Misplaced Pages

:Requests for arbitration/Date delinking - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Ryan Postlethwaite (talk | contribs) at 23:20, 12 January 2009 (Create). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 23:20, 12 January 2009 by Ryan Postlethwaite (talk | contribs) (Create)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Case Opened on 23:20, 12 January 2009 (UTC)


Watchlist all case pages: 1, 2, 3, 4
This case is currently open; as such, no changes to this page should be made. Any additions should be reverted: if you have evidence you wish the Arbitrators to consider, post it at the evidence page.

Please do not edit this page directly unless you are either 1) an Arbitrator, 2) an Arbitration Clerk, or 3) adding yourself to this case. Statements on this page are original comments provided when the Committee was initially requested to Arbitrate this page (at Requests for arbitration), and serve as opening statements; as such, they should not be altered. Any evidence you wish to provide to the Arbitrators should go on the /Evidence subpage.

Arbitrators, the parties, and other editors may suggest proposed principles, findings, and remedies at /Workshop. That page may also be used for general comments on the evidence. Arbitrators will then vote on a final decision in the case at /Proposed decision.

Once the case is closed, editors may add to the #Log of blocks, bans, and restrictions as needed, but this page should not be edited otherwise. Please raise any questions at Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration#Requests for clarification, and report violations of remedies at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement.

Involved parties

Requests for comment

Statement by Locke Cole

This has been an ongoing content dispute for the past six months that has repeatedly degenerated into incivility and poor behavior on the part of the proponents of this change. At the moment we have editors using a single script to mass delink dates (collectively over thousands of articles) who have been asked to stop because their changes are disputed and do not have consensus. We've held numerous discussions, conducted a month long RFC (which involved the community and was listed in the watchlist) and have no consensus for these mass automated changes as they're being enacted. In a prior ArbCom decision it was stated:

Editors who are collectively or individually making large numbers of similar edits, and are apprised that those edits are controversial or disputed, are expected to attempt to resolve the dispute through discussion. It is inappropriate to use repetition or volume in order to present opponents with a fait accompli or to exhaust their ability to contest the change. This applies to many editors making a few edits each, as well as a few editors making many edits.

— Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Episodes_and_characters_2/Proposed_decision#Fait_accompli

All of the editors involved in this dispute are aware of this decision (they were warned about it months ago), but they continue to operate under the assumption that their actions have consensus. I urge the committee to accept this case so the behavior (incivility, edit warring, stalking, personal attacks, and so forth) of those involved can be looked at. I understand the committee doesn't take up content disputes, but I fear this situation will not end without binding arbitration as those involved seem unwilling to consider compromises which don't involve automated date delinking. Thank you for your consideration. —Locke Cole • t • c 03:00, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Motion request

If accepted I would request that the committee pass a motion stopping all automated or semi-automated edits of this fashion until the conclusion of arbitration. —Locke Cole • t • c 03:00, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Limited response to Dabomb87

I do not believe Mediation or a Third Opinion would help here. We've already solicited the entire community via a watchlist notice, and a slightly uninvolved administrator (Masem) has tried multiple times to try and mediate the issue. To no avail, it seems. The core behavioral issue here is the incivility and the mass unlinking by automated means (the "Fait accompli") while objections and disputes remain unresolved or unanswered. Further than that, there remains the disparaging behavior of those who simply wish to ignore objections ("this is a waste of time", "don't you have something better to do", "this is only being continued by a 'gang of five'", etc). Remarks which are unhelpful at reaching a consensus, I might add. —Locke Cole • t • c 04:27, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Limited response to Tony1

I'm not asking the committee to decide the content dispute, I'm asking the committee to look at the behavior of those involved in the content dispute. Specifically those running automated or semi-automated tools to force their preferred version on the rest of us, but also the uncivil behavior of those participating in the discussions. —Locke Cole • t • c 09:34, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Limited response to Arthur Rubin and Masem

The overall goal of this, for me anyways, is to remove the fait accompli from the table. This situation right now makes it impossible (or really difficult) to discuss the issue when a sense of inevitability pervades all discussions ("we're doing this, so talk all you want, but while you were typing that up, I delinked another hundred articles"). This inevitability isn't lost on the proponents of the change either: I get the general impression they feel empowered in these discussions to dismiss compromises and alternatives out of hand (yet another reason for the mass delinkings to stop). Hence my motion request. The community should be able to handle this, but not while editors are pushing their preferred version of things on the rest of us. Worth noting: there are 6,930,237 articles on Misplaced Pages, I really doubt all of them have been delinked already. —Locke Cole • t • c 11:56, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Response to Sam Blacketer

The fait accompli is from the sheer magnitude of the edits being performed. As John Vandenberg notes, Date delinker has performed nearly 9,000 edits of this variety. Unless those of us on the other side choose to engage in identical behavior (using a bot or semi-automatic script to relink dates) they effectively present us with a situation that's already to their liking. And the thing to keep in mind is that Date delinker isn't the only one performing these operations. It wouldn't surprise me if there were already 50,000 edits of this type (combined amongst all automated and semi-automated accounts). —Locke Cole • t • c 00:11, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Tony1

(1) The filing party begins by stating that "This has been an ongoing content dispute". Yet the lead clearly states that:

will not make editorial statements or decisions about how articles should read ("content decisions"). Please do not ask the committee to make these kinds of decisions, as they will not do so.

That the basis of the application is a content dispute is reinforced by this subsequent statement by the filing party: "I understand the committee doesn't take up content disputes, but I fear this situation will not end without binding arbitration as those involved seem unwilling to consider compromises which don't involve automated date delinking."

On this basis, I submit that the application be dismissed.

(2) If there are residual concerns about the claims of "incivility and poor behaviour on the part of the proponents of this change", I believe that a thorough examination of behaviour would conclude that there have been instances of frayed tempers on both sides, but that given the length of the discourse (some six months), this is not out of the ordinary and that other forums have been and could still be used to gain resolution. I do not see incivility as a major ongoing problem, and feel that in this context it has been overstated.

(3) I want to put on record that in the view of many users, the trialling, implementation and refinement of automated and semi-automated means for assisting editors to comply with the style guides WRT the removal of date-autoformatting, and the cleaning up the rather messy state of underlying date formats, have been characterised by politeness, cooperation and sensitivity to critical feedback.

(4) I submit that the filing party's construction of consensus in this context is not a balanced view. In particular, Proposal 3 in the first RfC cited above provided strong consensus that the use of an automatic or semi-automatic process to bring article text into compliance with any particular guideline in the Manual of Style (dates and numbers) requires no separate or prior consensus. Tony (talk) 08:47, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Addendum

  • (a) Colonies Chris says it. Much of what I was going to add about the substantive allegations in the statements by the filers and their associates has been clinched in the more recent statement below by Colonies Chris.
  • (b) The problem of scope and purpose. I believe the Committee may face a difficult task in defining exactly what it should arbitrate on in relation to this application. These comments may be relevant.
  • There appears little that ArbCom would want to do concerning incivility in this matter, which has not been out of the ordinary—indeed, the matter has been characterised by relative civility, even though the filer has concentrated on making a case that rudeness and chaos abound. Arb. Rlevse's concerns for "more input on behavioral issues related to MOSNUM and attempts to resolve them" (and related concerns by Arb. Vassyana) are laudable, but my experience in that forum suggests that MOSNUM talk will just have to wade through its difficulties as best it can, just as always: MOSNUM, indeed, deals with the most contentious issues of all style guides. I believe that any threat to the "stability to articles" (a concern for Arb. FloNight) has been overstated. Colonies Chris provides statistical and anecdotal evidence of a quite different situation. In summary, I think we're over the worst of it, and things go on despite the tension surrounding the issue (notably, in the past few weeks Locke Cole and Tennis expert have been very supportive of an unrelated initiative of mine).
  • Trying to determine the consensus for the changes would create a very difficult task for ArbCom. While I can see why Arb. Davies hints at this scope, producing an official interpretation of the detailed RfCs at MOSNUM, which were not framed in a way that was ever going to produce clear results, is not something I'd wish on the arbitrators; in addition, those RfCs would need to be interpreted in the context of a huge amount of other information—they are only the tip of the iceberg. I note Arb. Blacketer's comment that "the committee cannot issue binding policy on the issues within the RFCs".
  • Several Arbitrators are concerned about bot usage. Although using this as a test-case for establishing/confirming/changing the rules for bot usage might be possible, the technical complexities needed to underpin a judgement make me quiver. If this is to be part or all of the scope of a case, I submit that the scope be very tightly defined from the start (as suggested by Arb. Vandenberg). Please note that a recent RfC produced convincing consensus that special consensus is unnecessary for bots to assist in compliance with styleguides.
  • Throwing out the case might be an option. While focusing on small intervals of time or collating diffs over a long interval (as above) might give the impression that there are "no visible signs of abating" (Arb. Coren), the noise created by the few is likely to recede, given the strong support in the community for a "smarter" approach to linking and for the removal of date autoformatting. Waiting it out, I suspect, has been on our minds for some time, and is probably the natural and wiki-ish thing to do. Tony (talk) 10:35, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Statement by User:Greg L

I really do want to avoid having my activities on one of my hobbies—Misplaced Pages—defined by the whims of others. So I expect (hope) to have a minimum of participation here. I just don’t want to be dragged down in the mud with unproductive bickering over something like how to format a date in an article. I have a practice of my own that is fully in compliance with MOSNUM as well as with the current community consensus according the latest RfCs. Note the beginning here in Kilogram. As you can see, right at the beginning is a date, 7 April 1795, that is unlinked. Further, since the SI’s kilogram is not closely associated with the United States, I elected to consistently use the international-style date format throughout the article. Note also the two date-related links, • 1795 in science and • 1799 in science, that I added in the See also section of the Kilogram article. This is but one of many techniques to let readers know of the availability of these types of history-related articles. Furthermore, this method fully discloses the precise nature of the article a reader would be taken to if they clicked on the link. Since Tony, I, and others found ourselves often repeating the same message on WT:MOSNUM to ‘newcomer’ editors concerned about date de‑linking after seeing Lightbot activity affect them, I wrote WP:Why dates should not be linked to help ease the transition.

I do think I can be of assistance here by offering this observation: Towards resolving this dispute, arbitrators need a convenient and succinct way to establish facts regarding the current community consensus on linking and related bot activity. Arbitrators should know that Dabomb87 has produced a nice summary of the relevant RfCs at User:Dabomb87/Summary of the Date Linking RFCs. It is a convenient portal as it contains links to the RfCs themselves. These RfCs also remind us of a central consideration to resolved here in arbitration: is bot activity (or planned bot activity) in accordance with the current community consensus?

Note that we have editors like Arthur Rubin re‑linking month/day dates, like this edit today to 2009 in sports. The end result, of course, is to reestablish links to articles that for the most part have nothing to do with sports. This is contrary to not only the general consensus of the RfCs, but also this portion of WP:Manual of Style (links), which states that links should be relevant connections to the subject of another article that will help readers to understand the current article more fully. Said another way, links should be germane and topical to the subject matter of the article.

Clearly, with 6,930,237 articles on en.Misplaced Pages, there are probably over a million date links to be fixed, the vast majority of which take readers to unrelated historical trivia that has little if any relevance to the topic of the article containing the links. This is far too many to manually bring into compliance; human-guided bots are the only way I know of to address such an undertaking. The RfCs show that it should be a rare date indeed that is linked in the form of blued, in‑line body text. So the very few dates that should be linked and which are accidentally swept up by bot activity can easily be hand-restored. Furthermore, as I have illustrated above, there are alternative, often superior ways to let readers know about relevant material, such as entries in See also sections. Hand-restoring a relatively small number of links is a good opportunity for editors to avail themselves of these other techniques.

Another important factor to consider is which camp of editors is best trying to adhere to the community consensus on this matter. How is it that we are all here at ArbCom after a month‑long series of RfCs that enjoyed wide input? I am not seeing any pattern of behavioral problems with the respondents to this complaint. Tony and Lightmouse have exemplary block logs (here and here, respectively). Both are experienced and influential editors with a long track record on Misplaced Pages. The only block on Tony’s record was quickly withdrawn as being done in error. These sort of track records just don’t happen by accident; they happen only by an editor exhibiting a consistent pattern of being logical and reasonable and by abiding by Misplaced Pages’s rules—even when under duress when acting in a leadership capacity, as Tony often finds himself in. What is not passing my “grin test” here is the block log for the filing party, Locke Cole, nor the block log for Aurthur Rubin. There seems to be a pattern here regarding the willingness of notable editors on just one side of the dispute to conform to expected conducted on Misplaced Pages. I think this is germane to the dispute’s origins and believe any reasonable interpretation of the RfCs will bear this out.

BTW, I want to specifically draw attention to and endorse the statements of the following editors:

  1. This statement by Colonies Chris. Notwithstanding that it is a hearty dose of plain-speak, I believe it all to be true and highly relevant.

Greg L (talk) 22:39, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Dabomb87

The diversity of the English Misplaced Pages means that disputes are inevitable, and it is unrealistic to believe that 100% support can be garnered for most things. The Date Linking RFCs clearly indicated that there is consensus against most, if not all, dates being linked (see my comment here for a more detailed breakdown). Besides the RFCs, examples of this consensus against delinking dates exist in our Featured articles and Featured lists, where the delinking of dates was accepted without any form of resistance, as well as a preliminary survey. Second, Locke's point of incivility does not seem well-supported. The one instance in which inciviliy was considered a major problem, when a situation culminated in an RFC on User:Tony1's conduct, the survey of attitudes there indicated that not only was Tony1's conduct within policy, but his delinking of dates was not disruptive at all. I would like to impress upon the Arbitrators that both sides of the debate have remained civil most of the time. Lastly, I do not believe that all other courses of dispute resolution have been used. Other than the Date Linking RFCs, there has been little interaction from editors, admin or not, to give their input. The ANI threads were usually importations of the heated MOSNUM discussions, and most of the admins at MOSNUM were somehow involved in the debate and could not provide a neutral third opinion. I will note that those who have been complaining about the date delinking are largely a small minority group. In most cases, when users have asked questions about the delinking activities, they are given a polite, easy-to-understand answer, which is usually accepted without much complaint. The fact that there has not been a flurry of new complaints demonstrates that there is significant consensus for the date delinkings to occur. Therefore, I ask that the Arbitration Commitee decline this case and allow other forms of dispute resolution, such as mediation and third opinion, to take place. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:42, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Statement from User:Ohconfucius

I would respectfully disagree with those who have said this has been largely civil, and would ask Arbcom to take this case because it is undoubtedly a behavioural issue stemming from a small group of individuals' inability to accept valid consensus. User:Locke Cole and I have locked horns over the issue almost continually from September 2008 onwards. For the record, said editor is one of approximately five individuals totally opposed to removal of Date-autoformatting, and must be credited for having raised the issue most vocally in a manner akin to ownership. This subject/guideline may have the dubious honour of having the record number of attempts to scale the Reischtag. There has been a micron-thin veneer of civility (usually in terse language wrapped in brown paper) but the underlying incivility is undeniable. You may not find extreme civility from me nor from Greg, but our wrapping is transparent film, so what you see is what you get. The plaintiff has had a strong influence on how this debate has taken on a personal dimension over the most trivial issue of a pair of square brackets, using all the bureaucratic means at his disposal. I do confess to having given some best efforts to stay calm, parry and recoil, but find myself no match for the plaintiff's aggressive and unrelenting onslaught. The plaintiff has consistently made it clear that he considers any form of delinking disruptive behaviour. This uncompromising stance makes for uneasy discussion. Things have gone so far and gone on for so long that I simply no longer believe that he takes no pleasure in seeing me blocked.

In addition to creating and expanding articles, I am interested in carrying out WP policies and guidelines, whereas the plaintiff is on record as not only opposing consensus on the issue (as borne out by the RfCs closed 25 December 2008), but also quoted as saying that WP:MOSNUM is "only a guideline" implying that compliance therewith is not mandatory. He has been all over town on his complains in attempts to stymie all efforts to clear the detritus, which a very significant number of users have expressed strongly wanting done away with within the project. I have stripped dates off some 8,600 articles as at today's date, and have received only about ten complaints, most of which have nothing to do with the principle of removing dates. One notable complaint was this torrent of abuse. Of course Locke was well within his rights to demand clarification on the matter at RfC, but his adamant refusal to take 'no' for an answer, which ordinarily might do him credit for tenacity, can also be viewed as having a disruptive dimension. Anyhow, there were few indications that Locke was ever committed to be bound by the outcome of the RfC, so this move hardly comes as a surprise. In fact. Lock has been strategically planning seizing this committee since 17 November.

To conclude, The way forward? I have already moved on, and am now concentrating my MOSNUM efforts to unifying date formats within articles. I am glad this ArbCom request is the last resort, because I would dearly like to see an end to this matter, which has been the most gigantesque distraction. Ohconfucius (talk) 04:13, 11 January 2009 (UTC) (reworked from edits 15:43, 10 January 2009 (UTC) and 01:12, 11 January 2009)

Addendum

Not happy with the state of disruption he and his cohorts have sown in WP, a battle appears to have erupted over the merger of Misplaced Pages:Only make links that are relevant to the context into Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style (links) by User:Kotniski, and the most pointy edits which the plaintiff is attempting to put through in the latter. While there may be some limited discussion and agreement to merge the two, the timing of that action, together with the nature of amendments which have been made by the plaintiff (thus opening up another front in this dispute) while this WP:MOSNUM arbitration request was being prepared (it dates from 17 November 2008) is under consideration strikes me as being reckless and in contempt of process at worst; at best, I consider it unwise. I contend that this would put Locke's good faith into question. Ohconfucius (talk) 02:25, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Important statement regarding User:date delinker

There seems to be a misconception by a couple of arbitrators that the above account is a bot. I am the operator of this account. I believe it has been made clear that the account is not a bot. Edits made using the account at present rely predominantly on Auto Wiki Browser - please refer to the Mission Statement on the Userpage. Before AWB approval was gained, reliance was put on multi-windowed functionality of Firefox to achieve edit speeds of several pages a minute, which triggered WP's spam-guard mechanisms and alerted some admins to block the suspected bot. My arguments that I was not operating a bot was looked at and was accepted by User:Luna Santin, User:Fritzpoll and User:JLaTondre. Ohconfucius (talk) 14:35, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Limited response to User:Kotniski

With all due respect to the excellent technical efforts of Kotniski, his sage advice and his in my view correct reading of the consensus, the process he believed was broken is only appears so because a handful of individuals, led by the plaintiff, have demonstrated utter disrespect for the consensus, using all means at their disposal to repeatedly "reinterpret" the declared will of the people. I have full confidence in ArbCom that this subversion not be allowed to pass, for it will surely be a day for the annals of WP as the beginning of the end - one of its fundamental pillars, the consensus model will be irreparably shattered, to be replaced by a bureacracy. The only other way I can see of ensuring no disputes on such matters in future would be to replace it with directives from the top. Ohconfucius (talk) 16:01, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Guy Peters

Although there is no consensus how many dates should be linked (opinions differ from only the most important, which bring huge additional value, to all dates), there is clear consensus that some dates should be linked always.

Dabomb87, Lightmouse and others against this consensus robotically remove all links to dates. If they were successful, articles from 499 BC to 2059 would be orphaned which is against WP:NOTPAPER. If they wish delete articles from 499 BC to 2059, the only proper way for doing so is WP:AfD.

Dabomb87 additionally wikistalked me, most recently WordPress.com. This is quite disrupting in continuation to work for the Misplaced Pages which I started in 2003. —Guy Peters 10:47, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Limited response to Arthur Rubin & Franamax

Delinking still continues and despite the effort of Dabomb87, Lightmouse and others, millions of articles cannot be delinked in few months time. —Guy Peters 11:02, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Limited response to Tony1

Years are not autoformated, only days and months. —Guy Peters 11:06, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Statement from Earle Martin

I did not participate in the recent RfC on year linking, as at the time I both found the size of the discussion overwhelming, in addition to not having had any stake in the matter from prior experience.

A few days ago I became involved in a discussion regarding the repeated removal of a single year link from the lede of an article by Lightbot. I requested Lightmouse on his talk page to suspend the bot's blanket removal of year links until consensus for such an action was demonstrated.

This was immediately after I had taken the time to go through the RfC in search. While there were undeniably a number of voices (roughly 40) agreeing with the proposal that "Year links should never be made", there were more (roughly 55) agreeing with the proposal that "Year links should be made in certain cases". This is not a consensus for either point of view.

I was only met with a reply from Dabomb87 that I shouldn't "be surprised if you see a rash of editors suppressing a discussion that has been brought up many times", and adding that "It is time to move on". In other words, if you raise the issue you'll be told to shut up, so go away. I do not believe that it is appropriate behavior for any editor to make another feel unwelcome in participating in this fashion.

When I took my concerns to WT:MOSNUM, I was accused of "forum shopping" by Ohconfucius and greeted with a torrent of aggressive language and swearing by Greg L: "the puke you expect our articles should be linking to... just because you can prove you can stomach through reading that shit will only prove that you like reading mindless shit... turning yet more main body text into a giant blue turd". Reading through some of the archive links provided above by Locke Cole shows my experience was far from unique.

It is my concern, both as an editor with an opinion in this debate, and an administrator watching the situation, that the behavior of several individuals in this area equates to no less than an ownership issue over the whole site, by using automated or semi-automated tools to forcibly apply an opinion on style across articles on a vast scale in the absence of any policy requirement for it or even widespread consensus.

Please note that I am not asking the ArbCom to rule on the content issue of whether dates should be linked; I am perfectly aware that that is beyond their remit. Whatever the result is for that in the future, all parties should be expected to abide by it and discuss it in a fair and sanguine manner, as for any other policy issue. No result has yet been found, and therefore it is inappropriate for any editor or group of editors to be acting as if it has. For that reason I have added myself as a co-sponsor of this RfAr. -- Earle Martin 18:50, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Additional: I am becoming more and more concerned with the behavior of Greg L. Edits such as this one are totally unacceptable behavior. -- Earle Martin 21:33, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Statement from User:Colonies Chris

I’ll divide my statement into two parts; my opinion, and some facts about the community reaction to date delinking.

First of all, this whole case is a blatant example of forum shopping. Locke Cole has opposed these changes tooth and nail from the very start – first he lost the argument on the changes to MOSNUM, then he tried to claim that delinking was disruptive even though it was line with MOSNUM; then he tried to get me, Lightmouse and others banned from using AWB to make these edits; then he lost two RFCs, and made spurious complaints at WP:ANI, then even when he’d lost the RFCs – one of them specifically on the issue of using automated processes to implement the MoS - he’s still trying to say that there’s isn’t consensus to bring the encyclopaedia into line with its own Manual of Style, and also saying that MOSNUM is only a guideline and he doesn’t have to obey it anyway. This is someone who just can’t accepts that things aren’t going his way and is disrupting everyone else to make his point. The claim of incivility is just another spurious attempt to keep the dispute going – as Tony1 said "there have been instances of frayed tempers on both sides" - but none of it has resulted in anything that the ArbCom need be spending its time looking at.

The claim that ‘the bot has unlinked everything already’ is utter nonsense. I’ve just picked a random date (September 12) and checked what links to it – there are about 7000 links, even disregarding links to calendar-related articles. Multiply that up by 365, divide by, say, 5, to allow for multiple date links in articles, and you have about half a million articles still with some form of date linking, at a conservative estimate. What the objectors seem to forget when they object to automated delinking is that those links weren’t made by people carefully considering the merits of whether a particular date should be linked. They were made because that’s what the MoS recommended (in the case of autoformatting) or because the syntax of autoformatting is so unintuitive that the average editor tended to just link all bare years and other date fragments and time periods willy-nilly.

Here are some facts; most of what I do on WP is gnoming. Since the MoS was changed to deprecate autoformatting, I've been routinely unlinking dates in the course of my other edits. I estimate that I've edited about 10,000 articles, and roughly 70% of those edits involved some sort of date delinking – either full dates or bare years or the occasional more exotic combination. That's about 7000 articles delinked. If delinking were seriously disputed – by more than just Locke Cole and a few vocal others - you’d expect me to get a lot of complaints. How many have I had? Seven. In three cases I explained about the MoS and my argument was accepted. In two cases the editors wouldn’t accept that, so I just left them to it. And in two cases editors were so uncivil that no attempt at reasoned argument could have made any difference. This gives the lie to Locke Cole's suggestion that the changes are being steamrollered in. It's just that he doesn’t agree, plain and simple, and he won’t concede that the argument is lost. The community accepts the changes. The evidence is clear.

Response to Tennis Expert

This claim repeated ad nauseum that there is a local consensus (on tennis-related articles) that overrides the MoS needs to be exposed for the self-serving nonsense that it is. When various dates in tennis-related articles were being unlinked, in line with the MoS, and Tennis Expert was reverting those changes, in contravention of the MoS, where were the other tennis editors standing up to support this supposed local consensus? There were none - because it existed only in Tennis Expert's mind, as a justification for his insistence that everyone do things his way. Like it or not, hardly anyone has complained – see the facts in my statement above. And I have not imtimidated anyone, nor steam-rollered, edit warred, nor made aggressive posts and edit summaries. The evidence is open to anyone to examine.

How telling it is that the best Tennis Expert can come up with to support his allegation of edit warring is a complaint that he himself filed, and whose outcome was NOVIO. Strange he didn't mention that.


Add additional statements if necessary, for each directly involved user. Comments by users outside the dispute go on the talk page. -->

Preliminary decisions

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (8/0/2/0)

See Wikipedia_talk:Bot_policy#User:Date_delinker, it's using AWB on an alternate account, which is within policy. — Rlevse • Talk • 14:25, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Accept, largely per Vassyana and suggest renaming to MOSNUM due to larger issues. Date delinking is only the latest incarnation of MOSNUM problems. — Rlevse • Talk • 13:22, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment Because of the potential for a dispute on this topic to cause instability to a large amount of articles and the length of the dispute, I'm willing to take this case sooner rather than late, unless there if good evidence of clear ongoing consensus building process that will end with well accepted solution. If the discussion is stalling due to problematic user conduct, then can address it if needed. If issues of unauthorized bot usage need to be addressed then make that clear. Please cite specifics of any problems. FloNight♥♥♥ 14:43, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
    • Now Accept. Not to make a content ruling but to assist in developing a process that will result in stability to articles and address any user conduct issues that may be causing local article discussion or global topic discussions to stall without forming consensus. FloNight♥♥♥ 10:48, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment; I'm inclined to accept a case when the topic focus causes large, repeated threads on noticeboards with no visible signs of abating. This invariably means there is a behavioral problem, even if the problem is the repeated call to arms rather than the issue itself. — Coren  15:28, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Accept; the issue pivots around large scale implementation of style changes, and the behavior surrounding the propriety of such changes. I don't think the name change is necessary, but it is acceptable. — Coren  17:13, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Question Can anyone provide an estimate of: (i) the percentage of articles within the corpus that have so far been de-linked and (ii) the rough proportion of de-linked articles which have been subsequently reverted? --ROGER DAVIES  15:48, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
    • My estimation is very rough and is based on feeling rather than actual data: Perhaps 30 % of all articles with dates were forcibly delinked. Probably in less than 1 % the links were re-introduced. —Guy Peters 21:16, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment. In the interests of full disclosure I made an early comment to Lightmouse on this issue, and participated in both the Date Linking RFC and the MOSNUM proposal. I don't think I have prejudged this case but if seriously asked to recuse on these grounds by a party to an accepted case then I would be bound to accede.
That being said, I am concerned at the time spent by a small number of editors who have been mass delinking - which cannot truly, I think, be regarded as writing an encyclopaedia. Removing links while doing other necessary changes on individual articles could not be disruptive, but systematically delinking for aesthetic reasons strikes me as a waste of server time.
There are two caveats to my opinion. First, the issue of whether to link or delink dates is not, in my mind, entirely on a level with the merging and deleting seen in the Episodes and characters case, and does not create the "fait accompli" mentioned in the title of the principle. Second, if we were to accept the case, the committee cannot issue binding policy on the issues within the RFCs. Sam Blacketer (talk) 18:44, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Quick reply to two comments (by Locke Cole and Protonk), I certainly agree that making superficial editorial changes along with delinking dates is substantially the same as just delinking them; I was thinking really of manual routine page maintenance rather than automated mass changes. I would accept a case strictly limited to the use of automated or semiautomated tools to delink dates on articles but nothing wider. The caveat about recusal still stands. Sam Blacketer (talk) 21:29, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Recuse I am a good friend of Tony and my ability to be impartial may not be accepted by all. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:39, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Accept pending what the name will be. I support just keeping it to the date delinking conduct issues; if we widen the scope it could be dangerous, so I oppose a rename at this time. Wizardman 16:29, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Recuse - I have participated in date-linking discussions previously, and while I don't hold a very strong opinion on the central issues, and my opinion has shifted over time (to the stage where I support most, but not all, date delinking), I'm involved enough and have discussed this with several of the editors concerned (at least four of the parties), to the extent that I don't feel I could impartially judge the behaviour issues here. I do agree with those who have stated that this case should most emphatically be about the behaviour here, and not the content. Incivility, unnecessarily strong criticism, tendentiousness, inability to compromise or see the other side's arguments, misreading of consensus (possibly in good faith, or being blinded by bias), edit warring, attacks against bot operators, impatient and unhelpful responses by bot operators, misguided application of the manual of style, and other issues, are among those that have taken place here (just a selection of the behaviour on both sides). I also echo the comments by those who point out that date delinking is not really the most urgent matter to be resolved here. Carcharoth (talk) 00:36, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Temporary injunction (none)

Final decision (none yet)

All numbering based on /Proposed decision, where vote counts and comments are also available.

Principles

Findings of fact

Remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Enforcement

Log of blocks, bans, and restrictions

Log any block, restriction, ban or extension under any remedy in this decision here. Minimum information includes name of administrator, date and time, what was done and the basis for doing it.

Category: