you not express your order of preferences within your comments, as invited to? It doesn't add up. Tony (talk) 11:14, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

It does add up Tony. Approval voting was the wrong way to go for this RFC. End of story. I support only one of the options and strongly oppose the remaining, but there's no way for me to express that sentiment, so this discussion stifles dissenting views in favor of only hearing what people like. That is not how Misplaced Pages should work, and these kinds of polls should never be encouraged. —Locke Cole • t • c 16:34, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Because you thought that you couldn't type "Support this one; I strongly oppose the other three options" on the page? Other people have certainly done so. Presumably comments were solicited because there's interest in interpreting the responses in some fashion other than simply totting up the number of !votes. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:52, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I can type that, but to what end? The discussions regarding the other proposals have their own sections, which is where such comments (dissenting comments) belong. However I am being silenced by the poor format of this RFC. I suspect others are silenced as well, and the remaining editors are being lead to believe that there is a consensus forming because of the lack of opposition. Approval voting was added in the 72-96 hours prior to this RFC launching (despite it having areas for opposition in the weeks preceding that change). Little opportunity for objection was given, and this RFC was hastily launched with this broken format. It's unfortunate, but there it is. —Locke Cole • t • c 19:05, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

So why exactly do you think comments, instead of bare votes, are being solicited? The better to waste editors' time? Could you assume just a little good faith and add your comments, instead of trying to argue that your personal choice to withhold your comments means that someone else is silencing you? I'm prepared to guarantee that non-existent comments will be disregarded. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:49, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm certainly not bothered! I just note that it's pretty silly to get all up in arms about a rule that you can just ignore if you feel like it. You certainly feel that votes can be weighted by some sort of interpretation based on the comments section, and I don't see this as different. ARBCom voting is approached using multiple votes where variant rulings are concerned, and I do not in any way feel that the process is less serious due to multiple votes. I do not see one process as being inherently better than the other, in either direction. AKAF (talk) 11:19, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

• I'm only going to make a general comment about this. It's true to say that I've been flip flopping over which method to use for a couple of weeks now - and the honest answer why is because I see it making very little difference. Even from Saturday I've flipped again from approval voting to this method. What we want is for the poll to get one proposal from each section, therefore it does seem right that each user gets one vote from each section. We aren't taking the top two and trying to work something from them, we're taking one only - people need to make up their mind as to what they want. Looking at the comments on the poll page, I see one (possibly two) people who aren't happy with the polling method used - I might open my eyes a little more if it was 10 or 20, but it isn't. I also doubt very much if any other polling method would give a different result. By all means people can argue this to the death, and if they feel it's disputed then so be it. However, I suspect myself and other administrators will be willing to enforce the end result when the poll comes to a conclusion. The comments on the poll show that many people are sick of this dispute and want to put an end to it as soon as possible. Ryan Postlethwaite 21:47, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Many of the editors who have discussed second choices support #4; #1 is expressly opposed by most of those who support something else. A voting method which permitted either opposition or multiple supports would make this clearer, but I hope it will be taken into consideration. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:31, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, it's at least one new person (Gavia) and 3 established editors who helped participate in construction of the poll who object. But, we'll see. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:31, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

• For the record, once again, this is exactly the type of game played throughout the last RfCs, and I'm glad Ryan has seen through this ploy. It was not a further invitation for wikilawyering, or for all and sundry who may disagree with the likely outcome of the poll to seize this argument in an attempt to discredit the result. As has also been said, this is a poll - in other words a straight vote. It's not your party anymore, and nobody will let you piss on the cake. Ohconfucius (talk) 04:16, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Please note that this discussion began when there was one vote registered. I claim no prescience in anticipating the result of this rigging; but we did anticipate it, not react to it.
  • As for the rest of this urinological abuse, I can only conclude that Ohconfucius knows little about polling on or off Misplaced Pages; he should start with Single transferable vote, the system which most Misplaced Pages approval polls approximate. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:24, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
    • I will merely address the issues, and ignore the attack on my person: one of the advantages of this poll is that, based on the previous RfCs, close approximations to the answer were already known. It is now increasingly likely that one option in each will gain an overall majority, so the STV is really quite moot. Ohconfucius (talk) 05:06, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I recommend a quick trip to Misplaced Pages:NAM. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk)

• Check. Guilty. Thanks, Ohconfucius (talk) 06:19, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

• Quoting Ryan: However, I suspect myself and other administrators will be willing to enforce the end result when the poll comes to a conclusion. The comments on the poll show that many people are sick of this dispute and want to put an end to it as soon as possible. (*sound of quiet, gasping weeping due to giddy joy*) Greg L (talk) 02:55, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Early start

Unfortunately, I started the poll an hour early - yup, BST started on Sunday and I've been caught out. I'm going to leave it open, because I've already made all the notifications and I would hope that 1 hour will make little difference. Apologies to all parties. Ryan Postlethwaite 23:12, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Editnotice

You may want to consider putting your "comment" box from the top of the page into an editnotice, so people are more likely to see it. Anomie⚔ 23:17, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Options missing

There seem to be a series of choices missing, such as the one we used to have .. -- User:Docu

wut?? Soberknight (talk) 19:55, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Target audience

I think the main question that needs to be resolved is: who the target audience of autoformatting? If all remains as it is then we can foresee some very basic and obvious problems:

1. If autoformatting is to be the preserve of registered users with the activated user preferences (who, let's face it, are primarily editors and form a very small minority of the readership as a whole) then we have the undesirable state of affairs where much work is carried out for a minor preference of a small number of readers.
2. Furthermore, on the main space articles, these registered users will be unable to see and correct mixed dates, which unregistered (i.e. the majority of users) would see.

It is clear that we must move away from this current state of affairs, it does not benefit the majority. The two most appropriate solutions are the "magic word/set dates for all users" solution and the conflicting "remove all autoformatting" solution.

Which brings me to my main point: I don't see anyone supporting the use of autoformatting through linking.

It appears that options #1 and #4 of month/year linking are gaining consensus and there is much overlap between those two choices, in that #4 is in some ways the non-instruction creep version of #1. Yet, despite this growing consensus, wikilinking still seems to be a major aspect of people's reasoning to oppose autoformatting.

We need to disentangle these two issues and first of all have a vote on the deprecation of autoformatting through wikilinks. I think we will find consensus on that issue and it will mean people's responses to further polls on autoformatting will not be diluted with reference to "overlinking" etc. Sillyfolkboy (talk) 18:35, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Auto formatting can be fixed to work for unregistered readers/editors. Deprecating it will have the effect of making this type of system difficult to implement in the future (because the markup will be gone and people will be hesitant to re add it later). —Locke Cole • t • c 19:08, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I understand that. I thought that the magic word system did not demand the use of wikilinked dates? Note that I did not ask for autoformatting deprecation but only that the method of autoformatting by the use of wikilinks be rejected. Sillyfolkboy (talk) 19:14, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I think that reading through WP:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)/Three proposals for change to MOSNUM#Proposal 2: A return to date autoformatting and WP:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)/Date Linking RFC#Deprecating the current date autoformatting shows that autoformatting by wikilinking is already clearly rejected. --RexxS (talk) 19:55, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

If this is so clear then why is wikilinking mentioned in oppose !votes numbers: 12, 13, 22, 37, 42, 49, 54? Some of which come from very experienced users. User preferences objections seem to form another large part of people's reasoning. Given that the application of autoformatting would demand extra work on all our articles, surely we are only left with two "nuclear" options of autoformatting for all, or none at all? Is anyone seriously suggesting that we do this work for just logged in and "date preferenced" users? If not, then we should make the question clear: We should be choosing AF for everyone, or for no one. Sillyfolkboy (talk) 20:40, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I have no idea why it is mentioned. Perhaps these very experienced users might be unaware of the previous RfCs, or perhaps it's not as clear as I think. Why not take a look and see for yourself? I'm certainly in no doubt that the community has rejected using links to implement autoformatting. --RexxS (talk) 23:44, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Complaint department for discussing how the RfC is structured

Since PMAnderson was advised in my ANI against him to discuss his complaints about the structure here on the talk page, I’ve copied part all of this thread on the RfC to here, which is the proper venue for this. Note also, that he had been instructed in the ANI to come here with his concerns (If you have concerns, please voice them on the talk page) 17 hours before his rant on this issue over on the RfC, where he wasn’t supposed to go. Greg L (talk) 21:01, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Option 1 is an overreaction

• • (To whom it may concern): Please don't remove this subsection. That is uncalled for. I've been in several polls like this, all of which had several subsections of discussion. Thanks. Wrad (talk) 17:20, 30 March 2009 (UTC) No, admins at an ANI have made it clear that topics like this are to be discussed here in order to not disrupt an ongoing RfC. Greg L (talk) 01:27, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't like overlinking any more than the next guy, but I really think that option 4 will lead to editors overreacting. We don't want to kill all year links, and if you have a special guideline for year links that says they can only be linked in X, Y, or Z situations, then people will think: "If year links have a special section, then that means they must be judged more strictly than any other links." I don't think that is what most people supporting the first proposal intend to support. I much prefer option one. Year links need to just quietly slide into the same mass of rules all other links abide by. If we overreact, then we will, I guarantee you, be back in a few months, after several edit wars, having another poll. Wrad (talk) 17:11, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

• The only issue I see with #4 is that there appears to be a disagreement over when a year is relevant. Some people think birth/death years are relevant; many don't. Some people think a year link is relevant if the article subject is listed at the year article; other's don't. Without some guidance, we're likely to continue to have a lot of edit-warring and talk page disagreements that waste everyone's time. Karanacs (talk) 17:12, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Looks to me, then, like we're doomed to see edit warring with any and all of these options, and we're also doomed to have this poll again in the near future. Wrad (talk) 17:37, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
• The format of this poll, imposed as it was by revert-warring by the most partisan of editors, is under discussion on the talk page, Wikipedia_talk:Date_formatting_and_linking_poll/Year-linking_responses#Format_unacceptable. A {{disputedtag}} would seem appropriate. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:21, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

• PMAnderson: Could you tell the whole truth if it was necessary to save your life?? I didn’t “impose” anything on this RfC. I made a suggestion via some edits (something you obviously aren’t shy of doing either). The question is whether or not my suggested format was properly endorsed and adopted as the method to use in this RfC. Let’s check out whether the evidence supports this.

  First, I posted a notice of my suggestion here. What was the response by Ryan, the clerk overseeing this RfC? He responded fine by me. I was thinking of propsing something like that myself.

  Then there is this exchange on Ryan’s talk page. He responded to you as follows: As it happens, Greg was right with the formatting - it's a poll and we need to be clear about that. … Sorry, I know that's not what you wanted to hear.

  Then it was fully discussed here on the RfC talk page where many editors from all sides of the issue weighed in and the issue received a full and fair hearing.

  Then Ryan, the clerk responsible for fairly overseeing and structuring this RfC, helped to restore the format to my suggested method .

  Then, when you complained about the structure of the RfC here on the RfC talk page, Ryan responded to you as follows: Whilst I am disappointed that you dispute it, I thank you for your efforts with helping to create the poll. Ryan has shown spectacular patience and fairness in all of this. That little jewel of a response to your industrial‑strength whining comes about as close as any admin can get to “tough; go pound sand in your damned ear if you don’t like it.”

  Finally, In my ANI against you for slapping {disputed tags} all over an ongoing RfC that had been thoroughly and fairly developed and properly supervised, you were advised there in the ANI as follows: I strongly urge all contributors who have been involved in this dispute to not make any further modification to the RFC page. None! You have had your chance to have a say in how the RFC is conducted. If you have concerns, please voice them on the talk page and let someone who is uninvolved make any changes deemed necessary. If you, PMAnderson, haven’t yet learned how to heed advise in the face of not always getting what you want, I suggest you start with that tidbit. Greg L (talk) 20:27, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

• • Although this section was not supposed to be for linked comments, as they were to be moved to the talk page, I leave you with Ryan's last comment on the "vote for one" issue:

• • The "one vote per section" language was added to the actual poll after that statement. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:53, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

• PMAnderson had been advised in my ANI against him, (17 hours before the above rant) that the proper venue to discuss his complaints about the structure of this RfC is here on the RfC talk page. If history is any teacher, complaints like this can go on endlessly. I’ll see you all there. Greg L (talk) 21:07, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

• First, I thought all this stuff was going to be moved to the talk page - at least that was my understanding when the poll opened. Second, I think it's a very bad idea to edit the poll other than the votes once it's been opened. You're leave yourself open to all kinds of accusations of attempts to misconstrue the rules, and change the actual desires of the !voters. Huge dis-enfranchisement risk there. Change it on the next go round. I hate to play a game when someone changes the rules in the middle of said game. Maybe I've just seen to much of the American political scene lately ;). — Ched ~ /_© 21:34, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, you are correct. I moved the entire thread over here. The RfC page is for discussing alternative proposals, not for disagreeing with how the RfC is structured. The administrators have made it clear at the ANI against PMAnderson that such disputes are to be discussed here. Greg L (talk) 01:27, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

• Yeah, well the next day (twenty hours later, at 23:13, 29 March), Ryan essentially told PMAnderson, “Tough; go pound sand in your ear”. Go take it up with Ryan if you think he’s confused himself. Greg L (talk) 21:08, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

• Well, I do think Ryan is confused, and the "vote for one" means it will be very difficult to interpret the results of the poll in a way which indicates whether there is a consensus, unless a single option gets a clear supermajority and there are no overriding arguments opposing it. But I'm willing to wait until after the poll closes to argue that Greg, with Ryan's help, killed another perfectly good poll. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:25, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

  Greg has also made it impossible to determine whether we should treat dates like other linkables; supporters of all four proposed texts are citing that goal as the reason for their proposal. This is unfortunate, if not ridiculous. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:55, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

• The good news is that, at the moment, one option does have a clear majority in both of the linking sections. If that trend continues, it's reasonable to adopt it as provisional guidance, and do an approve/disapprove poll after the selected guideline has been tried out in practice. If we do such a followup poll, though, it ought to be conducted by someone who was not involved in drafting this one. — Gavia immer (talk) 23:15, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

• I don't think the community would accept another separate poll. Also, remember that this is only Phase 1 of the poll. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:46, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

• I don't think the community would especially like to go through another poll, either - but I also don't see the community accepting the argument that we somehow have to accept a broken poll forever regardless of the consequences - and remember, guidelines do need the support of the community, not only poll results. Meanwhile, this is currently speculative until the poll gets closed - the community can decide if the result is useful after they have a result in hand. — Gavia immer (talk) 00:03, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

• And, by the way, PMAnderson. Even if it this RfC been structured the way you wanted (Chicago-style voting: “vote early - vote often”), the linking-related issues would still be a bloody slaughter. So stop your bellyaching. As for autoformatting, at 92 against and 63 for (as of this writing), there is clearly no consensus that the community desires the cockamamie autoformatting schemes you’re selling. So give it up and find something else to do. Greg L (talk) 01:53, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
  • More incivility from the revert-warrior who dares not have this poll ask "should we treat date links like other links?"; many of the supporters of wording 1 support it because it treats all links alike. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:08, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

• Thank you for your thoughtful reply. I wish every opponent was like you. Let the community respond to the RfC maybe? In case you haven’t been keeping up on current affairs, Ryan had a bit of a hand in making the RfC just the way he wanted during the lockdown when he made his final edits before taking it live. If you think the RfC is poorly structured, take it up with him.

  And cease with this “Greg is a witch who caused our crops to fail and our midwives to weep”-horsecrap. The villagers just might look at each other with that wide-eyed look of epiphany, shrug their shoulders, and decide to burn your hut down so they don’t have to listen to your “waaa-waaa.” Greg L (talk) 02:22, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism by Ohconfucius

For about two hours, almost a day ago, Ohconfucius spent his time vandalizing this page:

• Blanking the protest against format recorded above.
  • 01:40 30 March, as all of these
  • 01:43
  • 02:47
  • 02:48
• Breaking up a !vote
  • 02:24
• Blanking comments
  • 01:42
  • 01:43

Recommendations for how to deal with this? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:52, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

• The only true disruption to Misplaced Pages was your slapping {disputed} tags on an ongoing RfC. False accusations that others are vandalizing Misplaced Pages is an actionable offense (with ample remedies) so I advise you to not be quite so bold in your attacks on other editors. Greg L (talk) 01:56, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
  • I ask that Pmanderson remove "vandalism" from the section header. This is a bad-faith accusation. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:59, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
    • Do you assert that none of these diffs, which include splitting a !vote, are vandalism? You are free to argue that case eelsewhere. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:10, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
      • Disagreement about WP-internal process is not vandalism. See WP:VAND#NOT, last line of table. --Hans Adler (talk) 02:36, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
        • Blanking can be vandalism. Manipulating other people's posts, as with this edit, is.Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:49, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

• • • • • • Of the diffs you provided, only 01:42 could potentially be vandalism. I don't believe any are, but I'll stop short of making a bad-faith accusation. CRGreathouse (t | c) 20:45, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
            • Please explain why 02;24, which is refactoring in such a way as to change meaning, is not. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:10, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
              • I think you've reversed the burden of proof. CRGreathouse (t | c) 12:51, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
                • No. I've presented evidence that Ohconfucius has vandalized a vote, and blanked comments, and gotten no substantive response whatever. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:58, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm Confused...

I have never voted on Misplaced Pages before, however I cannot access any other pages except help articles and this. Hence, when I noticed the topic I was only looking for SIMPLE INFO. In other words, I just wanted THE FACTS AND OPTIONS IN SIMPLE TERMS. Not "hick/idiot" terms, mind you, just the basic facts and options for the common man.

However, I got none of this - and even more confused. The suggestions and comments don't help, as they are all made by people who know more technical terms in regard to this site and its inner workings than I ever will.

I am merely an editor and reader - I do not use programs to revert edits, nor do I use them to MAKE edits; I merely go into an article, make my edits, and leave.

Hence, I wish to request a SIMPLE explanation of the issue at hand and the options. I know it regards the formatting of the dates seen in articles and Infoboxes...maybe. My point is, I request a "simple" version of this and future polls for those who know of the subject (and those who don't) and don't know Misplaced Pages's technical terms, not wishing to look through scores of help articles only to result in more confusion. Daniel Benfield (talk) 23:47, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't think I'm permitted to do that. Please ask Ryan. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:53, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

OK, I will try to explain this the best I can:

Misplaced Pages operates a system of autoformatting, which means that dates can be formatted to look a certain way to registered editors who set their preferences. There are four formats (first of Jan 2000 used as example): January 1, 2000; 1 January 2000; 2000 January 1; and 2000-01-01. These dates are autoformatted through markup; that is, the dates used for autoformatting text are marked up with some sort of syntax. The current autoformatting markup is the double square brackets, which are used to wikilink text. In recent months, many have complained that the usage of linking as markup is harmful because of overlinking resulting from the fact that date links often have little to do with the articles that they are linked on. This led to the practice of date linking being deprecated in August. Users began to remove date links (and therefore remove date autoformatting) through a variety of methods. However, some have complained that there was not enough consensus to deprecate autoformatting or to even remove date links. Previous date polls have established that using links to autoformat text is not a widely supported practice. This poll aims to 1) establish whether autoformatting is desirable at all; and 2) determine how often dates should be linked, regardless of autoformatting.

I hope that helped. Please feel free to ask more questions. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:02, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't have much objection to that, although "many" is probably an overstatement, and there is considerable disagreement as to what was agreed to in August, and whether there were more than 4 editors who agreed at that time. There have also been bots written to rapidly delink dates, assuming that no "date fragment" should be linked, except from articles on other date fragments.

Still, the first part has to do with the concept of autoformatting, rather than the current implementation(s). {#dateformat was added while the poll was being constructed.)

The second and third parts have to do with the rules for links to date fragments, years, such as 1919, and month-day combindations such as March 1. Due to the previous consensus that autoformatting and autolinking was done on full dates, there are a lot of linked dates. Many editors think there are too many such links, but there have been various changes made to WP:MOSDATE and WP:LINKING without consensus. There have also been at least 3 RfCs (Misplaced Pages:Request for Comments) on date linking, none of which has a consensus as to the consequences of the results. There also have been a couple of user RfCs, and a Request for Arbitration. One of the proposals was that ArbComm draft an RfC which would decide consensus. This is Ryan's attempt to put one together.

Does that seem a neutral description of the problem? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:16, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks, I appreciate that. I've already voted, if I understand the arguments correctly. Daniel Benfield (talk) 01:27, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
• Sorry, but "... on date linking, none of which has a consensus as to the consequences of the results" is incorrect. Have a careful read of the comments here and perhaps try to work into your future posts reasoning based on the fact that over 94% of respondents at that RfC had serious reservations with the linking of dates. Please don't reply too rapidly as it will take you some time to properly read the comments there (you can also examine a summary here).  HWV258  01:42, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

• There may be consensus against linking all dates, although there is considerably more support for it here. The poll HWV258 cites is an attack on a straw man, posted by a user who began by voting against his own proposal. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:24, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

• I can only reiterate that anyone interested in this should have a careful read down the list of comments posted by the 94% of oppose respondents (here). Even detached from the poll question, those comments are illuminating, and undeniable.  HWV258  03:55, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

• we should link to dates, as to other words and phrases, when the link is useful to readers.
• Linking dates should stay as the exception, rather than the rule,
• Date links should not be treated any differently than other links.

These are some of the 94% which have serious reservations about linking all dates; decide for yourself if they sre reservations with the linking of any dates. Misrepresentations of this point grow tiresome. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:13, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

• No, I refer to the multitude of comments along the lines: "Such links provide nothing useful to the reader, and only serve to confuse". Please read the entire list of oppose comments (here) and see if your views are still so strong (misrepresentations?). I agree that you will be tired though after reading the entire list of oppose comments. :-)  HWV258  04:22, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I have done so; such comments are less than 50% of the total; many oppose the idea of linking every date, which was the question asked. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:31, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

There is an essay at Misplaced Pages:Why dates should not be linked, but that's already linked in the text. Dabomb's and Arthur's explanations above are clearer and more neutral than the existing explanation, and should be considered if the unfortunate plan of more RfC's is contemplated. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:17, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

• Very good, PMA. Greg L (talk) 04:21, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

I've removed all threaded discussion from the support/oppose/neutral columns on the poll page. I've left discussion in the comments section for now because I feel it's important (although should it get out of hand, I'll start moving things to the talk page). Ryan Postlethwaite 11:19, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately this leaves no way to address the current dynamics with 4 of the last 5 oppose voters to autoformatting (108–111) apparently thinking this is about date linking. For 3 of them I have no idea how they would have voted without the misconception. I am pretty sure that this kind of thing, when uncontradicted, makes the following voters more likely to make the same mistake. There are similar misconceptions among support voters, but of course the losing side is more likely to claim the poll was invalid because of such issues. --Hans Adler (talk) 12:30, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Hans: I do not agree with the assessment that these four voters have confused formatting with linking. Voters are under no obligation to give all of their reasons. A challenge should be regarded as exceptional, and should be via Ryan, now and not after the poll closes. We do not want unseemly horse-trading on the validity of individual votes after the close. In any case, I think (1) challenges would result in very few, if any, changes by voters; and (2) there would be challenges on both sides (I can see plenty of "Supports" I'd like to challenge). Is it worth all the fuss, or should we trust voters' inner reasoning? Tony (talk) 14:03, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I am not talking about challenging voters. I am talking about ways to avoid that we get even more such votes which, while opposing autoformatting, enable certain editors' predictable attempts to declare the vote invalid. I want autoformatting to lose this poll fairly, and transparently so. --Hans Adler (talk) 15:31, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Currently the latest support rationale reads: "Its really confusing if you're editing an article in one format and your display is in the other format". The latest oppose rationale reads: "We should stop date linking for the sake of auto-formatting. There may be other, less intrusive, ways to auto-format dates." No, we can't trust the inner reasoning of such voters. They are obviously confused to the point where they had better not bothered to vote. If we can't respond to such obvious mistakes, others obviously follow their lead. --Hans Adler (talk) 22:47, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Notice placed at top of Misplaced Pages:Date formatting and linking poll/Autoformatting responses

To try and clear up any confusion regarding autoformatting and linking, I've placed a notice at the top of the autoformatting responses. It's important that people commenting are 100% sure of what they are commenting on. Ryan Postlethwaite 22:43, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Ryan—helpful. However, I believe that there is not the confusion of the two terms that is being assumed. The headings are clearly labelled "I support the general concept of date autoformatting" and "I oppose the general concept of date autoformatting". People know what DA is, and if there was any confusion in their minds, it would soon have been dispelled when they proceeded to Questions 2 and 3, specifically on "linking".

Critically, I want to scotch now any sense that Locke Cole et al. will wait until the poll closes and then brand it invalid on the basis that there was such confusion. I say now to the linking camp: If you seriously believe this, you should post a query at the talk page of every voter of whom you suspect such confusion. I do not believe this is necessary, but here is your chance—not after the poll. Tony (talk) 04:42, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

"you should post a query at the talk page of every voter of whom you suspect such confusion" - for the record, apparently this is being done: here are one editor's notes to !voters. Sssoul (talk) 05:30, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

would it be worthwhile to repeat the "this section is about autoformatting not linking" statement as a so-called editnotice that would appear above the edit boxes? i don't know how to create editnotices, so this is a suggestion for someone else to follow up on if it seems worthwhile. Sssoul (talk) 06:21, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure it would help, and I don't see any problem with contacting each person who provides an inappropriate reason for their vote. As you (and others, but you at least saw what I was doing for what it really was) have already noticed, I contacted all the people who have given "confused" votes so far, and most of them have already clarified their positions on their talk pages. I just re-contacted those that replied and asked that they do so again on the poll page, so hopefully that will resolve the issue. If a few more trickle in (as things seem to be trailing off) then it's not a big deal to contact them, as well. In all honesty, my eyes kinda glaze over when I'm reading things I already agree with, so if somebody on the "oppose" side could look over the "support" !votes and see if any of those are providing inappropriate reasons, that'd be good. I did do that a couple times already, and didn't see any, but I may have missed some, especially if there aren't many (which there don't seem to be — even on the oppose side.) --Sapphic (talk) 06:57, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Mailing list

I posted a note on wikien-l telling them about the poll. There may be some people who are interested who have missed our other notices. Worst case we get no extra opinions - I don't think any harm will be done by prodding people a little more :-). Ryan Postlethwaite 22:59, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Deprecation

Not the right venue for this, I know, but deprecation is simply Wikijargon. See WP:Jargon: "It is often helpful to wikilink terms not obvious to most readers".

• Good point. I think I spent something like ten minutes researching the term the first time I encountered it. Sometimes we combatants tend to get too accustomed to wikiwords. We should deprecate the practice and refactor posts that use such verbiage. ;-) Greg L (talk) 04:39, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it simply means discontinue the use of. GeorgeLouis (talk) 05:10, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I always thought it meant "expressing strong disapproval", so I checked it. It seems it originally meant "pray for deliverance" from something. Maybe it's the right word after all? --RexxS (talk) 15:27, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

If WP uses it often enough to mean discontinue the use of, eventually the dictionaries may list it, provided the compilers are keeping an eye on Wiki usage. (Let's hope not.) Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 20:29, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

We should start a campaign to bring back the original use. I'll begin:

Think it will work if we all join in? --RexxS (talk) 21:02, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Deprecation is a perfectly acceptable term in a software context, for features and practices that are "superseded and should be avoided". – ukexpat (talk) 21:18, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

War & peace posts

Post comments like autoformatting-support #90 really should have its treatise moved off the main page. The space afforded in an RfC is a bit like toilet paper at a highway rest stop: sure, it’s there for everyone, but how about not walking off with three whole rolls of the stuff? Greg L (talk) 04:44, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Large essays starting to appear in the voting section

Ryan, two more in the past few hours, (Numbers 90 and 92 in the Support section). Rather long for a vote, don't you think? I wonder what the "Comments on date autoformatting" section is for? Where is the boundary. I'd have though four or five lines maximum.

I see that Ckatz removed a much smaller post by HWV258 earlier, and again, but has acted to reinstate the essay (No. 90) I earlier relocated to the Comments section.

I want to take issue with these points. Why are people being allowed a soap box to push poll? If this is not redressed, I'll be expanding my vote into a huge essay, responding to these other essays. It will lead to a migration of long discussions from the talk page and "Comments" section right into the voting sections. Unwieldy and probably an introduction of a whole lot of push polling. Tony (talk) 06:50, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

It appears that User:Sapphic has taken to heart the idea of challenging voters on their Oppose votes, on their talk pages. This appears to be a campaign, whereas what we need is an orderly notification here that a vote is believed to be mistaken, with supervision by Ryan. As I said above, this should be exceptional. Otherwise, both sides will be encouraged to go around to a large proportion of voters, challenging their stated reasoning. It will be chaos.

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Dominus&diff=prev&oldid=280986568

Please note that at the above post, Sapphic admits that she edits through another account nowadays. I want to be reassured that push polling is not occurring through that other account. What is the name of that account? Tony (talk) 07:00, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

• I echo Tony's comments above. In addition to the essay by User:Nyelvmark, another one, under the apparent guise of a vote by User:BQZip01 appears to by another philibuster. Ohconfucius (talk) 07:21, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

• • Difficult to say. I only have a few reasons for my !vote, so I didn't think a detailed list of points is needed. Others may differ. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:32, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Tony, sorry, but two out of almost one hundred "support" comments go long, and now you wish to limit what people can say? As for your comment regarding HMV258's posts, there is a marked difference between your actions and mine: you and Greg L refactored and moved large portions of original vote text to new locations. (While you didn't edit the text, you both arbitrarily split it up and relocate it, once to the talk page and the other time to the bottom of the page.) This is unacceptable behaviour, especially while the RfC is under way. On the other hand, the two sections of text I moved were both responses to votes, not the original user's vote and comment. This was identical in nature to Ryan's earlier action to maintain the stated "no threaded responses" requirement. (Note that if Ryan objects to my actions, and prefers to be the only one doing so, I'll certainly stop.) If you have a concern regarding the length of a posted vote, your response should be to notify Ryan or the original posters, not to rework it yourself. --Ckatz_spy 09:32, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

But ... "sorry", you left your own "response to a vote (No. 85), which I felt so biassed I had to say something directly after it. Why one rule you and one for HWV?

If there is more push-polling via either large essay-type posts—especially in the Support section, which enjoys the benefit of being first—or by challenging users on their talk pages (without prior notification here), I believe action should be taken. I'm quite happy for dialogue in the voting zone to be removed, too. I'm still very unhappy about the two essays. These are far beyond what counts as a vote comment, and belong down in the comments section. These supporters should be content with four, even six or seven lines. These are over the top—one is about 40 lines, the other nearly 50 lines. These are equivalent to more than a page each. Tony (talk) 10:59, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

There's only one rule, period... to be perfectly honest, I'd presumed that our dialogue had been moved along with the other comment of mine that Ryan had relocated during his cleanup of all responses to comments. --Ckatz_spy 16:47, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Hear me. READ MY POST. Hear meeeeeee!

• I don’t oppose the practice of long- treatise-like vote comments because I think the practice gives anyone an advantage of any sort. Indeed not. I oppose the practice because it’s an ineffective form of cheating. Editors who come late to RfCs and spew gigantic comments fifty times bigger than the average Joe have, in my opinion, an overinflated sense of self-esteem because they 1) think they have something new to say, and 2) have deluded themselves that anyone actually reads these tomes. For the most part, they are wrong on both counts. It’s just a form of “hear me – hear meeeee!

  Further, it’s just a desperation move by those who now recognize there isn’t a WP:SNOWBALL chance that a consensus could ever form that the Misplaced Pages community wants UC Bill’s “Son of autformatting” (I thought he deleted his code and quit Misplaced Pages) or any of the other ideas being proposed by a small cabal of volunteer developers. Ignore these long RfC comments and take satisfaction that they now perceive the need to fly their Kamikaze posts into the flotilla of inevitability. Greg L (talk) 14:50, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

• Whilst there are some very large comments on the poll, they all form part of a vote. At the minute, I don't think it's getting out of hand and the comments are useful - my main concern was the poll turning into a load of threaded discussion making it difficult to navigate. I've removed a few replies from the poll, but for now I'm going to leave the vote comments. Ryan Postlethwaite 22:25, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Suspected canvassing by User:Sapphic

I believe that User:Sapphic may be canvassing in the above. She has been leaving messages on talk pages of 19 editors in an apparent attempt at influencing the debate. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8. (see her contributions for full list)

Although she claims she is not trying to influence the debate, it is difficult to arrive at that conclusion as the unescapable fact is that she is contacting only opponents to autoformatting, with arguments which may undermine their support. According to her, she uses an alternative account which is not apparently declared. Ohconfucius (talk) 07:12, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, canvassing seems to be a real problem. Just look at the RfC-related spamming here, here, here, here, here, and here, along with at least 25 other instances all listed here. The editor has even gone so far as to create and distribute four userboxes promoting his position on the RfC. --Ckatz_spy 09:44, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

It seems to me that the "canvassing" by Ohconfucius was directed to those who had already voted the way he would like them to – so where is the problem, that they might change their mind or that Ohconfucius instantly radicalises them to the point where they try to sockpuppet? (Note that I don't agree with the concept of divisive userboxes, but that's an unrelated matter.) What Sapphic is doing is much more problematic. Actually I was thinking about doing something similar, but not restricted to one side, and strictly pointing out only the apparent confusion with no advocacy. --Hans Adler (talk) 11:50, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I think some of those posts are leading to a certain POV but also some are asking for clarification (as I did with user:Nihonjoe here). The ideas of date linking and autoformatting are often confused. Hence my above proposal to "vote to discontinue autoformatting through the use of wikilinks", but no one seemed to be listening. Sillyfolkboy (talk) 13:55, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I was listening, but it seems you weren't. The issue of "vote to discontinue autoformatting through the use of wikilinks" was settled conclusively in the Nov/Dec RfCs as "Deprecate". The problem that then arose was that some editors posited that those RfCs showed support for "date autoformatting without creating links". In other words, the issue of "date autoformatting by some other means" was raised. This RfC is designed to answer that specific question and not to go over old ground where the consensus is already clear. I'm sorry I've been so blunt about it, but it does nothing to help move forward, if editors continually raise questions that have already been settled. Hope that helps. --RexxS (talk) 15:41, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

If this was really the case then why do we have an RFC based on autoformatting and how to link dates? If the result was deprecate then why are these two unrelated topics still coupled together? It's too late now (again, for the third time) but people will continue to misunderstand what they are voting for if we keep holding joint RFCs on these topics. Sillyfolkboy (talk) 09:49, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Ckatz: as you have taken an interest in this issue (by responding to Ohconfucius' post), and based on the information supplied by Greg_L below, could you please respond to the content of the original post? Thanks.  HWV258  21:27, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

• Ohconfucius is just giving voters a lapel pin to wear as they exit the polling booth. He gave one to me. That isn’t disruptive. Sapphic is badgering Wikipedians who voted one particular way in an effort to get them to go back in and change their vote. That must stop right now. She should be warned and taken to an ANI if the canvassing persists. I doubt that the effort—and the trouble she could find herself in as a result—will pay off with a change of a single vote; it’s just that she is cheating, which doesn’t impress. Greg L (talk) 15:08, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
  • In an actual election, providing lapel pins (which support, as Ohconfucius' do, a particular side) to those leaving the polling booth would be unlawful; this analogy needs work. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 05:36, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
• I've had a look at this and I believe it is canvassing. I've therefore asked Sapphic not to contact any other users on their talk page for the remainder of the poll. Ryan Postlethwaite 22:23, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

No disrespect, but you're wrong here, Ryan. Maybe I violated some other policy/guideline/whatever (though if that's so, I can't find it anywhere) but WP:CANVAS applies to messages sent to people who have not already participated in a poll. I explain my actions in a lot more detail in the sub-section immediately below. So, unless you can point me at some policy I actually did violate, I'm going to just keep doing what I've been doing. Glad you're feeling better. --Sapphic (talk) 23:35, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

• As it is common practice in WP for editors to change their votes up to the closure of polls in light of new information and arguments made, it remains arguable that your actions could be considered canvassing as they appear to be aimed at influencing a voting intention. Ohconfucius (talk) 07:07, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

• Hi all. I'd like to give my support to Sapphic. I'm one of those that were contacted by her and, even if our opinions diverge, I did appreciate she took contact with me and asked for clarification. To my opinion, this is legitimate. Apparently, she invested a lot of time and efforts in debates about autoformatting. All those, like you and her, that involved deeply in this issue, deserve that those like me that did not take part of past discussions, respect your work and do not vote lightly on false basis. If she had a doubt on my understanding of the vote, she was right to bring me information I didn't have and ask me to clarify myself. And if some editors changed their mind after discussing with her, I don't see any wrong in this. Sincerely, how would you value a vote outcome if half the voters display a clear misconception of what they are voting for? I just hope she also took contact with unclear voters that were on her side, but I would not condemn her if she didn't: everyone that has a true interest in a fair vote should be welcome to do the same.

In addition, I do agree with her understanding of what canvassing is and is not. In the past, I've seen some wikipedians attempting to twist the outcome of an RfD or a poll by massively drawing attention of others to it, either by IRC on on their talk page, no matter they were not concerned by the subject. This is exactly what I call canvassing. What Sapphic did is in no way comparable. She started a discussion with people that 1. have shown an interest in the topic, 2. have already made up their mind and expressed themselves with a vote, but 3. didn't make themselves clear, at least in her opinion. This has nothing to do with raising an army of voters from nowhere.

It doesn't matter we do not agree on date autoformatting, I believe what she did was right, and I wish you would see things the way I do. — Xavier, 22:27, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Possible canvassing

(Copied from my talk page.) --Sapphic (talk) 03:41, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

It has come to my attention that you may be attempting to influence the voting at WP:DATEPOLL, and may be in breach of WP:CANVAS. Please be informed that a complaint has been filed at Misplaced Pages talk:Date formatting and linking poll‎#Suspected canvassing by User:Sapphic. Ohconfucius (talk) 07:28, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

On my reading, WP:CANVAS only applies to notifying editors about a poll who haven't already participated. However, even if you want to try applying it to what I've been doing, it's still okay because I'm attempting to "improve rather than to influence a discussion." I've been contacting only those people who have justified their opposition !vote by some inappropriate (a.k.a. "confused") manner — something along the lines of "I'm against autoformatting because I hate all the bluelinks" or "I support autoformatting because I click on date links all the time" which clearly show a lack of understanding of the question being asked. It just so happens that there are no examples of the second kind, and I've only been contacting people on the "oppose" side. Maybe I'm just not reading closely enough and have missed some in the "support" side, but out of over 200 replies (at the time) there were only a dozen or so in total that seemed to be genuinely "confused" about the question. Most of them have now expanded on their reasons for their opposition (on their talk pages, but perhaps they could still be persuaded to do so on the poll page too) so if anything, I've done a favor for the opposition. But I've also eliminated one possible source of contention in interpreting the results, which was my actual goal. So will you please just cut me some slack and have a little faith? Jeez. --Sapphic (talk) 03:41, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

We still haven't been apprised of User:Sapphic's other account. Without this information, it is impossible to know whether she has voted twice, and whether she has engaged in canvassing. Tony (talk) 12:42, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I was going to ask you what the hell you were talking about, but I just now saw that part of Ohno's comment above. Ohno misinterpreted my statement. I have not been editing with another account, I've simply stopped editing with this one, which is what I said originally anyway. I may be a rude bitch at times, but I'm not stupid and wouldn't advertise being a sockpuppet, if that's what I was doing. I'm probably going to abandon this account once this date fiasco is concluded, and maybe I will and maybe I won't register a new account... but it won't be for a while, if I do, and it won't be any of your business, as long as I don't continue to use the old account. --Sapphic (talk) 14:23, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I did not mean to offend you. You did announce yesterday that you edit on the dates issue with the "Sapphic" account and on all else with another account. I was understandably concerned, but I accept what you say. Tony (talk) 14:36, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

• I'm sorry to have misinterpreted your remark. Of course, I felt it made little sense to write what you wrote, which is why I got it wrong. However, on re-reading, it is indeed what you wrote. I stand corrected that you did not say you run another account concurrently with User:Sapphic. Ohconfucius (talk) 14:38, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

No offense taken, and apology accepted. For once I wasn't actually angry over being falsely accused of something, just confused. The reason I was pointing out my account status was because I didn't expect to be checking either that talk page or my own, so I wanted any reply to be made on the poll page.. although I seem to be sticking around longer than I'd planned, so the point ended up being irrelevant anyway. Also, ohconfucius, I wasn't trying to make fun of your name by calling you "ohno" I just couldn't remember how to spell it (and was editing in a new subsection so I couldn't just scroll up) and for some reason thought it was "ohnoconfucius" by mistake. (I only just noticed the mistake now, and figured I'd join the merry apology-go-round.) --Sapphic (talk) 23:42, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Wait, the new subsection I was replying in had other comments by you. So I was really just being lazy and have no excuse for getting your name wrong. I suspect you don't care and may not have even noticed, but nonetheless, happy merry apology-go-round an all, you know. --Sapphic (talk) 23:49, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

• Sapphic: Whatever your reading of what "canvassing" is, you are clearly irritating voters. Take this response, from earlier today:

I still think you're taking a lot upon yourself to hassle people (especially me) over their vote. Doesn't WP:CANVAS prohibit this? I'm not unsympathetic that some people oppose autoformatting because "date links are useless" but that's life - all the time people vote and proffer their opinions without understanding the issues and it's just something we have to learn to put up with or ignore.

And then this one:

Do you have a userbox that tells people that I do not want spam on my user talk page?

Pestering voters whose decision doesn't happen to suit you is a little desperate, don't you think? I see what I would take as misrepresentations at some users' talk pages, too. Tony (talk) 07:22, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Exit strategies

It's probably too early to say, but I think this poll is hopelessly compromised, as well.

Comment about Ryan's "What we want is for the poll to get one proposal from each section....". It can no longer be done for the linking sections. Because of the biased subtitles (link only to relevant dates), the only conclusion possible is that that statement has consensus, but not necessarily proposal 1. It's still conceivable that a clear consensus for one of the proposals could develop, but it's unlikely, as we have to consider a !vote for any of the options which says only "link only to relevant dates" as a vote not showing a preference between 1, 2, and 4. I'm not saying I think this is the only fatal flaw in the linking sections, but it seems sufficient.

As for the autoformatting, a large number of voters seem confused as to whether this refers to linking; probably enough to effect whether "oppose" gets a supermajority. I think Ryan needs to clarify that it does not refer to linking, and spam all !voters who voted before the change. (He made a change, but it doesn't seem to have helped.)

But we don't have an exit strategy, unless Ryan or ArbCom has one hidden. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:45, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

• “Oh dear! Nothing but confusion, confusion, confusion. What is an editor with *pinky promise* good faith to do??”

  Nothing is confusing, Aurthur. You guys have had your asses handed to you on a plate. As Ryan pointed out above (21:47, 30 March 2009):

So cease with your posturing about how the entire Wikipedian community is doomed to have this issue drag on endlessly like a herpes infection because you can reach into your wikilawyering bag of tricks and spew B.S. about how there is this or that you don’t like about how the RfC was conducted. Tough. The community has spoken: just write out the damned dates in non-linked, fixed text and be done with it. You don’t like that outcome? Fine. How about accepting that the community has spoken and accept its will with grace and dignity? Greg L (talk) 17:05, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Define "Relevant" in a way so as to distinguish between the options. The options basically boil down to:

1. Link some dates
2. Link some more (but not all) dates
3. Link all dates
4. No guidance.

Have a look at the spread of the votes as to what "some dates" means, and tell me that you could write a MOSNUM guidance based on that. You've got the whole band between linking nothing and treating dates like other links. How on earth do you distill that down? About the only thing which is clear from this poll so far is that there is no consensus on autoformatting in either direction. The other stuff is just too non-specific.AKAF (talk) 17:19, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Isn't the MOSNUM guidance exactly what people are voting on? Each option lists what text should be inserted into MOSNUM. Am I misunderstanding your response? I think the next RfC is supposed to further clarify how to implement the guidance. Karanacs (talk) 18:36, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Arthur Rubin: You appear to be building a case to challenge yet another RFC result that you do not like. Perhaps it is time to accept the vote after more than three RFCs on this matter. Attempts thus far to query voters' reasoning, on their talk pages, have apparently resulted in no changes in their vote and, in a few cases, irritable responses. Tony (talk) 17:28, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

It sounds like the cases of William Penn and others. The jury found them not guilty and the judge wasn't happy with the verdicts. He said:

• "You will not be dismissed until we have a verdict--a verdict that the court will accept. And, until we do, you will be locked up, without meat, drink, fire, and tobacco; you will not think to abuse the court. By God, we will have a verdict, or you will starve for it!"

Lightmouse (talk) 17:46, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

• AKAF: Your arguments fall on the deaf ears of any rational person. As of this writing, the voting on “month-days” is 159 - 5 - 4 - 23. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out how one should proceed. What part of “Accepting what life throws at you with grace and dignity” don’t you understand? Greg L (talk) 18:17, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I would agree with you about month-days, except that some said, and I quote "link only to relevant dates" for their vote reasoning on option 1. And I did object to the subtitle before the vote, but, since I'm not on 24/7, it was after the lockdown. I also objected in the comment section, but I really don't expect most editors to read down that far. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:05, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

As for "any rational person": "Any rational person" would assume that any situation where where the proposer votes "no" on his proposal, is hopeless. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:05, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't see your problem about month-day links. Option 1 is essentially option 4 plus a clarification that such links are almost never relevant. It draws attention to the fact that there is no longer a special exemption for them. This clarification has become necessary because of the past practice of making irrelevant date links for autoformatting purposes. I searched for "relevan" among voters for option 1. Most of them specifically express the sentiment that such links are almost never relevant and seem to feel (like me) that this needs saying to prevent conflicts with the minority of editors who disagree. --Hans Adler (talk) 01:46, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

No, it does more, and been used to assert much more. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 05:31, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Care to give an example of a relevant link forbidden by this language? --Hans Adler (talk) 08:03, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Rubin's right. Barring some unlikely surge in the polls, it's pretty obvious that the result is going to be "no consensus" on the question of autoformatting (a roughly 60-40 split is hardly definitive) so which status quo do we preserve? Each side is obviously going to argue for their own preference, and absent any clear consensus from the community, I don't see how to break the deadlock. If autoformatting is kept (and fixed) the other questions are basically irrelevant, so it's really the central issue. I wish people had taken it to heart when I pointed that out last month, and if we'd gone with a simple up/down vote "poll" on that one issue, I bet we'd have a clearer way to proceed now. I don't mind the prospect of "losing" the poll as much as I do having the cloud of uncertainty continue. That said, I'm not going to give up my argument based solely on that factor. So where do we go from here? --Sapphic (talk) 06:22, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, that's a skewed argument if ever I saw one. Autoformatting has been deprecated since August on the style guides; it is totally absent from the Featured Content process, without a blink. It is whistling in the wind for a few people who don't like the results of this poll 38.5% (versus 61.5%) to claim that the clock should be turned back to the old days. Move on and get over it: the WP community has matured and is telling you yet again that it does not want dates messed around with. How many RFCs that say the same thing on this do we have to have? Tony (talk) 09:41, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Not to throw around firecrackers but (given equal strength of argument) doesn't 61/39 give a majority? Albeit a slim majority but why are these polls regarded as "no consensus"? I know that "Misplaced Pages is not a democracy" but surely if there is a prevailing view out of two opposing views then we should go with that one? Why can't we just remove the current double brackets autoformatting system (as people have been blocked for) and then discuss a proposal for a new autoformatting system when a better (non-date-linking) system/syntax is created? If past polls show that "autoformatting through wikilinks" is deprecated then why can't we remove that old system? Sillyfolkboy (talk) 13:16, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

For some issues (such as deciding what default date format we should use, some kinds of style guidelines, etc.) a majority is fine, but when you're talking about altering core software features and editing millions of articles, there should be overwhelming support, and here there isn't. We usually won't even delete a single article (through AfD) with as slim a majority as there is here. Also, the double-bracket markup around dates isn't the autoformatting system, it's just the way of triggering the autoformatting system. We could remove (or better, just disable.. since it's one true/false setting in the config file) the existing autoformatting system, but while that would stop dates from being autoformatted, they'd still be linked and the markup would need to be removed. Just removing the markup without disabling the autoformatting software would make it too complicated when editors do want to link to a date (they'd have to use either the ] stynax or ] syntax to avoid triggering the still-active autoformatting software.) The problem with removing all the markup (and disabling the software) before a replacement system is put in place is that it would result in a lot of duplicated effort, since any replacement system would need its own markup similar to the double brackets. Removing the markup is easier than adding it back (mostly because of quotations of dates, which should never be autoformatted, and which are hard to distinguish from other unlinked-but-potentially-autoformattable dates) so it's not even a matter of just "undoing" what bots already did... unless of course we kept detailed logs of all the unlinking. --Sapphic (talk) 14:35, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

How many quotations of dates are there? What fraction of currently linked dates are going to remain linked? I'm not convinced that unlinking is going to be any simpler than re-linking, since nobody is going to argue over whether a date is inside a quotation, but lots of people might argue about whether a date should remain linked or not. As for exit strategy, I think it might be reasonable to look at all the "support" votes and see which ones actually support the existing autoformatting software and which support autoformatting "in general" and see if we can get a supermajority in favor of at least getting rid of the old autoformatting system. Then, assuming there is such a supermajority, we could disable the existing autoformatting immediately by changing whatever config setting you're talking about. That'll let every editor see the inconsistent formats, and get more people involved in fixing that problem. At the same time, we can start working on a detailed specification for the replacement software, which enough people seem to want that it's probably worth at least looking into. Yes, it might mean a lot of wasted effort in de-linking and then re-linking dates, but a lot of the effort won't be wasted, such as fixing format inconsistencies and figuring out which dates are more relevant than others, etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.229.149.174 (talk) 15:55, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

• Point of information: the community voted in August 2008 to deprecate date autoformatting, and endorsed it overwhelmingly (i.e. by a supermajority) in (1) and (2) specific questions in December 2008. Therefore, Date autoformatting as we knew it is dead, and the software should have been disabled at that point. What we are now discussing is the desirability in principle of a new system. Any eventual consensus to adopt would need to be followed by a formal consultation process and vote on detailed specifications. Looking at the stability of the 60%+ vote opposed to that principle, it is likely that a consensus will not be attained. Ohconfucius (talk) 06:28, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Hmm.. I guess you have a point about de-linking being harder than re-linking would be, once you factor in having to deal with disputes over linking particular cases in individual articles. Figuring out which date-like-things are actual dates and which are quotations of dates (or other things that should never be autoformatted) is hard for computers, and simple for humans — but figuring out which dates are really relevant to an article is hard for both computers and humans. In other words, a date re-linker bot would probably have a low error rate and the errors would be simple for any editor to fix in a way that everybody agrees with (like reverting obvious vandalism.)

So as one of the most ardent (i.e. loudest and annoying) supporters of date autoformatting, I endorse the immediate disabling of the existing date autoformatting (set $wgDynamicDates = false) on the English Misplaced Pages, followed by the resumption of manual and/or (semi-)automated "mass" de-linking of articles with human correction (according to an as-yet-to-be-determined set of criteria) — coupled with the establishment of a community specification and review process for developing a replacement system, which will be presented in a subsequent poll for final approval or rejection (with possible abandonment of the development process, pending any changes in community opinion and/or new information and experiences gained in the intervening time.)

The key piece in getting my (and I suspect a lot of other autoformatting supporters') backing for that proposal is that the development process receive some kind of official blessing (by ArbCom?) with enforcement against anybody trying to "derail" it. If we accept that practically nobody wants the old date autoformatting, then you accept that enough people want a new autoformatting that we have to at least give it a serious go. In the meantime, you get your way 100% and don't interfere with the development process. Deal? --Sapphic (talk) 00:20, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

• Quoting you, Sapphic: (a roughly 60-40 split is hardly definitive) so which status quo do we preserve? and …coupled with the establishment of a community specification and review process for developing a replacement system . And you see a consensus that the Wikipedian community wants a new system of autoformatting… uhm… where? The old system of autoformatting with it’s attendant linking to trivia is gone. Dead as a door nail.

  So what to do next? It was conceded by Locke and UC Bill that such “specifics” as UC Bill’s “son of autoformatting” idea would be rejected out of hand by the community. So Locke insisted that the RfC be put forth just in terms of the “generalities of autoformatting”. So that’s just how we structured the RfC: on the “generalities”. Really, though, what few specifics snuck in were based on Werdna’s “specifics”. And the community’s reaction to this? There is clearly a significant majority of Wikipedians who don’t want some newfangled autformatting technology. Yet, you cite the community rejection (it wasn’t a colossal rejection, just a sound drubbing) as evidence that you should get busy, roll up your sleeves, and start working on some newfangled methods of autoformatting. Because… why???  Fine. You go ahead and work your head off. But in case you haven’t been keeping up on current affairs, the community is sick to death of this issue and doesn’t want to see it darken their doorstep for a long, long time. So if you come up with some new autoformatting idea that is the coolest thing since steam power and antibiotics, just keep it to yourself.

  You see, just because Sapphic and a handful of enthusiastic volunteer programmers really, really want something just isn’t good enough. Misplaced Pages’s Chief Technology Officer and a clear majority of Wikipedians don’t. Maybe we ought to listen to what they want, huh? Or does your right to hound the community on this issue exceed the majority’s right to be free of houding? Greg L (talk) 05:14, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't see a consensus at all, at least on the issue of autoformatting. That's the point. We need to figure out a way to proceed from here, with no clear consensus in the poll results. Yes, a majority have opposed autoformatting, but that's not enough. At roughly 40% of the respondents indicating support for autoformatting, you can't dismiss the supporters as "a handful" like you have been previously.

So, as a compromise, I'm suggesting we try it your way while those who want a new software system work in peace, then we put it to another poll to see if we try that. I'd think you'd be delighted, you're getting what you want and all you have to do is not try to poison the effort to develop a new software replacement. Given how long it took to put this poll together, and the need for even more transparency and community buy-in for the new software, I imagine you'd be getting your way across the site for at least a month or two. If we agree to have the existing date autoformatting system turned off right away, it would speed up the process of getting inconsistent date formats fixed and get more people aware of the issue, because right away every editor would see the site as anonymous editors currently do, regardless of what their (now non-functional) date preferences specify. Addendum: Disabling it in the config also allows dates that should be linked (whichever those may be) to be linked using the simple ] syntax instead of some more cumbersome variety needed to defeat the autoformatting, if it were left turned on.

If after a month or two of that we don't see an increase in date format or date linking edit-warring, complaints from editors who start demanding their preferences start working again, etc. then it's entirely likely that the poll to approve the new software will show that people no longer support it at the same level as now. Maybe it really will dwindle to "a handful" and a clear consensus will emerge. Or maybe you'll see that date autoformatting (even in its current, flawed form) is really protecting us from worse headaches, and welcome the new improved replacement.

Either way, I'm willing to run a little experiment to get some real-world feedback, if you're willing to keep your nose out of the development process (unless it's to genuinely contribute to developing the specification or something, which I doubt you'd ever want to do anyway.) --Sapphic (talk) 05:16, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

• Quoting you: I don't see a consensus at all, at least on the issue of autoformatting. The trouble is, you need one to push what you’re pushing. I’m quite content to let the RfC run its course, and for the ArbCom committee and the other admins to look at how the community has spoken, and for them to instruct you handful of volunteer developers as to whether or not they think the community has asked you to keep coming back again and again, pushing your latest & greatest. I’m just not seeing this invitation from the community so far. Greg L (talk) 05:24, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

• You think they're sick to death about date-related arguments now? Just wait until they've experienced life entirely without autoformatting for a while, without a way to end the arguments by saying "just go set your preferences that way, then." If you're so convinced that any replacement system is doomed to fail, why do you care if it's developed by other people who want it and believe it's useful. Let it be developed, and let the community decide whether to use it or to continue on without autoformatting. You seem to keep missing the fact that you can have autoformatting gone as soon as Ryan (or whoever on ArbCom) convinces the Wikimedia sysadmins to turn off autoformatting for real, and not just the work-around way you've been doing so far. It could seriously be gone in a day or two from now, if we go this route. You'd still need to deal with the links, but I'd support whatever bot or scripted delinking method you wanted to use, as long as there was a clear way of dealing with disputes over whether to keep specific date links. With a large part of the dispute (autoformatting) made moot for at least a month or two, I bet those link-specific disputes would be less stressful and easier to resolve. Seriously, what have you got to lose, except the right to sabotage the development process? --Sapphic (talk) 05:27, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

• Just wait until they've experienced life entirely without autoformatting for a while. Not that! Oh the humanity! Greg L (talk) 05:33, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

• P.S. Sorry. I’m tweaking your nose and I see you are sincere. I just looked at your edit summaries and I see your mood and intentions are quite different from the last time I had the pleasure of encountering you. Now I feel bad. Please, just let the RfC run its course and accept with grace and dignity that the community isn’t asking you do do what you’re doing. Moreover, they’re really, really fatigued of this RfC issue. Let it die. At least, give it a rest for a week until this RfC concludes. Greg L (talk) 05:37, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Wow, okay, thanks for the apology. I probably don't even deserve it, given how shitty I've been toward you in the past. Anyway, I'm concerned that the poll isn't going to resolve anything (I seriously doubt ArbCom will want to endorse one side with only a 60% majority, despite what you seem to think) and we'll remain stuck in limbo forever unless we work out some kind of compromise. If you don't come around heckling the development process, I think we really can come up with something pretty good as a replacement, and I'm convinced that when they see it (and have had a taste of the old date format wars coming back.. I don't think people have become quite so "enlightened" on the matter as you seem to believe, either) that a lot more than 60% will want it. A lot of the opposition is because of how the current software works, and if people see a working, tested, fully-specified system developed through a transparent community-driven process that doesn't suffer from the same flaws, I think they'll embrace it. Maybe I'm wrong, but wouldn't it be easier to just find out, rather than continue arguing about it forever? --Sapphic (talk) 05:47, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

• Time for bed. Goodnight. Greg L (talk) 05:53, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

• Sapphic, a > 61% versus > 39% result is not what you wanted, is it, to claim that people want any kind of date autoformatting. Now you are trying to twist the result around in contortionist ways to claim that you should still have your way, as though it were the converse result. Ah ... let me think about that ... I don't think anyone would buy that, except for you, Cole, Katz and a few other devotees. Six months of plain fixed-text dates has rapidly convinced Wikipedians that there is absolutely no problem to solve ... as though they are concerned about "realize" versus "realise"; they are not. Nor are they concerned that some people pronounce "either" with an ee, and others with an ei as in "bite". It's all too silly. We do not want dates messed with; that is what people are saying, again and again and again. Now you're talking of another RFC as though you can force people through tiring them out. Tony (talk) 07:32, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

• Yes, a very clear sub-text to the feedback is that the community is thoroughly sick of this whole lame debate. Most agree there is no problem to solve, and some have stated their annoyance at being asked their views again and again. We all know the reason for this is that the Dead Parrot is still nailed to its perch although it is "pining for the fjords". Just put the "ex-parrot" in its box, and let it rest in peace. Ohconfucius (talk) 08:44, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

It seems to me that a lot of the votes in favour of the principle of autoformatting were empty. It's a bit like being against sin - nobody could possibly argue with the principle, but the reality is a bit harder. The difficulty would come when the principle butts up against the reality of having to mark up millions of articles and dates. If the developers want to spend time trying to come up with a neat autoformatting solution, some work was done a while back on trying to develop a minimum spec. But we shouldn't be discussing it again unless and until there's a working system that meets the minimum requirements. It may indeed be that we'll welcome it with open arms in a few months as an escape from an outbreak of formatting wars, but I doubt it. And absent that, I think there would be no possibility of persuading the community to take on the massive task of building in the necessary markup, just for a 'nice to have' feature. There are plenty more productive ways to spend our time. Colonies Chris (talk) 12:51, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not asking to preserve markup anymore — that's the compromise part. Go ahead and de-link. My offer even still stands from long ago (remember the date formatting wikiproject?) to generate work lists from analysis of the wikipedia dumpfiles to help in fixing articles with the worst mismatch of date formats. All I'm asking in return is that nobody try to derail/naysay/heckle or otherwise interfere in a non-constructive way (enforced by ArbCom) with the development of some replacement software, which will be put to a final RfC whenever it's ready. In the meantime, the existing date autoformatting software is disabled by a change in the site's config file (takes effect basically instantly, across the entire site) and then de-linking and format fixing can proceed however it's decided upon. --Sapphic (talk) 04:39, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Oh sorry, I just realized you were probably alluding to the work needed to re-link (or otherwise mark up) dates, if some new software were to be used. It has been pointed out to me that there really aren't many cases where a bot would fail, and correcting its errors would be simple for human editors ("is this inside a quotation, or not?" will people really disagree on that?) as opposed to the error rate and need for correction/disputes over which dates should be linked on their own merit. So putting markup back around dates could be done almost entirely by bot. It has also been pointed out to me that de-linking actually adds more useful metadata (in virtue of the more relevant date links that are left behind) than it destroys (by failing to distinguish between less important dates and quotations of dates) so de-linking isn't as bad as I thought, even if I hope to eventually re-mark-up the dates anyway (but at that point, preserving the new information about which ones are more and less relevant.) --Sapphic (talk) 04:58, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

• How can it be a compromise if more than half the voting public don't want it??? It is not how consensus works. What you are offering 'in exchange' for the "compromise" is the ability to delink. Well, it's mighty kind of you, but I think we have that already if not for the injunction. Remember that our objection is not about the links - it seems that you are the one confused that we are talking date autoformatting here. If you fail to achieve consensus for this principle - and I really don't see a cat in hell's chance of programmers running amok now with the share of vote of the supporters hovers just below 40%) the community is getting a raw deal if the opposers stand aside and let the techies run riot; that would be irrresponsible of us knowing it will be another big mistake. The writing is already on the wall: well over half the voting members of the community do not want it. Ohconfucius (talk) 04:54, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you think a 60-40 split is going to get you a favorable ruling from arbcom, or the right to disable the existing date autoformatting. All it's going to get us is more deliberation, more "phases" of the polling process, more drama. What I'm offering in "exchange" is to put a stop to all that right away, at least with regards to myself and anyone else I can convince. If a hard-core supporter of autoformatting like me can live with that plan, I suspect enough others will that we can get something like 80-90% of the concerned parties behind it, if not more, and actually convince the Wikimedia sysadmins to turn it off right then and there (which I have to admit I'm now getting really curious about, just as an experiment to see if it really does bring back the old date format arguments, to what degree, how quickly, what articles/topics, etc.) The dates would still be linked and there's still probably a lot to argue about there (though I'll stay out of that part; I don't care) but at least every editor would immediately see the dates the same way anonymous readers do, and be aware of the problem of inconsistent date formats that (I think) everybody agrees is a genuine problem. I think that's a better outcome for you than trying to "wait it out" and let the whole process play out, still not resolve itself, start anew, etc. that you know is pretty likely. How long has all this been going on for? --Sapphic (talk) 05:13, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

"Option 0"

I'm moving this from the main page to here, as no discussion took place before this was added to the RfC. Should this be added or not? Karanacs (talk) 19:23, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I support Option #0 (don't link years)

1. Support - I prefer not linking year numbers at all. If you want to link the year, then do a proper link that more clearly says what it is linking. --David Göthberg (talk) 18:55, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
2. Support - I was disappointed that the date linking poll didn't have this obvious option as an option. Tempshill (talk) 19:00, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Discussion

Although I mostly agree with the sentiment, I feel it is too late to add any more options at this point (after so many editors have already registered their opinions). I encourage people who feel this way to use comments. Karanacs (talk) 19:23, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

You first changed my vote to another option. Then when I reverted that you deleted my vote. That is you doing vote fraud and vote censoring.

Had you just moved my vote down to the comment section, then at least it wouldn't have been a clear case of vote fraud.

--David Göthberg (talk) 19:57, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Please calm down, and note that I left a message on your talk page explaining the situation and pointing you towards this section, where I had copied and pasted your new section in full. Karanacs (talk) 20:00, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

This should be removed asap - it can go in the comments section if needs be. I'm on my iPod now so I can't deal with it.--Ryan Postlethwaite 20:05, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

• I contacted David on his talk page and suggested how he can get his point across more effectively by working within the structure of the RfC. Greg L (talk) 20:25, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

• It is customary for approval polls to add new options; when evaluating the new option, its late appearance can be taken into consideration. Since a belligerent minority supports Option 1 as a form of Option 0, and another section of opinion supports Option 1 because it is not option 0 adding it should help to clarify the real situation. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:05, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

• Yeah, I understand the point, PMAnderson. But can you imagine the chaos when new options that weren’t available at the start of an RfC are introduced piecemeal midway through? Throwing out new options in RfCs is better suited for the first RfC to address a new issue; it’s not a good fit at this late stage, where we are on our fourth RfC and have a well discussed understanding of the implications of all the nuances.

  If a user wants to add a comment into the comments section saying they think there should be an “Option 0” for no links at all, or an Option ΘβΔ” for some other whiz bang idea, that is still input that can be considered when trying to determine the nature of the community consensus on the matter. But the numbers of votes means a lot too in RfCs and it is probably wiser—if an editor wants to have the maximum voice in the outcome—to vote for the option that best represents their views and explain precisely what they really desire in their vote comment.

  It’s also a bit more, uhm… *humble* of an approach, since it doesn’t assume that the editor is throwing out something new that hadn’t been considered and discarded for a good reason. We had discussed this option but previous RfCs made it clear that the overwhelming number of Wikipedians felt that linking dates was appropriate in some circumstances. So there was no point in throwing out a space-filling option that we knew didn’t have a snowball’s chance in hell of winning. Greg L (talk) 04:45, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

  P.S. We could also have an option for “Negative 1: Don’t link any dates; and those editors who agitated to keep on linking the crap out of them should be given an eye‑bulging Misplaced Pages wedgie.” I bet that would have received 20+ votes. But it wouldn’t have won so there is no point siphoning votes off options that have a prayer of becoming the community consensus. Greg L (talk) 05:11, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

• Minus 1 is redundant, unless someone manages to support 0:Never link month-day, and 0:Never link years, without supporting Don't link any dates. Possible, I suppose, but not likely.
• An overwhelming number of Wikipedians felt that linking dates was appropriate in some circumstances. Thank you; I shall quote you on that.
• That the present !votes for Option 1 contain 20 votes for Option 0, (and a comparable number that would personally prefer #4 but think it bad strategy) would be very interesting. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 05:29, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

• You can also quote me on this one: “…previous RfCs made it clear that the overwhelming number of Wikipedians felt that linking dates was appropriate in some circumstances.” This RfC has added greater specificity as to what “some” means. Greg L (talk) 15:42, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

• • Not much specificity, even on the question of birthdates. As llwyrch comments, much of the support for #1 is likely to assume that birth and death dates are relevant; for such people, #1 is equivalent to #2 but with less verbiage. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:29, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

• Wikilawyering. There will always be editors who stand with pouted lower lip and their arms folded across their chest and say “I think the guideline leaves wiggle room to link day-month in the birthdate of the asshole who invented trivia” or some such nonsense. I’m not even thinking of trying to argue with them. Never try to teach a pig to sing; it only wastes your time and annoys the pig.

  The wording for Month-Day Option #1 says this: Month-day articles (February 24 and 10 July) should not be linked unless their content is germane and topical to the subject. Such links should share an important connection with that subject other than that the events occurred on the same date. Moreover, year linking Option #1 has similar verbiage: Year articles (1795, 1955, 2007) should not be linked unless they contain information that is germane and topical to the subject matter.

  Together, they are infinitely clear for Wikipedians in the middle of the bell curve (and your ordinary, 50th-percentile 6th-grader). And notwithstanding your protestations that you are utterly confused about what both Option #1s portend for linking birth dates, I know you really aren’t so confused. So stop with your pre-verdict posturing (accomplished via proxy by citing other editors) about how the crushing support for both Option #1s is *actually* a validation by the community allowing you to link birth dates and all the other horsecrap you’ve wanted to link all along. No, it doesn’t. And to suggest as much sounds like just the sort of argument from another editor I’m familiar with; it doesn’t impress. Greg L (talk) 21:19, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

• Remember that this is only Phase 1 of the poll, we can always address "relevance" in the next phase. Dabomb87 (talk) 12:40, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

• The difficulty is this poll doesn't really address any of the questions of importance (except perhaps which ambiguous language is to be inserted in the worthless MOSNUM; I don't care what it says, only whether it is used to harass other editors). It doesn't decide whether date links are to be treated like other links, which is the question really being disputed; it doesn't decide whether there is consent for bottery, since bots cannot decide whether a sentence is germane, topical, or relevant.Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:53, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

• Quoting you: The difficulty is this poll doesn't really address any of the questions of importance: Well, silly us. Greg L (talk) 01:16, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

• I don't fully agree with PMAnderson's statement, although any of the options (including option #2, for which I can take primary credit/blame; remember I started drafting it less than 2 weeks before the vote), without further guidance, could be used to harass editors who do not agree with your interpretation. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:56, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
• However, a large number of votes for option #1 state "link only to relevant dates", or some similar verbiage, which may suggest that they didn't actually read the option. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:59, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

• Americans voted for Bush… twice. That would suggest they weren’t listening to the debates. But we respect the vote—even if their reasoning is “I voted for the dude who wouldn’t look funny with a six-shooter on his hip.” Greg L (talk) 05:50, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
• Arthur, I already asked PMAnderson the same question and so far he hasn't replied: Can you give an example of a relevant link that would be forbidden by option 1? People like me have voted for option 1 exactly because it is option 4 plus a clarification that linking the year of death of an obscure Albanian writer was previously considered right not because it's a relevant link (it's obviously not) but because there was an exception for such links which is no longer in effect. --Hans Adler (talk) 11:19, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

It's not a vote. The categories are to help with interpreting the results of the opinion poll, nothing more. If people place themselves in one category, but give reasons more relevant to a different category, it's perfectly valid to question what they really meant. It's more like the invalid ballots in Florida when people voted for more than one candidate — and those ended up being thrown out entirely. Since the total count isn't really the point, just determining if there's an obvious consensus view, then there's no reason to "throw out" anyone's comments, but they do need to be considered more carefully. I honestly haven't paid much attention to the linking part of the dates debate, but I'd think we'd need some kind of more flexible policy to let regular editors decide on (somewhat of) an article-by-article basis which dates were "relevant" enough to warrant links. Too strict and black-and-white a policy is just going to invite arguments. I guess I'll actually go and look over the options, so I have a more informed opinion here on some of the specifics, then maybe I'll comment further. --Sapphic (talk) 06:05, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

i'm not sure "it's perfectly valid to question what they really meant". some of the comments sound strange to me too, but being gifted at summing up all one's reasoning in succinct unambiguous statements is not a prerequisite for !voting in the poll. !voters are entitled to assume that when they've chosen "i support Option X" it's clear enough that they support Option X. Sssoul (talk) 06:56, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

That is not reasonable, if they give a justification which supports option W or Z, but not X. If they give no justification, and the subtitles are clearly misleading (as they are in this case), I'm just not sure. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:22, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Bear in mind also, that people may express their opinion that seems contradictory, if that's the only way to express their opinon within the (bogus) constraints of the poll structure itself. That's what I did - and my opinion is intended to convey support for two options even in the face of any rule forbidding support for two options. Reading it otherwise, as support for only one of the two, is a misinterpretation. Likewise, ignoring part of some other voter's opinion in order to better pigeonhole it is probably also a misinterpretation. — Gavia immer (talk) 04:05, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I just gave my opinion, and I agree that the choices are a bit confusing. I don't think it matters much though, because I think the clear (and in the first case overwhelming) majority is against almost any date linking. I like date links, but I don't think of them like regular links, and don't think they are usually "relevant" to the topic in the same way that normal topic links are. I think they're a different kind of tool, equally useful, but different nonetheless. I don't think people should be forced to see those kinds of date links, if they don't find them useful. I'd rather see us distinguish between dates that are linked by default and those that aren't, with users being able to override those defaults via preferences — but I still think the default should be pretty conservative. Then we'd have even better metadata, with the ability to distinguish between dates that are just dates, and those that are also more specifically relevant in their capacity as a date to the topic of the article (like with Christmas and 25 December, for example — or a person's birthday, in my opinion.) People that wanted more date links could have more date links, etc. You know the routine. I like the software solution. But I think on the linking issue, the outcome is pretty clearly on the side of fewer date links. So I say delink most of them using bots and/or scripts, then let people add back ones they think are important — and don't be too concerned about challenging people on that, at least right away. --Sapphic (talk) 06:29, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Back to discussing "Option 0". Comment: why would we want to forbid a link from the article 1340s to the article 1346? The latter article clearly helps and expands an understanding of the 1340s. What would David Göthberg think was a "proper link that more clearly says what it is linking" in this case? --RexxS (talk) 22:27, 3 April 2009 (UTC)