Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by MiszaBot II (talk | contribs) at 07:07, 12 June 2009 (Archiving 3 thread(s) (older than 7d) to Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for arbitration/Date delinking/Proposed decision/Archive 3.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Arbitrators active on this case

To update this listing, edit this template and scroll down until you find the right list of arbitrators. If updates to this listing do not immediately show, try purging the cache.

Clarify and appeal for clemency

I'm staggered that John is subject to any restrictions whatsoever based solely on this evidence. Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Date_delinking/Evidence#Clement_Attlee. Am I missing something else or is this really based on three edits? If not, I'm going to stand up and ask for the committee to consider clemency before this case is closed. Hiding T 10:51, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I have only seen your comment now. Please see my links provided on the 18th of last month at User_talk:Jayvdb#Query and my recent comment on the PD.. There is a long history of involvement here, which John does not mention in his rebuttal, and is not included in those diffs. However those examples are indicative of the gaming that has occurred, was contributed to fait accompli. If this gaming was not intentional, it was quite convenient all the same, due to the tools employed, like minds, or other. All we know is that John, who has a long history of pro-actively removing date links in articles, and of supporting Tony1 and BoobleWik, has repeatedly re-enforced the delinking of many articles, running the same script on the same article multiple times. If this is just chance, then the remedy is unfortunate but necessary to prevent further chances happening. They are too frequent to ignore. Using a tool is not an acceptable excuse for edit-warring. John Vandenberg 11:31, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I find I can't reconcile making four edits over such a period of time with the term edit warring and even if it does, when I look at our policy on edit warring, I find that "Editors who edit war after proper education, warnings, and blocks on the matter." The user has a clean block log. I can see a lot of discussions about edit warring in the talk page archives, but nothing relevant to this case. Fundamentally, I think if you're implementing this, every editor needs to start looking over their shoulder otherwise we'll find ourselves with an encyclopedia edited only by dynamic ip's, until we whittle those down too. Hiding T 11:53, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Three edits to that article, over a three month period, not four. Otherwise I tend to agree with you, Hiding. I think it is time for Jayvdb to "put up or shut up", as I believe they say in parliament. If he has better evidence (and I don't think he has) to support these allegations, pop up some diffs. Otherwise this proposed sanction is ludicrous. --John (talk) 21:06, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I will go on record, again, as saying that I don't think John should be getting any sanctions at all in this matter. Weeks or months between edits is not revert warring, and this sends a terrible message. I think the finding should be vacated and the motions struck. ++Lar: t/c 01:26, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Agree.  HWV258  02:02, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I've said it before, and I'll say it again. The sledgehammer punishment for John (someone who has casually and innocently waded into a revert war waged almost single-handedly by Tennis expert plus side skirmish with G-Man) cannot possibly be right - John's a gnome, and thus goes eveywhere, for crying out loud.

It seems to me this arbitration is making Tennis expert out as the tank man (sorry, I just had to slip that in after yesterday's anniversary). Make no mistake, he is not. Ohconfucius (talk) 02:21, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

To be accurate, John did put himself in the wrong. On 6 September 2008, he corrected the format of four dates in Neville Chamberlain and removed DA from the other dates. That did not contravene MOSNUM. G-Man promptly blind-reverted him, restoring the wrong format to the four dates without an edit summary. However, John duplicated his edits on 9 September (effectively a reversion) and that was a mistake. John also did almost exactly the same thing on Ramsey MacDonald - corrected three dates and removed DA on 6 September; blind-revert by G-Man same day; duplicated the edit on 9 September - except he left the edit summary "these links aren't going anywhere useful". John was wrong to effectively re-revert; it starts to become an edit-war, since in both articles his second edit was only 3 days after his first. So there's no point in opposing the proposed remedies on the grounds of "weeks and months".

But I have to agree with Lar's conclusion, although coming to it by a different route: John was wikignoming, going through a subset of articles (probably British politicians) and cleaning them up in accordance with MOSNUM as it was at the time. He went back to the same set a few days later, probably dismayed at finding his clean-up work had been "thrown out with the bath-water". Does anybody think that sanctions are really needed to persuade John not to do that again? He's not an edit-warrior - just read through User talk:John/date linking from 2006 where John (Guinnog) can be seen to be a sensitive admin who spent many hours neutrally mediating a dispute over guess what? ... date linking! John has his views on date-linking, as do all of us, but I still believe that through his wikignoming he was caught up in a dispute that he was never part of. I hope the arbitrators will find time to reflect on this. "There, but for the grace of God, go I" --RexxS (talk) 03:09, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind comments RexxS. It's hard to recall what exactly was going through my mind when I made that series of reverts 9 months ago. At the time I was in the habit of applying these uncontroversial MoS fixes (as I saw them at the time; perhaps naively, but then no one had warned me they would be seen as controversial) to articles on my watchlist. The best I can say is that as I unlinked the articles I must've thought "I thought I had already delinked these" and checked the history of Ramsey MacDonald, then reverted with the edit summary you picked out. This is the only time I think I consciously and knowingly edit-warred over date linking, if you can call one revert an edit war. I've already apologized for it and I repeat that apology here. Thanks too for bringing some insight, understanding of context and AGF to the matter. Here's a more detailed analysis and rebuttal of the evidence against me. --John (talk) 03:10, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

"Indefinite"

This phrase is being used an awful lot in this case. What's the definition and is there any right to appeal or sense that the community can overturn the length? Hiding T 11:36, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I've looked at a fair number of historical cases over the years. "Indefinite" usually means "until something changes". To give an example, User:Rootology was banned indefinitely in Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/MONGO#Rootology_banned. He stopped doing the thing that caused him to be banned and after two years asked Jimbo and Arbcom to let him return. They agreed as along as he agreed to not interact with MONGO. He's been back a year now and is an admin. Also, Arbcom decisions are appealed to User:Jimbo Wales and alterations to a closed case are requested at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment. Hope that is useful. MBisanz 11:55, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

All remedies can be appealed. Indefinite is used when the committee doesn't believe that "one year" will resolve the problem; it means "until significant behaviour change has occurred" and requires an appeal. John Vandenberg 12:47, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Mass date delinking, Remedy 1.3

I added Remedy 1.3 to balance the concerns that the dispute will resume after the case closes, with the idea that the Community can find a way forward now that the other remedies are in place. FloNight♥♥♥ 16:06, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

It seems a bit contradictory though; you restrict date linking for a defined period of 6 months (no matter what), and then you say that it shouldn't be done until a Community-approved process has developed. Dabomb87 (talk) 19:02, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

If it can be misunderstood, it could stand rephrasing; but it is seems clear enough to me: the restriction consists of the requirement that community approval of any such process be demonstrated to ArbCom before implementation. In other words, either six months or community approval is necessary. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:14, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I think this is a terrible encroachment on the community. For user conduct, all applicable remedies have been dealt with. But for formatting concerns, if the community comes to consensus and has a plan for moving forward, why should the community have to come to ArbCom first to have it "approved"? Arbcom isn't there to approve content decisions by the community, is it? – Quadell 19:09, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

All ArbCom approves here is the claim that there is consensus. Since that has been one of the major issues throughout this case, it seems only sensible to have a witness that consensus actually exists. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:14, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Septentrionalis said what I was going to say, except that there's a possible ambiguity whether it's "and" or "or". As Arbcom remedies are explicitly "indefinite" if longer than a year, I'd have to say that Septentrionalis's interpretation is more accurate than mine. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:19, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Clearly this could use rephrasing: For the next six months, any mass delinking of dates must demonstrate, before implementation, to ArbCom that there is community support amounting to WP:Consensus for the delinking process.? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:27, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Ah, it appears my statement was based on a misreading. On (much later) re-reading, I retract my objection and apologize for the confusion. – Quadell 00:15, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

This looks fine to me. Mass date delinking doesn't require ArbComs approval, just community consensus and that ArbCom is notified. --Apoc2400 (talk) 19:47, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

"1.3) All mass date delinking is restricted for six months. For six months, no mass date delinking should be done until the Arbitration Committee is notified of a Community approved process for the mass delinking."

Sorry, I stared at it and wondered whether it means:

1.3) No mass date delinking should be performed for six months or until the Committee is notified of a community-approved process for mass date linking—whichever is earlier."

Does it? Tony (talk) 07:54, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

That is a good paraphrase. The committee will be looking to endorse any community approved process before the community implements it. The more obvious the community approval, the less of a role the committee will play in determining whether the implementation can proceed. John Vandenberg 10:17, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying that this is the intended meaning. WRT your additional comment, I wonder whether you might discuss this with Arbitrator Vassyana, who commented after his vote: "This is a good proposal. It creates a preventative restriction that automatically lifts upon notice of a community approved process." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tony1 (talk • contribs) 11:57, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

As I said above, if community approval is not questionable, this proposal would mean that the committee is bound to lift the restriction as soon as it is notified. I doubt we would automatically lift it if the community approval is contrived and/or the notice is deceptive.

Do you agree that if we are notified of a "community approved process", Vassyana and I have said the same thing? John Vandenberg 13:34, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Not really: Arb. Vassyana says "automatically lifts upon notice of a community approved process"; you have interpolated greater detail, which may or may not represent what other arbitrators think: "The more obvious the community approval, the less of a role the committee will play in determining whether the implementation can proceed." I'm unsure what to make of it. But at the moment, the more important issue is how ArbCom defines "mass delinking" ... see below. Tony (talk) 16:54, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Question to arbs: Would this also apply to re-linking? That wouldn't be any more helpful than delinking. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:42, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Well the difference is that no one is arguing that we should link everything or even most things. So anyone who wanted to do "mass" linking would be going against pretty much everyone's consensus and could be addressed quickly. As for the community notifying Arbcom of a consensus, I'd like to suggest that whoever pulls that together is not one of the named parties here. Its time for fresh voices and better discussion. dm (talk) 21:58, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Another question: what is the definition of 'mass delinking'? Back in February Arb Jayvdb stated

If you are consciously removing each bracket, and edit articles at a rate which is consistent with that, the injunction doesnt restrict you. The injunction doesnt completely prohibit the use of scripts, however editors should not be primarily focused on delinking.

But at different times I've ended up blocked by one admin for exactly that sort of editing - delinking in the course of my normal gnoming activities - and also not blocked by another admin for exactly the same sort of editing. And Arb Wizardman has perfomed this sort of editing but escaped censure. So we need clarification of what's allowed and what's not. Colonies Chris (talk) 22:27, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Three questions for the arbitrators and the community

In relation to the matter above, dm claimed:

... the difference is that no one is arguing that we should link everything or even most things. So anyone who wanted to do "mass" linking would be going against pretty much everyone's consensus and could be addressed quickly.

Forgive my cynicism, but User:Kendrick7 went on a brazen campaign of relinking dates during and after the blocking of Colonies Chris for performing his standard gnoming duties. Kendrick7 was reported at the ArbCom enforcement page. Nothing was done about it (admin. said: oh, I didn't catch him in time).

Tony, in this war, bad things were done by both sides, let's move past specific incidents and look at the bigger picture. I have no problem with the proposal being worded so that both linking and delinking are prohibited, but if there's *one* thing that we can all agree that came out of Ryan's RFC is that there is consensus that some dates may be linked if appropriate, but not all dates, nor even most dates. Can you point to anyone who's been arguing for more linking than that since Ryan's RFC? dm (talk) 08:55, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

This has little to do with the matter I have raised. "Relinking" has been removed from the wording. Why? Tony (talk) 16:54, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

• Tony's comments and concerns above are, I would say, a natural reaction to the rather poisoned atmosphere which surrounds the case. Your reaction is understandable, but the fears are symptomatic not only of the absence of trust in the linkers, but questions over the justice of the meandering process itself. Ohconfucius (talk) 09:08, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

• And yes, there is at least one editor who continues to talk about retaining all square brackets around dates. Ohconfucius (talk) 09:11, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

• However, no editor has advocated linking all dates. Please do not try to deceive the community by asking if they do or don't want date links if you really wanting something else removed (the square brackets; the markup). There is a simpler software solution to removing date links that doesn't involve the use of scripts/bots to perform the operation. It also leaves open the possibility of forcing date links where such links are intentional. All the while this leaves open the door for fixing auto formatting (something community desires in some form, and has not rejected outright except in its current incarnation). —Locke Cole • t • c 10:51, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to know:

1. why the reference to relinking in the "temporary" injunction has been removed from the current proposal,
2. why, despite persistant problems for admins and editors alike in defining "mass delinking"—and apparent injustices—the term remains vague in the proposal; and
3. how the ArbCom policy, which is very clear under "Injunctions" that such measures have effect only during a case, mandates what appears to be a huge expansion of ArbCom's power.Tony (talk) 07:42, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

• You know that one of the big problems all throughout this case has been scope creep... Ohconfucius (talk) 08:34, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

• Frankly I wish the scope had been expanded to cover all of MOS at the outset (and at least one arbitrator agreed when he accepted this case); the behavioral patterns (off-wiki collusion and cabal-like behavior) become more obvious if you look at other disputes at MOS. —Locke Cole • t • c 10:51, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

to be clear...

To be clear, ArbCom is taking the position of judging whether or not a consensus exists for implementation in the desire of promoting peace? — BQZip01 —  23:06, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I think so, and the consensus would be formed at another RfC that is in the works. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:13, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Motion 1.3: the meaning of "mass delinking" is still unclear

I do believe that if ArbCom is to take the extraordinary step of imposing restrictions on the entire WPian community, including anyone in the world who visits and makes an edit, that the meaning of the term "mass delinking" needs to be clarified, either in the wording of the motion or here. Admins and other editors deserve to know where the boundaries lie. By contrast, the operation of the temporary injunction was marred by inconsistency in the application of blocking for alleged breaches. That is good for no one.

I believe it is reasonable for the community to assume that John Vandenberg's explanation, as Colonies Chris cites above, will pertain:

"If you are consciously removing each bracket, and edit articles at a rate which is consistent with that, the injunction doesn't restrict you. The injunction doesn't completely prohibit the use of scripts, however editors should not be primarily focused on delinking."

I'm sorry to nit-pick, but the devil is in the detail, and feedback on a few solid examples would help admins and other editors to get it right.

Are the following examples acceptable? In each scenario, no note is left on the article talk page by the unlinking editor, before or after his/her edit. The unlinking editor politely discusses any related issue if ever raised on her/his talk page concerning such edits. If the date links are reinstated by another editor, the unlinking editor is polite and does not challenge the reverter.

1. The editor performs a copy-edit to improve the language/style of a medium- to large-size article by treating about 10 words or phrases (let's say from eight to 12 on average), and as well, unlinks the full (month-day-year) dates in the article. The process takes 5–10 minutes. The editor does this on average three times a day.
2. Same as (1.), except that no full dates are linked; instead, the editor copy-edits and unlinks isolated month-day and year items that s/he considers do not pass the relevance test that the community endorsed (now in MOSNUM and MOSLINK). Average three times a day.
3. Same as (1. or 2.), but an average of ten articles a day.
4. The editor unlinks only full and apparently irrelevant dm or year items without associated article improvement in an average of one article a day, but treats an average of, say, three other articles each day in which date unlinking is not involved.
5. Same as (5.), but an average of three articles and three other articles a day, respectively.
6. A more prolific wikignome treats 16 articles a day, four minutes on each, in which about half (eight) might involve at least one unlinking of a chronological item.

These examples seem to me not to represent the campaign of "mass unlinking" that ArbCom might be concerned would run the risk of causing disruption. Can ArbCom please comment so the community knows where it stands? Tony (talk) 16:54, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

All six seem acceptable to me, although I would not encourage 4 & 5; generally speaking, edits whose only purpose is to unlink dates would best be made after the relevant guidelines had been adopted and stabilized. Kirill  13:56, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Kirill assessment of the situation. FloNight♥♥♥ 15:09, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I'll third that. None of the examples are "mass unlinking" by any reasonable interpretation of the phrase, although edits that only unlink dates might be unwise at this time for different reasons. — Coren  17:59, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Per Kirill. -- FayssalF - 18:27, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

An editor who does "6" on a regular basis could be crossing the line if they delink every date/year/century from those eight pages. If they are leaving the most important links, or adding links to "xxxx in science", they should be fine provided they don't edit war. John Vandenberg 00:06, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Two more examples of clarification needed:

1. A user who is about to submit an article or list to FAC (featured article candidate) or FLC (featured list candidate) delinks the dates in the article to comply with the criteria for those processes. The user does not make any other changes in that edit, but does not proceed to delink dates in any other article. I think an exception can be made for that instance also.
2. A reviewer of an FAC or FLC delinks the dates in the article/list that they are reviewing. They do not make any more changes in terms of edits to that article, but their delinking is made in conjuntion with a full list of suggestions on how to improve the article/list at the FAC/FLC page. The reviewer does not delink dates in any other article. Dabomb87 (talk) 17:24, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Both of those look fine as well, although they can obviously be gamed by someone sufficiently motivated; if someone submits a hundred lists to FLC per day, delinking them as they go, that would be problematic. It may be better to frame the first one as "a significant editor of an article or list who is about to submit it...". Kirill  13:56, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I would report such a person myself, in view of the need to regain trust among editors on the issue. A hundred nominations to FLC by one editor in a month would be laughed out of the house on the basis of compliance with the criteria, in any case. I think we are safe from such abuse. Tony (talk) 14:49, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Kirill's comments. FloNight♥♥♥ 15:09, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Per Kirill and also agree with Tony. -- FayssalF - 18:27, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks to the arbitrators for their timely and reasonable replies. I'll second Tony in saying (as a very active editor at FLC and fairly active at FAC) that no editor with any bit of common sense would do that (what Kirill described) and expect to get away with it. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:17, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Kirill - featured review forums are heavily trafficked, so these delinking scenarios have plenty of careful eyes on them, lots of discussion, and the process itself limits the number of articles affected. John Vandenberg 00:11, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Proposed topic ban and restrictions on Tony1

I have not been involved in this dispute. I do occasional work on MOS pages (I have some relevant real life experience), but I am not one of the "regulars" there.

I apologize for commenting at this late stage in these proceedings. It was only yesterday, however, that I looked at the proposed decision for the first time. There is an important consideration that the proposed topic ban and edit restrictions being considered for Tony1 overlook: Tony1 is one of the very, very best stylists and wordsmiths on Misplaced Pages. His user space essays and exercises on writing are of publishable quality, and superior to much of what is professionally publshed. Therefore, banning him indefinitely from editing any policy or guideline page on style deprives the Misplaced Pages project of a valuable resource specifically where his expertise is most useful.

Because of the nature of wiki editing, the MOS pages require periodic maintenance: copy editing, organizing, assuring consistency of guidelines throughout all the MOS pages, and wikifying the MOS pages themselves so they serve as models of MOS compliance. Tony1 excels at that work. He also excels at both formulating specific style guidelines and in wording guidelines clearly. It would be self-defeating for Misplaced Pages to deny itself all future contributions by Tony1 to style policies and guidelines.

Evidently, the issues of date linking and auto-formatting arouse extraordinary passions on both sides. I don't condone edit warring on that, or any, issue. However, prohibiting Tony1 from doing constructive work on any style policy or guideline is overly broad, especially because of the value to Misplaced Pages of Tony1's very many useful contributions in that area. Since the issues of date linking and auto-formatting are so extraordinarily contentious, it should not be necessary to bar Tony1 from all editing of style policies or guidelines, especially indefinitely. (If indefinitely is interpreted as until there is a change in circumstances, and Tony1 is broadly barred from the field, what circumstances could change that that would end the restrictions?)

One way to narrow these restrictions, and still retain Tony1's constructive contributions to Misplaced Pages style, would be to make the restrictions specific to date linking and date formatting. Another would be to restrict Tony1, for some reasonable but definite period, from making substantive changes to style guidelines without first obtaining consensus for the change on a talk page. A third would be to prohibit specific conduct that constitutes edit warring.

Please consider the restrictions to be imposed on Tony1 with a view to retaining the benefit that Misplaced Pages derives from his constructive contributions to Misplaced Pages's style guidelines and policies. Thank you. Finell (Talk) 18:45, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

"what circumstances could change that that would end the restrictions?" - Tony could demonstrate conclusively that he is able to play nicely with others. -- Earle Martin 19:44, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

As I understand remedy 9.3, Tony will be free to contribute anywhere in the MOS talk pages as well as in user space, and I expect that he will continue to do so with his usual skill and expertise. Now that the heat has gone out of the dispute (and I am disappointed that ArbCom has not acknowledged Ryan's WP:DATEPOLL in achieving much of that), Tony and the other affected parties will have the opportunity by their contributions and behaviour to demonstrate that these restrictions are unnecessary. Because of the nature of "indefinite" restrictions, I sincerely hope that ArbCom will review the situation in a few months time, and be open to hearing an argument that these sanctions could then be profitably lifted. --RexxS (talk) 20:27, 11 June 2009 (UTC)