Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Sapphic (talk | contribs) at 00:33, 9 April 2009 (→Exit strategies: archiving crazy-long section in which tony won the last word game). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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, /Archive 3

• WT:DATEPOLL

"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)

as noted elsewhere: if people seriously feel some of the !voters need to confirm or clarify their votes, they should get the clerk to oversee the formulation and posting of a neutral statement to be left on those !voters' talk pages. Sapphic's independent effort to get clarification from some !voters showed that most of them did indeed mean X when they said X, even if their rationale is not worded the way you or i would word it ... but asking for clarification is better than second-guessing them or "rejecting" their !votes for being worded weirdly. Sssoul (talk) 06:38, 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)

!Vote

Per WP:DEMOCRACY and WP:POLL, we do not vote here, even when it looks like that's what we're doing. Particularly in a consensus-building effort regarding Misplaced Pages convention, it is probably less than optimally productive for us to encourage users to "vote". I have changed the text Please submit your vote to Please record your preference. —Scheinwerfermann ·_C13:28, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I've reverted your change, not that I'm supporting or disputing it, but simply because we should leave it as is given that the RfC is under way. --Ckatz_spy 14:59, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Also, this poll is a very unusual one whose purpose it is to settle the question before the community breaks apart because of this completely irrelevant detail. --Hans Adler (talk) 15:29, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

This isn't just about dates

Since so many people have the reaction of who cares? to this issue, it's probably important to explain why people on both sides of the issue feel so strongly about it. The real issue is whether to deal with style differences via user preferences in software, or by establishing guidelines that apply to fixed text. Dates are just one instance of this. Opponents of date autoformatting point to WP:ENGVAR as an example of their preferred solution. Supporters of date autoformatting point out that Misplaced Pages is not paper. Opponents argue that we should focus on keeping the markup simple. Supporters counter that we should use software tools to let readers see things the way they prefer (whenever possible) and thus eliminate even the possibility of format disputes. Both arguments have merit, and apply to a lot more than just dates. Whatever happens here will help to establish precedent, and will be used as a point of reference for future disputes over software preferences vs. style guidelines, just as WP:ENGVAR is being used here. That's why it matters so much to (at least some of) us. --Sapphic (talk) 15:45, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

• Holy smokes Sapphic. You seem to have a galactic-grade inability to see others’ point of view. Coupled with your über‑aggressive nature, you are quite something to deal with. Quoting you: The real issue is whether to deal with style differences via user preferences in software, or by establishing guidelines that apply to fixed text. You’re missing two important elements of what the “real issue” is about: 1) whether “style issues” (a stupid date format) is worth fighting like savages on the battle field and eating the raw, still-beating hearts of your enemies; and 2) “user preferences” settings are something that is not available to regular I.P. users (99.9% of our readership)—in other words, autoformatting is a bunch of fuss to benefit a damned small group of people. Open your eyes and read the vote comments. You will see that many, many Wikipedians see these two issues as being highly germane to why the voted the way they did. Greg L (talk) 17:55, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

• Could you calm down please? Personally I think Sapphic is right about the main problem; that (1), while an issue for some, doesn't justify the hyperbole in this instance; and that (2) could be addressed by completely reworking the Wikimedia caching system, or perhaps by setting up en-uk.wikipedia.org etc. (it isn't worth the trouble of course). And you didn't even mention any of the points that bother me personally. --Hans Adler (talk) 19:40, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

• Who do you think you’re talking to Hans? I am calm. Your posturing by suggesting that I am not does not somehow establish you as a sage, wise voice of reason here who smooths things over with unassailable logic. Juxtaposing my post to Sapphic’s above meltdown/rant (which is too rude to even quote here), reveals the laughable degree to which you are partisan on this issue. Just calling them like I see them. As for And you didn't even mention any of the points that bother me personally, that’s fine, I didn’t claim that my points did address your concern. What is abundantly clear from any rational reading of the RfC results is that it is a widely held view of the community. Greg L (talk) 20:55, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

• " reveals the laughable degree to which you are partisan on this issue" – You are entitled to your opinion. I hope you are not too offended if I leave my anti-autoformatting vote as it is, even though it sounds as if you are objecting to people who are only laughably partisan about the issue. After all, I am against autoformatting not because I seek your approval but because it's obvious feature creep and inconsistent with the proven ENGVAR approach. --Hans Adler (talk) 21:24, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

• Uhm… no. No complaints here with your vote. Your 19:40 post didn’t lead me to suspect that you might have voted that way. Good Hans. Greg L (talk) 21:57, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

• Sorry for my tone. I see now that "right about the main problem" may have been a bit misleading. I meant the connection between autoformatting and ENGVAR and that this is a far-reaching decision. --Hans Adler (talk) 23:06, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

• Peace. Greg L (talk) 23:16, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Thinking ahead....

Without prejudice to the end result, the autoformatting part of the poll isn't looking as conclusive as I'd have liked to see it. I recommend we move to a second poll that breaks down autoformatting into individual sections (like we did for the year and month-day linking). Proposals would include turning off autoformatting completely, keeping the status quo, and exploring other methods of autoformatting for the future that wouldn't require date linking. I think it's going to be the only way to get a conclusive result. Whilst some may say that the poll is clear, I'd say it's far from it in the Misplaced Pages sense of polling/consensus. Ryan Postlethwaite 22:24, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

What about the linking issues? Dabomb87 (talk) 22:42, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

They don't need discussing at this point in time in my opinion, we can wait till after the poll finishes (We can wait till after for autoformatting as well, but I just wanted to float an idea around). Ryan Postlethwaite 22:43, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

• Shit! Don’t you think the community is sick enough of this dispute, Ryan? Are you getting paid by the hour on this? Again, the IEC prefix issue (mebibyte, MiB v.s. megabyte, MB) took three years to undo because of Misplaced Pages’s outdated sense that no action can be taken unless there is a colossal landslide of a vote. The litmus test of overwhelming lopsided vote should be applied only when an idea is being tried the first time. But, rarely is that the case. For example, Misplaced Pages’s use of “256 MiB” was retarded beyond all comprehension. Yet, the decision for Misplaced Pages to adopt that practice was made by a few dozen editors on some remote, backwater page after only 24 hours of deliberation. And after all that *infinite wisdom*, it took fifteen “Binary” archives on WT:MOSNUM to finally get that fiasco reversed. And “Why did it take so long to abandon that idiotic practice since no other publication on the planet wrote that way?” you might ask? Because the propeller-headed proponents of the practice insisted that only an overwhelming lopsided vote could revert the move.

  It’s time for the leadership of Misplaced Pages to get some balls here. The three past RfCs can be taken into consideration here too. Between those, and this one, it is clear that there has been ample community debate and share of views.

  I would argue that the wisest course here is to state that

Misplaced Pages simply must, IMO, get away from this mindset that a clear majority is insufficient and grandfathers in any practice. I’ll bet $100 that one-hundredth as much debate and deliberation went into implementing autoformatting as has been devoted to trying to decide whether to jettison it. Greg L (talk) 22:49, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Support

moving on about the issue of autoformatting. The number of !votes has doubled in a week, but the percentage of supports/(supports + opposes) has remained practically unchanged. The result won't become any more or less clear than it is in another week. (And I'd propose the first question of the second poll should read: Should the current system of autoformatting of linked dates, Dynamic Dates, be disabled (i.e., writing $wgDynamicDates = false in the configuration)? And I think that there would be a "colossal landslide of a vote" on such a question.) --A. di M. (formerly Army1987) — Deeds, not words. 23:24, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

• On the contrary, I dont think anyone wants the status quo. Let's break the connection between date linking and autoformatting forever. I'd suggest if you wanted to break this out, it would focus on tagging first: "I support metadata tagging of relevant dates to an article", then expand to "I support the current autoformatting system with date-linking turned off (ie: the simple change)" and finally "I support a more capable autoformatting system for all viewers, registered or not (ie: the more complex change)". dm (talk) 23:32, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Concur with Dmadeo, take a look at question 1 of the MOSNUM RfC, I think we all know that keeping the current system is out of the question. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:34, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

• Quoting you Army: And I think that there would be a "colossal landslide of a vote" on such a question. Yeah, I completely agree. It doesn’t take an Einstein to look at the vote comments (there are quite a few to read now) to figure out what would happen in another one—that is, if everyone doesn’t respond with Awwwe Crap! Not another RfC?!? Greg L (talk) 23:39, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

• If we must have another RfC, I suggest that we set up something like voting subscriptions. E.g. we could have a dozen or so pages where we can sign statements such as "I am opposed to each and every form of date autoformatting other than perhaps in citation templates and I want the RfCs to stop and all autoformatting code that isn't supported by a majority of the community removed". These could then be transcluded to all the upcoming RfCs in the appropriate sections. --Hans Adler (talk) 00:01, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I will repost what I wrote for the benefit of those who may have missed the entry I made earlier in the discussion:

• 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.

I think the poll votes (questions 2 and 3) are transparently clear that the linking of dates is considered highly irrelevant and unpopular by the community. I believe, based on the present result, it is hard to argue that there is insufficient consensus to remove the vast majority of date links. Furthermore, that they do not want another vote on the desirability of date links. Many respondents already made comments that they do not want any prolongation of the debate. For your recollection, the background statement said:

• What happens if autoformatting is accepted? Consensus will be sought on specifications, which will then be used by developers and editors to establish a system based either on a modified version of the existing software or on a new markup or template scheme; dates will be marked up accordingly.
• What happens if autoformatting is rejected? The markup used by the previous system will continue to be removed, and any dates that are inconsistent with the overall format for their article will be corrected, manually or using automatic means.

Without needing much interpretation of the results, it is obvious that the previous system of DA based on date linking was highly unpopular. While there may be some belief within the community that an autoformatting system may be desirable for readers, the threshold for general acceptance of the principle was clearly insufficient. Many are still wary of the pitfalls and risks of development of a replacement - whether expressed in terms of 'there is no problem to solve' or simply the rejection of the failed system such as 'I dislike date linking'. Then, there is the 'inegalitarian' argument which is also a significant concern.

In accordance with how things have always worked here on WP, the status quo ante prevails where a consensus is not reached for the adoption of a new proposal. There is no denying that both Ryan and Ohconfucius would be happier if there was a 6% swing for a "conclusive result", but I think the only reasonable conclusion to draw at this point is that acceptance of autoformatting has not been gained by the community, and we must accept that it is about as clear it is likely to get. If we fail to recognise this inherent limitation of consensus, we would be rightly accused of indecision. Whilst accepting that consensus can change, the next question which should be asked is whether the community is prepared to accept a prolongation of this discussion ad infinitum until it is conclusive enough for you or I? Ohconfucius (talk) 02:38, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

• I endorse what Ohconfucius has written here 100%. His logic is unassailable. I ask that you, Ryan (and the other arbitrators) read it thoroughly. The old system of autformatting has been officially dead for months now. The motion to adopt a new method of autoformatting has now failed muster. Moreover, the Wikipedian community is about ready to put a pistol in its mouth on this issue. I’m quite done fighting and dwelling on this issue; it has to end. There has clearly been enough debate. I’ll accept what the arbitrators and admins decide with grace and dignity. I just ask that they grow some huevos here, step up to the plate, and do something. Lead, follow, or get out of the way. Greg L (talk) 02:50, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh, something else in Ryan's post which struck me upon further reflection after making my post above: I would pertinently remind all that this RfC vote is not on a specific DA scheme but for the general principle. However "far from it in the Misplaced Pages sense of polling/consensus" the poll result may be on the issue, to go and explore "other methods of autoformatting for the future that wouldn't require date linking" seems to me to be counter-intuitive and "anti-consensus", as it would presuppose the eventual adoption of DA when the community will have voted 60% against it en principe. Of course, if you were to include the 'oppose' in the second poll, the outcome may be something interesting like this: 'keep old DA' 5%, 'new DA with {{#formatnumber}}-style markup' 12%, 'new DA with no markup' 20%, no DA at all 58%, undecided 5% - what will fractioning that vote change??? Anyway, as there is supposed to be a 2 week discussion based on these results, I think perhaps Ryan may be jumping the gun here a little... Ohconfucius (talk) 03:50, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

• This is crap. You present some non-linking date-autormatting system and > 60% of people say they don't want autoformatting in concept. Why do you see a need to prolong this accursed issue? Just what kind of result do you ever think you'll get out of a fractionated RFC? It beggars belief. Tony (talk) 03:58, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

• Indeed. The trial balloon Ryan floated here amounts to “OK, we heard you. The old system of autoformatting has been dead for months. And now, as to whether the community wants some new kind of autoformatting to replace it, only forty percent of you said you do. So, just what specific kind of autoformatting technology do you want to have?” Greg L (talk) 05:15, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Thinking ahead, if the arbitration committee drags this out too long, what is the procedure for removing the committee from office? --Jc3s5h (talk) 04:03, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

• LOL!! Greg L (talk) 05:02, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
• I would like to know when/if the date linking case will set a new record for the length of deliberation by Arbcom? Ohconfucius (talk) 05:27, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Quit your complaining. I already suggested a way to end this right away, so you can get back to your de-linking. All you have to do is agree not to interfere with the development of a candidate system to replace the existing date autoformatting. You agree to that, and the autoformatting supporters agree (and I see no reason why they wouldn't) then we can turn off the existing DA immediately, lift the injunction, and everybody gets busy either de-linking or developing new software. In a month or two (or however long it takes to develop the new software) we have one last poll to either adopt the new software or drop the issue once and for all. There is absolutely no downside for the autoformatting opponents. The only downside for autoformatting supporters is that (if the new system is adopted) we'll have to re-link (or otherwise markup) the dates you've de-linked.. but that's not a huge deal. --Sapphic (talk) 06:22, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

• I don't presume you're talking to me, because I wasn't complaining. However, in case you were, RP bounced a recommendation, and I was responding to it with my thoughts. I am entitled to my views, and nobody but me can articulate them, so I do my best. If you can't stand that, then it ain't my problem, Sista! As to your suggestions, I believe you very simplistically glossed over a huge chunk about 'How to get there'. Anyhoo, I already responded to them: Thank you, but niet. Ohconfucius (talk) 08:19, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
• Oh, and I thought you promised to stop flogging your "compromise"? Oh well, ho hum... Ohconfucius (talk) 08:23, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Since nobody (except Greg — once) on your side has explained why they're opposed to my suggested compromise, I'll ask again: What have you got to lose? You get everything you want immediately, without futher debate and with the full blessing of arbcom (to keep people from disrupting your delinking, at least on autoformatting grounds) and all you have to do is not interfere with the development process for coming up with a possible replacement system. Then you have to let it be presented in a final poll... which it looks like there'd be anyway (and possibly more than one) so it's not like that last part is anything special. Give me an answer (that actually applies to the suggested compromise, not just autoformatting in general or arbcom's deliberations or the polling process itself) and show you're acting in good faith, here. I may be obnoxious, but I've never once acted in bad faith. --Sapphic (talk) 14:25, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I believe that people are opposed because it would render the current poll impotent. The results of this poll are supposed to show whether the general community wants people to work on an autoformatting system. Your suggested compromise, as reasonable as it sounds, would cut across any decisions made from analysis of the results. Furthermore, no offence but you aren't in the position to propose such a compromise at this moment, and neither is anyone here in the position to accept it. Let's wait for the closure and analysis of the poll to happen before we further discuss this matter. That way we can be informed by the results of a fully completed community poll. Sillyfolkboy (talk) 15:13, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

... if you're really interested, Sapphic, i can explain why i haven't leapt on your "compromise offer": 1] you've clarified that the main points in your "offer" (turning off autoformatting, ArbCom rescinding the temporary injunction, etc) are things you have no authority over; and 2] neither i nor anyone else is authorized to accept or reject "deals" on behalf of "this side". Sssoul (talk) 16:52, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

• Ryan, what, yet another one? Or as Greg puts it, do you really not think the community is sick enough of this dispute? You are on the way to destruction! You have no chance to survive make your time! Bishonen | talk 16:41, 8 April 2009 (UTC).

• Awe, don’t shoot the guy. I think he recognized that there was a dispute amongst the combatants over where to go next. So he floated a trial balloon to provoke discussion here to sort out the issues. Greg L (talk) 16:49, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

• Sapphic: Rules are rules. Reality is reality. History is history. A review of that history is in order here:

  As Ohconfucius correctly pointed out, the old autoformatting system was tossed on its ear by an overwhelming supermajority in Dec. ‘08. Lest anyone forget why we were all dragged here by a certain someone, it was because a bot was doing mass de-linking (and was removing all those not-so-precious links to trivia while it was at it). Since this practice was sucking the Misplaced Pages lifeforce from that certain someone, he teamed up with a developer and started promoting “Son of autoformatting” and the bot delinking was suspended to see if there was a community consensus to adopt this NEW™®© kind of autoformatting technology. The previous RfCs (like, there hasn’t been enough of these now) made it clear to “that certain someone” that “Son of autoformatting” didn’t have a snowball’s chance in hell of being well received by the community so he insisted that only the “generalities” of autoformatting be run by the community in this RfC. So how did the “generalities” fly? The bottom line from the community is this: Hell no! There is clearly no consensus that the community wants to have anything to do with the new stuff you’re selling. Far from a “clear consensus for”, there is clear majority against. And as you can also see from the RfC results, the community likes the old system’s links to trivia about as much as finding half a worm in their apple core. So…

  We’re going to let this RfC continue its course. And if/when the results conclude with results largely like they are today, bot-delinking of the old autoformatting/linking must continue, and the small cabal of volunteer developers will go away and stop agitating on this subject. The community doesn’t want what you’re selling.

  And, like Peter Isotalo wrote above (06:04, 7 April): “Like others have already pointed out: start acting like normal people. Bury this issue for at least a few years and don't even think of reviving it until something positively groundbreaking has come up. Stop wasting time.” Greg L (talk) 16:49, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

• I echo Bishonen's, Greg's, Ohconfucius's, Sssoul's and Sillyfolkboy's comments. In particular, talk of individual editors' doing deals, offering compromises, etc, seems weird when the community has spoken. Who are we to cut across community opinion in so many RFCs on this topic. (Is this the fourth? Hmmmm ...)
• Since 50% more people oppose the general concept of DA than support (247 to 167 at the moment), there is no point in holding yet another poll (with fractionated questions about what the community by a sizeable majority has said it doesn't want? 15% want this, 11% this, 8% this, 6% that ... do they add up to 40%?). There is almost no support for the creaking old DA, and the job of auditing and removing the coding needs to be resumed (just switching it off centrally may be a good idea, but would leave the blue-linking). The resumption of cleaning up the date mess involves checking consistency and format choice for each article, as was being achieved gradually until the temporary injunction. We enjoyed the skilled, dedicated and responsive wikignoming of users such as Colonies Chris until then. We need to move on and resume this program of detailed improvements to our articles, for the sake of our readers, our editors and the broader project. Tony (talk) 16:57, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Ok, well I see people don't like this idea. I think perhaps that people could have expressed their disapproval in a more collegial manner - when people start attacking users based on something that was merely supposed to promote discussion it doesn't really get their point across well. When the poll's over I'll poke a few developers and see what their thoughts are on the results. Ryan Postlethwaite 18:27, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Sadly, Ryan, I think you have put your finger on the problem in the RfAr -- a lack of collegial manner over this issue. One side is eager to enforce what it believes to be a mandate to fire up a bot & remove all links to dates and years, without consideration of opposing opinions no matter how they are expressed. Launching a systematic removal of all of those links without making any exceptions will only take us back to this same impasse, maybe with some new players. As others have pointed out, I feel that there is a flaw in this poll that the option I admittedly prefer -- linking birth & death years & dates -- is not clearly approved or disapproved. While I can accept that the consensus of the community does not favor these links, from the categories & comments I am not certain that one can objectively determine what that consensus is: the majority say they only want relevant dates & years linked, but do they consider these relevant links? -- llywrch (talk) 20:03, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

If you only count !votes, yes, it is obscure. But if you look at the comments, you'll see that consensus is for very few or no date links. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:13, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

• Quoting you llywrch: One side is eager to enforce what it believes to be a mandate to fire up a bot & remove all links to dates and years, without consideration of opposing opinions no matter how they are expressed. Wrong. The opposing side’s views have been considered. You are confusing “considered” with “bought into and adopted.” And with specific regard to …no matter how are expressed, you can paint lipstick on a pig of an idea and dress it up as a prom date, but you’re still not going to get any takers.

  The problem is that developers have been circumventing “consensus and approval” for too long (witness Werdna's recent shoving in of the new patch without so much as a warning). You may not like it, but this has been a problem with an attitude of “I’m a lotus leaf-eating programming god and can just post my code to Misplaced Pages and my children will love it.” Uhm… not always. Giving a select few registered editors a view of editorial content that all the rest of Misplaced Pages’s readership can’t see (autoformatting of dates) what brain damaged at inception. And it was finally tossed on its ear in December.

  As for the developers’ desperate attempts to pitch a replacement, the community has turned its back on a handful of volunteer programmer gods and said “we’re not interested in this sort of thing.” Over and over and over with RfCs, the community has said “No”. C'est la vie. The developers can simply shrug their shoulders and go find something to offer the community that it truly wants. Greg L (talk) 22:11, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, as the developers are the ones that actually implement any autoformatting changes that we may require (i.e. turning it off), they most certainly won't have to just shrug their shoulders. If they don't think that the poll reflects a big enough consensus, they won't do anything. Ryan Postlethwaite 22:31, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

• "In a month or two (or however long it takes to develop the new software) we have one last poll to either adopt the new software or drop the issue once and for all"—to the programming community: please be very careful with this approach. This strategy smacks of the approach that was taken many years ago—the one that delivered the current problem-riddled date formatting and linking system. If you want to get your programming teeth into something beneficial, then get consensus for a replacement system from the community before any coding takes place. At the very least, create a page that has the specifications for what is being developed so that there is transparency and the possibility for comment. The best programmers that I've seen in my career are the ones that don't want to operate in secrecy from their end-users. A happy and safe Easter to all.  HWV258  22:25, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Every here needs to chill out and discuss this calmly and stop bashing the clerks, who are only trying to do their jobs in a neutral manner. Yes, consider this is a final warning. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:40, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I will second my colleague's stern and very final warning. — Coren  22:48, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

• I completely agree: no clerk bashing. Calmly too. I wrote above (16:49, 8 April) that people shouldn’t “shoot the clerk” for floating a trial balloon to gauge community reaction on how to deal with the RfC results.

  Whereas it would be nice if Misplaced Pages’s volunteer developers would abide by the community’s wishes regarding autoformatting, what they do or don’t want to do is irrelevant in this particular matter. The community voted in December to deprecate autoformatting by no longer putting double-brackets around dates and to just write out dates in fixed text so that everyone sees the same thing. It doesn’t take any developer buy-in if editors aren’t using double brackets or double-curly-brackets and template names. Further, a bot was busy removing the double-brackets already in place when Locke dragged us all kicking & screaming into an ArbCom because he refused to acknowledge that the past RfCs were a legitimate measure of the community consensus. We don’t have too much longer to go on this (fourth) RfC and there isn’t a WP:SNOWBALL of a chance that a consensus will suddenly develop that the community wants something new to replace the now-deprecated old system of autoformatting.

  I’m glad you floated this trial balloon, Ryan. Why? Because Sapphic had been exceedingly uncivil the last few days (without so much as a warning, let alone a block) arguing her point. I don’t mind the uncivil tone; I focus on the message. And her message is that there must be a clear consensus for the community to not eat any new ideas a small cabal of volunteer developers desire to force upon us. That’s simply not the way anything works in the real world and I see no reason for Misplaced Pages to be some sort of exception.

  I’ll remind everyone here that there was no community consensus in the first place to bring the first version of autoformatting to bear. Ponder the ramifications of that sentence for a moment. It took an overwhelming supermajority of a consensus in December to undo that fiasco. Sapphic has consistently made a case that amounts to the argument that any volunteer developer can continue to implement new ideas on autoformatting without first obtaining a clear community consensus inviting them to do so. That idea seems bankrupt to me.

  I take issue with that attitude not because I give that much of a dump about date links to irrelevant trivia. It’s just that Misplaced Pages is actually a valuable resource that is truly a benefit to all mankind and thousands of man hours have been squandered arguing over this issue instead of contributing to articles. It’s a darn shame too, because—like the IEC prefix issue before (mebibyte, MiB versus megabyte, MB)—ill-considered ideas are far too easy to implement and far too difficult to reverse. The community has spoken clearly enough (and often enough) that it has not invited any developer to keep pushing what it is they’re selling. It’s simply time for the needs of the many to outweigh the incessant demands of the few. Greg L (talk) 23:50, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Sigh.. okay, where to begin?

• My incivility (which I acknowledge as such) was in response to your (Greg) fabricating a quote by me out of thin air, immediately after an exchange in which I thought we'd been making some progress. That type of bad faith behavior always rubs me the wrong way, and I tend to lash out with profanity.
• No "authority" is needed to either suggest a proposal, nor to accept it. It's only enacting a proposal that takes some official authority, and that's what I've explicitly left up to arbcom, every time I've mentioned this.
• My compromise proposal doesn't undercut this poll, because it's pretty clear that this poll didn't uncover any pre-existing consensus. I'm hoping that enough people will support my proposal (or one by anybody else for that matter — come up with one) that we can get arbcom (or whoever has the authority) to act on it. That's not presumptuous, that's not trying to subvert process, and it's not disruptive. It's being helpful.
• I have never suggested that the developers work on software in isolation from end-user input. I've simply pointed out that some of the date autoformatting opponents have intentionally disrupted previous development efforts, and want to make sure that they won't be allowed to do so again.
• I don't think it makes sense to have a poll/rfc/whatever to approve a specification before starting development work, mostly because it's unnecessary and people are obviously sick of these polls. Without opponents actively disrupting the process, it's quite easy for interested parties to collaborate on a specification in a more informal manner, in parallel with the actual coding. Also, a significant number of date autoformatting opponents have made it very clear that they only want new software presented to the community in the context of a working, tested, already-completed version, so that people aren't giving an opinion on "vaporware" that might never be developed.
• I agree that what Werdna did wasn't really very cool. I do think the development of new features should occur with community input, which clearly wasn't the case with the new parser function he committed to the code without so much as a word to the folks who had been discussing the issue (and developing a workable, if incomplete, specification for how it should work.)

--Sapphic (talk) 00:27, 9 April 2009 (UTC)