Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Date delinking

Additional statements

Statement by User:Arthur Rubin

I don't see the point of this. Even if ArbCom were to rule that the date delinking or date delinking bots were inappropriate conduct, the damage has already been done. Perhaps a precedent could be set against the possibility of another family of previously recommended links which became deprecated under questionable circumstances, but ArbCom doesn't really set precedents.

For what it's worth, there appeared to be a weak consensus in favor of some date autoformatting at Question 2 of WP:MOSNUM/RFC, and a clear consensus that some year links are appropriate at question 4. Given that, bots will clearly have signficant errors. User:Tony1 has (apparently in a semi-automated process), removed month-day links from year articles in two (short) runs after he specifically agreed it was wrong. (Diffs available on request. I reverted some of the ones today (within 24 hours ago, anyway.))

And in case anyone brings it up, I didn't take any admin action, even though I felt that blocking User:Lightbot would have been of benefit to Wikipedia.

As for what ArbCom can do — I really can't think of a thing. Some otherwise sensible editors are misinterpreting consensus, and some (whether or not they are misinterpreting consensus) have been violating WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA.

So, I recommend that ArbCom refuse the issue — not because the delinkers have any consensus on their side, but because the damage to Wikipedia is mostly done (in large part by bots given authority to make any date linking, delinking, or formatting their authors saw fit), and that there is little that ArbCom can do that would help.

Limited response to Dabomb87: I don't see any other venues untried for dispute resolution of the underlying issue, that of date delinking and edit warring over date delinking. (WP:3O would be inapproriate unless, say, Tony1 and Greg L were considered identical, and Locke and I were considered identical.) There are still possible venues for the conduct issues. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:05, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Limited response to Tony1: Question 3 in your RFC may prove that there would be consensus for a bot to remove autoformatting if there was a clear consensus that autoformatting links were always inappropriate. The hypothesis is disputed, and it would not extend to year or month-day links. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:08, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Summary: The only thing the ArbCom could do that seems helpful is to determine the consensus. I don't think that's within their charter. (Is that a finding of fact?) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:38, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Bot followup: Lightbot claims a charter to perform any date linking, delinking, or reformatting that the operator deeps suitable. I don't know whether it was approved for that process, but, even if it were, that is not a suitable charter for a bot. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:46, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment by Franamax

• Date linking? Solved through content dispute resolution, with community agreement seeming to be "needs to be a good reason to do it". No reason to arbitrate.
• Date de-linking, especially by automated means? Not resolved anywhere I ever saw, rather it seemed to be carried on to put "facts on the ground" as soon as possible, riding over any questions or alternatives. In particular, use of a bot basically means that no editorial discretion is applied. The same goes for an editor who uses a "semi-automated" script to indiscriminately remove all date and year links. However, it seems that the damage is done, last I checked, LightBot had finished the Z... articles and was chewing into Template: space. It's all over but the crying now.
  • Arbitration: an injunction would be helpful to restrict bots (or "semi-bots") from revisiting previously edited articles and again removing all date and year links. No community consensus exists to remove all links, so bots should not be on constant patrol to defeat good-faith editors making selective decisions. This would not apply to reverts to fully date-linked versions, but the onus is on the bot coder to prove the necessity now. ArbCom has within its remit to require re-certification of the bots/scripts now that their primary task has been completed.
  • Arbitration: investigation of the circumstances by which this happened, looking not at content but at procedure. Consensus was widely obtained to restrict date-linking, but I'm aware of no consensus to use automated methods to eliminate all date-linking. This reflects on the bot-approval and bot-review methods, which are (or should be) within ArbCom's remit.
• Behaviour? I followed and tried to participate in these debates, but was met in part with, and definitely observed, what I could best describe as an "abrasive" attitude from the pro side of the coin. Pro here being the "we've been trying for two years to get rid of this hideous blot which destroys the entire wikipedia experience, birds sing at midnight, who are you to question this now, it's time to right the ship, you're an ignorant idiot" side (vastly-overblown paraphrase is mine :)
  • Arbitration: consider the actions of all involved, with a view to behaviour issues in long-term content disputes. Locke Cole will not fare well, several parties have not behaved in the best light, Tony1 I believe should have some special scrutiny (the "abrasive" thing I mentioned above, on or across the line of civility).

I'm involved only on a very peripheral basis and would likely not present evidence. I believe that my statements above are fairly self-evident and will be supported with factual evidence by parties to this case. If my statements are seen as unduly prejudicial, I will provide evidence if the case is accepted. Franamax (talk) 10:39, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Addendum on review (re Tony1, item (4)):

Even granted the consensus Tony posits for Proposal 3,

• Very clever Tony, you posited a negative hypothesis at the RFC, received a negative consensus, and now seem to construe that as a positive consensus for your positive hypothesis. Masterful, except I don't think it works that way.
• Even granting your artful dodging, any process which removes all date links from all articles is uncompliant with MOS, unless you can point to where automated processes were imbued with the ability to determine the non-existence of a "reason to do so" per your Proposal 1. I take it then that you are also asking for an ArbCom injunction against automated scripts/bots? Franamax (talk) 13:04, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Masem

All other things being equal, this is not a case that is needed at ArbCom as the usual processes to deal with matters of content and policy are still being worked on. I'd almost consider this a case of forum shopping by Locke Cole.

That said, there are certain questions of how heavy a hand Tony and others that support the removal of dates have been pushing for this. Tony et al must be commended for the effort they have done to recognize the problems with date autoformatting both for how dates are presented to end users that aren't logged in and how they saturate pages with lots of links, as these are problems. However, the effort to completely remove date autoformatting without considering the wide response of the community seem to be a bit heavy handed. While Tony and others have tried to suggest the deprecation of date autoformatting to various wikiprojects and at the Featured Article process, there was really never any formal wide-scale input that one would usually expect for a policy/guideline change that impacts every article, instead relying on the fact that they've received mostly silence from editors when date autoformatting was stripped from articles to imply consensus. At this point, when the actual language of MOSNUM was changed based on their local agreement, this is when all matters started to go south. As one of the comments above noted, some point after this change, I began to get more active, noting that Locke Cole and others that were against the removal of date autoformatting were correct to the extent that there was no obvious visible evidence of a consensus for the change beyond the 5-6 major editors of MOSNUM to that point and suggested an RFC to definitively decide the issue. There was a bit of miscommunication with starting that, but by the end of the date, the RFC was ran, got watchlist-noticed, and garnered around a hundred responses (a good # for an RFC), and clearly showed that date autoformatting was to be removed by strong consensus, justifying Tony et al's deprecation of the tool.

But, that said, the RFC also asked other questions, such as if we should get the devteam to make a working version of date autoformatting that works as we need it to to address the failings of the current method, and without using date autoformatting, when dates should be linked. While the responses were less clear than the DA question, there is certainly support for a new date autoformatting system, something the devteam has stated is possible to correct, and there was certainty in consideration of whe when certain dates should be linked to larger pages. Given that the general response to these questions, to myself at least, I felt that there should be a plan of attack prior to removing the date autoformatting code throughout wikipedia to account for any near-term future improved date autoformatting and to allow editors to markup specific dates that they do want to remain linked (but not autoformatted) to prevent those from being removed (mostly through the use of templates to help mark dates as meta-data). However, Tony and the others cited are insistent about moving forward getting their bots going to strip all date autoformatting from articles and having to manually come back and restore links. Policy has no say about which is the best way but I would think that given the ado over the change in policy that, as there's no deadline to get rid of these, trying to work out the least disruptive means to remove date autoformatting while allowing editors to retain their date links would be the more appropriate route to completing their goal. Already, with Lightbot and the others stripping dates, there have been small edit wars and incident reports at WP:AN/I on it (though mostly raised by those that were against the removal of date autoformatting in the first place).

But the problem, really, at the end of the day is not so much about any significant behavioral issues but instead about dealing with editors like Tony and the others named that have a strong conviction to achieving certain goals for (as they see it and most of time, correctly) the benefit of Wikipedia. As such, their tactics for approaching the implementation of changes to MOSNUM is a bit heavy-handed and at times feels like a cabal, ignoring outside opinion if it runs contrary to what they would like to drive the MOS towards. The rapid push to get rid of date autoformatting without allowance for grandfathering of appropriate link dates or considering any new date autoformatting aspects by the devteam, for example, demonstrate this gung-ho approach that shouldn't necessarily be discouraged (I'm well aware of the molasses that working through a consensus can take) but also should be in check when one considers the general attitude that other editors see and consider the MOSNUM group to be based on these actions. I feel its in their best interest to encourage the participation of the community before taking wide-ranging drastic changes instead of forcing it down, even if it for the best of the community.

Is there anything ArbCom can do about this? Very doubtful (beyond noting if there are any improper bots being run as existing ArbCom response as suggested). Maybe there's some behavioral issues here, I don't see them (some edit wars have broken out with date formatting removal but nothing at a large enough scale to get ArbCom involved). This case is mostly a clash between editors with strong convictions towards a goal, which will make things tense and result in rash decisions that could have negative impacts, but both with WP's best interests in making the work better. Attitudes on both sides are not healthy (I take issue with Tony calling the discussion "polite", particularly in the case of many of Greg L's contributions which seemed condescending to those that did want to keep links to year and date pages; there was also some system-gaming going on when some day-month pages were put up for AFD seemingly to test the waters for their removal during this process), but nothing out of line with WP:CIVIL or other expected behavior from editors. Maybe there's something to be said about what type of actions should be done when a change that likely going to affect nearly every article on WP to prevent edit warring, but even then, there's dozens of other changes that happen to policies and guidelines that go on every day that technically should have the same treatment. There's no punishable behavior here, only that I think all groups involved need to remember they aren't in a vacuum here and to avoid making unilateral decisions, and to consider what other editors may appear to see based on their actions. --MASEM 11:33, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Statement from Goodmorningworld

I'll note in passing the tendentious labels put on some of the diffs by Guy Peters Locke Cole in his collation above. However, I trust that the arbitrators are perceptive enough to recognize this immediately on their own. Lightbot has approval to perform the tasks it does, any complaints should be raised at the Bot owners' noticeboard, not here. Automated removal of datelinks has been approved not only by the Bot Approvals Group but is met with overwhelming support from editors. (See the responses to Question 3 in the Dec 2008 RfC launched by Tony1.) The number of complaints from editors watchlisting articles from which datelinks have been removed is minuscule. Colonies Chris who runs a script that performs a similar task to Lightbot's has statistics. Out of the very small percentage of removals leading to complaints, very nearly all are resolved amicably and swiftly, either by the complainant agreeing that removal of datelinks makes sense, or by the delinker entering an exception for that article. For all practical purposes, there is no community-wide perception of a problem.

Date articles are uniquely privileged in all of Wikipedia, in that a permanent spot is reserved for them on the Main Page. Every single day of the year a large portion of Mainpage screen real estate is reserved to On this day which leads to the sort of chronological trivia that some people enjoy; in principle every date article ever created on Wikipedia is accessible from there if linked right. There is no risk that they will become linkless orphans in no-man's-land.

I submit that the Arbitration Committee and the community would be best served by a swift dismissal of the request.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 12:45, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Statement from Woodstone (talk)

My impression is that the actual ongoing debate is about the date format. The delinking of dates has obtained a good consensus with very little opposition rather quickly long ago, after it was made clear that not logged-in users have never benefited from the autoformating feature connected with the linking. So the bot is acting based on consensus and should be allowed to continue. It would be wise however to define a way by which specific and exceptional date links could be protected from the bot. −Woodstone (talk) 13:29, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Statement from uninvolved MickMacNee

This whole dispute has been lame beyond belief, but the more important aspect is that it is damaging Wikipedia and therefore it is behaviour that needs to be examined by the committee. Over the past month I have chopped my watchlist by I would think at least 50%, probably more, dropping at least 1,000 articles that I most likely will never pick up again, directly as a result of the fun and games the involved parties have been having with bots and semi-auto editing. In anticipation of the expected response, I do not as a rule not watchlist minor edits or bot edits, becuase the minor flag is often misunderstood/abused, and bot edits are often marking the flagging of image issues which need attention, rather than trivial things like this. On the actual issue at hand, I have no strong opinion either way, but if it turned out there was a strong consensus to delink all dates, and to retrospectively do that, then it should have been done once, as a batch job by one bot account quickly, with anybody edit warring it without cause blocked. But it appears to me to have not been done this way, it has been done over weeks and weeks, by multiple people/accounts, and has been edit warred over without sanctions. If Flagged Revisions is adopted because not enough people are catching vandalism on watchlists, this sort of lame dispute is the reason why. It's maddening. MickMacNee (talk) 16:46, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Statement from uninvolved Protonk (talk)

I agree broadly with MickMacNee. I don't think arbcomm should step in and say "we link dates" or "we do not link dates". I think we need Arbcomm to step in and say "stop this continuous cycle of RfC's, AN/I threads, edit wars and spilling out into a request for Adminship." It is apparent the community doesn't feel capable of resolving this (and honestly, we tend to resolve these things with an inappropriate level of granularity) and that the content issue doesn't seem to go away though discussion.

Response to Sam Blacketer

With all due respect, distinguishing between dates delinked during an edit to a page that includes other content changes and dates delinked in a stand-alone edit is asinine. If we require (as the AWB policy does) that dates be delinked along with some change to an article, then a bot will be written or re-written to make a formatting change along with the delinking. If we think that dates should be delinked then delinking them is part of working on the encyclopedia. It doesn't add anything to argue that delinking is ok, unless it is done all by itself.

Statement from semi-involved NuclearWarfare

I was debating adding myself to this RfAr or not, but as I have not been in many of the discussions (I've merely implemented delinking and have discussed it on WT:AWB and WP:Requests for adminship/NuclearWarfare), I have decided to stay out of it. I just wanted to note a few things for the Arbitrators.

John Vandenberg - Lightbot's third RFBA, Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Lightbot 3, covers its current delinking. I'm not sure if that approval is still active; there were whispers that I heard that it wasn't, but that is something for another user to answer.

The two Requests for Comments showed a clear consensus in most cases for at leastmost very limited linking.

• Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)/Three proposals for change to MOSNUM had a clear consensus to reject date linking and date autoformatting. It had a less clear, but still fairly strong consensus to allow automated and semi-automated edits to help delink dates.
• Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)/Date Linking RFC
  • Deprecating the current date autoformatting - Dates should not be delinked (very clear consensus)
  • Is some method of date autoformatting desirable? - About 50/50, but this is not relevant to this RfAr, and is more a Developer issue.
  • When to link to Month-Day articles? - 2/49/49 support. Examples:
    • "John Fred was born on September 15 and invented the tricycle on October 29."
    • American independence was declared on July 4
    • American independence was declared on July 4.
  • When to link Year articles - 10/60/30
    • "John Fred was born on September 15 1789 and invented the tricycle on October 29 1810."
    • "In 1492, Columbus sailed the ocean blue."
    • "In 1492, Columbus sailed the ocean blue."
  • When to use Year-in-field links - murkier; no real consensus came about there.

Hope this helps. Feel free to alert me if you guys need anything else from me. NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 19:23, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Statement from Tznkai

I will attempt to dredge up the appropriate diffs and history in a moment but for now, I have this to say:

The issue is not whether or not dates should be linked or not linked, or delinked or whatever. On the list of things that matter, with the main page libeling Bill Gates as a child molester at the very top, and whether mono books' default shade of white should be described as "cosmic latte" or "ivory" at the very bottom, our so called style guideline on the use of numbers in articles finds itself somewhere in the bottom 5. This hardly explains why there has been serious incivility, edit warring, abuse of process and otherwise disruptive behavior over the issue although this might. This would be lame if it wasn't for the genuinely hurt feelings and wasted hours over this issue. In short, there is a major behavior problem here, and if the users involved can't be brought to heel, I would very much like them to be quarantined in the insane asylum so the rest of us can get on with our wiki lives in peace.--Tznkai (talk) 23:39, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Statement from Septentrionalis (Pmanderson)

On the substantive issue, this is a dispute on this issues discussed in the polls in the #Statement from semi-involved NuclearWarfare above.

Is there a consensus that we should always delink dates? If not, should we allow automatic, or semi-automatic delinking of dates? (My own views are that we should link dates rarely, and about half the poll holds that opinion; and that we do not have consensus either to always delink or to handle the matter by bot and accept the cases where the bot delinks a useful link).

Lightbot is presently operating under Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Lightbot 3. The request itself was vague; it was disputed at the time; and since then a number of users have requested reconsideration, including Gerry Ashton and myself. Is this sufficient basis for Lightbot to operate?

These questions, unfortunately, only ArbCom can decide; we've tried other methods. It would be nice if Arbcom did.

There is a fundamental underlying issue, which ArbCom may also wish to address. The chief use of MOS and its subpages is to give "authority" to the following procedure: a handful of editors decide that Wikipedia ought to do something, and every article must do it (here, the parties to this who did not file think there should never be a linked date). They write this in as a paragraph on a MoS subpage, and then go around WP insisting on their One True Way because it's consensus. So far they've been bold; fine. But when objections arise, they do not really discuss, or attempt to reach an agreement to disagree; instead, they claim, as here, that it requires consensus to change MOS: i.e. for these five editors, it would take twenty or thirty editors to object with any effect. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:22, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Statement from RexxS

I can affirm that although I'm new to the debate on WT:Manual_of_Style_(dates_and_numbers), I've been treated with remarkable civility by all of the editors there - a little lecturing and a touch of sarcasm, but nothing my delicate constitution couldn't handle, even though I would characterise myself as firmly on one side of the debate. Apart from a brief outburst or two among a huge amount of debate, I suspect the exchanges there have been as polite as most other areas of Wikipedia.

Nevertheless, it is conceivable that ArbCom could help. I believe that the disagreement is as I summarised it here] and here. If it is true that editors are polarised on the question of whether date-links should be an automatic exception to WP:Context or not, then we either need another RfC (!) or a ruling from ArbCom (?). Otherwise, I fear that we are doomed to recycle arguments like "I can't find a single relevant/useful date link" vs "The date article would be interesting to someone wanting to browse/find out more about that year, etc." --RexxS (talk) 04:35, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Response to Hex

I should have mentioned that the other factor polarising editors is the interpretation of the recent RfC's. As an example, Hex says 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. By characterising the RfC as a vote, it misses the point that contributors made comments. Of the 55 (including myself) who supported "Year links should be made in certain cases", over three-quarters of those commented along the lines of "Only when it provides useful context/relevance" or echoed Fabrictramp's Year links should be made when it truly helps the understanding of the article. This is almost never, but if there ever is a time when it does, I don't want to rule it out. Several editors take the raw numbers and say "No consensus"; others put together the "Never" and "Rarely" and see a clear consensus that date-links are just as subject to WP:Context as any other link. I remain unsure about whether ArbCom is the place to decide such an issue. --RexxS (talk) 05:03, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Question for Tennis Expert

I have to ask, does TE understand what edit-warring is? I looked at the diffs provided:

• Anna Kournikova (1), (2) - There's no reversions - CC corrects some spellings and removes a quantity of overlinking in October and November. That is not edit-warring.
• Stan Smith (1), (2) - This begins at the second diff on 27 October. CC delinks all 48 (!!) links to U.S., along with multiple England, France, Germany, etc. and one autoformatting date link. Then on 6 Nov, TE reverts the most of those changes, along with some other edits, with no edit summary. 3 hours later CC once more removes the overlinking. The next day TE reverts CC. The next day SkyWalker reverts TE. Two days later, TE reverts Skywalker and then changes England to United Kingdom in four places. Now that is edit-warring. But the question is "Who is warring? The two editors who thought that 48 links to U.S. in one article was WP:Overlink or the single editor reverting who thinks 'these links are fine'? --RexxS (talk) 23:49, 12 January 2009 (UTC). Erratum: CC only delinked 47 U.S. links; he left the one generated by the infobox |country={{USA}} parameter. --RexxS (talk) 00:19, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Statement from Tennis expert

The various references to "semi-automated" editing includes both scripts and AWB. I have previously complained about the use of AWB to make controversial delinking edits at a frantic pace in clear violation of the AWB rules of use, only to have my complaint rejected by an administrator who himself uses AWB at a frantic pace to edit articles, a clear conflict of interest. I refer you to this AWB discussion and this ANI discussion. Others have complained about the use of AWB to make insignificant or inconsequential delinking edits in clear violation of another AWB rule of use, only to have the complaint rejected. I refer you to this AWB discussion, this AWB discussion, and this AWB discussion. Essentially, AWB, bots, and scripts are being used to make any discussion about the Manual of Style moot, futile, and pointless because all articles will have been changed to conform with one vocal faction's views (who are very proficient in bot and script programming) before the discussion is over. Also, the AWB and script users have converted what were supposed to be semi-automated tools into automated tools that are not bots in name only. Often, when it is brought to the attention of those users that they are making serious errors and asked to correct those errors, the notice is ignored or the reply is "that's the price of progress". See this discussion on the Ohconfucius talk page, this discussion on the Ohconfucius talk page, and this discussion on the Lightmouse talk page.

The statements by various people that hardly anyone has complained is ridiculous because whenever anyone does complain, they are steam-rolled by edit warring, aggressive posts and edit summaries, canvassing and other conspiratorial behaviors, accusations of mental illness or dyslexia, name calling, and other despicable tactics that clearly violate various Wikipedia policies and drive away valuable editors forever. See, for example:
Ohconfucius says I'm stupid
Ohconfucius says that certain administrators are communists and Stalinists
Ohconfucius says that certain people he disagrees with are terrorists
Conspiratorial behavior involving Ohconfucius and Tony1
List of some of Ohconfucius's disruptive and unconstructive behavior
Tony1 speculates about my having a major depressive disorder
Tony1 calls me a pest
Tony1 calls me a fanatic
Tony1 calls me a pig and eccentric
Tony1 calls me a fanatic and eccentric
Ohconfucius denegrates a contributor with "BIG YAWN"
Ohconfucius denegrates a contributor with "ZZZZzzzz"
Ohconfucius accuses me of being a drama queen and a princess
Ohconfucius accuses a contributor of being defensive-aggressive

Aside from all these problems, the Manual of Style has been treated by the date delinkers as if compliance with it were mandatory, regardless of particular article consensus. That is erroneous thinking, as previous ArbCom decisions have shown and as the Manual of Style itself plainly states. Tennis expert (talk) 05:11, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Reply to Colonies Chris

See this and this where he admitted his edit warring intentions and activities. See also this report of his edit warring, where in response he was incivil, confrontational, wikilawyering (esentially claiming that you can't edit war when all you're trying to do is enforce the MOS), and uncooperative. Tennis expert (talk) 11:38, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

He claims that he has not edit warred about date delinking. But here are a few examples of his doing exactly that:
Anna Kournikova (1), (2)
Stan Smith (1), (2)
Judy Tegart Dalton [1], (2)
Alexandra Fusai (1), (2)
Kelly Liggan (1), (2), (3)
Roscoe Tanner (1), (2)
Lesley Turner Bowrey (1), (2)
Jill Craybas (1), [2]
Stephanie Rottier (1), (2)
Tatiana Panova (1), (2).
Wilmer Allison (1), (2)
Jelena Dokic (1), (2)
Debbie Graham (1), (1)
Flavia Pennetta (1), (2)
Tennis expert (talk) 21:52, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Woody

I have been involved in this issue since the beginning of this latest round of delinking. I objected to the mass delinking of FAs and FLs which was made with this justification to the talkpages of all featured articles. My initial response can be found at Talk:Victoria Cross#Proposal to remove date-autoformatting in which I stated that I wouldn't get involved over at MOSNUM because "those pages have their cliques and I have little time for high-school politics." The summary by Septriontrialis is fairly accurate when it comes to the procedure at our MOS pages. Whenever I labour through the talkpages I find that there are editors entrenched on both sides, usually going round in circular arguments with little output.

For too long these pages have become a time-sink where editors debate the merits of the most small, and frankly lame changes to the MOS. They have little time to spend on editing articles, by that I mean expanding, verifying and reviewing. We need a clear ruling from Arbcom about the behaviour of all those involved on these pages; on the meaning of consensus and its interpretations; and on the use of automated tools to present a fait accompli. I hope that ARBCOM can finally resolve some of these issues and let us return to the development of articles.

Comment from vaguely-involved User:Kotniski

My thoughts on this matter, for what they are worth:

Where we are now. After horrifyingly vast amounts of discussion of this topic, the conclusion of the community seems to be basically thus: dates in WP articles are not to be linked EXCEPT (A) in articles about other dates; (B) possibly in a few other situations where they might be useful. Exception (A) seems pretty clear cut, but all attempts to define any situations to be included under (B) (date of birth, first date mentioned in the article, etc.) have failed to take off. Therefore there is probably no date link, other than those of (A), which the community has any enthusiasm for keeping. On the other hand there are many thousands of date links (mostly left over from autoformatting) which are now deprecated and are desired to be removed. This is clearly the kind of task that can be usefully done by a bot or by humans using scripts, particularly if combined with other tidying-up. Exception (A) shouldn't be a problem; operators can easily define classes of articles (year articles etc.) where the bots don't delink dates. Exception (B) isn't too significant a problem, since it's far from clear that it ever applies, and in any case the "harm" done by delinking the few (if any) dates in that class is easily outweighed by the "good" done in removing the far greater number of unwanted links. There should simply be some agreed syntax (for example, a comment within the link) which can be used to tell the bots that a particular link is not to be touched (only to be used, of course, when there is good reason – like 2000 on the MM dab page, yes, there are some exceptions – and not just because of an editor's personal view on date linking). Summary: the bots will benefit the project as long as the described exceptions are provided for.

How we got here. Oh dear. This episode is really not something we can be proud of. Massive unproductive debate over many months, frequently lost tempers, large-scale edit-warring, interpersonal conflicts persisting even now – and all to reach a very simple and clear-cut decision that we could have got to ages ago without a single unkind word being spoken. Something's broken in the way we do decisions, and the wise people of ArbCom may be able to offer some guidance on what lessons are to be learnt from all this. For me, as proposer and writer-into-policy of the original autoformatting deprecation, I take the lesson that proposals directly affecting vast numbers of articles need to be loudly publicized in the community at large before any attempt at implementation. For the community, I suggest that there needs to be a mechanism whereby disputes that are getting hugely out of hand are forcibly brought under control - formally moderated, kept on track, and closed (preferably by a panel, for debates this big) after being allowed to run a reasonable time. We have structured processes for making certain decisions - deletions, renames, RfAs, ArbCom cases - why not have them available to resolve other issues where - exceptionally - the normal consensus-forming process has broken down. Summary: something needs to be done to stop this happening again.

People. I believe all those involved in this debate have acted for what they believed to be the best for the encyclopedia. Tempers have been frayed, to say the least, on all sides, but this is largely a consequence of the systemic failure to get the matter properly streamlined until very late in the day. I would hope that everyone can now accept the outcome, and get on with either implementing it or making other positive contributions to Wikipedia, which I know that all of them will. And to put aside past conflicts and work together amicably wherever their paths should cross. Summary: hey, it's only dates.

Re the present complaint. I agree that actions by various people on all sides in the past might have been imperfectly judged. However there seems to be no reason to complain against the action being taken with the use of bots now, with consensus finally established (at least to the extent that we can see that the use of bots is beneficial, as I've argued above). (I don't understand why some arbitrators seem to be saying that the consensus-building process should still be continuing - it's been as far as it possibly can and a lot further, and I don't believe there's any serious doubt about the principal conclusions as stated above. There will never be unanimity, if that's what they're hoping.) So I would strongly recommend that ArbCom not take any action to obstruct the useful work of these tools being done now, but confine itself to saying what went wrong throughout the whole saga and suggesting what might be done to prevent issues getting so out of hand in the future.

Comment from completely uninvolved User:S. Dean Jameson

Looking at this issue, it's apparent that the issue -- content dispute or no -- has not been, and will not be, decided on-project. That makes the issue to accept the case relatively cut-and-dried for the arbitration committee, in my view. As for the underlying facts, it would appear that something at least resembling consensus was reached at WT:MOSNUM. However, per the Fait Accompli finding in the episodes case, once editors at the individual articles began to dispute this consensus, the automated edits should have stopped immediately. Personally, I don't see any particular value in linking individual dates, unless that date is particularly significant for some reason, but that's beside the point. Once the edits were disputed, they should have stopped. They didn't, and now that is a behavior issue (along with some concerns regarding personal attacks and basic collegiality) that the committee should address. SDJ 17:35, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

De-linking actions while the case proceeds?

I'm not able to find where people are proceeding with mass-delinking just at the moment (though I haven't looked too far). I would think that these activities have ceased for the moment, but you never know, and there is also the possibility someone else will pick up the ball and run with it.

Should there be a request for injunction to prevent the involved or related parties (or anyone) from using scripts, semi-automated tools, bots, etc. to remove date links on a large-scale basis while the case proceeds? There should be no "damage" to the encyclopedia by ceasing these activities while the case runs. Franamax (talk) 00:10, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

See the Workshop subpage, I am preparing to request a temporary injunction there. —Locke Cole • t • c 00:11, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Could your injunction be amended to explicitely say whether AWB-based delinking is included or excluded? (When I notified User talk:Gaius Cornelius about his automated date-delinking with AWB, he said "AWB is not a bot and I am not doing anything en masse". This seems strange to me, but then the injunction doesn't mention AWB by name though it is a popular tool, so I had to ask.) — The Little Blue Frog (ribbit) 20:49, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Statement from (involved-ish) User:Dejvid

(involved-ish because I haven't participated in any of the RfCs but have contributed to the talk discussion)

• There have been a number of RfCs which have produced very confused debates. To my mind they showed that there is no consensus on the issue. I'm sure those who believe a consensus exists in their favor are sincere but such a belief can only be the result of selective reading.
• Either you think date links have value or you don't. This is an issue where what you think is "obvious" and it is hard to get your head round the fact that others don't see things that way. Hence the debates tend to be a dialog of the deaf which makes them very frustrating to participate in.
• The number of pages affected is vast. After Lightbot has finished, most simple year pages will be virtual orphans (excepting links from other date pages). The use of bots, in this way, undermines attempts to find solutions which take time.
• I get the feeling that all sides resent the time devoted to this because "hey it's only about dates". Hence people tend to dismiss people who disagree with them. It would help if everyone acknowledged that this is an important issue. If it were not we would all have simply conceded the point.Dejvid (talk) 19:23, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Rich Farmbrough

1. Having been very involved in date-linking and unlinking over the years (but not the current dispute) I have to say I see an emergence of patterns of behaviour in MosNUM and other MoS guidelines that are disturbing, for several reasons.
   1. Steadfastly refusing to accept consensus. This means that the arguments continue perpetually. The date formatting argument is several years old, not six months for example.
   2. Returning for another bite at the cherry. Certain aspects of MoS which had been hammered out and implemented across WP have been changed, by editors who re-propose their changes until they are accepted, then die in a ditch to preserve them. This is demoralising for those who have done the work on the previous version, and ignores the key fact that 'in most MoS disputes either solution is perfectly OK but a mash mash is not.
   3. Unwillingness to read historical discussions. This means we re-hash the same stuff over and over, and experienced hands leave Talk:MosNum and less than optimal decisions are taken.

Also I raise the point about MoS being a guideline; this has two facets which are often confused or forgotten:

1. If following the MoS would be foolish, don't follow it - this is "special circumstances".
2. You are not required to contribute in MoS style, or indeed with correct grammar or spelling. "We" will sort that out for you. Hence - and this is the main thrust - no-one is to be chided for not following the MoS. Deliberately obstructing or reverting those who do, however is a different matter.

Rich Farmbrough, 05:46 21 January 2009 (UTC).

Comment from involved user RainbowOfLight

I only *just* found out about this injunction via a very rude warning from an admin. The first statement on this page says "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." Actually, while I see my name listed nowhere on the page, no, I was not informed that there was any kind of injunction on date unlinking, and was immediately threatened with a 24-hour block after violating an injunction I had no idea existed. This really should have been pushed to that little announcement bar over our watchlists if you wanted people to know the rule existed. RainbowOfLight ^Talk 02:32, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

The admin has done the right thing in notifying you rather than blocking you as you are clearly not involved. The notice provided to you isnt long winded, but carries the important information so that you dont become involved. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 02:37, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I sincerely hope that when the arbitration is involved, the notice will be more publicized, whatever their decision. I am watching all the case pages now that I know of their existence. RainbowOfLight ^Talk 02:40, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Comment from uninvolved Jeff02

I first became aware of this debate when I found that an edit I made linking a date in Nintendo DSi was reverted. Naturally I told the reverter that dates should be linked in order to allow them to display in the reader's local date format, and I was directed to WP:DATE. Since then I have looked through discussions, and what I saw at the core of the issue was a small group of editors on a sort of mission to remove as many links as they can from Wikipedia, basing their arguments on WP:CONTEXT, and another small group of editors opposing them, basing their arguments on WP:BUILD. Those guidelines have both been replaced with WP:LINK, but even though the guidelines are gone, the opinions still remain. Now, we can argue about whether links to date articles are important, high-value, or relevant until the cows come home, but that isn't important here, because date links serve another purpose. Date links aren't just for linking to articles, but are there to allow users to set their preferred date format, a setting which only affects dates that are linked. In my opinion, until this functionality is implemented in some other way, the date links should not be removed, by bot or human.-Jeff ^(talk) 15:19, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Jeff, you're referring to date autoformatting. The debates rage on as to whether the community wants date linking or date autoformatting here, where the issues are being presented seperately. —Ost (talk) 21:49, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll be sure to share my thoughts there. But, I just thought I'd point out that my comment was indeed about the removal of date links, which is entirely relevant to this discussion.-Jeff ^(talk) 22:28, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Why is a debate about a wikipedia policy raging in a page in the user namespace? That seems a bit obscure. TJRC (talk) 14:44, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Technical suggestion from uninvolved User:The Little Blue Frog

(I was made aware of this page via Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2009-03-09/Arbitration report explaining the injunction, and a talk with an AWB-using delinker led me here, on a different section, to ask whether AWB was covered by the injunction. Meanwhile, I thought of a technical suggestion related to your debate.)

In a nutshell: linked dates could be autoformatted but displayed as unlinked plain text, and actual date links would be explicitely done using the current [[:date]] syntax. It's an intuitive syntax that should be almost trivial to complete in the software, and it should make everyone happy by removing the need to delink at all.

In some details:

1. Dates would still be typed as regular date links (such as [[January 23]], [[1987]]) and the software would still autoformat it according to preferences (as currently) BUT the reformatted dates would be displayed as plain text (with no linking at all, and nothing added to the "what links here" of the dates).
2. In those cases when you actually need a blue link to a date, you would do so explicitely with a ":" prefix such as [[:January 23]], [[:1987]] (this already works for dates, as well as for linking to categories).
3. For readers (not logged in), a default preference would be applied to keep dates consistently displayed: this default could vary based on the language preference set in the reader's browser, an information known to the Wikipedia server ("en-US" would default to M-D-Y display, "en-GB" to D-M-Y, etc.) And in addition, an unlogged reader could have a Preference panel (based on cookies instead of login) allowing him to override default and choose his preferred format too.

Currently, things works a bit differently but are almost there, which means that a ":date" syntax is technically doable:

* a) [[January 23]], [[1987]] or [[23 January]] [[1987]]
* b) [[:January 23]], [[1987]] or [[:23 January]] [[1987]]
* c) [[January 23]], [[:1987]] or [[23 January]] [[:1987]]
* d) [[:January 23]], [[:1987]] or [[:23 January]] [[:1987]]
* e) [[1987-01-23]] or [[:1987-01-23]]

• a) January 23, 1987 or 23 January 1987
• b) January 23, 1987 or 23 January 1987
• c) January 23, 1987 or 23 January 1987
• d) January 23, 1987 or 23 January 1987
• e) 1987-01-23 or 1987-01-23

That is, currently a ":" prefix disables autoformat (in 'b' and 'd') and doesn't work on ISO dates (in 'e') - but both should be easy to reprogram towards a consensual ":date" system. Hope that may suggest a technical solution to a political problem. — The Little Blue Frog (ribbit) 21:01, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

thanks - something like that has already been proposed. i'm not the only one who objects to the confusion of using linking markup on dates not to create links, while creating date links would need some other markup. Sssoul (talk) 08:10, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

But then, this colon syntax is not another markup but a mere variant that's already a standard of wiki (with categories, images, transclusions). It doesn't seem confusing to anyone that plenty of linking markup does not create regular links and require a colon variant for blue linking:

• [[Category:Name]] sets a category, while linking is [[:Category:Name]]
• [[Image:Name.jpg]] adds a pic, while linking is [[:Image:Name.jpg]]
• (Similarly {{Name}} inserts a template, while inserting an article is {{:Name}})

So the idea that a colon prefix is required to actualize some types of blue linking is already quite there and it shouldn't be confusing to add the type of dates:

• [[January 23]] would autoformat plain text, while an autoformated link would be [[:January 23]]

For Wikipedia to be consistent, 100% of dates need to be marked up (for autoformat, customizable CSS, etc.) while only 1% to 10% of dates may need markup for blue linking. It's only pragmatic that markup for 100% of dates should be the simplest, easiest, and less intrusive: using the currently established [[date]] seems like it. I can't see how using [[:date]] for those few dates that need a blue link would be confusing. And as importantly, it's a syntax that's already there and working, just in need of a small tweak. — The Little Blue Frog (ribbit) 19:02, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Comment from uninvolved user

I arrived here through a tortuous series of links while trying to discover the current policy on date linking.

I'm puzzled about the purpose of this hearing. Is it about deciding whether or not dates should be linked, or is it about investigating incivil/disruptive behaviour?

If it's supposed to be about the former then, since I see that the Arbitration Committee apparently "will not make editorial statements or decisions about how articles should read ('content decisions')", the process seems to be largely a waste of time.

What we need to do is appoint someone (or a panel) who will make the necessary policy decisions, based on the available usability and technical arguments. Then everyone can get on with the rest of their lives. The "behaviour" cases can be heard separately. Matt 86.137.136.96 (talk) 21:33, 19 March 2009 (UTC).

This is, largely, about the behavior issues surrounding the dispute. The actual dispute itself is currently being discussed at User:Ryan Postlethwaite/Date linking RfC, User:Ryan Postlethwaite/Draft RfC, and Wikipedia:Date linking request for comment/Call for participation (see the associated talk pages as well). —Locke Cole • t • c 00:40, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification Locke. Would it be helpful to put those links somewhere at the top of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Date delinking? Something like "This arbitration concerns the behaviour of editors involved in the date-linking dispute. For discussion on the date-linking issue itself, see ... ". Maybe my confusion is just my fault for not reading thoroughly enough... but the volume and multiplicity of discussion on this topic is kind of overwhelming, especially for those unfmailiar with Wikipedia process. Matt 86.137.136.96 (talk) 01:17, 20 March 2009 (UTC).

Yes, it certainly is. I think that's a very good idea; would one of the clerks like to do that? — Hex (❝?!❞) 01:33, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Date formatting and linking poll now open

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

Wikipedia:Date formatting and linking poll now closed

The poll was closed at the end of April 13. Chris the speller (talk) 15:37, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Request for clarification

Greetings. I'm Quadell, a long-time administrator and BAG member, not involved in this case. I'm requesting clarification on the temporary injunction, but I'm not sure where to put my question. Is this a good place for it?

The injunction instructs all editors "not to engage in any program of mass linking or delinking of dates in existing articles, including but not limited to through the use of bots, scripts, tools, or otherwise." As I read it, it's not any particular script that is prohibited; it's the action of mass linking or delinking dates, no matter how it's done. If an editor uses a Date Delinker script to delink dates in articles he is already editing for other reasons, checking each change to make sure it's in line with the MoS and consensus, it doesn't sound to me like that violates the injunction. On the other hand, if an editor mass-adds or mass-removes date formatting by hand in article after article, editing the articles only for that purpose and not verifying each change, then that would be a violation of the injunction. It's a little unclear, though, so I'm looking for clarification. Thanks, – Quadell ^(talk) 19:59, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Request for clarification: PMAnderson and naming conventions pages

If Pma's topic ban "from style and editing guidelines, and any related discussions" includes naming conventions pages, someone should tell him now. (I don't know and only slightly care what the answer to that is; my concern is that it be handled by clarification now, rather than an unexpected and messy block later) Hesperian 23:48, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Date unlinking bot proposal RFC open

The community RFC about a proposal for a bot to unlink dates is now open. Please see Wikipedia:Full-date unlinking bot and comment here. --Apoc2400 (talk)

Request to amend prior case: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Date delinking

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:

• Hex (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (initiator)
• Locke Cole (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Statement by Hex

I wish, as both an involved party in the date delinking case and a Wikipedia administrator, to lodge a formal complaint regarding the six-month ban of Locke Cole (talk · contribs) implemented in this case. Arbitrator Kirill commented that Cole has "[a record] of disruption spanning multiple years" and that "There's a point at which we must say that someone has had enough chances". However, anything more than the most cursory glance at this log shows there is very little to justify such harsh action.

• 21 November 2005 - 3 hour incivility block
• 3 December 2005 - 24 hour edit war block

• 4 February 2006 - 24 hour incivility block, cancelled, extended to 48 hours, then reduced to 10 hours, then unblocked within hours
• 28 February 2006 - 15 hour edit war block
• 31 March 2006 - 24 hour preventative block for mass page moves, revoked 15 minutes later
• 17 May 2006 - 24 hour incivility block
• 29 June 2006 - 1 month block following arbitration

Two years pass without issues.

• 3 March 2008 - 48 hour block for "harassment" (unexplained in log)
• 6 March 2008 - 1 week block for same, immediately revoked by issuer as an erroneous block
• 22 April 2008 - 24 hour edit war block, revoked within hours
• 16 May 2008 - 55 hour edit war block, revoked with comment "although there was a 3rr breach, locke cole was revert-warring against abusive sockpuppets"
• 3 June 2008 - 24 hour edit war block
• 5 June 2008 - 72 hour edit war block
• 18 November 2008 - 1 week edit war block, revoked within hours

• 26 March 2009 - 5 day edit war block, revoked within ten minutes

So, a few years back Locke was a bit hot-headed and spent a month blocked following an arbitration. Then, last year, he got involved in a bit of edit-warring. Note the preventative short blocks issued and, more importantly, revoked.

Now contrast this to the actions of Ohconfucius (talk · contribs), who has repeatedly been blocked for violating the arbitration injunction, and then evading the the block by IP-editing; and has a raft of Committee findings against him, including incivility, edit warring, battling, and performing over nine thousand automated edits without the permission of the Bot Approvals Group. But he ended up with a topic ban, an editing restriction, and prevention from using automation.

This is neither proportionate nor fair. I do not understand the thinking involved in issuing such an unbalanced set of remedies. Why is one banned, and not the other? This applies also to Tony1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Greg L (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), and the other listed parties receiving sanctions. The only other ban handed out in this case was that of Lightmouse (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who participated in organized disruption on a massive scale.

The other salient point is that it was Locke Cole that opened this arbitration in the first place. No action would have been taken towards resolving this issue, and restricting the disruptive editors who have caused so many problems over so much time, if he hadn't brought it to ArbCom's attention. He said in his initial statement, “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.” His concerns have been borne out in full by the results of this arbitration; yet his reward is to receive a totally disproportionate ban.

I request that the Arbitration Committee rescind the ban of Locke Cole. Furthermore, I request that a full public explanation is provided of the reasoning behind this ban and how it was reached. — Hex (❝?!❞) 13:27, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

• Moved from amendments area. — Hex (❝?!❞) 18:10, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Statement by other user

• "Editors with prior sanctions are inevitably going to [be] dealt with by ArbCom more robustly than those with entirely clean hands"—that's understandable (and I believe fair). Why did Tennis expert (talk · contribs) receive exactly the same remedy as John (talk · contribs)? TE made approximately 100 times the revert-type edits that John did, and TE had prior sanctions (one of which to do with the date-delinking case), whereas John had "entirely clean hands"?  HWV258  22:30, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrator views and discussion

• This question was already addressed on the noticeboard discussion page, if I recall correctly. Unlike the other editors involved, Locke Cole had already been sanctioned in a previous arbitration (the Locke Cole case) for similar disruptive conduct. Since the restrictions placed in that case obviously failed to correct Locke's behavior, or to impress upon him that edit-warring is unacceptable, we have enacted a more substantial sanction in the hopes that it will prove more effective at halting the disruption. Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 13:38, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
• Indeed, the fact that prior sanctions existed factor prominently in the selection of this sanction. When the committee warns or admonishes an editor regarding certain behavior, it is to be expected that resurgence of that behavior will lead to stronger sanctions than would have otherwise been applied. — Coren ^(talk) 15:06, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
• Agree with both Kirill and Coren. When ArbCom or the Community previously addresses an issue with an user, then it is expected that going forward the person will make changes voluntarily after the sanctions end. The case sanctions are put in place to provide involuntary restrictions since self regulation of conduct is not thought adequate. FloNight♥♥♥ 17:24, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
• Some of Locke Cole's behavior in relation to the date-delinking dispute, as cited in the committee's decision, was poor. In the past, Locke Cole has been involved in other disputes, during some of which his conduct was also poor. In that context, the sanction voted by my colleagues is understandable. Moreover, the fact that Locke Cole was banned as a sanction in a prior arbitration case is an aggravating factor not present with respect to any of the other parties, and provides a reasonable justification for his being sanctioned more severely than they. Nonetheless, I do believe that a mere scan of the block log may somewhat overstate the severity of Locke Cole's prior misconduct for the reasons suggested by Hex, and my vote was to impose a less severe sanction. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:29, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
• Editors with prior sanctions are inevitably going to dealt with by ArbCom more robustly than those with entirely clean hands. The solution is not for ArbCom to modify the remedy but for the editor to modify their behaviour.  Roger Davies ^talk 12:20, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
• In agreement with the preceding comments. --Vassyana

Request to amend prior case: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Date delinking (2)

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:

• Kotniski (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)

Statement by Kotniski

I believe the "topic ban" that has been imposed on me in this case is totally out of proportion to anything I'm supposed to have done wrong. I accept I may have hit the undo button a bit too often on a few occasions, but that was mostly under provocation by extremely disruptive editors, in any case not exceptional by WP standards, and in no way characterizes my regular behaviour on "editing and style guideline" pages. The explanation given for the sanction by Kirill (diff) shows how misguided it is - there is no instability on the pages in question at the moment, at least not due to me, and absolutely no reason is given as to why the ban should be extended to talk pages, where I have always worked civilly towards finding consensus - I am currently doing so on several pages (well WT:CAT and the associated RFC at least), which efforts would be thwarted by this sanction. Since all I've done wrong is possibly to revert too much, I propose replacing the topic ban with a 1RR restriction. And I can promise not to edit anything about date links.--Kotniski (talk) 14:23, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Reply to Roger Davies: I know the theory, but I can't for the life of me see how it applies to me in this case. What topics are severely disrupted now (as opposed to six months ago), and what reason do you have for thinking that I am likely to disrupt them? I don't see how it serves the encyclopedia's interests to take a constructively active editor out of the decision-making process for a set of pages that mostly have nothing to do with the subject of the dispute (which is settled now anyway). To me this feels like pure retribution, and not even for anything I've actually done. --Kotniski (talk) 14:23, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Reply to Coren: I can assure you that it is very onerous not to be allowed to comment on pages I've always been active and constructive on. Apart from the annoyance of the restriction itself, it is the feeling of having been unjustly criminalized, which has already apparently driven one good editor away (I hope ArbCom is working to rectify that). And yes, I believe this is a demonstrable error - the ban was extended to talk pages in spite of the absence of any problem behaviour there.--Kotniski (talk) 17:44, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Reply to Rlevse: I have been editing productively for 2(?) years; the isolated "offences" I am supposed to have committed are more than 3 months old now, so I think I've more than satisfied your conditions. I know you mean to be wise and judicial and so on, but when you say things like that to your colleagues (implying that we're not generally speaking productive editors) you may inadvertently cause deep offense. --Kotniski (talk) 09:57, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Re archiving: I reverted the archiving of this thread because it doesn't seem to have been concluded (most Arbs haven't commented yet, and I'm specifically awaiting a reply at the coordinating arb's talk page.--Kotniski (talk) 09:57, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Comment by Orderinchaos

I am writing in support of this user's application for reduction, in the view that the purpose of the decision should be to limit or prevent future disruption, and I don't see sufficiently disruptive ongoing behaviour to warrant a heavy sanction. This case seems to have involved a few instances of poor judgement in the wrong place at the wrong time, and he was hardly a major offender in the piece.

I worked last year with this user in a rather contentious area (naming of tennis players and use of diacritics, including a very, very long RfD). Overall, the situation was rather hostile - and some of the players in this dispute were in that one too (Tennis expert, HJensen, PM Anderson etc). Kotniski came in fairly late in the piece and actually was very constructive and helpful, atrying to assist the development of consensus while making his own personal views on the subject known. I think this assisted the resolution of the case in favour of the status quo, and I was sufficiently impressed in that he probably handled the dispute better than I did. I have since observed his behaviour at a number of junctures and have found him to generally work cooperatively and in good faith with others. Orderinchaos 18:15, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I also wish to second Tony's concise comments below. Orderinchaos 17:20, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Comment by Tony1

As a party to the case, I have a conflict of interest in saying anything; I nevertheless ask for unusual leave from arbitrators to state that Kotniski, in my view, is one of the most honest, trustworthy editors I have met on WP, and has rare linguistic skills of great value to the project. I ask that the Committee consider lifting at the very least the ban on his editing of the style-guide talk pages. I believe the reversions referred to by Arbitrator Roger Davies were out of keeping with his normal demeanour. Tony (talk) 16:33, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Dabomb87

I accept that the arbitrators are unwilling to lift or lessen Kotniski's topic ban due to his multiple cases of edit warring. However, may I ask what led him to receive a ban from discussions? There is no finding of fact that states he has been uncivil or disruptive in discussions, and the evidence does not shed any light either. I agree with Vassayana and Newyorkbrad that the restrictions seem to be overbroad. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:05, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Response to Rlevse

Seeing as Kotniski's restriction is for three months, I'm not sure what waiting three months for an appeal will do here. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:55, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Piotrus

As has been pointed out above, I do wonder: what was the rationale between the talk page ban? I am totally unfamiliar with the case in general, but my experience with Kotniski was quite positive - I have never seen him be uncivil or disruptive in discussions. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:43, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrator views and discussion

• Comment: Topic bans are intended to give severely disrupted topics a break from disruption and to give topic-banned editors an opportunity to get used to working in less contested areas. A three-month topic ban does not seem to me particularly heavy-handed and serves the encyclopedia's interests rather better than a 1RR restriction, which in many instances may be one revert too many.  Roger Davies ^talk 12:12, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

• Take Wikipedia:Linking: in November last year you edit-warred there, for which you were warned. You edit-warred again a week later, and were blocked for it. You did some more edit-warring there in March this year, making substantially the same edits as the last time. The ability to learn from past mistakes and to refrain from perpetuating disputes are two major factors the Committee will always consider in imposing remedies in a case. Based on the available evidence a relatively short topic ban such as this is apt, particularly in the context of the broader dispute. --bainer (talk) 16:05, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

• Despite the legitimate concerns raised by my colleagues both above and in the decision, I found the scope of the sanctions imposed against this user to be somewhat overbroad. I therefore lean toward granting all or much of this application. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:45, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

• I agree with the general spirit of all the comments above. While I believe the history justifies some restriction, I also agree with NYB that the restriction is overbroad. While I would not go so far as NYB, I'd gladly support a topic ban modification that permits participation in discussion. Vassyana (talk)--22:58, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
• At this time, given that the restriction is not onerous, I am not inclined to revisit those sanctions unless they were demonstrably based on an error. — Coren ^(talk) 17:28, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
• Comment I'm thought over the current three dates case appeals and I think the thing to do is have the three editors edit productively for three months and come back for a review/modification request then. — Rlevse • Talk • 14:36, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

---

(talk) 22:51, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Request to amend prior case: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Date delinking (3)

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:

• HJensen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)

Statement by HJensen

I do not understand my 12 month restriction. My personal description on my "role" in this case is found in this small essay. In a nutshell, it seems to me that Arbitrators gradually could see that I was not really an important player in this case. But this was too late, as sufficiently many had voted for a restriction (so the available information and voting options presented to arbitrators differed over the duration of the voting. This in itself is somewhat disturbing). HJensen, talk 22:18, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I have expanded on my essay (now commenting on this archived and failed request for amendment) here.--HJensen, talk 22:52, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Kotniski

I just wanted to say that having read the essay, my own feelings after this case are very much the same as this user's. I think ArbCom really needs to look hard at what it does, how it does it, and what effect it can have on the well-meaning editors on whom WP depends. (In fact I've just been reading up on the John case, and unless there's something I don't know about, it seems absolutely despicable that a good contributor should have been driven away from the project in this way. It makes me ashamed to have raised my own case here when I now see that others have been treated so much more appallingly.) --Kotniski (talk) 09:35, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Comment by Orderinchaos

In finding myself diametrically opposed in opinion to this editor in a major dispute last year re use of diacritics (see my notes on Kotniski) I found this user the most reasonable and willing to discuss out of those who shared his opinion, and while we certainly made our differences rather obvious, at no stage did he engage in edit warring on the topic. The dispute was prolonged only by the behaviour of others. On looking at this case I see no real differences in his behaviour here, and tend to think the sanctions are a little excessive with regard to this user. Orderinchaos 18:21, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Given that Coren and Rlevse have has resigned from the committee since posting their views, and the two remaining statements express some disagreement with the original decision, where does this one presently stand in terms of a resolution? Orderinchaos 04:09, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrator views and discussion

• I have previously expressed my disagreement regarding findings and sanctions for this editor. I will wait for further statements and the comments of other arbitrators before commenting further. --Vassyana (talk) 19:46, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
• I am in the same position as Vassyana, in that in voting on the proposed decision I opposed the finding of fact involving HJensen, and further opined that I would consider the restriction imposed upon him to be overbroad even if I agreed with the finding. I too will await further statements and arbitrator comments here before proceeding. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:44, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
• At this time, given that the restriction is not onerous, I am not inclined to revisit those sanctions unless they were demonstrably based on an error. — Coren ^(talk) 17:28, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
• Comment I'm thought over the current three dates case appeals and I think the thing to do is have the three editors edit productively for three months and come back for a review/modification request then. — Rlevse • Talk • 14:35, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
• I'm recused on the original case (and don't intend to comment on any of the clarifications and appeals relating to the case), but to partially answer Orderinchaos, Coren has since returned to ArbCom (have a look at the list). I have also sent round a general appeal for arbitrators to deal with the current backlogs at clarifications and amendments (and will do so again now), so hopefully there will be more movement on all this. Carcharoth (talk) 07:46, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

---

Request to amend prior case: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Date delinking (4)

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:

• Colonies Chris (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)

Statement by Colonies Chris

Firstly, I acknowledge my lack of wisdom in becoming embroiled (along with many others) in a battle with one specific editor (User:Tennis expert. I accept entirely that however troublesome the editor, this was the wrong way to handle the dispute, and I apologise for my actions. However, it is a long way from this one incident to the unjustifiable FoF that I "extensively edit warred"; I have not been involved in any dispute except in this specific incident. And the restriction placed on me is entirely unnecessary - I have been a gnoming editor for more than four years, with over 70,000 edits. I have no record of conflict before this occasion nor subsequently, nor with any other editor.

Secondly, in the course of this case, my edits were three times brought to admins' attention as possible breaches of the mass delinking injunction. Twice an admin agreed, once an admin disagreed that I was in violation, despite all the edits being of the same nature - delinking in the course of other gnoming edits. The original statement by Arb John Vandenberg, and recent clarifications by other Arbs, must surely have established that my actions were definitely not in violation of the injunction. I have asked for specific clarification on the case's talk page, but none has been forthcoming. I have to conclude that the Arbs are staying silent because they are neither willing to endorse these blocks nor to admit they were inappropriate. (And I'd like to point out that none of these delinkings have proved controversial - not a single one of them has been relinked or even questioned).

Thirdly, I want to endorse Kotniski's comments below about User:HJensen and User:John, two valuable editors who were only ever on the outermost periphery of this dispute and who have been driven away by their unjust treatment in this case. Their cases should be reviewed immediately to remedy the injustice done to them. Colonies Chris (talk) 08:55, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Reply to Vassyana

First of all, waving around terms of abuse like 'tag-team edit warring' is not helpful or relevant – that phrase describes a situation when a group of editors gang up to push their POV on a controversial topic (such as Scientology or Ireland, for example). This is not that sort of case. The community's view on date links has been clearly expressed in multiple RFCs. It's not a POV issue.

Secondly, the community has repeatedly expressed the view that the vast majority of date links are valueless and the current unlinking RFC looks to be heading for an overwhelming vote of support for automated delinking, without human oversight of the type Vassyana deems so important. The community understands that (a) most date links were made as a side effect of date autoformatting, not as a deliberate decision to create a link, and (b) there is no obvious way for any editor, human or bot, to tell whether an earlier editor linked a particular date for a non-autoformatting reason, so arguing about the value of human oversight is pretty pointless. It is quite wrong of you to misrepresent those observations as a wanton disregard for the value of human oversight.

Reply to Vassyana (2)

Please provide diffs for your assertion that I expressed a position "dismissive of concerns and standard oversight requests". Colonies Chris (talk) 10:03, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Reply to Vassyana (3)

I am astounded and baffled that these diffs are being claimed as evidence of a position "dismissive of concerns and standard oversight requests". As I've already pointed out, most date links were made without human oversight, as a part of routinely linking dates for autoformatting, or by imitation, and no-one has suggested any means to distinguish them from links made with deliberate intention. Stating this is not dismissing the value of human oversight, it's a simple recognition that we can't read the minds of previous editors (there is almost never any discussion about such links on the article's talk page). And the growing community support for the proposed bot to unlink all autoformatted dates confirms that the community shares this view. Do you propose to sanction on the same grounds all the people who !vote 'Support' for the bot? And it's ridiculous to characterise my annoyance at Tennis expert's continual gaming the system to maintain his iron grip over the tennis articles (751 reverts, remember, claiming a 'local consensus' that was supported by no other editor and actively opposed by several regular tennis editors) as 'dismissive of concerns'. Colonies Chris (talk) 12:56, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Reply to John Vandenberg / Newyorkbrad

John Vandenberg has clearly looked very closely at edit histories to discover eight articles where I made one unlinking edit seven months ago. I find it interesting that while claiming these edits as evidence of "extensive edit warring", he has somehow overlooked the five relinkings made in that period by User:Lumos3 to Karl Popper, the seven relinkings made by the same user to Andrea Villarreal, the five relinking edits he made to Rudolf Steiner, the six relinkings to Gabriel Fauré, the four relinkings to William Cobbett, the five relinkings to Angéle de la Barthe, the seven relinkings to Josephine Kablick and the three relinkings to Carol Gould; and he also fails to mention the non-date-related improvements that I made to most of those articles. John Vandenberg has been very keen to chase down and punish everyone who has done any delinking, condemning and driving away valuable editors such as User:HJensen and User:John, but serial relinkers escape his censure even when they're right under his nose. This doesn't look like evenhanded justice to me.

And finally, I'll reiterate the point that sanctions are supposed to be for the protection of Wikipedia, not a punishment. Does any Arb really believe that if I were unrestrained I would be out there edit warring all over the place? I agree with Coren that the restriction is not onerous, but neither is it necessary. The whole issue is about to be put to bed by a bot (to the clearly expressed relief of many of the !voters in the RFC), and once again I'll point out that I have no record of any conflict whatever on any other subject. Colonies Chris (talk) 23:23, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Reply to John Vandenberg (2)

You noted the existence of Lumos3's seven reverts to Karl Popper here on 11 May. It is not credible that you 'did not have time' to add that user to the case. This was and is clearly a one-sided witch hunt against unlinkers on your part. It was Lumos3's judgment that some of the links were useful. It was my judgment, and the judgment of many other editors, that none were. You have decided that that judgment is not acceptable because it doesn't conform to your prejudices. Your statement above that 'it is incredibly difficult to find cases of edit warring by the delinkers' betrays that - clearly you have only been looking for cases of edit warring by delinkers and not by re-linkers. (And please note, the summaries of the unlinking edits, as you have yourself stated only two paragraphs above, also mentioned the MoS, with which all unlinking edits were in conformance.) Colonies Chris (talk) 08:24, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Reply to John Vandenberg (3)

Your claim that the unlinkings were not discussed is false. There was a lengthy discussion with User:Lumos3 on his talk page here. Colonies Chris (talk) 15:36, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Reply to John Vandenberg (4)

I suggest you reread that discussion yourself. It started off couched in general MoS terms, and then moved on to discussing specific dates in that article. Here are three clips illustrating: the start of the discussion, in general terms: a later specific question (which was only answered in general terms): and another later intervention pointing that out.

Hey Lumos3, I noticed that you've been date linking years on articles. This form of linking is strongly discouraged, per WP:OVERLINK#Dates, as is the old 1 January 2000 style links, per MOS:UNLINKDATES. Blue-Haired Lawyer 11:35, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Can you specifically say how the articles at 17 April and at 1622 enhance the reader's understanding of Richard Hawkins? Can you provide evidence that this is the case, or is it just your own opinion? Failing that, per WP:CONTEXT, these should not be linked. This benefits Wikipedia by focusing the reader's attention on links which actually go somewhere useful, as described in the guideline I already linked you to. If you are unable to properly answer the questions above, I think you should undo your edit, unless of course you were doing it just to make a WP:POINT, which I'm sure isn't true. --John (talk) 13:39, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with John. Lumos3, your recent edit summaries are saying "Wikipedia's policy is to link significant dates. Birth and death in a biography are significant". That is not what WP's policy says at all. It says: "Stand-alone chronological links should generally not be linked, unless they are demonstrably likely to deepen readers' understanding of a topic". If knowing what other events also happened in the year or on the date the subject was born or died is necessary to deepen readers' understanding of the subject, then those events should be, and usually are, discussed in the article itself. Those who are interested merely in "On This Day"-type information can get it independently. This is the only rationale you've provided for linking vital dates, and it does not demonstrate a deeper understanding of the topic. I suggest you need to refrain from re-linking dates that have been de-linked, unless, in any particular case, you can find a better reason than the "On This Day" argument. Such an argument would apply only to the subject at hand, and not as a blanket argument to link all vital dates in all articles. -- JackofOz (talk) 00:12, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

And please note also that the initial objection to Lumos3's relinkings did not originate from any of the delinkers who have been in the dock in the current case, and the objection was supported by a second editor unconnected to that group. Colonies Chris (talk) 10:40, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Statement by John Vandenberg

I am going to recuse on these date delinking amendment requests, however I do want to make sure that appeals don't ignore the evidence provided on the FoF, such as Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Date_delinking/Evidence#Karl_Popper, where Colonies Chris enters an existing edit-war that has nothing to do with Tennis expert.[3]

There were eight sequential edits like that. Here is another one of those eight in context.

John Vandenberg ^(chat) 21:20, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

fwiw, it is incredibly difficult to find cases of edit warring by the delinkers, because they used the very helpful "script-assisted date/terms audit; see mosnum, wp:overlink" when reverting. Every time I go looking for more edit-warring, I find more.

Of course it would be helpful if the parties actually mentioned the edit-wars they were involved in. Nobody bothered to mention Lumos3 in the evidence, or workshop. Doing that would have resulting in their own edit warring being more visible. As a result, I included the edit wars with Lumos3 to demonstrate that there was tag-teaming edit warring between the main parties involved in this case, outside of the tennis articles.

I have since found more evidence that Lumos3 did edit-war extensively, and I do wish I had time to add that user as a party.[4]

However it should be noted that Lumos3 was not relinking everything, or doing blind reverts. Lumos3 considered some dates to be significant, and linked those, and cited the MOS in the edit summary. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 00:31, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

@Kotniski, you appear to be attacking the messenger. I was just trying to do my job well, and sure didn't enjoy it, nor was I seeking any outcome. I spent the time investigating this case in order to understand the problem, as it developed, because the picture that was being given by both parties was extremely unhelpful in doing that. Accurate findings of fact that would otherwise be missed are now on the record as a summary of what caused this mess, and hopefully prevent it happening in other similar style debates. The remedies flow from those findings. I did not support many of the stronger remedies, so you have the wrong guy to label as the person seeking to "punish" anyone. p.s. we have project pages that describe tag-team edit warring. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 11:35, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

@Colonies Chris, my evidence (started on May 8, after the draft PD was posted on April 30) was added in order to add more background to the tennis wars. After the draft was posted, there were many unfounded allegations that I had a COI and should recuse, to the tune of 1 million dollars by Tony1, which significantly affected my ability to follow up all interesting edits and investigate everyone. Here are two of the times that Tony1 put the case on hold on specious grounds and without being forthcoming about the evidence he allegedly had, or obtaining a second opinion before making a scene about it: 1, 2.

I primarily investigated people who were already parties, and predominately those involved in the tennis wars. While doing that, I found a two or three non-tennis skirmishes. which were examples of tag team edit warring. The one you were involved in was Karl Popper.

In that dispute, Luoms3 partially reverted, relinking only dates which he believed were compliant with the MOS at that time, because he considered them to be significant. You might consider them insignificant, and remove them, but you did not discuss them, and didnt even use the edit summary to indicate your position. WP:BRD didn't happen here. Instead we see someone else arrive and delink them again, with the same bland edit summary. 10 times this happens on Karl Popper. And this happened time after time on the articles where someone believed a date was significant enough to be linked. If you and others had entered into discussions about the significance of the relinked dates, you probably would have won hearts and minds. Edit warring doesn't win hearts and minds; it does not build consensus for a change of the status quo.

Also note that I added user:G-Man as a party at the same time I added user:John, due to the Clement Attlee situation which I added into evidence. I did look into that users contributions, and in light of this perhaps you could revise your "one-sided witch hunt against unlinkers" claim.

I didn't add Lumos3 as a party, as I didnt see significant involvement at the time, because I didn't look into that users contributions. Since that time, John asked me to dig deeper into his involvement, and so it is from his contributions that I became more aware of the involvement of Lumos3. And now looking at your appeal, and by reviewing your contributions, I see Lumos3 again.

There were also date delinkers whose contributions I didn't have time to look into.

The parties who were delinking dates have been the people appealing, and requesting a deeper investigation into their involvement in this dispute. I am explaining that looking for skirmishes in the date delinkers contributions it is made incredibly difficult due to the edit summary "script-assisted date/terms audit; see mosnum, wp:overlink" being used when it should actually be "revert". These reverts are difficult to find because they are in among the thousands of other edits which were not reverts, but also had the same summary. Where the date linkers were involved in disputes, their edit summary makes it very clear that they are reverting, so I have not had the same difficulty. Hence I am complaining about the delinkers edit summaries and not the linkers edit summaries - this doesn't support your theory that I have only been looking at the contributions of one side of the dispute. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 13:36, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

@Colonies Chris, that discussion is mentioned in the evidence section Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Date_delinking/Evidence#Karl_Popper. It is a general discussion, among all the other general discussions being had at that time, such as the RFCs. Please read the general discussion you point to. There is no discussion about the specific links you were edit-warring to remove, citing MOS - no attempt to find a consensus or compromise. This was a reasonably gray area in the MOS at the time, and the RFCs were trying to help clarify that gray area. And yet while those discussions were occurring, you and others were edit warring to enforce the most strict reading of the MOS, and that uncompromising approach is what brought this mess to Arbcom.

Do you feel that your edits were justified? If so, please cite the policy, guideline and/or discussion that underpins your justification, and please link to a version of the page at the time of your edits. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 21:34, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Kotniski

I find it disturbing that JV some Arbs apparently view these sanctions as punishment rather than prevention (he will correct me if I've misunderstood, but I can see no other motive for raking over month-old edit histories in a now settled dispute). If we are going to have a penal system on WP (and I hope we're not), then we ought to have at least two basic things (which we should have anyway, for whatever system of sanctions we use): (1) clear and rational rules (e.g. what is "tag-team edit warring"? how else is consensus to be enforced unless people are allowed to revert those who ignore it?); (2) an independent second instance for appeals (which we don't have if ArbCom allows itself to be a court of first instance as it did in this case). On several occasions I've suggested how we might improve the system to prevent this kind of out-of-control mess - I seem to have been ignored. But ArbCom could be really useful if it analysed properly what went wrong and what needs fixing for the future (after all, every ArbCom case represents a failure of the system), instead of concentrating on individuals' past misjudgments and effectively making them scapegoats for the system's imperfections. --Kotniski (talk) 06:31, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

To JV - OK, I withdraw any implication that you are the one seeking punishment, but I still think the analysis should have gone one step back - the problem we need to solve for the future is not that "X has edit warred", "Y has been uncivil", but that "people edit war", "people are uncivil", "admins are not effective at stopping edit warring and incivility when it happens." Why is this? Lack of information or clear rules? Perception that there is no alternative? ...? ...? Imposing sanctions on X and Y are no remedy to these problems (and might well do incidental harm to the project) - talking to X and Y and various other Zs (i.e. the thing you're always telling us to do) might lead us forward.

That's all from me on this page for at least a week - I hope my points will finally be listened to and that some good can come out of this terrible mess (and please get User:John back if you can - his treatment was way off the scale).--Kotniski (talk) 11:59, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Reply to Vassyana

Please read what I wrote above - you don't seem to have taken account of it in your latest statement. Firstly, the concern should be not "prior misconduct", but to prevent future disruption. Secondly, it's wrong to cite a list of exceptions to 3RR as if it were a list of exceptions to edit-warring. There is no definition as to where edit-warring begins besides 3RR - it's a question of judgement. If you haven't broken 3RR, then you quite likely haven't edit-warred (or maybe you have - but that can't possibly be an exhaustive list of exceptions, otherwise we wouldn't have 3RR but some other RR). What would be helpful would be not pointless sanctions for particular incidents months ago (even vandals don't get that treatment), but analysis, dialogue, proposals, concrete advice on how to solve this perennial and far from straightforward problem. --Kotniski (talk) 11:23, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Note by Nathan

A few short points.

• The idea that a decision should not be revisited because its terms are not onerous on those affected has already been discarded by the Committee, most recently in the case of Shoemaker's Holiday.

• It's been said at arbitration hundreds of times, and while it is often discarded by arbitrators, it is nonetheless true that being the subject of even a non-onerous ArbCom remedy is akin to a scarlet letter. If there are errors in those remedies, or credible allegations of such errors, arbitrators should not discard a re-examination out of hand.

• I find it strange to suggest that parties should prove prior remedies asserting poor behavior were in error by demonstrating future good behavior. The facts upon which findings and remedies were previously made are static in history; John and Colonies Chris and others aren't pleading guilty and asking for a reprieve, they are claiming that their actions never warranted remedy. Nathan ^T 21:04, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrator views and discussion

• I am not inclined to revist this, especially in light of the presentation of this request. There was significant participation in tag-team edit warring, much of which had nothing to do with Tennis expert. Additionally, discussion participation shows that Colonies Chris took a hard position with an awareness of dissent, supporting full date delinking while rejecting huamn oversight or discretion over (semi-)automated delinking tools (as an example). To blame this broader participation and rejection of common expectations for scripts and bots on a limited conflict with one editor is simply not in accord with the picture provided by the evidence. --Vassyana (talk) 21:44, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

• Our principles on edit-warring only make exceptions for limited and obvious cases (BLP enforcement, copyvios, vandalism, banned users, etc). Even then, they encourage caution and note that even those exceptions may sometimes be seen as controversial or even as edit warring (see here). There was participation in group edit warring. A clear (and hardline) position dismissive of concerns and standard oversight requests was expressed. At the time of the reverts, there were quite a number of complaints, dissent, and reasonable requests for accomodation that were not simply from small group of troublemakers (as some would like to portray). The recent bot RfC is a false comparison, as it is purposefully focused and limited. The delinking taking place previously was much broader than the purely full date/autoformatting focus of the new bot. I will note that I am glad that the community is moving towards resolution on the various aspects of date delinking, but that movement should not be misappropriated and misrepresented to excuse prior misconduct. --Vassyana (talk) 09:22, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
• In brief response to Colonies Chris, a couple of examples illustrating my point:[5][6][7] --Vassyana (talk) 01:41, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
• In response to Kotniski, this isn't about being punitive. I am basing my responses and opinions on what I perceive as previous trends and the likelihoods going forward. You may note that I oppose a restriction on HJensen and support a restriction that does not prohibit you from discussion. In the case of this editor, I see a variety of issues that prevent me from comfortably loosening the restriction. To boil it down: I see an editor that took a strong position in a dispute, who edit-warred to advance that position and refused to acknowledge the problematic nature of the conduct despite it being clearly explained. The way he held his position, and his comments elaborating upon it, lead me to believe that the conduct is likely to repeat in the same general area. His comments and responses indicated to me that he is dismissive of feedback, both from dissenting views and from administrators (the latter reinforcing my preceding concern). Thus, I am left with a situation where I feel there is a strong possibility of further misconduct with very little possibility that he will heed feedback. I hope this better explains my view of the situation. --Vassyana (talk) 01:41, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

• I've already bloated this quite enough and we're starting to go around in circles, so this will likely be my last reply (barring some significant new point being raised). There's no need to mindread or evaluate intentions in reviewing the suitability of links. As a basic and relevant example, one should be able to distinguish between full date autoformatting links and Year in X links. The assertion that there is no possible way to use human discretion when examining potential overlinking, including date links, is unconvincing. The recent bot RfC is not a valid comparison, as its scope is limited, while previous delinking was much broader. Additionally, comparing orderly consensus building to edit warring with a dismissive attitude towards reasonable concerns is misguided, at best. This attitude was not limited to Tennis expert and neither was the participation in revert warring. --Vassyana (talk) 06:35, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

• I have a preliminary view on this request (like several of the others that have been made arising from this case), but I'd like to ask Colonies Chris to respond to John Vandenberg's observation before I comment further. I think I know what his response is likely to be, but I want to be sure. Thanks. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:58, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Consistent with my views on other appeals arising from this case, I think our sanction here was too broad and would vacate or modify it. I am not sure precisely how far I would go in scaling back the restriction, or whether I would lift it entirely, but will look into the matter in more detail if other arbitrators express any agreement with my position (failing which the issue is pretty much moot). Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:35, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
• At this time, given that the restriction is not onerous, I am not inclined to revisit those sanctions unless they were demonstrably based on an error. — Coren ^(talk) 17:27, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
• No action needed by the Committee at this time largely do to the reasons stated by Vassyana and Coren. FloNight♥♥♥ 00:19, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
• Comment I'm thought over the current three dates case appeals and I think the thing to do is have the three editors edit productively for three months and come back for a review/modification request then. — Rlevse • Talk • 14:35, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
• Comment: I do not believe the sanctions are onerous and therefore do not support vacating but I would be interested to hear what Brad has to say about modifying them to be more specific.  Roger Davies ^talk 02:17, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

---

Request to amend prior case: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Date delinking (5)

List of users affected by or involved in this amendment

• John (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)

Amendment 1

• That my editing restriction be replaced by an admonishment

Statement by John

• Basically the editing restriction on me was punitive, unnecessary, and far too harsh given the extremely minor degree of "edit-warring" demonstrated. I take particular offense at being subject to the same restriction as Tennis expert (talk · contribs) (see here), when the nature of our respective involvements and our editing histories and block logs are so very different. Newyorkbrad was the only arbitrator to oppose the sanctions, though three others abstained. It is not clear to me that those arbitrators who voted against me before I had the chance to defend myself, actually read the evidence I subsequently presented. Verdict before evidence seems an egregious breach of natural justice.

• Many editors and admins who I respect have come out, both on and off wiki, and stated that they find my restriction to be over-harsh, which is why I am minded to make this request. I received an email today from yet another editor who I have had no previous dealings with asking if I planned to appeal. Without wishing to be over-dramatic, let me be clear that I have no interest in contributing to improving articles, when doing so would expose me to the very real risk of a block. I'm proud of never having been blocked and wish to be able to edit without this unwarranted and unnecessary threat hanging over me.

• If this appeal is unsuccessful it is unlikely that I would continue to throw shit around the place; it is more likely I would just leave, and take away a very poor impression of our community's dispute resolution process. Even if I do leave, I still believe that my service to the project entitles me to a fair hearing, and a proper explanation of just why these restrictions are deemed necessary. To minimally restore my faith in this current Arbcom, if this appeal is unsuccessful I request to see proper rationales from those opposing it. Obviously I would prefer to return without any restriction as there are several articles I would dearly love to improve. I hope I am not asking too much. Thanks for your consideration.
• (See User:John/ArbcomAppeal for a longer treatment.) --John (talk) 21:20, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Lar

Strong support for this request. I have worked with John a long time and have nothing but the deepest respect for him. The finding and sanction were misguided and far out of proportion to any actual harm caused the project by John's wikiGnoming. He showed at the time of the case that the allegations were unwarranted, and I sincerely believe he intended no harm whatever. Unlike some of the editors sanctioned in this case, John is the sort of editor we want more of, not less of. ++Lar: t/c 21:38, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Reply to Septentrionalis/PMAnderson/(??) - You say "That editors should not willfully distort other usernames"... I'm not sure I understand the relevance of that request by you to the request here before us to vacate the unjust sanction on John. However, I must ask, what exactly do you mean by that request? What is your username or desired appelation? I confess I have no clear idea of the latter. You sign as "Septentrionalis PMAnderson" ... is your desired appelation "Pmanderson"? "Septentrionalis"? Something else? How is one to know? I think you should consider having your username be what you want people to call you, and then sign using that username, or else not take any umbrage if people don't call you exactly as you like. My username is "Lar" (long A, short for Larry) but people call me "Lars" a fair bit. Rather than getting upset I just point out my desired username is singular, not plural, and they should be glad there's but one of me about, and everyone has a smile and that's that. No worries. ++Lar: t/c 15:41, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

NYB had asked for time to allow others to comment (until Monday, was my read)... It's now (early) Thursday. Has everyone commented that NYB expected? Is there more to be done before arbs can vote on the motion presented? I'd like to see this not peter out without a resolution, or drag on for weeks or months while we wait for someone to make some contribution or another... I've had that happen and it's no fun at all. Thanks. ++Lar: t/c 13:46, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

• Either Pmanderson or Septentrionalis will do; wiki-friends have nicknames. But "Mandy" or "Manderson" are intentional pinpricks. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:22, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks for clarifying that, helps indeed! (I leave it to a clerk to decide if that response needs to be moved to Pmanderson's section, it is less disjointed here but... the forms must be obeyed :) ) ++Lar: t/c 20:33, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Orderinchaos

I strongly support this application for vacation of the remedy imposed on this user. John made a few reasonable edits which fell into a broad category that was much later determined to be controversial. The edits did not violate any policy and none of them were recent, and as Lar says above, appear relatively harmless. Additionally, an investigation of John's broader contributions reveals a high-calibre, dedicated editor with solid content contributions - we are not talking about a disruptive editor or one who needs to be contained or curtailed here. The edits he made are similar to several hundred I made at around the same time using a script (also in good faith, and not one of them challenged or reverted) following the MOS change, and yet myself and others who edited in the same area and even commented and voted on the issue were never mentioned in the case - I am unsure why John was even identified. John has also identified issues of due process/natural justice with regards to his late addition to the case and that voting commenced before he could present a defence.

The "preventative, not punitive" mantra of actions on Wiki should firmly apply here - this sanction prevents no disruption at all, restricts John from editing in the forums where he is of best use to the project and has been very useful over a long period of time, and has simply had a chilling effect for good-faith contributors in what it communicates: if they do anything at all, ArbCom could come back 6 months or a year later, rewrite the rules (which is perfectly OK in and of itself - they needed to be rewritten) and unfairly restrict the user for no better reason than that somebody names them on an evidence page and provides a few diffs out-of-context. Of all the sanctions imposed in the case, this one (identical to that given to editors in the same case who had aggressively edit-warred for months, attacked fellow contributors and wantonly obstructed community processes) genuinely shocked a rather large number of admins and editors.

I urge ArbCom to reconsider this penalty. Orderinchaos 22:23, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Reply to Rlevse - While I don't wish to undermine any measure to relieve the sanctions on John, is there any serious suggestion that he has edit-warred, or deserves admonishment as against any number of people (eg Lumos3, and *many* others) who failed to be mentioned at all in the case? Orderinchaos 04:35, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Added note: I also believe that both the HJensen and Kotniski cases raised earlier, both of which were somewhat left hanging and now have both been archived without conclusion, should be considered in a similar vein - although their cases were slightly different as unlike John they were actual disputants rather than Wikignomes caught in the crossfire, they were not significant disputants and any alleged behaviour stopped well before it became problematic, and sanctions on these two users serve no clear preventative purpose and impede them in assisting the project productively. Orderinchaos 16:27, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Sarah

I was shocked to see John added to this case, so I spent many hours reading through this case and the related diffs, evidence etc and I find the findings and remedies against him alarming and I urge, as strongly as I possibly can, the committee to reconsider their decision in respect to this user. I have known John and worked with him since before either of us became administrators and he is a user for whom I have an immense amount of personal and editorial respect. I believe John made all edits in good faith and with the best of intentions and not as a participant in any kind of ideological dispute or edit war and I find the evidence of "edit warring" unconvincing at best and insufficient to even justify his inclusion in this case over many other people who have made similar edits in the past. Let's be honest, those edits would not be sufficient to justify a charge of "edit warring" against an editor on the noticeboards or anywhere else on the project. While I'm sure this decision was written carefully and with the best of intentions, the reality is it is punitive, unnecessary and profoundly unfair and overly harsh, and this is the case above all others that has turned me into a fierce critic of this committee. It also happens to be a case that could easily be brought against many of us, and I'd wager a lot more than just one administrator or arbitrator would be vulnerable to a retrospective cherry-picking of their edits months, years after the fact in an evolving culture. This is why this decision is so alarming and it leaves a chilling effect as editors have good reason to fear edits made in good faith may be censured retrospectively months, possibly even years later and bring them into disrepute in the eyes of the committee. As an established editor and administrator who has never previously been blocked, cautioned, reprimanded, or sanctioned, John deserves to be treated better and not to be branded as an "arbcom restricted user" because of some strangely overly broad casting of fishing nets. This isn't protective or preventative in any constructive sense; it's damaging the project as we lose an experienced, intelligent, educated and well-meaning editor and administrator. As others have said, John is the kind of editor we need more of around here, not the kind we want to drive away. I urge the committee to rescind all findings and remedies against John and allow him to return to us as an unrestricted user in good standing. Sarah 04:32, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Dabomb87

I largely echo the comments above. Like most people, I was surprised when I saw John included in the list of "victims". Compared to the "evidence" collected for the original parties of the case, the evidence for John is sparse and very suspect. That he should receive the same degree of punishment (because that's what it is) as me is a travesty. According to our blocking policy, blocks should only be used when the editor's disruptive behavior is "persistent", or "lesser measures are inadequate". I see no evidence that John was persistently disruptive or that lesser measures, such as an admonishment, would have not sufficed. Compared to the original parties, John's participation in the date linking discussions was much less, and he was probably not aware that the issue was so controversial and had spawned so much ill will and disruptive editing. An admonishment would do much to remind him to make sure his edits follow consensus (and it could be argued that they did, although it was hotly disputed at the time). Instead, the Committee assumed that he had made like the others and was disruptive, slapping him with a 12-month restriction. Now, the Committee may not think that the restriction is much, but when WikiGnoming and copy-editing (I dabble in both), it is quite absurd to not be able to correct others' good faith edits (superior word choice, sentence structure, MOS issues that have clear consensus). The Committee has the power to do as they wish, and should know that the chance of retaining an excellent editor and administrator is at hand. I will remind them that while good users are not indispensable, they are certainly not inexhaustible. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:05, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Statement by MBisanz

A kindly reminder from a recused clerk that if an arb is even considering an amendment, it is best to post the motion as soon as they think of it. Many of the these threads go stale because the arbs keep saying they want to do something, but no one ever posts a motion, or by the time they post a motion all of the other arbs have read the thread and don't come back to vote. Just a suggestion to NYB that you get a motion on the ground as soon as you know what general thing you are contemplating as a change. MBisanz ^talk 15:58, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Statement by HWV258

Agree that the restrictions are unduly unfair towards John. A handful of reverts and no history should not have landed John with the same restrictions as applied to someone such as Tennis Expert who made over 750 reverts and had a related block at the time. I believe that even admonishment is over-the-top in this case.  HWV258  01:36, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Ohconfucius

My own transgressions should not disallow me from making yet another impassioned (yet reasoned) plea on behalf of John, who as seen from the statements already posted, is a dedicated editor with an unblemished record. There are elements in this case where justice has not been done, and/or has not been seen to be done. John's case is perhaps one of the most obvious travesties of justice (I would mention en passant that I believe the admonition of TheRamblingMan would also fall into that category). We all agree this has been a long and complicated case, and even Jayvdb admits the inquisitional work was incomplete (reference to the edit warring by Lumos3 which was not even mentioned in the judgement). Based on that, and on my own observations, other instances of reverts or deliberate re-linking of dates also escaped detection. I am not saying that Lumos and others should have been hauled in and sanctioned, but rather that Arbcom should have remained focussed, instead of trying to be exhaustive.

The restrictions placed on John are out of proportion to others whose disruptive behaviour was manifestly deliberate and of a scale several orders of magnitude beyond those of John. I feel that any accusations that he had not acted in good faith (and edit warred) were rather tenuous. His handful of alleged tag-team edit-warring, if applied to ordinary everyday situations, are completely within the realms of reasonable editing behaviour, and yet he is suffering because of some arbitrary decision to include him after he was found, completely by accident (per Jayvdb), to have delinked a few articles more than once. The remedy does nothing to prevent future disruption, yet gives further opportunity for wikilawyering by editors who may be in dispute with John, for whatever reason. It would place him at a great risk of blocking although there is nothing in his dealing with others which would suggest he has disruptive or tendentious editing traits. Most importantly, as John stated above, he was not given adequate time to defend himself - the late motion to impose remedies on him left him little time to prepare his defence before Arbs voted. The decision against John should be quashed, and John's name cleared. Ohconfucius (talk) 03:56, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Chris. HJensen's appeal deserves to be considered favourably too. Ohconfucius (talk) 16:41, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Statement by RexxS

Now that the heat of the case has dissipated, I believe sufficient time has elapsed to review the sanction placed on John. I would ask arbitrators to judge whether the sanction is commensurate with the offence. Please consider in particular the comments linked here. I stand by my view that, through his wikignoming, he was caught up in a dispute that he was never part of. His only offence was to revisit a very small number of articles and perform the same cleaning-up that had been blindly reverted. He has accepted that, and has apologised for it. I can understand the ArbCom's desire to modify behaviour, but in this case, I do not agree that the sanction against John is helpful: the stress of this case will have surely made its point already, and a continuing sanction does nothing but embitter a valued, productive editor and admin. I can also understand ArbCom's intention to reduce the tension over date-delinking, by placing preventive restrictions on the parties: my view is that John was not a party, but a victim of the collateral damage this conflict caused, and sanctions on him in no way further that intention. I urge arbitrators to now reconsider the value of this sanction, and to vacate the restriction placed upon John. --RexxS (talk) 10:41, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Response to PMAnderson

I believe you are mistaken. In each of those three articles, prior to OhC's edits there was a mixture of dmy and mdy. He did not change the entire format wholescale as the dmy dates there were untouched. I agree he has almost certainly chosen the wrong format to regularise to, and you are entitled to point that out. If, on the other hand, you are complaining about editors who are amending articles with a mixture of dmy and mdy to a single format, then please make that clear. --RexxS (talk) 18:28, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Greg L

What ArbCom did here with John isn’t just. He was never once blocked with even a three-hour warning block for incivility towards other editors involved in date-linking debate. He wasn’t once blocked for edit-warring or sock puppetry or any malfeasance during the course of that debate.

It is not right that ArbCom later goes in and uses a far more critical litmus test for determining who is good editor and who is a bad editor that “Wikipedia needs protection from” than was ever required of editors during the debate. Such ArbCom actions have a chilling effect, is harmful to the mood of the community, and lessens respect for Wikipedia’s institutions. ArbCom’s actions are seen as tantamount to the “nanny squad” going to a construction site where a high-rise is being built and saying “oh my goodness, that construction worker over there said ‘damned’ on two occasions while trying to get a beam to fit into place.”

If administrators didn’t once step in to protect Wikipedia from bad-ol’ John, then perhaps Jimbo, ArbCom, and the Bureaucrats need to huddle and think about how to modify the behavior of administrators so they start enforcing the standard of conduct ArbCom thinks is befitting Wikipedia. It is simply not right that there be two standards: what passes for months or years with administrators, and what ArbCom thinks is right using their 50-power retrospectoscope when reviewing months-old, cherry-picked “evidence” slung about by one’s adversaries. This is no way for any organization to run. Greg L (talk) 19:17, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Colonies Chris

Of the many bad outcomes from the whole date delinking case, this was the worst. It simply looks as though ArbCom were determined to punish everyone however distantly involved in the dispute, without bothering to make any discrimination. ArbCom has a choice here - they can embitter and drive away valuable editors with years of conflict-free work behind them, or they can regain some respect by addressing this appeal sympathetically (and also HJensen's, whose appeal appears to be languishing in limbo). Colonies Chris (talk) 20:48, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Septentrionalis (PMAnderson)

I have no personal comment on this proposal. I do recall some discussion on this matter suggesting that John was more involved in this quarrel than he now admits, but I cannot find it.

• If WP:ARBDATE is going to be amended, I would suggest the narrow wording: the restricted editors are not to discuss the linking of dates or (perhaps, as another wording) the formatting of dates. As Ohconfucius' persistent question makes clear, the broader and vaguer language may not make this decision easier to enforce.

(Would some Arbitrator please comment on his question, asked here and, originally, here: were these restrictions ever intended to apply to the Naming Conventions?)

I would also appreciate consideration of the following limitations:

• That editors should not willfully distort other usernames, as in this edit (I say willful to exclude typoes, which this is not). Ohconfucius and GregL have picked up this minor obnoxiousness from Tony, who seems to have reformed.
• A restriction on changing format in dates between "July 17, 2009" and "17 July 2009". This is most of what some editors have been doing in article space; it was the only merit of date autoformatting that it squelched this sort of thing, which is as silly as the yogurt/yoghurt war. MOS expressly disapproves such changes between permitted formats (with a narrow and reasonable exception for strong national ties; Gordon Brown should be formatted in the present British system, and Barack Obama in the American).

I have listed three undesirable edits below, from a large collection; I have reverted a couple others, which seemed to me unusually bizarre. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:13, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

• Grand Duke Nicholas Nikolaevich of Russia (1856–1929)
• Nicholas Alexandrovich, Tsarevich of Russia
• Grand Duke Michael Mikhailovich of Russia

• You dramatically referred to one of my edits as 'date warring'. On such an occasion, I am not afraid of repeating myself: I would point out that my primary mission with those particular edits of mine, as has been for some months now, has been the alignment of dates within articles.

  Someone has drawn my attention to the fact that I may have chosen the wrong date format to unify to. I would say that the choice of format was inadvertent, as I did not bother checking the earliest version. Ohconfucius (talk) 16:38, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

  • That's because it is; you changed the entire format wholesale from one style to another. See the jguk case for ArbCom's opinion of this practice. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:20, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

• In the process of finding this link, I find that WP:MOS is (again? still? does it matter?) protected for revert-warring, although it was unprotected when ARBDATE closed. Now that the Macedonia disaster has been dealt with, it is the worst snake-pit on Wikipedia. ArbCom may wish to consider much the same remedy: empower a few uninvolved admins to ask of each provision "Is there any consensus for this? Does it in any way serve the encyclopedia?", which would include "Is this what English actually does?" I have doubted for some time that most of MOS would pass either test, but let neutral admins find out.

The most impressive piece of evidence for this is this curious comment, in which one editor shows that he supports one style of punctuation in order to get back at the liberal arts professors who downgraded him for using the other. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:27, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

How do any of these points relate to John's request for relief? If you wish the general case amended, open your own proposal under its own heading to do it. Orderinchaos 05:45, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

In fact, the first sentence does; there was discussion of John's deeper involvement, even if I don't care enough to find it. I have extended to other suggestions because NYBrad suggested that I make such points on this page, rather than his talkpage; NYBrad is considering a proposal for sweeping revisions, which would also relieve John, but should have community input; and the last thing the arbitration pages need is another locus for discussion of the date-delinking case (Ohconfucius's unnumbered one makes how many (six, I think?) already, and his went unobserved for days). Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:05, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I got the impression (although NYB is free to correct me) that re "sweeping revisions" he meant with regards to the individual remedies on a number of users. That would be fair, given some of the users were not terribly culpable (or in John's case, really culpable at all). One can leave the principles unchanged while varying the specific findings of fact and remedies; any change to the principles or on generally applicable FoFs or remedies would need to be considered on its own merits, hence my suggestion of opening a new heading to address it. Orderinchaos 16:19, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

He asked for ideas. The second paragraph here, which I will make a bullet-point, would seem a reasonable restriction for several editors (including Ohconfucius and myself). If he doesn't want a broader proposal, that's up to him; I will consider whether to make it myself. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:26, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

It appears that PMA continues to edit the Naming convention guidelines in recent days: 1, 2, 3, 4, and pending clarification evident from Arbcom, I would ask him to desist. Ohconfucius (talk) 02:32, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

ArbCom has clarified, and Ohconfucius' request at AE has been archived until he restored it himself. If this harassment continues, I shall consider whether an amendment request of my own is called for. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 05:52, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Hex

The arbitrary and vindictive nature of some of the punishments handed out by the members of the Arbcom in this case (with the notable exception of Newyorkbrad) have greatly reduced my respect for them as an institution. The treatment of John is a case in point. In this case, I can only concur with every single statement made above. — Hex (❝?!❞) 15:31, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Kotniski

What Hex said.--Kotniski (talk) 10:36, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Deacon of Pndapetzim

I couldn't believe it when I saw that ruling. The ruling was arbitrary. Essentially the message is that if anyone performs a couple of edits with one theme, then maybe a few years and a score or so thousands edits down the line if a related theme gets heard by ArbCom and your edits are spotted, you can have your name blackened and your editing restricted. How much sense does that message make? ArbCom is here to solve intractable disputes, not to seize on any opportunity presenting itself to tarnish the reputation and editing ability of good users. How exactly does this ruling help solve an intractable dispute? The ruling in question has done ArbCom's credibility a lot of damage btw, you should use this appeal as an opportunity to fix your mistake. I hope you do, though honestly I'm not that optimistic. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 20:56, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Tony1

Per RexxS. Tony (talk) 11:56, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Comment by Heimstern

OK, it's well past "the beginning of next week", as it was at the time NYB wrote that. Could we have some, like, votes? Like, enough to settle this matter? I don't see why in the week since this motion has been open we've had only three arbs get around to voting. There appears to me to be strong community opposition to the restrictions on John, and yet the committee as a whole is dragging its feet and giving neither yea nor nay. This is exactly the sort of thing that causes negativity toward the committee in the community. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 05:27, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Further discussion

Clerk notes

This section is for administrative notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

• Recused MBisanz ^talk 12:07, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Passes, please put motion into effect, archive, notify, etc. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:35, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrator views and discussion

• Awaiting further statements. However, at present I believe that our decision was much too harsh with respect to this user, and my preliminary view is that I would grant the application. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:34, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Would any other editors with comments please submit them within 48 hours (i.e. by Friday evening UTC), after which I will decide whether to offer a motion. The motion, if offered, may or may not apply more broadly than to this individual appellant. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:04, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
  • By way of update, I've received a request to wait until early next week before proposing anything, as someone who wants to contribute to the discussion has limited availability until then. I will accede to that request, and therefore, anyone with comments should try to provide them by then. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:09, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
• Concur, motion below. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:19, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
• Comment Noting that I'm aware of this thread and the motion but awaiting further comments per Newyorkbrad's explanation. FloNight♥♥♥ 16:05, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
• Noting here my recusal in the motion below. Carcharoth (talk) 12:40, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Motion 1

The ruling restricting User:John, Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Date_delinking#John_restricted, is vacated and replaced with "John (talk · contribs) is admonished for edit-warring to remove the linking of dates."

There are 12 active arbitrators, 2 of whom are recused, so 6 votes are a majority.

Support

1. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:19, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
2. Fair enough (the 12 month restriction was overkill) Wizardman 16:44, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
3. Support. I had planned to comment further and possibly to offer additional motions, but have spent more time than I expected tonight on other items on this page, so that will follow tomorrow. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:04, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

   This motion is carried. I will offer an additional motion over the weekend. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:43, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

4. I'm not convinced that the original restriction was that harsh, but there is a good argument of lightening it. — Coren ^(talk) 22:08, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
5. Risker (talk) 05:27, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
6. Per Coren. As written, I will accept this as an substitute. FloNight♥♥♥ 20:05, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
7.  Roger Davies ^talk 23:41, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

Request for clarification: Date delinking

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:

• Ohconfucius (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
• Pmanderson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Statement by Ohconfucius

In view of the following remedy in the recent ArbCom Date Delinking Case:

"31.1) Pmanderson is topic banned for 12 month from style and editing guidelines, and any related discussions."

I seek clarification as to whether "Editing guidelines" includes the WP:Naming conventions, which is a policy page.

The user has edited the policy page 6 times since the case closed (1 2 3 4 5 6) In the fifth edit, he remove a link to the WP:Manual of Style and replaced it by a link to an article, with a possibly deceptive edit summary.

This undiscussed change may well have been contentious (it has since been reverted) and appears to involve just the scope that Remedy 31.1 refers to

I would ask for the status of the edits to this guideline be clarified in relation to the remedy. The editor has been made aware of this request. Ohconfucius (talk) 03:08, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Response to MBisanz: Maybe I misunderstood the function of this page, but if clerks believe it should be moved to AE, then so be it. The reason I brought it here was because I am only seeking clarification as to what was covered – I am under similar editing restraint and would gladly like to know whether same freedom applies to me. Anyway, I was not specifically after enforcement at this point, not clear as if there had been a breach.

Response to Mandy: I guess that the animosity and sarcasm from Manderson is to be expected, bearing in mind our historical antagonism. BTW, I am not one to judge whether the one "outrageous edit" was intended to game the system. Ohconfucius (talk) 02:57, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I guess this thread can be closed - I have now moved this request to WP:AE, per the advice from Matthew. Ohconfucius (talk) 01:25, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Pmanderson

What does this have to do with date-delinking? Why am I being dragged back into it?

Ohconfucious appears to have missed this outrageous edit in which I inserted a space between two paragraphs.

As for the edit summary complained of, it says, in full: refer to article, with sources; there are advantages to working on an encyclopedia. There are; these include access to articles on English grammar when we want to indicate what that grammar actually is; they have citations and sources; MOS doesn't.

As Roger Davies wrote, now on the talk page of WP:ARBDATE, topic bans are intended to give severely disrupted topics a break from disruption and to give topic-banned editors an opportunity to get used to working in less contested areas. The naming conventions are in fact much less contentious; it was with relief that I returned to discussing them, as I have been doing for years. Applying them is less so, as the recently concluded Macedonia case will show; I have been discussing that also, and its consequences, with several admins and some arbitrators. Nobody suggested that this topic ban applied in any way.

It may indeed be possible to apply this decision mechanically, so that it will amount to a site ban; did ArbCom mean that? (And if so, did they mean it, somehow, just for me, or does it apply to all parties alike?) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:51, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Response to MiBisanz: If the arbitrators intend their wording to have anything like this scope, it would be nice if they would say so. But if this is simply moved to AE, would you make sure my response goes along? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:09, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Understandable. Sigh. It's another thing to actively watch. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:33, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

• Response to Ohconfucius: Why no; I added this line to divide a paragraph into two, as the edit summary (divide paras) says. This made that section uniform with all other sections.
• The insinuation (Cicero had a term for this figure of speech) that I have been gaming the system is incivility; so is the distortion of my username. I have two; either would be acceptable. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:05, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Statement by MBisanz

Without looking at anything beyond the first couple of lines, this looks like something for WP:AE as it does not seem to rise to the level of an intractable dispute between enforcing admins over what a remedy means. MBisanz ^talk 17:54, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

To Pmanderson

I'm recused on this case, so I won't be doing anything clerk-ish or admin-ish with regard to it. Best to ask another clerk. MBisanz ^talk 21:25, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Clerk notes

• Recused MBisanz ^talk 17:54, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrator views and discussion

• Comment No. Naming guidelines, while a policy, are not within "style and editing guidelines" vis a vis the scope of the date delinking arb case. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:01, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
• Comment: I don't naming guidelines as within the scope of the restriction.  Roger Davies ^talk 01:41, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
• Comment AE is a better venue for this request. An admin and other uninvolved editors can decide if the edits are problematic considering the letter and spirit of the editing restriction. In any given situation, it is possible for edits to be considered disruptive or good. For this particular case, I see no reason to automatically increase the range of the topic ban to the point that every edit is reviewed for a potential misstep. But if the edits are tendentious, disruptive, or controversial in other ways then it would make sense for an admin to enforce the editing restrictions in the broadest way. In my opinion, this is best decided at AE. FloNight♥♥♥ 14:48, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
• Comment; I'll concur with my colleagues here and agree that naming guidelines are not a matter of style, but of contents. Therefore, discussion there does not fall under the restriction's scope. — Coren ^(talk) 13:36, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
• Noting here (on the off-chance that any motions are proposed) that I recused on the original case. Carcharoth (talk) 13:02, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
• Per my colleagues, this (a) belongs at the Arbitration Enforcement page, if anywhere and (b) does not appear to fall within the editing restrictions. Risker (talk) 12:13, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
• I've offered a motion in the amendments section, that if adopted, would probably render this issue moot. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:18, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
• per Risker. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 02:50, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
• Agree with Risker et al. Wizardman 04:13, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

---

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Request to amend prior case: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Date delinking

List of users affected by or involved in this amendment

• Greg L (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)

Amendment 1

• That my editing restrictions be replaced with a restriction to have no involvement in the mass delinking of dates nor changes to WP:MOS or WP:MOSNUM (and their associated talk pages) regarding the formatting and linking of dates for a period of four months.

Statement by Greg L

What ArbCom did here with me isn’t right. Even though there were admins aplenty on WT:MOSNUM, some of whom were hip-deep in the date delinking debate, I was never once blocked for incivility towards another involved editor in the date-delinking debate, nor was I once blocked for edit-warring, sock puppetry, deleting others’ RfCs or posts, nominating others’ pages for MfDs, or any sort of *creative disruption* or malfeasance in connection with date delinking.

It is not right that ArbCom later goes in and uses a far more critical litmus test for determining who is good editor and who is a bad editor that “Wikipedia needs protection from” than was ever required of editors during the debate. The debate on WT:MOSNUM has developed a direct, “gloves-off” style where admins who frequented the associated venues didn’t see a need for a block. So it seems wrong for ArbCom to later employ a 50-power retrospectoscope, review months-old, cherry-picked “evidence” slung about by one’s adversaries, and come back not with an appropriate-length first block to wake up an editor and correct his or her behavior, but to instead issue months-long and even indefinite restrictions on a broad range of issues. Such ArbCom actions have a chilling effect, is harmful to the mood of the community, and lessens respect for Wikipedia’s institutions.

If administrators didn’t once step in to protect Wikipedia from me in connection with the date de-linking debate, then perhaps Jimbo, ArbCom, and the Bureaucrats need to huddle and think about how to modify the behavior of administrators so they start enforcing the standard of conduct ArbCom thinks is befitting Wikipedia (or better yet: what the community thinks is befitting). It is simply not right that there be two standards: one that passes for months or years with administrators who are right there watching it all and see no reason to block an editor, and yet another that ArbCom thinks ought to be the gold standard of civility—but only after a metric ton of Monday-morning quarterbacking. Greg L (talk) 23:18, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

• P.S. Having slept on the above post, I realize I should add some important points that speak to ArbCom’s thankless job and what I need to do from hereon.

  I certainly have the capacity to learn; I seldom make the same mistake twice. During the course of the date de-linking debate, I had been taken to WQA with charges of incivility. The consensus of that WQA was that the allegations were being blown out of all proportion and it was all just a “content dispute.” So nothing came of it. I am still relatively new to Wikipedia. Between this experience and the fact that no administrator ever felt the need to once block me for incivility regarding date linking (and there was a fair-minded administrator who shepherded WT:MOSNUM), I perceived that there was nothing wrong with my conduct on that issue.

  I can certainly see that ArbCom has an utterly thankless job of trying to keep Wikipedia, which is a purely collaborative writing environment, from decaying into a morass of uncivil bickering. I have no doubt whatsoever that if Osama bin Laden himself was POV‑pushing on 9/11 attacks and you gave him an indefinite ban from the article, you would be severely criticized from some quarters.

  I had gotten swept up in the wikidrama of the debate for a few months and allowed myself to assume the worst of intentions from the opponents. I promise to not allow that to happen again. Greg L (talk) 19:04, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

• P.P.S. I have nothing further to say on this subject, Newyorkbrad. I want to go back to the unencumbered editing of science-related articles and contributing to science-related discussions on WT:MOSNUM. I have no stomach whatsoever for the backdoor quid pro quo politicking and back-scratching that can be at times helpful for editors in situations like this. Wikipedia is as much a social experience for deeply entrenched editors as it is an encyclopedia to which one can contribute. I am interested in the latter part, and hope to never get so entrenched that I can pretend to fully fathom the former. You simply have my pledge that I will be at all times civil. I am done with my editing my appeal here. Greg L (talk) 21:36, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Statement by RexxS

I think that Greg will acknowledge that administrators would be wrong to block an editor with whom they are involved in conflict, so failure of those admins to block him needs to be taken in context. Nevertheless, at some point ArbCom will need to revisit the indefinite topic bans. Greg has now made a pledge not to allow himself to be caught up in drama in future, so it is pertinent to ask what sort of evidence of good behaviour, over what timeframe, might ArbCom require to rescind the indefinite topic ban? With that in mind - and considering all of the other parties who received indefinite sanctions - would the arbitrators be minded to at least reduce the breadth of some of the sanctions to areas directly related to date-delinking? If affected editors are unable to participate in a relatively normal way, it may be difficult for them to demonstrate the desired modifications to behaviour. --RexxS (talk) 20:02, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Response to Motion

Brad has suggested a very reasonable amendment that should meet many of the concerns raised here, but I find it disappointing when arbitrators vote without indicating any reason. There seems be little in the "Arbitrator discussion" section that helps the reader to understand. I do appreciate that arbitrators are busy, but I would hope that the spirit of WP:Arbitration/Policy#Transparency should encourage them to be a little more forthcoming. Indeed, an understanding of the rationale behind a decision goes a long way towards avoiding repetitive requests. Again, I am grateful to Brad for indicating a timescale before further requests for amendment may be made, but I would still be interested to learn what period ought to be observed before the indefinite topic bans might be reconsidered? --RexxS (talk) 18:52, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Dabomb87

Like most editors, Greg deserves a second chance. He has valuable knowledge on scientific topics, on which discussions frequently arise on MOS talk pages. I will remind ArbCom that unlike other parties of the case, Greg did not engage in mainspace edit warring over date links, so the restriction on mainspace editing is a little strange. On a more practical level, I think there are two choices WRT amendments: 1) For all editors restricted from certain discussions, the scope of the restrictions is reduced to date linking/autoformatting, broadly interepreted; or 2) Greg's (also applying to other editors who are similarly restricted) topic ban is given a cut-off point, and from then on, he is put on a 0/1RR for the guidelines themselves and put on some sort of parole (not necessarily related to civility) for discussion pages. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:07, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Tony1

Per RexxS and Dabomb87. Tony (talk) 11:59, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Kotniski

Support what's been written above. Why are no arbs responding to this? And why has the motion below (relating to the same case, and apparently uncontroversial) still not been passed? --Kotniski (talk) 13:03, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Carcharoth

Making a statement here partially to explain my recusal, and partly to comment (as an editor and admin, not an arbitrator) on the proposed amendments. Part of the reason for my recusal was because I have participated at Manual of Style talk pages in the past (though not extensively so), and am intending to do so again in the future (or as the need arises). The other part of the reason for my recusal was interactions with some of the parties to the case, so I want to keep my comments here as general as possible. But I will be frank here and state that part of the reason I disengaged from one of my forays into the Manual of Style pages was the reception I got. It is possible that I arrived at the wrong time, when tensions were running high, and I was just on the receiving end of a backlash. But the intensity of some of the feelings being expressed still surprised me, and I had little motivation to go back. Ever since then, I've been wondering how many other editors had the same experience that I had? I should have stated this on the case pages while it was open, but decided not to do so, as the evidence being presented and the outcome was (at first glance) adequate. However, now that it is being proposed that some of the restrictions be relaxed, I would like to ask (again, as a fellow editor and admin, not an arbitrator) that those parties who return to activity in some of these areas to please not let things get to the stage again where the environment becomes off-putting to editors (both experienced and new) who arrive at the talk pages of the Manual of Style. I might not have time to participate there, but I would hope that anyone who did would find that the atmosphere was a lot more welcoming and less acrimonious. Carcharoth (talk) 22:16, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Further points

In addition to the above, I'd also like to ask if the arbitration committee could clarify a few points about this amendment.

• (1) Could there be a list of all the remedies and parties this proposed amendment applies to, and could they all be notified? For reference, there were 32 remedies. I think the only ones the proposal does not apply to are: the one that has already been amended (for User:John), the Arthur Rubin admonishment, the Locke Cole ban, the Kotniski reminder, the The Rambling Man admonishment, the Ohconfucius limitation to one account, the Ohconfucius automation limitation, the Lightmouse restriction to one account, the Lightmouse automation prohibition, the Lightmouse ban, the Date delinking bots remedy, and the "mass date delinking is restricted for six months" remedy. That is 12 remedies, leaving the other twenty (20) remedies that this amendment would affect, and which concern sixteen (16) users. I really do think it would be clearer what is happening here if the new and old remedies were written out side-by-side for each party (one of the remedies expires in about a month, for example).
• (2) The proposal states that "all the requests for amendment and requests for clarification submitted following the decision" were considered. There are five such appeals (excluding this one) listed on the talk page of the case. I believe that all except one have been addressed by this proposal. Brad, can I ask if you re-considered the ban appeal made on behalf of Locke Cole and decided not to include that in this proposal?
• (3) On re-reading the decision, I noticed "Stability review 3.1) If the Manual of style has not stabilised within three months after the close of the case, the committee will open a review of the conduct of the parties engaged in this battle and hand out permanent MOS bans to any parties who have actively prevented the manual of style stabilising on a version that has broad community consensus." - are there any plans to reset the date for this assessment for stability in light of the proposed relaxation of restrictions? Carcharoth (talk) 22:16, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Update

• As there has been some confusion, I thought explicitly providing the new wording for each remedy that changes are being proposed for would help. I did a draft here. That is an unofficial page, not approved by any active arbitrators. I do hope, though, that it helps clear up some of the confusion. As far as I can see, Tony1's restrictions are not increasing. I do think it would be polite for a clerk to contact all 16 of the users who are affected by this proposed amendment, though two of them are currently banned. Would there be any objection if I asked a clerk to contact all the users affected by this amendment, or did so myself? Carcharoth (talk) 23:17, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Notifications

• Actually, I've looked into the issue of notifications of the users affected by this proposed amendment, and it is more complicated than it seems (for various reasons). I've sent an e-mail to the arbitration committee with details, as it is not my place to sort out how these notifications should be handled. Carcharoth (talk) 00:06, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Continuing failure to notify

• By my count, only 5 of the 16 editors the proposed amendment would affect have commented here - the presumption being that the other 11 have not been notified (or have left Wikipedia or are serving a ban). Despite my requests above for notification to be given to these other editors involved, and an e-mail sent Thu, Aug 6, 2009 at 6:20 PM (BST) to the arbitration committee, titled "Lack of notification in date delinking case", nothing further has been done on this. Given that the proposed amendment will restrict further proposed amendments for a period of 30 days, and given that one of the editors involved left me a note here, to which I replied here, can I ask that the Arbitration Committee or its clerks please notify the other editors involved as a matter of urgency? It is not right to propose and vote on an amendment without notifying those who it will affect. Carcharoth (talk) 23:26, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Notifications have been made

• Many thanks for making the suggested notifications. Carcharoth (talk) 01:23, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Septentrionalis (Pmanderson)

Carcharoth said:

But I will be frank here and state that part of the reason I disengaged from one of my forays into the Manual of Style pages was the reception I got. It is possible that I arrived at the wrong time, when tensions were running high, and I was just on the receiving end of a backlash. But the intensity of some of the feelings being expressed still surprised me, and I had little motivation to go back. Ever since then, I've been wondering how many other editors had the same experience that I had?

MoS is always like that; that's why I supported, and support, civility restrictions; and why I am not planning to return for a while, even if this amendment passes. The worst offenders in this regard were not all involved in the date delinking debacle, but Tony (see my evidence in the original case), Ohconfucius (compare his behavior on the date delinking workshop page), and Greg L (see WT:MOSNUM archives) have been among the worst. To be fair, when I was asked to look at a question on WT:MOS, what I saw of Tony's behavior had markedly improved; he does not appear to have discussed his feces in the last few months. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:47, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

• Upon consideration, this appears to be endemic at MOS; someone comes up with a protest that it does not (usefully) describe English, and this is normally met with ridicule and revert-warring. For example, it was protected for two months, after the conclusion of WP:ARBDATE, because of the persistent edit-warring over "logical" punctuation - most of the date warriors were therefore uninvolved in this one.
• One cause of this disregard is the number of people who edit it without, for example, recognizing the English subjunctive (see this edit and edit summary); but there is a clear cultural problem.
• I would therefore suggest an admin be requested to watch the MOS pages without involving himself (Carcharoth was missed during the delinking case), but empowered to impose mandatory mediation when such things occur (anybody who declines mediation could, for example, be banned from MOS and its talk pages for a month, while the rest work it out). Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:02, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

On the whole, however, I support this amendment - if only because I have been asked unrelated MOS questions in the interval, and would like to be able to respond to them there. More Arbitrators voting on this (even if they must decline to amend, with reasons) would be a service. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:48, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

• Thank you; please let us know if the present majority puts the amendment into effect. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:52, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
  • From my experience with other requests, it doesn't go into effect until the motion is closed and enacted and announced at WP:AC/N and the case pages updated and the editors informed on their talk pages that their restrictions have changed (I hope that last step is still done for all motions that pass - just the initial notification is not sufficient in my view). The delay at the moment will be to allow other arbitrators time to vote. At some point, a clerk should make a note on the motion saying that it will be closed in x hours, and it will then be closed and enacted at that point. In other words, I'd advise patience for the paperwork to be done. Carcharoth (talk) 17:54, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Question by HJensen

Thanks for the notification about this motion. As I mentioned in my own, failed, amendment case, I never understod why I should be punished at all. I will probably never receive an explanation (it didn't help as the case was archived two days after Carcharoth solicited inputs from fellow arbitrators=. Nevertheless, now the restriction moves away from something completely tautological to something very specific (still, it is a punishment which I am very unhappy to receive). A specific question occurred to me. Will an edit like this be prohibited, as it involves unlinking of dates? --HJensen, talk 07:22, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

• Which date did you delink?
• Did you revert in the process? (i.e. was it unlinked originally?)
  • If not, you should be fine, according to Carcharoth's wording (which seems clearly the effect of the amendment on you) - although if it's the change it looks like, {{cite news}} is probably better for ESPN. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:34, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I now see that my example is both bad and great. Bad because seen today, the cite templates work in a way where "accessdate = 2007-04-30" does NOT result in a blue-linked date anymore. But when I made the edit it did, so by changing towards "30 April", I effectively delinked the date (here with the purpose of making the date format consistent within the article). The example, on the other hand, is great, as it shows that how one acted one year can look completely different another year, making much of the history digging conducted here of dubious use. For example, the few instances I delinked some dates, were at the particular time I did them (around September 2008) in full accordance with the prevailing Maunal of Style. But viewed in a February 2009 optic by some (well, one), they could suddenly be framed up as part of some big "tag-team edit warring scheme" leading to an ArbCom ruling. Interesting, but also quite scary. In any case, I don't think I reverted anybody in the process. (PS: Yes, the cite web versus cite news was not entirely consistent there....).--HJensen, talk 20:41, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

It is a shock when people first realise that the use of transcluded templates that change later can severely invalidate what past versions of pages are showing. Maybe one day the software will be clever enough to load the version of the template (or transcluded page) that was present when the page version in question was saved, but even then there are problems. Renames, for example, of both editors and pages, can confuse things tremendously, as can fiddling with redirects. Hopefully most people checking evidence are aware of this, but it can be easily forgotten. Carcharoth (talk) 00:54, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm responding here to be sure that HJensen will see it. Yes, I know the usual rules about threaded discussion on this page; I also know that the format of our new requests for amendment template is making it impossible to find anything (we need to fix that). ¶ HJensen, I think you are aware from the /Proposed decision page of the original case (and I believe from my comment on your amendment request as well) that I opposed both the finding and the remedy against you as unwarranted and excessive. If other arbitrators were to agree with that position, then I would be glad to move to vacate the remedy against you in toto. However, unless other arbitrators have changed their view, there is little value to my offering a motion only to have the original decision reaffirmed. ¶ My best suggestion is that you abide by the suggestion offered in the amendment proposal that further requests for amendment may be filed in a few weeks. I know that this is an imperfect resolution for you, but the fact remains that my take on the case was a minority view. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:58, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for your input! I appreciate your current and previous position on my case a lot. I know that yours was a minority view ex post, but as I state in my essay, I experienced the original voting process as very flawed; e.g., the Arbitrator who handled the case presented new evidence (in my favor) along the way leading to a new, "last minute", motion where I was "only" restricted for three months. Only a few saw that or even voted on it (for or against). Also, it was peculiar to experience that my request for amendment was only looked upon by four arbitrators. Forgive me for getting the impression that the majority of arbitrators just vote summarly on a case, and then never look back. --HJensen, talk 05:52, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Sub statement by Mattisse

HJensen is a fine editor with whom I worked over a period of time, specifically on his FA Frank Zappa, a much vandalised article. At no time did I ever see him edit war, or even be impolite, and never when the circumstances were trying. It shakes my faith greatly that he was included in this remedy for a matter in which some editors did behave egregiously. I do not think he was involved in arguing about style change issues or would edit war over MOS principles. Please right this wrong. I do not think any editing restrictions are justified in his case. He has basically not edited since this ArbCon ruling. Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 21:43, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrator discussion

• Awaiting further statements. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:50, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Um, to clarify for Greg L., I meant that I was awaiting further statements from other editors over the next couple of days after which I will review your appeal. Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:59, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
• In case I don't visit the amendments page for a few days, and motions are posted, please could my colleagues or a clerk mark me as recused in any motions either here or at clarifications, relating to the date delinking case. Carcharoth (talk) 12:39, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
• I'd like to see input from other users, especially those not involved in the dates edit wars, which went on for years. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:34, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Motion

• Motion enacted - Tiptoety ^talk 03:46, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

There are 13 active arbitrators and 3 are recused/abstained in this decision, so a majority is 6.

Having considered all the requests for amendment and requests for clarification submitted following the decision in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Date delinking, the Arbitration Committee decides as follows:

(1) All remedies in the decision providing that a specified user is topic-banned from editing or discussing "style and editing guidelines" (or similar wording) are modified by replacing these words with the words "style and editing guidelines relating to the linking or unlinking of dates";

(2) All remedies in the decision providing that a specified user is "prohibited from reversion of changes which are principally stylistic, except where all style elements are prescribed in the applicable style guideline" are modified by replacing these words with the words "prohibited from reverting the linking or unlinking of dates";

(3) All editors whose restrictions are being narrowed are reminded to abide by all applicable policies and guidelines in their editing, so that further controversies such as the one that led to the arbitration case will not arise, and any disagreements concerning style guidelines can be addressed in a civil and efficient fashion;

(4) Any party who believes the Date delinking decision should be further amended may file a new request for amendment. To allow time to evaluate the effect of the amendments already made, editors are asked to wait at least 30 days after this motion is passed before submitting any further amendment requests.

Support:

1. Proposed. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:15, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

   Annotations and clarifications:

   (a) There is no intent by this motion to increase the sanctions against Tony or any other user, and I don't believe the wording as proposed has that effect.

   (b) Carcharoth's chart appears to me to correctly summarize the intent of the motion, and I propose that we treat it as being a valid implementation of the motion as passed (if it passes) unless anyone identifies any specific discrepancies or issues within 72 hours from now.

   (c) I agree with Coren that the intent of the motion is that these editors may resume any non-date-related activities but are to do so while displaying good behavior. If it is called to our attention that any user covered by this motion is replicating the problems of the date delinking dispute in other areas, I'd be open to reinstituting the remedies against him or her. I sincerely hope that nothing like that would become necessary. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:24, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

2. Wizardman 15:26, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
3.  Roger Davies ^talk 16:31, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
4. Those remedies were drafted broadly to make certain that the dispute, which was long lasting and acrimonious, did not spill in other areas of style. I am not fundamentally opposed to their being focused more tightly, but I should point out that there will be very little patience towards renewed hostilities. — Coren ^(talk) 16:47, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
5. Per Coren. Risker (talk) 19:27, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
6. Agree with Coren. FloNight♥♥♥ 19:56, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. — Rlevse • Talk • 18:05, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Abstain:

1. I'll let the other arbs handle this. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 00:56, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Recuse

1. But have entered a statement above. Carcharoth (talk) 22:16, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
2. Recused in datedelinking case. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:42, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment

• Awaiting any modifications by Newyorkbrad prior to voting. Risker (talk) 20:31, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
  • No further modifications anticipated to this motion at this time. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:46, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

---

Clarification?

Does that mean I would no longer be "prohibited from editing policy pages related to article or editing style, as well as any related template page"? I was the only party so restricted. Tony (talk) 16:19, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, this was meant to be picked up in "(or any similar wording)", once I decided to make the wording of the motion generic rather than incorporate a list of usernames. Of course, we'll see what the other arbitrators have to say about my proposal. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:22, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

To make that second sentence true, can you encourage your fellow arbs to explain the reasons for their votes (particularly any opposes, since the reasons in favour of this change have been set out ad nauseam)?--Kotniski (talk) 08:14, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

A quick point for overworked arbs: a highly significant technical matter (image sizes) is under consideration at MoS talk. It is not a particularly personal or controversial debate, delightfully. Greg L is covered by the blanket topic ban on styleguide talk pages; yet he has potentiallyl valuable input. He wants to post this, but cannot, and I can hardly post it for him, lest I be guilty of the back-door breaching of a remedy:

"A default for thumbnails of 180 is too small. Also, pictures with less-than-typical aspect ratios (such as twice as wide as tall) end up being way too small. Portrait-orientation pictures tend to be too big. I often have many pictures and they tend to walk all over each other unless I stagger their placements left and right and/or force the size issue. Kilogram uses a mix of thumbnails and forced."

It is frustrating that the project can't benefit from such input, which has absolutely nothing to do with date linking; Greg has already shown (and declared) that he's intent on playing the civility game. Thus, I urge arbs to consider narrowing the ambit of the remedy in question, as embodied in NYBrad's motion, which would focus the remedy on "protecting the project". Tony (talk) 04:19, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I have to point out that the motion will result in an increase in the restriction on me. It is very odd that at this stage, without evidence of anything but utter compliance with the remedy that applies to me, that I should be subject to a harsher restriction in any area. Is there evidence of damage or potential damage to the project under Remedy 9.3 that ArbCom decided on for me? 9.3 did not restrict me from discussing any issue, although uniquely I was banned from editing policy and template pages related to article and editing style (as a kind of quid pro quo, I guess). That is, ArbCom decided that I should not be restricted WRT discussing date linking/unlinking. Now, it appears, I will be further restricted by not being able to discuss date linking/unlinking.

It's not that there is much discussion on that topic nowadays, but I have gone out of my way to comply with the remedy and with all policies and guidelines of WP, and a further restriction, without explanation, seems to be arbitrary and unproductive: in what way will the project be protected by banning me from such discussion from August 2009 onwards? I have raised this matter at NYB's talk page, but he is off-wiki until Friday. Tony (talk) 10:34, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

• You're right, Tony. It cannot be right that everyone else's restrictions are becoming fewer and yours are becoming greater when you do not seem to have been doing ANYTHING remotely controversial. I do hope the Arbs take note of that, and modify the amendment accordingly, or perhaps better if another amendment was drafted to cover your particular case. Ohconfucius (talk) 10:50, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Maybe I'm misreading, but I don't see how the proposed amendment would impose any new restriction on Tony.--Kotniski (talk) 12:14, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

But, on further reflection, it probably means that Remedy 9.3 ("Tony1 is indefinitely prohibited from editing any policy or guideline page related to article or editing style, as well as any related template page.") is modified to: "Tony1 is indefinitely prohibited from editing style and editing guidelines relating to the linking or unlinking of dates".

In addition, I presume that if this motion passes, the parties may edit, for example, MOSNUM, MoS and WP:LINK except for the parts dealing with "the linking or unlinking of dates"—and that the modified remedy would not involve the whole of those guidelines, just because they partly cover the linking and unlinking of dates.

I would be grateful if both presumptions were confirmed or otherwise. Tony (talk) 12:29, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

If it helps, my interpretations of what is being proposed are here (I agree with Kotniski that your restrictions are not increasing). That is totally unofficial, mind you, and you will need to check with Brad and the other arbs who are actually voting on this case, as to whether I'm interpreting the proposed changes correctly, or not. I did notice that you were the only party to have policy mentioned in your restriction, which I thought was a bit strange. My interpretation leaves the word policy in there, and your interpretation removes it. You might want to ask what Brad's intention was there, as there are other possible interpretations as well. I still think the best thing is for Brad to prepare his own page detailing all 20 proposed changes and to check that the wording tallies with what he intended. However, having just spent a long time preparing such a page myself, I can understand why he didn't. It is very tedious. But I do think explicitly writing out the new remedies is needed to avoid confusion. Carcharoth (talk) 23:51, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Carcharoth; I guess "policy" and "template" are the quid pro quo. I await Brad's advice. Tony (talk) 02:46, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

See some comments under my vote on the motion, above. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:05, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I believe what Tony is questioning is the wording using the terms "policy" and "template" (he was the only editor so restricted). I suggest Tony file a separate clarification on this issue, either now (to avoid the pending 30 days restriction) or after those 30 days. Unless Brad or others want to clarify it now? Brad, while I'm writing down here, are you able to answer the other questions I had (numbered 2 and 3), and have you had a chance to consider the problems regarding notifications that I raised in that e-mail I sent to the arbitration committee? Carcharoth (talk) 23:00, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I think my clarification that no broadening of restrictions is intended in any case, should be sufficient to address Tony's concern. If you don't think that it is sufficiently clear, please propose a specific modification of the motion. ¶ The motion does not address the situation of Locke Cole. I don't think there is a consensus among the arbitrators to lift his ban at this time, but if any other arbitrators think the matter should be discussed, I'd be happy to look into that request again. ¶ As for item 3, I haven't really focused on that either; perhaps Jayvdb, who wrote the decision, should start discussion on it by providing his input. And I'll look for your thread on the mailing list; as you know, I've been offline this week and am way behind on arb-mail. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:22, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Brad. Not your fault, as you were away. The thread is titled "Lack of notification in date delinking case", from about a day ago. Please also note what I have posted here. Carcharoth (talk) 23:36, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Motion re: Locke Cole

Reference arbitration case: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Date delinking

Previous amendments: August 2, 2009 Motion enacted August 17, 2009.

Preamble

Locke Cole (talk · contribs) has contacted the Arbitration Committee by email, requesting that his current editing ban be lifted or amended. There were also references to his ban during the discussion of the motion enacted August 17, 2009. On review of the case, and the recent related amendments to it, the following motion is offered for consideration.

Motion

For this motion, there are 12 active arbitrators, of whom 2 are recused, making the majority 6.

The remedy banning Locke Cole (talk · contribs) from editing Wikipedia for six months is amended as follows:

• Locke Cole is provisionally unbanned effective at the enactment of this motion.
• Should Locke Cole be blocked as a result of violating the three-revert rule, his full editing ban will be reinstated for the remainder of its original duration, until December 14, 2009.
• Locke Cole remains indefinitely topic-banned from style and editing guidelines relating to the linking or unlinking of dates, and any related discussions.
• Locke Cole remains subject to an editing restriction for 12 months (until June 14, 2010), under which he is prohibited from reverting the linking or unlinking of dates.
• Locke Cole is reminded to abide by all applicable policies and guidelines in his editing, so that further controversies such as the one that led to the arbitration case will not arise, and any disagreements concerning style guidelines can be addressed in a civil and efficient fashion.

Support

1. This amendment is consistent with the other amendments made in this case in recent weeks, and alters only the length of Locke Cole's ban. Risker (talk) 22:32, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
2. FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 23:08, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
3. Wizardman 19:17, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
4. With a reminder that the committee (and, I expect, much of the community) will show very little patience towards a return of the aggressive editing that led to this sanction to begin with. — Coren ^(talk) 14:32, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
5. Cool Hand Luke 14:21, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
6. There is no question that during his extensive wiki career, Locke Cole has been involved in more than his share of controversies, many caused by rough edges to his commentary, which he would do well to try to sand down. At the same time, as I mentioned in voting on the proposed decision, I believe that a mere scan of his block log may overstate the degree of his historical misconduct. Having regard to this, and to the fact that we have eased the restrictions imposed in the Date delinking case on several of the other parties, I am prepared to agree that Locke Cole's ban should be reduced to "time served", subject to the restrictions set forth above. I believe from recent correspondence between Locke Cole and the committee that he does understand that he needs to modify aspects of his behavior on-wiki to avoid future disputes and potential sanctions, and strongly hope that he will do so, so that we do not regret the action being taken or have cause to revisit it. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:43, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

1. — Rlevse • Talk • 09:57, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Abstain

Recuse

1. as per the case. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:12, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
2. as per the case. Carcharoth (talk) 00:39, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Clerk Notes

• Recused MBisanz ^talk 01:55, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Discussion by others

Question by Mythdon

"Should Locke Cole be blocked as a result of violating the three-revert rule, his full editing ban will be reinstated for the remainder of its original duration, until December 14, 2009. " - Not that I have any knowledge of the case, but should Locke Cole attempt to circumvent the intent of this condition, by edit warring while avoiding violating the three-revert rule or violating the three-revert rule only after December 14, 2009, will that be taken into consideration? Mythdon (talk • contribs) 18:04, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

If necessary, an appropriate request could be made on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. Hopefully it will not be necessary. Mythdon, could you please refrain from posing questions in cases as to which, by your own admission, you have no knowledge? Thanks, Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:18, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Are scripts for date delinkings still banned?

Could someone please clarify if use of [8] and the effects it can have, is still under a temporary injunction. My interest is not so much with date linking but with other delinking activities of this script, and those who use it. Thanks, MidnightBlue (Talk) 22:20, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Further - is this ban still in force; Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Date delinking#Colonies Chris restricted? If so, it's currently being violated. MidnightBlue (Talk) 22:30, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't believe so. The community has since approved a bot to mass-delink dates, which would null that enforcement per 1.3, which says "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." (italics mine for emphasis). Dabomb87 (talk) 02:35, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that the so-called "common terms" delinking is part-and-parcel of this script. The "common terms" link issue is controversial, and there is certainly no consensus as to any sort of mass delinking - especially since the list is arbitrary and based on the personal opinions on only a small group of editors. If the date delinking script is to be used, the "common terms" portion needs to be stripped out of it so that well-meaning individuals who think they are addressing the ArbComm ruling do not inadvertently get caught up in the "common terms" delinking problem. Any editor who feels compelled to delink "common terms" can certainly add a separate script for it. --Ckatz^chat_spy 06:22, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I now understand about the date delinking. It's the common terms delinking that I'm concerned about. In many cases it makes sense to link a common term, at least in my view. I'm brand new to this issue but it's easy to see there is a group of editors going about delinking many common terms as though there's no tomorrow. User:Colonies Chris states that he runs the script but checks the delinking before saving; that's fine, but his rate of delinking - and no doubt that of others - is prodigious. Such activity will undoubtedly cause conflict. What he is doing is neither right nor wrong, but he is imposing his view on a large number of articles. It may well be time to place a moratorium on these changes. MidnightBlue (Talk) 17:51, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps that is a topic that should be broached on WT:LINKING? Dabomb87 (talk) 21:25, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Motion to amend Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Date delinking

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

For this motion there are 9 active arbitrators, not counting 1 recused. With 0 arbitrators abstaining, 5 support or oppose votes are a majority. Majority reference Abstentions Support votes needed for majority 0–1 5 2–3 4 4–5 3
Active Arbitrators: Coren FloNight John Vandenberg Newyorkbrad Risker Rlevse Stephen Bain Vassyana Wizardman	Inactive Arbitrators: Cool Hand Luke FayssalF Roger Davies Recused Arbitrators: Carcharoth

Motion re Date delinking bots

Wikipedia:Date formatting and linking poll, Wikipedia talk:Full-date unlinking bot#RFC, and Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Full-date unlinking bot indicate that Full-date unlinking bot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) fulfills the requirement for "a Community approved process for the mass delinking" in "1.3 Mass date linking" and the requirement for "[d]ate delinking bots [performing] in a manner approved by the Bot Approvals Group" in "2.1 Date delinking bots". The Committee thanks the participants for their efforts and encourages them to continue with their constructive work and consensus building.

Support

1. Proposed. This matter seems resolved and it is best not to leave the case hanging as an unknown for the bot operator. Could a clerk please notify the bot operator, BAG, and the main parties from the date delinking case of this proposal? Vassyana (talk) 09:13, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
2. So it does. Thank you for all the efforts deployed by everyone to clarify this matter. — Coren ^(talk) 14:48, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
3. Wizardman 18:01, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
4. Risker (talk) 18:05, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
5. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 18:11, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

1. I am not convinced of the solidarity of the consensus on this as there is still a lot of disagreement on dates in the community. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:48, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Abstain

Recuse

1. Carrying over my recusal from the case itself. Carcharoth (talk) 01:29, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Discussion

• Comment. Awaiting statements. FloNightξξξ 11:50, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Clerk notes

• Notifications of this motion made to: Bot Approvals Group, User talk:Full-date unlinking bot, User talk:Harej and to all named parties in the Date delinking case. Manning (talk) 22:36, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

• Motion has carried. Motion will be archived and notices issued in 24 hours (unless instructed otherwise). Manning (talk) 04:16, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment by Dabomb87

Response to Rlevse

Rlevse, could you explain where there has been controversy over dates since the last community-wide discussion on them? Dabomb87 (talk) 22:18, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

For one thing, the guideline is still semi protected and for me to consider it stable I'd expect to see it unprotected, stable, and quiet in that arena of wiki for awhile. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:10, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, that's more the product of negligence than instability, but good point, and I will lobby for the section to be unprotected. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:33, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Note: that section of MOSNUM is now unprotected. If there is any instability in the guideline, which I highly doubt, we will find out soon. However, I must say that even if that section has been protected, there still would have been discussions if the guideline were truly in dispute. The fact that there has not been any discussion over the issue is pretty good evidence that the community has decided on the issue, and has moved on. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:09, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Rlevse, I wondered whether that might be a circular argument. May I submit that the date formatting and date linking issues seem to have faded from the overt concerns of the MoS community. For the time being, the culture at MoS main, MOSNUM and MOSLINK seems stable and workable enough. It flares up from time to time at MoS main when people revisit (and complain about) the two perennial areas of controversy: final punctuation in quotations (before or after the quotation mark), and another that has slipped my mind. I have no problem whatsoever in asking an admin to fully protect a MoS page if there's trouble. That happened over the quotation issue a few months ago, I think. MOSNUM suffers from little squabbles about bytes/bits and heaven knows what that most WPians, including me, are pleased to see sequestered there. MOSLINK, now merged with two other linkish guides after considerable argument, seems to be fairly stable. Tony (talk) 13:12, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Request for clarification (November 2009)

Initiated by Deb (talk) at 13:00, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:

• Deb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (initiator)
• Full-date unlinking bot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (via note to operator [9])
• Jarry1250 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (BAG member who granted approval [10])

Statement by Deb

According to the user page for this bot Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Date delinking, the bot has been approved to begin operating in accordance with the results of the arbitration case listed above.

The section referred to says:

Mass date delinking

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.

Passed 10 to 0 at 18:56, 14 June 2009 (UTC).

[emphasis added]

Regardless of the fact that the Arbitration Committee may have approved the bot, six months has not yet elapsed. Further, it does not appear that the introduction of this bot was made widely known to those who contributed to this discussion.

The word "until" does not alter the fact that a six-month ban was put in place. If the statement had said "unless", it would be a different matter.

I'm not sure how or whether I get a chance to respond to the arbitrator views but I see no explanation of what makes this particular bot so good that it merits overriding the six-month ban that was put in place. Where is the community approval for this bot? All it is doing is blanket unlinking of dates, just like Lightmouse and other outlawed bots were doing previously. How does that "resolve" the matter? Deb (talk) 22:17, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Xeno

"...until the Arbitration Committee is notified of a Community approved process for the mass delinking."

This was done; your point about the relevant users not being notified may have merit, however the six month was subject to the above caveat. –xeno^talk 18:42, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Jarry1250

I cannot comment on the ArbCom-related side of Deb's statement, but I can reply in short to "Further, it does not appear that the introduction of this bot was made widely known to those who contributed to this discussion", and to say that this is probably because the responsibility did not fall to anyone in particular, and, thus, no-one did it. If by "introduction", you mean "approval", I did submit that to the Signpost tipline, and I did personally inform ArbCom. If you mean "applications process", there were quite a few notifications at VP/M. Other than that, I can't really help, sorry.

Statement by Harej

The decision 1.3 to which Deb refers does not mean that all date delinking is prohibited for six months, but that it can only be done under the auspices of the ArbCom. This requirement was fulfilled by this amendment. This was the understanding when I discussed this with User:Tony1. @harej 04:27, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

To supplement Jarry's remarks, the establishment of this bot was subject to RFC (see: Wikipedia:Full-date unlinking bot), and the exclusion list as codified on User:Full-date unlinking bot#Exceptions was also subject to RFC. @harej 04:57, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrator views and discussion

• The discussions about the bot were advertised and subject to a request for comments. ArbCom reviewed the matter and passed a motion recognizing the required community and BAG approved process. The bot operator has been very cooperative with the concerns raised, including making a list of exception in response to the RFC comments. The distinction being made between "until" and "unless" is the worst kind of hair-splitting in my opinion, completely contrary to standard English usage. "Until" and "unless" have more or less the same meaning in context. To make an example: "Johnny is not allowed to leave his post until relieved by the next shift." This statement has the same impact as saying: "Johnny is not allowed to leave his post unless relieved by the next shift." I really do not see what there is to clarify or resolve here. Vassyana (talk) 05:16, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

• In response to Deb, relevant discussions can be found at Wikipedia:Date formatting and linking poll, Wikipedia talk:Full-date unlinking bot#RFC, and Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Full-date unlinking bot, as noted in the first sentence of the passed motion that I linked. Vassyana (talk) 04:22, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

• Comment: Concur with Vassyana; as far as I am concerned this has already been resolved. Risker (talk) 05:11, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
• Comment; Agree with both. Approval of a process was a necessary and sufficient condition to override the ban. — Coren ^(talk) 22:13, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
• Comment: it was approved by motion. This has been resolved. Cool Hand Luke 18:27, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
• The other arbitrators' comments above seem right to me. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:33, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
• Agree with above. Wizardman 00:42, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

---

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Request for clarification: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Date delinking (April 2010)

Initiated by  Sandstein  at 07:11, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:

• Sandstein (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (initiator)
• Shell Kinney (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (notified)
• Pmanderson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (notified)
• Tony1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (notified)
• Admins involved in the AE discussion: notified via a link to this request in the discussion.

Statement by Sandstein

I make this request in my capacity as an admin working at WP:AE.

• In June 2009, the Committee banned Pmanderson from editing "style and editing guidelines relating to the linking or unlinking of dates" for a year (Wikipedia:RFAR/DDL#Pmanderson topic banned).
• On 17 August 2009, the Committee passed a motion which does not appear to have changed the scope of Pmanderson's ban.
• On 28 August 2009, as a result of this AE thread, Shell Kinney (then not yet an arbitrator) added the following to the case page's sanction log: "Pmanderson (talk · contribs) restriction re-widened to include the pages and talk pages of all MOS and style guidelines due to continuing disruption." Nobody appears to have objected to this.
• In April 2010, Tony1 requested the enforcement of this widened ban after Pmanderson appeared to have violated it.

Administrators now disagree at WP:AE#Result concerning Pmanderson about whether Shell Kinney's widening of the ban should be enforced. Please advise about how to proceed.  Sandstein  07:11, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Reply to Carcharoth

Thanks for the clarification. Your diff shows that the motion did indeed restrict the scope of Pmanderson's topic ban, but that this amendment was recorded in such a way (by leaving the 14 June 2009 timestamps intact) as to make the reader believe that the amended version was the one originally passed. I agree that this is most unhelpful and that the clerks should consider establishing a better practice for the recording of amendments.

With respect to your proposal at AE that Pmanderson just agree to the widened ban, I am not sure that this would resolve the problem, because he could at any time withdraw such an agreement, and then we would be back to the same question under discussion here: which are the binding restrictions on Pmanderson?  Sandstein  10:31, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Pmanderson

This was a piece of inadvertence on my part; if I had realized, as I ought to have done, that the discussion linked to from WT:NOR involved an active MOS page (as well as some MOS regulars), I would not have commented - certainly not before Shell's expanded sanction expires a couple of months from now, and probably not then.

I will not now do so; therefore, if bans are preventative rather than punitive, it has done its work. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:53, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Comment to Carcharoth: It is User:Tony1 who has taken an uncharacteristic interest in Talk:Catholic Church, even more than Ohconfucius; but most of the rest of your comment will apply to both of them. The substance of his effort to gather mud from a five-month-old edit dispute was answered (by a third party) [11] . Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:27, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Ohconfucius

Arbs should evaluate whether the above statement is sincere and credible in light of previous comments which appear to strongly indicate that he was attempting to argue his way out of a topic ban extension based on a technicality rather than out of genuine contrition for his "inadvertance". Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 14:47, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

• Carcharoth was right to point out my indiscretions in referring to Pmanderson via nick-names. I have apologised to them both for this and will not do it again.

  The MoS pages themselves have been stable. The occasional tension on MOS, MOSNUM and MOSLINK talk pages is not in a way that is damaging to the project. I will do more to exercise restraint and encourage calm at all times on these pagers. I hope this is a satisfactory response to your concerns. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 04:08, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Carcharoth

Since my previous comment (at arbitration enforcement) has been raised recently (at the current WP:AE thread), and it concerned User:Ohconfucius, I would like the arbitrators to consider that previous comment I made, along with recent behaviour by Ohconfucius, and to ascertain whether his combative approach is helping here, and whether a widening of the topic ban on Ohconfucius to cover all MOS and style pages (similar to the widening applied to Pmanderson) will help here.

My comment, back in August 2009, was here, and can be read in full context here in the arbitration enforcement thread closed by Shell (before she was an arbitrator). Back then, I pointed out that Ohconfucius had, with this edit, referred to Pmanderson as "the style anarchist Pam Anderson". I made the case that this was a deliberate insult by Ohconfucius, but nothing was done at the time, possibly because it was later struck by Ohconfucius. Given this, and noticing the WP:AE thread, I decided to take a closer look at Ohconfucius's conduct here.

From what I can see, Ohconfucius sees Pmanderson as a "MOS style" opponent and pushes back against him whenever he can, as witnessed by the edits here (objecting to the "words to watch" edits due to having that page on his watchlist) and here (complaining about Pmanderson on an unrelated topic and for some reason trying to link it to the enforcement request). I can't see any previous involvement that Ohconfucius has had with the Catholic Church topic. I would suggest asking Ohconfucius why he has suddenly taken an interest in Pmanderson's editing on the Catholic Church topic.

As for recent combative behaviour by Ohconfucius, there are several examples (all from the last two weeks): here (a strike-out of unnecessary commentary, which doesn't really undo the harm done by making such comments); another insulting of Pmanderson here (using the nickname "Mandy" that Pmanderson has previously objected to - see here); using the word hogwash in an edit summary; telling another editor they need to grovel; making insinuations as here, the edit summary here (later apologised for here).

From what I can see, tensions still run high at various MOS and style pages, because there are more people than just Pmanderson who fail to control themselves on those pages (and more than just Ohconfucius as well). I think the whole MOS and style pages still suffer from people who take a very combative attitude to all this (showing an unwillingness to discuss civilly or reasonably, and unable to compromise). This was, in my opinion, the underlying problem in the date delinking case, and in some cases the root verbal incivility and attitude of some of the participants at MOS and style pages is still causing problems. I would urge that the attitude of all editors actively involved in MOS and style pages is given closer scrutiny, starting with Pmanderson and Ohconfucius, and including any other editors previously or currently sanctioned who are continuing the conduct that led to their sanctions. Carcharoth (talk) 00:09, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Note to Sandstein

Sandstein, your second bullet point ("does not appear to have changed the scope of Pmanderson's ban") is incorrect. The motion passed by the Arbitration Committee, that you linked to in your first bullet point (the text of which is also on the case talk page), did modify Pmanderson's topic ban. The diff of the clerk enacting that change is here. Search for "Pmanderson" and you will see both the change, and what Shell later re-widened the ban to include (she was effectively reversing the narrowing that had taken place). In my view, the clerk making the change here should have made this clearer by collapsing the old remedies and writing in new ones below the collapsed ones, rather than just overwriting them and misleadingly leaving in both the date as the date when the case closed and the votes from the proposed decision, rather than the date the motion was passed and the vote numbers from the motion. Collapsing the old remedies and adding in the new ones avoids administrators like Sandstein having to dig through the history to find out what happened here. I did actually point this out at the time, but it seems my suggestions were never acted upon. Sandstein, do you think replacing the over-writing with collapsed old remedies (dated for when the case closed, with the voting figures from the case) and visible new remedies (dated for when the motion passed, with voting figures from the motion) would help make things clearer? Also, would it have been clearer if Shell (or a clerk responsible for the page) had in addition to this edit made a note in the section containing the wording of Pmanderson's topic ban? Carcharoth (talk) 08:18, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Tim Song

The general agreement of the administrators who commented in the AE thread is that in the absence of an explicit provision in the motion authorizing re-widening of the ban, Shell's sanction does not appear to be authorized. (My disagreement with Sandstein at the AE thread is over whether we should address the validity of the sanction at all when no party has contested it.) I do not see how the motion can be interpreted to authorize admins to widen the topic ban on their own discretion - Coren's comment that there will be "very little patience towards renewed hostilities" (1) does not address the question who is to impose sanctions, and (2) is not voted upon by the committee. One can similarly argue that NYB's comment that "If it is called to our attention that any user covered by this motion is replicating the problems of the date delinking dispute in other areas, I'd be open to reinstituting the remedies against him or her" means reinstating the original remedy should be done by the committee, not individual admins, and the restriction on amendment requests in the motion that did pass would seem to support that view.

In this case, nothing in the remedies or motion passed explicitly empowers administrator to do anything, and if the committee nonetheless thinks that administrators are empowered to act in those circumstances, it would be helpful to clarify the source of that authority - is it the "spirit" of the decision at issue (something necessarily vague and sometimes difficult to discern), the comments of the individual arbitrators (which may not have been reviewed, not to mention endorsed, by the full committee), or something else? Does this also extend to other cases unrelated to date delinking? Or, the committee might wish to pass a motion explicitly authorizing administrators to impose sanctions in this case, and retroactively confirming Shell's sanction, which would resolve the matter at hand without having to tackle the questions above. Tim Song (talk) 18:09, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Clerk notes

• Recused MBisanz ^talk 05:30, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Arbitrator views and discussion

• Recused, but as I commented at one of the earlier discussions of this (as an editor, not an arbitrator), I've done so again here, suggesting a way to resolve this with a minimum of fuss. Carcharoth (talk) 03:09, 1 May 2010 (UTC) UPDATE: I've also made a statement above, which is in addition to the AE comment. I'll restrict any further comments to the statement area above. Carcharoth (talk) 10:13, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
• As a first comment, I think it is clear that the original return to the wide interpretation of the topic ban was both anticipated as a possibility and made explicit as the inevitable consequence of misbehavior ("very little patience towards renewed hostilities"). Therefore, there is no doubt that the wider sanction is valid and applies.

  That being said, that the topic ban of one editor has been widened does not give license to the other editors for disruptive behavior (or any form of antagonism); and that the role of Ohconfucius in this incident may well be worth a closer examination at enforcement. — Coren ^(talk) 00:34, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

• I do agree that the wider sanction is valid and does apply. Also, that other editors should endeavor not to use these sanctions as clubs in debates. The role that other editors played in this may be looked at as needed. SirFozzie (talk) 21:22, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
• Recuse, as I provided evidence in the original case. Steve Smith (talk) 20:35, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Request to amend prior case: Date delinking (July 2010)

Initiated by Lightmouse (talk) at 22:11, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Case affected

Date delinking arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

Remedies

• 7.1): "Lightmouse is indefinitely prohibited from using any automation whatsoever on Wikipedia."

• 8): "Lightmouse is limited to using only the account 'Lightmouse' to edit."

List of users affected by or involved in this amendment

• Lightmouse (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)

• Jarry1250 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that the above users are aware of this request

• [12] (diff of notification of this thread on Jarry1250's talk page)

Amendment 1

¹The relevant part from the BAG approval is:

”I would like to make it explicit that I will be editing units of measure in a variety of forms.

• A 'unit of measure' is any sequence of characters that relates to measurement of things. This includes but is not limited to units defined by the BIPM SI, the US NIST or any other weights and measures organisation or none at all. This includes but is not limited to time, length, area, volume, mass, speed, power.

• Edits may add or modify metric or non-metric units.

• Edits may modify the format.

• Edits may add, remove or modify templates that involve units.

• Edits may add, remove or modify links to units.”

• 7.1) amended to: "Lightmouse is indefinitely prohibited from using any automation whatsoever on Wikipedia, except that he is permitted to do so in the field of ‘units of measure’ on a three-month trial basis, under the supervision of User:Jarry1250."

• 8) amended to "Lightmouse is limited to using only the account 'Lightmouse' to edit, except that during the three-month trial he is permitted to use the account 'Lightbot' to edit only in the field of units of measure, under the supervision of User:Jarry1250, in accordance with the relevant section of the BAG approval.¹"

Statement by Lightmouse

I've been a Wikipedian for more than six years, and have played a key role in ensuring that metric and non-metric units are provided in the clearest and most conventional ways for our international readers. I was early in recognising the value of automation for janitorial work in such a large, global project, and taught myself automation skills. I believe I have significantly benefited Wikipedia. Many editors have used and continue to use my scripts; some have been inspired to create their own.

I edited first as Bobblewik (talk · contribs), then as Editore99 (talk · contribs), then (from 2007) as Lightmouse (talk · contribs). The name changes were due to forgotten passwords. I created two bot accounts: Bobblebot (talk · contribs) (unused) and Lightbot (talk · contribs).

I became a key player in encouraging a more discerning approach to internal linking, particularly dates and times. In the early days this resulted in a number of blocks. I probably didn't respond in the right way to sysops who blocked me, finding it easy to think of them as "involved". I believe I’ve learned from this. I’ve always been polite to users who have questioned my edits.

Finding the adversarial atmosphere of the case difficult to cope with, I ultimately declined to defend myself. I now regret my failure to participate properly, which I realise is frowned upon. I was strongly criticised during the case over a bot application to BAG in which I failed to declare previous usernames, and blocks thereunder. I realise this lack of transparency on my part made me look untrustworthy. My wikifriends have convinced me not to state that I didn’t appreciate the significance of this lack of disclosure because it would not be credible to the Committee. I can only apologise for my actions and for any other perceived indiscretions, and state that I have learned from these situations.

Since my return after the 12-month ban I have resumed manual janitorial work. I would like the chance to show good faith in the use of my skills in automation for the benefit of the project. Therefore, I am applying for an amendment to two of the three current remedies so that I might return in an open, narrowly defined way to automated editing. A sysop member of the BAG, Jarry1250 (talk · contribs), has agreed to supervise my contributions during a trial period. Lightmouse (talk) 22:11, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Statement by other editors

Other editors are free to comment on this amendment as necessary. Comments here should be directed only at the above proposed amendment.

Wikipedia benefits from experienced automation experts such as Lightmouse. When I first became aware of Lightmouse, I found that he was always acutely sensitive to feedback from upset editors after a bot produced unexpected and undesirable results. He quickly (typically in a matter of hours) would tweak the code to make the bot properly deal with whatever novel situations arose. Much of the to-do with Lightmouse’s involvement with date-related bot activities arose from his moving forward when he believed a clear community consensus existed on date linking. In the end, the consensus he believed existed at that time proved to be well founded and is the current consensus today—and our guidelines reflect that consensus. Since the date-related conflict was rather unique (a particularly contentious issue with impassioned editors on both sides), there is no reason to think that Lightmouse can’t be trusted to go back to doing what he did before he got swept up in the date-jihad maelstrom: make and run sophisticated bots that improve Wikipedia far more consistently and faster than humans can. Greg L (talk) 01:17, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I have found Lightmouse proactive, reactive, and curteous at all times. Lightmouse has been a great inspiration to me, not only because he demonstrated to me that he cares deeply about the project, but also because he understands the potential benefits of automation for this project, which is filled with quirky inconsistencies due to the inherent collaborative nature that lend themselves well to standardisation and automated maintenance. I missed his presence from the project, and have been motivated thus to take up scripting myself - of course, I cannot fill the huge gap left by Lightmouse. His remorse appears sincere and heartfelt; his gradual return to automation, under the parameters laid out appears to be well thought out, and seems to me to correctly balance the safeguards which the project may reasonably expect with the right of editors to engage in automation. I heartily support this appeal. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 02:26, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I too have always found Lightmouse helpful and unfailingly courteous, and always willing to act promptly to fix any problems (which were few) in his scripts and bot. I believe that WP has benefited greatly from his involvement and will continue to do so if he's allowed to use his skills to the full. I heartily support this request. Colonies Chris (talk) 08:03, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I have read the statements by Users Greg L, Ohconfucius, and Colonies Chris. I would like to say that my own experience strongly supports what they say. Tony (talk) 08:29, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Not much more I can add to the above, except to say that I wholeheartedly agree.  HWV258.  09:05, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I can't say anything else about Lightmouse without repeating what those above me have already said, so I won't. I urge the ArbCom to give Lightmouse a second chance, as they have with other parties to the date delinking case. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:18, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I have, to the best of my knowledge, never interacted with Lightmouse before this present appeal - that is to say, I have no prior axes to grind, only good faith. Okay. So now I think about it, it seems the best plan is thus (and I shall post this suggestion to Lightmouse's talk momentarily): 1) Lightmouse submits a new (date/unit) BRFA; 2 or 3) The BRFA is endorsed by Arbcom - they amend prior remedies to allow its passage; 3 or 2) The BRFA passes (or fails) the standard process, which will include a short trial. 4) Instead of being free to continue as he pleases, Lightmouse will remain under trial conditions for three months. Put simply, he will be on best behaviour and expected to be a top operator in responding to comments and complaints; he will be expected to, and I will, check a sample of his own edits at regular intervals; admins and others will be more heavy-handed in stopping the bot from continuing. That is my recommendation at least. - Jarry1250 ^{[Humorous? Discuss.]} 16:04, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

That sounds fine to me. The BRFA will be called 'Lightbot 4'. It will be a copy of the units of measure section of Lightbot 3. It will not contain any reference to dates. Thus the text will be:

"I would like to make it explicit that I will be editing units of measure in a variety of forms.

• A 'unit of measure' is any sequence of characters that relates to measurement of things. This includes but is not limited to units defined by the BIPM SI, the US NIST or any other weights and measures organisation or none at all. This includes but is not limited to time, length, area, volume, mass, speed, power.
• Edits may add or modify metric or non-metric units.
• Edits may modify the format.
• Edits may add, remove or modify templates that involve units.
• Edits may add, remove or modify links to units."

If I need to start the BRFA now, just let me know. Regards. Lightmouse (talk) 11:45, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

BRFA started, as directed by Kirill. See BRFA at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests_for_approval#Lightbot_4. Regards Lightmouse (talk) 13:04, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

• I would like to pick up on one point made above, add a general point about bots such as this, and point out one illuminating exchange that occurred elsewhere.

• (1) Ohconfucius talks above about "...the potential benefits of automation for this project, which is filled with quirky inconsistencies due to the inherent collaborative nature that lend themselves well to standardisation and automated maintenance". In my opinion, this strikes to the heart of the conflicts that arise between those who would like to see the guidelines presented in the Manual of Style implemented and enforced across the entirety of Wikipedia with the use of bots, and those who think that such an approach will create more drama and conflict than it is worth (as individual editors and groups of editors object to bots sweeping through and making changes that at times seem arcane to those who have not followed the discussions at the Manual of Style). The fundamental divide is between those who want to see order and consistency brought to pages across the whole of Wikipedia, and those who think an organic process is better and less disruptive. I would have thought a wider debate on precisely when automation on this sort of scale is needed (and when it is not needed) would be a good idea, and would be a good idea for any process that has the potential to affect every page on the whole of Wikipedia.
• (2) In my experience with bots such as this, a common problem is that they try to do too much and over-reach. Even the best bot operator in the world will get overwhelmed if they try to run a bot that makes thousands of similar but slightly different changes, that many people won't understand. Such bots need to be split into smaller tasks and those who frequent the Manual of Style pages and support such bots should have the patience to wait for a series of smaller tasks to be run, rather than everything being done in one go.
• (3) There are still levels of aggression, incivility and battling to be seen with those who support this and similar proposals. The first two editors above (Greg L and Ohconfucius) who showed enthusiastic support for Lightmouse were also the first two editors from this request to turn up at the bot request (where a discussion was already in progress), where they promptly escalated matters with these edits: [13], [14], [15] (note the reference to gatekeepers, enemas, and the gratuitous insertion of a link to an image depicting a 'gatekeeper'). Tony1 was quick to intervene and restrain them with this advice, and Dabomb87 moved the comments to the talk page, but I would suggest arbitrators consider what happened there and whether any form of restrictions are needed to prevent a similar dynamic arising again where a familiar group of users turn up to use inflammatory language to defend Lightmouse, his bot, or his proposals.

I hope that some of the problems that occurred with this sort of approach in the past can be avoided here. Carcharoth (talk) 01:21, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Carcharoth, I agree Greg's and Ohconfucius's comments were a bit over-the-top and reminiscent of the old toxic MOSNUM discussions, but I think further restrictions, given that this was a one-time incident quickly contained, would be a bit much. Of course, if that occurs again, I couldn't blame you (or rather, the non-recused ArbCom members) for pursuing additional action. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:39, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh dear. My intentions didn’t come through as I had intended and I must apologize for my post, now located here. When I wrote that, I perceived that Lightmouse was the recipient of unnecessary third-degree by Anomie. But, apparently that is a legitimate role of Anomie’s so I shouldn’t have criticized him for being out of line. I am truly sorry for that. As for my “gratuitous” image when I linked to “gatekeeper” I had intended that to be a bit of humor to defuse the seriousness of the matter. Seeing Carcharoth’s reaction, I clearly failed at that too, and just made things even more serious. For that too, I apologize. Greg L (talk) 18:00, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

• What Greg said. I apologise. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 08:44, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I cannot say this request encourages me. The best summary of the situation is this comment from Anomie: Wikipedia:Bots/Requests_for_approval/Lightbot_4 is a vague request (it took a while even to get specifics out of Lightmouse) for a general-purpose bot which can do anything Lightmouse fancies on a wide array of topics, some of which aren't even units.

The assertion above that Lightmouse is particularly competent at automation seems rather doubtful; he admits he cannot write a bot which will count how often it has edited a page or queue changes; he is unwilling or unable to produce a bot which will write edit summaries reflecting what it actually does; and I see no reason to believe that this bot (if overriden by a human editor), will not come back and revert war.

Anomie also remarks, correctly, that the request for approval is backed by Lightmouse's fanclub at MOSNUM; so - aside for Jarry (I hope he realizes what he is getting into) - is this request for amendment. This is the same group and the same situation as the date-delinking case; a small group of editors would very much like to make sweeping changes of format for which they have no consensus beyond themselves - so they want a bot to do whatever changes to units they decide they want. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:45, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

For the record, date-delinking was born out of a desire to improve WP. Date-delinking received enormous community support (via the various RfCs), and the end result of delinking was the removal of almost all linked dates (and date fragments) on millions of pages—something that has received little negative feedback. The hard-working and dedicated efforts of the "fanclub" [sic] should be commended as the results are a simpler and easy-to-use WP for all viewers and editors.  HWV258.  21:34, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Certainly; all these disruptive initiatives have been produced by a desire to improve Wikipedia. The reason for the ArbCom decision was the absence of any consideration that others might not feel the same about what does improve it; this proposal that Lightmouse/Bobblewick, of all people, should have a general purpose bot to impose his whims shows that nothing has changed, and the children of Robespierre still wish to improve us, whatever we may want. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:11, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Quoting you, PMA: …children of Robespierre still wish to improve us. Robespierre is the architect of the Reign of Terror and was executed in a coup d'etat. The issue here is the technical merits of the bot. Calling others “children of Robespierre” was designed to provoke. I know that; you know that. Moreover, both “bot to impose his whims” and “[who] still wish to improve us” are failures to assume good faith and are arguably personal attacks. Please behave yourself if you are going to weigh in here. Greg L (talk) 01:28, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

No, they are failures to observe good faith. It was a bad idea to give the Jacobins a guillotine; I'm not sure giving these doctrinaires a bot is a good idea either. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:54, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

• What is the status of this amendment request? As far as I can see, the bot request is still in progress (it has been open for 22 days and is still being edited), and that request needs to be either accepted, or modified and accepted, before any motions can be proposed here by arbitrators (per Kirill's statement: "Lightmouse/Jarry, please go ahead and move the request through BRFA; once it's verified and approved by BAG, we can pass the necessary motions on our end to allow you to actually implement it."). Until that happens, things here are on hold. As far as I can tell, the bot request isn't making very fast progress. I would also ask arbitrators to read through the bot request (both now, while it is in progress, and once it is closed) before proposing or voting on any motions. The underlying tension at the request seems to be between a desire on the one hand for simple bot requests that are easy to check, run trials on, and approve, and on the other hand a desire to have a more open-ended, flexible request approved, that allows the bot operator to reprogram the script without constantly going back to BAG. The problem being that open-ended requests are harder to assess and approve, which is (in my view) why the request is still open and struggling to make progress. Carcharoth (talk) 15:24, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I see that the user who I think has been the only active BAG member on this matter has now gone on vacation until 16 August. I have no idea about BAG processes, but I wonder whether it is possible for other BAG members to be requested to be a little more active. Tony (talk) 16:39, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

• Agree with Tony that other BAG members should be urged to comment. I think Carcharoth has a point about the inherent tension in the 'open' nature of the bot request, and the demands within the BAG for it to be firmly nailed down. I would like to remind all that the objective of this appeal is the first step in the rehabilitation of Lightmouse. On one hand, it is to give the community some sense of security that LM will not be allowed complete free reign to once again commit whatever 'errors' and 'negligences' he is alleged to have committed; OTOH, it is as much for Lightmouse to demonstrate that, without being put into a straightjacket where he cannot possibly do anything wrong (after all, what's the point?), he is responsive and capable of running a bot in a responsible manner.

  That the BAG operation should fall within the auspices of Arbcom in this particular instance may be a factor in the low participation rate there. The balance is not being struck apparently because an unnecessary complication – behavioural considerations – has been brought in. IMHO, behavioural matters are Arbcom's province; the BAG's role thus ought to be limited to technical considerations. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 01:59, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

• With apologies to Gatoclass, I would like to add here for the record the following diff: [16]. I don't think it is ever too late to bring up points such as that made by Gatoclass (and later withdrawn). I would actually like to see links to the discussions Gatoclass refers to, and those links should at a minimum be supplied to any BAG discussion, and arguably any BAG approval could be invalidated unless notification was given at the venues where this has been discussed before. Of course, Gatoclass may have missed other discussions, so what is really needed is a full and honest listing and assessment of past and present discussions about this subject. Hopefully that can happen and ArbCom will consider how many people took part in or were notified of the BAG discussions. Carcharoth (talk) 18:43, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Further discussion

This is an update. We have been in discussion at BAG for a month and a bit about reviving Lightbot with just the units of measure component. I thought it was simply matter of restating the previous Lightbot BRFA with just the units component, and amending if needed based on real examples of where it may have made systematic errors. Unfortunately, I was wrong about that top-down approach.

I'm now proposing a very limited trial (see Wikipedia:Bots/Requests_for_approval/Lightbot_4) with just a small set of units. It is possible to use automation to maintain/convert units of measure. Using automation to maintain/convert units is a 'good thing' and I'm sure we'll find a way. There aren't many editors contributing to the discussion and it'd be useful to have a wider range of views. Feel free to comment there. Lightmouse (talk) 18:40, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

The previous debate at BAG (see Wikipedia:Bots/Requests_for_approval/Lightbot_4) became bogged down in detail. A new discussion (see Wikipedia:Bots/Requests_for_approval/Lightbot_5) but I'm not sure when that will end. As far as Arbcom is concerned, the connection with BAG and Lightbot is only relevant to:

• remedy (8) "Lightmouse is limited to using only the account 'Lightmouse' to edit."

I had thought that the BAG revival of the unit portion of Lightbot would be a mere administrative matter. I was wrong. Some editors involved in the date delinking debate (from both sides) have become involved in the debate about units. Nobody (apart from me) appears to be considering moving forward to a trial. So we're still a long way off. The caution is understandable but it may lead to the debate taking a lot longer. It may also lead to BAG deciding not to revive the previous permit of Lightbot to add/maintain units.

Consequently, this is a formal request to Arbcom. Please allow progress by amending the remedy that also applies to the Lightmouse account:

• remedy (7.1) "Lightmouse is indefinitely prohibited from using any automation whatsoever on Wikipedia."

Add/maintain units is rather tedious work when done by hand. An amendment would allow me to do what many editors do, use a normal account to use semi-automation to add/maintain units of measure. Hopefully, the new fear, uncertainty and doubt relating to bot usage for similar tasks will be resolved at some point in the future. Lightmouse (talk) 12:40, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Statement by yet another editor

Clerk notes

This section is for administrative notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Arbitrator views and discussion

• Recuse, as I presented evidence in this case. Steve Smith (talk) 22:16, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
• Recuse as I recused in the original case. Carcharoth (talk) 22:30, 11 July 2010 (UTC) Have now made a statement above. 01:22, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
• Lightmouse, I am willing to give you another chance to engage in automation work, provided that it is done under appropriate supervision from BAG to ensure that we don't fall back into any repeats of your past conflicts. Having said that, the Lightbot 3 BAG approval request included a number of functions that are not relevant to what you seem to be proposing, or that would be inappropriate in the current circumstances. I would like to see a current statement from BAG indicating specifically which functions you will be performing during this trial, and how they will monitor the results, before we move forward. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 23:39, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Lightmouse/Jarry, please go ahead and move the request through BRFA; once it's verified and approved by BAG, we can pass the necessary motions on our end to allow you to actually implement it. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 12:36, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
• Generally I agree with Kirill; I'd like to make sure we've got the details down before going any further here. Shell ^babelfish 23:03, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
• Per Kirill. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:20, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
• Concur with Kirill; I'd like to see the BAG reviews before implementation but, if all looks good, then it will be a straightforward matter. Risker (talk) 02:11, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
• Agreed as well. I'm not opposed to allowing a BAG reviewed automated process. — Coren ^(talk) 13:41, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
• As long as it's reviewed by the appropriate people and the details made clear, I have no problem with it. SirFozzie (talk) 20:42, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
• Agreed, broadly per Kirill.  Roger Davies ^talk 12:31, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
• I generally agree with my colleagues who have commented on this request. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:57, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Is there any update on the status of this, or currently pending request for action? If necessary, this request should be withdrawn and re-filed when it is ready for action. I don't think it's a good practice for requests to stay open on this page indefinitely. (This is a process point, not a criticism of anyone.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:28, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
    • The current configuration is wholly dependent on BAG. I thought BAG would simply revive the relatively uncontroversial non-date portion of Lightbot. Unfortunately, those involved in the date delinking dispute (on both sides) have become involved. I think we'd get an early and defendable decision if we had a new BAG application (e.g. Lightbot 6) with contributions only from editors uninvolved with date delinking. Also, did you see my [formal request]? I don't want the one year restriction to go much further into its second year. Lightmouse (talk) 11:59, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
      • Is it possible to make progress on this? Lightmouse (talk) 13:13, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
• Given that we're essentially waiting for BAG in any case, I don't see any need for this to remain an open issue from our end. I've proposed a motion below to leave this in BAG's hands. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 21:23, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

• • Thank you. However, the requested amendment to 7.1 was to be "Lightmouse is indefinitely prohibited from using any automation whatsoever on Wikipedia, except that he is permitted to do so in the field of ‘units of measure’...". This would allow me to use the Lightmouse account to do routine script-assisted work related to units of measure that I used to do (and many editors still do, even with variants of code I may have written myself) as a non-bot. I may even use such non-bot work to support the case for a bot. The Kirill proposed amendment is welcome but it not only puts BAG in charge of a non-bot account (which is a variation from the normal BAG scope), but it also prevents the Lightmouse account from applying non-bot semi-automation to units of measure until the BAG debate ends with a 'yes' at some unspecified time in the future, and worse for me, it may end with a 'no'. Please can you consider the text I proposed which would not connect BAG to the non-bot activities. I hope you don't mind. Lightmouse (talk) 22:27, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
    • You're free to ask BAG to simply authorize the semi-automated editing you'd like to do, independent of any bot request, and I see no particular reason why they would refuse to do so. However, given the problems we've had in the past, I'm not willing to give you a blanket permission to use automation—even in a very limited form—without having some sort of oversight from BAG in place. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 22:36, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

• • • • Thanks for the reply. I'll ask BAG as you suggest. Lightmouse (talk) 22:41, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Query about the two motions

I hope this is the right place to post this (please relocate if not). I’m confused about the Motion and the Alternative Motion. Can someone help me understand the following issues?

1. It appears that the Motion permits LM to test proposed Lightbot functionality before taking the proposal to BAG either as a automation request or an amendment to an existing Lightbot approval. I’m picking up that most or all bot editors would regard this as good practice. On the face of it, the Alternative Motion appears to forbid such tests. Is this correct?
2. It appears that the Motion allows BAG to approve new applications and to amend an existing approval without reference to ArbCom. The Alternative Motion seems to require a separate application for amendment here, no matter how trivial the request change might be. I note Coren’s statement “to allow for ‘’one’’ approved bot task, giving us an opportunity to reevaluate the situation in a while”. Is this correct?
3. Can both motions apply at the same time? Tony (talk) 10:05, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

• While I hope this won't be seen as encouragement to try and game around the amendment, it would cover the normal work around a 'bot task: That includes the usual dry runs in user space, the test runs okayed by BAG, and whatever minor tweaks are generally included in a single bot request. — Coren ^(talk) 11:10, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
• And no, the motions can't apply at the same time: they are alternative to each other. The first proposed effectively lifting the restriction, the second allows for an exception only but leaves the restriction in place for the time being. — Coren ^(talk) 11:13, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. On the basis of what you say, both motions permit testing of the BRFA functionality using the Lightmous account. Since one motion has passed, I'll start testing the BRFA functionality immediately to support the ongoing BRFA discussions. What'll happen if both motions get five votes? Lightmouse (talk) 11:46, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Normally, we then go with preferences, then with "least opposition". As a rule, though, we prefer it when things aren't that ambiguous and we'd work it out before enacting one or the other to clarify everyone's position. — Coren ^(talk) 16:47, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Motion

The Date delinking case is amended as follows:

1. Remedy #8 ("Lightmouse accounts") is rescinded.
2. Remedy #7.1 ("Lightmouse automation") is replaced with:

   Lightmouse is permitted to use automation only for tasks authorized by the Bot Approvals Group. "Automation" is to be interpreted broadly to refer to any automated or semi-automated tools whatsoever.

There being 8 active Arbitrators, not counting 1 who is recused, the majority is 5

Support

1. Proposed. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 21:23, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
2. That pretty much covers the comments. Shell ^babelfish 21:37, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
3. Equal preference for both motions for me at this time. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:19, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
4. Equal for both.  Roger Davies ^talk 07:40, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Oppose

1. This goes too far in the other direction, given the amount of past trouble borne out of Lightmouse's well-intended but ultimately disruptive automated editing. I am amenable to supporting a loosening of the restrictions to allow for one approved bot task, giving us an opportunity to reevaluate the situation in a while. — Coren ^(talk) 00:52, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
2. Per Coren. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:05, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
3. Normally, I'd be a second choice here, but I think the other one is better, and both on the verge of passing, so, indicating my preference for the other one as such. SirFozzie (talk) 01:34, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
4. Per Coren. - Mailer Diablo 20:25, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Abstain

Recuse

1. Carcharoth (talk) 00:39, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Alternative motion

The Date delinking case is supplemented as follows:

Nonwithstanding remedies #7.1 and #8, Lightmouse (talk · contribs) is permitted to use his Lightbot (talk · contribs) account for a single automation task authorized by the Bot Approvals Group. "Automation" is to be interpreted broadly to refer to any automated or semi-automated tools whatsoever.

Enacted - Dougweller (talk) 13:15, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

There being 8 active Arbitrators, not counting 1 who is recused, the majority is 5

Support

1. Proposed. At the conclusion of that task, the Committee will be in a much better position to evaluate whether further relaxation of the restriction is warranted, and to what extent. — Coren ^(talk) 15:36, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
2. SirFozzie (talk) 02:17, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
3. Equal preference to original motion. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:19, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
4. Equal for both.  Roger Davies ^talk 07:41, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
5. Better than nothing, but I expect the insistence on a single task will cause all sort of headaches for us down the line due to the distinction between the fully automated and semi-automated versions of the unit conversion BAG request. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 02:00, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
6. Gradual return. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:58, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
7. Sounds better. - Mailer Diablo 20:25, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
8. KnightLago (talk) 00:22, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Oppose

Abstain

Recuse

1. Carcharoth (talk) (implied by the other motion, — Coren ^(talk) 15:36, 29 August 2010 (UTC))

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Request to amend prior case: Date delinking (November 2010)

Initiated by Ohconfucius (talk) at 06:57, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Case affected

Date delinking arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

Remedies

• 17): "Ohconfucius is prohibited from using any automation in article space indefinitely."

List of users affected by or involved in this amendment

• Ohconfucius (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)

Confirmation that the above users are aware of this request

• Username3 (repeat above for all parties)

Amendment 1

• 17) amended to: "Nonwithstanding remedy #17, Ohconfucius (talk · contribs) is permitted to use the dashes script created and maintained by GregU (talk · contribs) for sole purpose of bringing the use of hyphens and dashes – as interrupters and as range separators between numerals – into conformity with WP:MOSDASH.

Statement by Ohconfucius

It has been 16 months since the date-delinking case was closed. During this time, I have thought at length about my past actions and the potential for disruption which automation can cause; I regret my actions, and acknowledge that I was wrong to use automation in the way I did during the case, in breach of the injunction.

I have continued to perform valuable work in good faith for Wikipedia (see my significant contributions): in addition to a large number of minor, “gnoming” edits, I have made significant contributions to or created a number of articles, five of which have become Good Articles, and two of which have become featured articles,here andhere – both of which required diplomatic and intercultural skills on my part.

The script I hope to use has been in use for a year, and has proved to be highly successful, with almost no false positives and to my knowledge no objections by editors. Its use would be ideal complement to my manual gnoming, since where the use of dashes is out of line with the style guides (in a surprisingly large proportion of our articles), the fix sometimes requires a large number of minute tweaks; for example, where hyphens have been used as dividers in large lists. I believe that allowing me to use this script would benefit the project and pose no technical or social risk. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 06:57, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Arbitrator views and discussion

• I am impressed with the quality of your contributions since the Date delinking case, and with the tone and substance of your comments here. Given that the underlying issue has long been resolved, I think we can remove the restrictions entirely.Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 21:00, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
• I concur with Kirill,  Roger^talk 19:23, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Motion

1) Remedy #17 ("Ohconfucius automation") of the Date delinking case is terminated, effective immediately, and Ohconfucius (talk · contribs) is permitted to use automation subject to normal community guidelines.

Support

1. Proposed. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 21:00, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
2. SirFozzie (talk) 16:52, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
3. Risker (talk) 17:01, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
4.  Roger ^talk 19:23, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
5. Support. I've copyedited by substituting "terminated effective immediately" for "rescinded" (the latter could be read to mean that we've decided the remedy was wrong in the first place, as opposed to what we do mean, which is that it's no longer necessary now). Any arbitrator who disagrees with the rephrasing may revert. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:41, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
6. Support and agree with Brad's copyedit. Shell ^babelfish 01:42, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
7. — Coren ^(talk) 13:36, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Oppose

Abstain

Recuse

1. Carcharoth (talk) 22:38, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Motion adopted. Clerk to archive and notify. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:38, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Request to amend prior case: Date delinking

Initiated by Gigs (talk) at 20:22, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Case affected

• Date delinking arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)
• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Date delinking#Supplemental motion regarding User Lightmouse

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

1. 7.1) Lightmouse is indefinitely prohibited from using any automation whatsoever on Wikipedia.
2. 8) Lightmouse is limited to using only the account "Lightmouse" to edit.
3. Supplemental motion: "Nonwithstanding remedies #7.1 and #8, Lightmouse (talk · contribs) is permitted to use his Lightbot (talk · contribs) account for a single automation task authorized by the Bot Approvals Group. "Automation" is to be interpreted broadly to refer to any automated or semi-automated tools whatsoever."

List of users affected by or involved in this amendment

• Gigs (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
• Lightmouse (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that the above users are aware of this request

• [17]

Amendment 1

• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Date delinking#Supplemental motion regarding User Lightmouse
• At this point I do not trust Lightmouse to use automated tools and take complaints seriously, and think that his sanction should be extended to an indefinite ban on all automated and semi-automated editing.

Statement by Gigs

Lightmouse has engaged in high speed semi-automated editing without BAG approval in apparent violation of the previous sanctions, such as: [18] [19] [20] [21], as a small sample. These edits drew several complaints as to their accuracy and appropriateness, including feedback from myself of a general nature, before I realized that Lightmouse was under ArbCom sanctions. This is documented at: User_talk:Lightmouse/Archives/2010/October.

There are several currently pending BRFAs:

1. Wikipedia:BRFA#Lightbot_7
2. Wikipedia:BRFA#Lightbot_6
3. Wikipedia:BRFA#Lightmouse
4. Wikipedia:Bots/Requests_for_approval/Lightbot_5

Note that the sanctions limit Lightmouse to a single BAG approved task, so it is unclear to me what action BAG should take regarding these BRFAs. Rlevse approached Lightmouse asking for an explanation of the apparent violation, but now that he is gone, I'm not sure if anyone is following up on this. I am asking for an official response from ArbCom in order to bring clarity and closure to this, regardless of whether my amendment is accepted.

My involvement in this is limited to relatively brief conversations last month on WT:MOSNUM and on Lightmouse's talk page urging him to take complaints about his semi-automatic editing much more seriously. Gigs (talk) 20:22, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Additional comment by Gigs

To clarify, the sort of dismissive behavior that I observed on WT:MOSNUM and Lightmouse's talk page is what prompted my concerns. (i.e. [22] [23] [24]) This is exactly the same sort of behavior that lead to the sanction in the first place. Editing rates peaking at 5-8 edits per minute on systematically selected alphabetized articles surely does not fall under "manual editing". The editing stopped 2 weeks ago only because Rlevse approached Lightmouse and asked for an explanation of the apparent violation. Gigs (talk) 18:30, 12 November 2010 (UTC) may have been mistaken about causality 23:09, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

I notice that Lightmouse has just opened up two additional BRFAs for Lightbot.

• Wikipedia:BRFA#Lightbot_8
• Wikipedia:BRFA#Lightbot_9

Regardless of the nature of the current requests, Lightmouse disregarded sanctions while carrying out those thousands of AWB edits under the Lightmouse account. The sanctions reflected a general lack of ArbCom faith in Lightmouse to conduct semi-automated and automated operations in a non-disruptive fashion, which is why they were not constructed more narrowly. Lightmouse is effectively asking BAG to assist him in violating those sanctions by filing multiple BRFAs that would violate the sanctions if approved. This does not inspire any more faith in my eyes. Gigs (talk) 02:30, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Statement by other editor

{Other editors are free to comment on this amendment as necessary. Comments here should be directed only at the above proposed amendment.}

Statement by Ohconfucius

I'm baffled too, but no more so than by this amendment. AFAIK, Lightbot hasn't been in operation for over a month now, BAG has been unresponsive to repeated requests for the bot. Lighmouse himself hasn't edited in two weeks, some 48 hours before Vanished 6551232 (talk · contribs) (aka Rlevse) posted his message on Lightmouse's talk page. Prior to those two weeks, I see nothing "high speed", just some 'normal' (by that, I mean manual) AWB actions at an average rate of 50 edits per hour to remove overlinked common terms (hour!, kilometer!!, minute!!!, ) and some years. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 15:29, 12 November 2010 (UTC), amended 02:18, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

In response to Gigs' "additional statement", I combed through Lightmouse's contributions history for the last 2,600+ entries. Therein, I noticed nothing incompatible with the editing speeds achieved for human-supervised AWB usage. I examined in excess of 50 edits, and found that rarely did each edit contain more than one or two changes, such as removing wikilinks to days of the week, years, and other common terms such as 'week', 'day', 'hour', 'second'... which I note is firmly endorsed by WP:Linking. There were occasionally more changes, which included insertion of '{{convert}}'. As for the complaints on LM's talk page... Rifleman complains here that Lightmouse has been systematically removing repeat links, implying that he should be careful not to disturb his misleading piped links notwithstanding; once again WP:Linking is firmly on Lightmouse's side. The diff used above of the post from pdfpdf clearly shows Gigs was aware of the belligerence of pdfpdf, who not only expressed his displeasure of having the {{convert}} foisted upon him in articles he had on his watchlist, calling them "non-consensus changes" (viz: "'If you think square kilometres are confusing, just remove them.' - For heavens sake! We are NOT your mother nor your housemaid nor your servant. YOU made these non-consensus changes. YOU fix them!!"), he repeatedly replaced the message despite its removal by the owner (and by me, a talk-page stalker) insisting it wasn't uncivil – I would actually call it harassment even though LM was firm but always polite with visitors to his talk page. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 14:20, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Kingpin13

Speaking somewhat as a member of the Bot Approvals Group, I firstly apologise for the slow progress of BRfA recently, there's only really been about three active BAG members approving bots over the past month. As I understand it, the previous case banned Lightmouse from making any semi- or fully-automated edits from any account. The amendment then permitted him to make some from a single account, Lightbot. The only edits explicitly approved by BAG were 50 trial edits, all of which are listed here, to be made from the Lightbot account, this was approved by Mr.Z-man (talk · contribs) here. The edits linked to by Gigs clearly show Lightmouse using the AutoWikiBrowser (a semi-automated tool) on his main account. This is very clearly disallowed by the ArbCom remedies ([emphasises added] "Lightmouse is indefinitely prohibited from using any automation whatsoever on Wikipedia", where "automation is to be interpreted broadly to refer to any automated or semi-automated tools whatsoever", amended by "Lightmouse (talk · contribs) is permitted to use his Lightbot (talk · contribs) account for a single automation task"), it was made abundantly clear in the amendment that the only account which the ban from using automation was lifted on was the Lightbot account (but the edits Gigs have issue with came from the Lightmouse account). In addition to this problem with the accounts getting muddled, the edit summaries used by the bot and AWB, are in my opinion, not clear enough (for example, the Lightbot edits do not make it clear that they were approved trial edits). Besides which, this clearly was not a dry-run/userspace test - it was a live run, with changes being made to the Wikipedia namespace mainspace. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 09:39, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

In regard to John's message below. He appears to be misunderstanding what I'm saying. Lightmouse defended the bot edits as a trial. Unapproved bot trials may only be made in the op/bot's userspace. Often (but not in general) it is indeed preferable for trials to be made in mainspace. But only when approved by BAG at BRfA, which provides a review of these edits. As to Paragraph two of his comment, I wasn't referring to the trial approved at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests_for_approval/Lightbot_5, I made clear that that was the only approved trial, and linked to the edits made under that approval (I made this clear because it seems ArbCom wanted an update on what BAG had actually approved). My issue was with "the edits linked to by Gigs". Lightmouse claims these edits were also a trial. However, they were unapproved; without peer review; made in the mainspace; came from the Lightmouse account (this wouldn't generally be a large issue, as they were semi-automated, however this account was banned from making any semi-automated edits by ArbCom (this ban has not been lifted - it's only had an amendment made regarding the Lightbot account). In addition, considering the kind of edits made and the number (see Anomie's link) they should have been performed on a separate account even without the ban in place (see WP:AWB#Rules of use 2)); and in a large quantity - clearly not a suitable trial). Also Anomie makes similar points to mine below, and I agree with his statement. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 14:03, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

In reply to Kirill below: That is correct, the only edits approved by BAG were 50 trial edits under this BRfA. Per se, any other edits do not have BAG approval, including those listed ([25], [26], [27] [28]) and in-fact any semi/automated edits made from his own account, such as 4853 out of 5000 edits listed here. In addition, BAG wouldn't be able to approve these edits anyway (the AWB edits from Lightmouse's main account), as doing so would be overruling ArbCom - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 06:32, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

In general, it is preferable for trial runs to be made in mainspace, as was done here. [Note: mainspace, where articles reside, is not the same as "Wikipedia namespace".] Mainspace trial edits are preferable simply because they include (obviously) the full complexity of article text. Mistakes in edits in mainspace, if limited in number (as will be the case for trial runs) are easy enough to reverse. It's much better to find mistakes during a trial run, even if a few articles have errors until corrected, than to find errors when a bot goes live and is doing thousands of edits. Moreover, my review of Wikipedia:Bots/Requests_for_approval/Lightbot_5 shows no indication that the trial run was supposed to be done anywhere other than mainspace - in fact, there was some discussion regarding how the fifty articles (for the trial run) would be selected in order to best test the bot. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 13:58, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Anomie

The only mainspace edits approved by BAG are the 50 trial edits for Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Lightbot 5, linked by Kingpin13 above. These 50 edits are not at issue; the issue is with the thousands of AWB edits made from the User:Lightmouse account and the fact that it seems impossible for Lightmouse to perform these edits without engendering controversy. I don't know whether the controversy is due to the edits, Lightmouse, or a combination of the two.

WP:Bot policy also allows for non-disruptive edits to the bot's or operator's userspace, and "limited testing of bot processes without approval, provided that test edits are very low in number and frequency, and are restricted to test pages such as the sandbox". Edits to live articles do not qualify for either of those two exceptions; if it were necessary to test on "the full complexity of article text", articles could be copied to a sandbox for editing or AWB could be run and the diffs viewed without actually saving the edits. And several thousand as a "test" is right out.

I also note that the issue of edit summaries was raised in Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Lightbot 4.

From what I've seen of his actions since Lightmouse's ban expired, I for one do not trust him not to repeat the same behavior that originally led to his ban. Immediately upon expiration of his ban, Lightmouse applied for the exact same approval that caused so much controversy the first time around. And it seemed every attempt to clarify and limit the request was met with an attitude of "I shouldn't have to do this", unclear or overbroad "clarifications", and language that seemed ripe for later wikilawyering. He also took up his task using AWB, despite not receiving approval as directed by ArbCom, and the claim here that Lightmouse thought he could make thousands of edits as normal work around his 50-edit trial on Lightbot 5 that was already completed a month earlier or any of his other requests that have not been approved for trial at all is patently ridiculous. Requests 6 and 7 are much more appropriate in scope, but at this point my AGF is expired. Anomie⚔ 17:48, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Further discussion

As I understand it, the Lightmouse account can be used with automation relating to units of measurement. Coren said the expectation was “it would cover the ‘’normal’’ work around a 'bot’ task: That includes the usual dry runs in user space, the test runs okayed by BAG, and whatever minor tweaks are generally included in a single bot request”. I’ve done tests in accordance with this. BAG has been unable to respond for weeks if not months.

If I've misunderstood the situation, I'd be grateful for more clarity.

I'd like to correct the false impression that "The editing stopped 2 weeks ago only because Rlevse approached Lightmouse and asked for an explanation ...". I was told by one editor quoted in this discussion to "get a life" and sworn at (details not pleasant), well I do have a life outside WP which took priority over WP. I stopped editing articles on 28 Oct. Rlevse wrote a note on my talk page on 30 Oct. The event didn't precede the cause.

I'd like to correct the false allegation that I was 'dismissive'. From time to time, an editor will say that I shouldn't add metric units, in circumstances that aren't documented anywhere on WP guidance. Or they want me to add a different format/unit of their choosing. I always try to be polite. But sometimes the debate becomes circular or is entirely subjective. I may invite editors to take WP style issues to the WP style talk page, or I may take it there on their behalf. That's an attempt to be helpful and inclusive. Where I say that an editor is free to remove a metric unit or change it, I'm not 'dismissive', quite the reverse. I'm trying to collaborate and add calm.

I hope that helps. Lightmouse (talk) 11:44, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm grateful for the comment by BAG. It took two and half months to get approval for a 50 edit trial for the simple task of adding unit conversions using the Lightbot account. We've had a further delay of a month and a half waiting for comment on the trial. The trial edits were a success. The normal course for bot applications is that feedback about a first trial results in another trial. It's pleasing to see that this Arbcom case has given me the feedback that BAG would prefer a different edit summary, I'd be happy to amend that. While waiting for this bot to get approval, I've created more bot applications so that preliminaries can be dealt with now. I know that the workload for BAG and Arbcom is high, here the two entities have to collaborate on a bot application and the delays are inevitably longer. I think I'm being patient on an application that is technically quite simple and (where trialled) has been successful. I'd be grateful if BAG and Arbcom can find a way to move this application forward. Lightmouse (talk) 11:35, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Tony1

Just a few observations:

• It's all very complicated, probably even for experts.
• BAG is seriously understaffed—to the point of being dysfunctional, it seems to me. We need to concentrate on revamping it in 2011.
• As an observer, I found Anomie's contributions at one of those BAG applications by Lightmouse to be a bit negative and almost personal in its tone: I don't understand why.
• Kirril, the diff you have pointed to: I may be wrong, but it's the kind of manual edit I'd make if using automation. Is LM restricted from removing links to years and to items such as "hours" (twice), which presumably were performed manually? Tony (talk) 08:20, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Clerk notes

This section is for administrative notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Any objections to this being archived? NW (Talk) 20:23, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Archived on 17:42, 20 December 2010 (UTC) by NW (Talk).

Arbitrator views and discussion

• Awaiting statements from Lightmouse and/or BAG; I'd appreciate it if someone could clarify whether Lightmouse has BAG approval for the edits he's making. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 02:34, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Kingpin13: If I understand your statement correctly, the edits cited by Gigs ([29] [30] [31] [32]) were not approved by BAG? Could you please confirm whether my understanding is correct? Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 02:13, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Tony: I'm not pointing out the edit as being problematic in and of itself; as you say, it looks like a reasonable thing to do. However, the conditions under which Lightmouse was permitted to resume using automated tools were very clear: whatever he does with them must be approved by BAG beforehand. My concern is that this isn't taking place, and that Lightmouse is essentially using automation without any oversight whatsoever, which is exactly the scenario that led to the original restriction on his editing. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 19:25, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
• Awaiting statements and join in Kirill's request. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:40, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Thus far, I'm not convinced that action by us is needed, but I'm still open to further input. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:41, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
• Per Kirill and Brad.  Roger ^talk 08:33, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
• Also not seeing that action is required at this point. Risker (talk) 01:01, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
• Lightmouse, now that Kingpin13 has confirmed that the edits cited by Gigs were not approved by BAG, could you please comment on why those edits do not contradict your ban? Shell ^babelfish 14:22, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
  • It's my understanding that the edits were permitted, as I mentioned in my comment above. I'm not sure if you saw that. I was worried that this wasn't clear enough so I made more than one request for clarity on the point.
  • I'd like to correct the false assertion that the current requests are "exact same approval that caused so much controversy the first time around". The big fuss and Arbcom case was about several editors removing Date links and other editors objecting. Nobody wishes to go through that again. The current BAG application relates to adding conversions to units, a popular task which would be tedious if done by hand and has had consensus throughout.
  • I've been accused of having an attitude of "I shouldn't have to do this", unclear or overbroad "clarifications". I don't have such an attitude. If the crime is failing to understand a question or failing to be understood, then all of us on this page are guilty. If Arbcom and all of us are going re-examine the 6 weeks of questioning prior to a mere 50 edit trial about converting feet and miles, then it will be a waste for all of us.
  • The debate about adding conversions isn't difficult yet has gone on for 4 months now with very little comment from BAG. I know they're busy but I'm at the back of the queue. I'm making a formal request that instead of debating it here at Arbcom, we debate it at BAG.
  • I hope that helps. Lightmouse (talk) 17:50, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
    • Lightmouse, can you please explain how your edits here are related to unit conversions? Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 00:38, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
• I have to admit that, in Lightmouse's defense, BAG has been unable or unwilling to handle his requests fairly and reasonably swiftly. This may be due to under-staffing, or understandable (if unadvisable) reluctance to handle a potentially controversial matter; but it does seem to be as though his requests were not handled normally and that his work has stalled because of it. It's not so much that his requests have been declined more than that the goalposts to them being okayed have been moved. — Coren ^(talk) 14:28, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
  • That may be the case, though I'm not clear whether it's a problem only LM's requests are experiencing, or a more general backlog issue. In any case, I'm not sure what we can do here other than perhaps pulling together a group of bot experts to review arbitration-related automation questions separately from the normal BAG process. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 19:25, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
    • In response to Kirill's question above, some detail in edits are manual. Furthermore, the scope is not merely 'unit conversion'. It's just simpler to say 'unit conversions' because that's easier for most people to understand and is mostly what it does. The scope (and activity) has since 2008 explicitly included removal of links to common units. The hour is a plain english term and a common unit. Can we get to an end point in days rather than adding more months of delay? Trying to help. Lightmouse (talk) 13:49, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
      • Let's try and cut through this: Arbcom doesn't want to be BAG by proxy, BAG doesn't want to be Arbcom by proxy. The months are passing by and justice delayed is justice denied. It seems to me the best way out of this impasse is to have a decision at Arbcom level: I propose right here, right now, to delete "7.1) Lightmouse is indefinitely prohibited from using any automation whatsoever on Wikipedia.". Frustrated, but still trying to be positive. Lightmouse (talk) 17:58, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
        • Wait, I don't see anything to suggest it would be a good idea to start ignoring 7.1, especially since this whole thing was triggered by you breaking the prohibition. I think it's all the more reason to have it more actively enforced. There's no question (in my mind) over if you violated the restrictions: you very clearly did. Personally I think what needs to happen is the supplement is reverted, and we go back to how things were before. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 18:59, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
          • I for one fully agree with what Kingpin13 said. Anomie⚔ 20:20, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

That may not have been clear, let me try again. Arbcom doesn't want to be BAG by proxy, BAG doesn't want to be Arbcom by proxy. The months are passing by and justice delayed is justice denied. There are lots of articles in need of gnoming edits and we're not adding value by months of occasionally-hostile debate or silence here and in BAG. It seems to me the best way out of this impasse is to have a decision at Arbcom level: I request Arbcom deletes "7.1) Lightmouse is indefinitely prohibited from using any automation whatsoever on Wikipedia.". Lightmouse (talk) 19:20, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Lightmouse, if you want to make that request, you should do so as a separate amendment request, not buried here. You might want to wait a few weeks before doing so until this committee is fully staffed with the new group of arbitrators. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:02, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

OK. Thanks for letting me know. Lightmouse (talk) 20:10, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

---

Request to amend prior case: Date delinking (Ohconfucius)

Initiated by Ohconfucius (talk) at 09:35, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Case affected

Date delinking arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

Remedies

• 18): "Ohconfucius is limited to using only the account "Ohconfucius" to edit"

List of users affected by or involved in this amendment

• Ohconfucius (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)

Confirmation that the above users are aware of this request

• n/a

Amendment 1

• Suggested motion: "Remedy #18 ("Ohconfucius accounts") of the Date delinking case is terminated, effective immediately, and Ohconfucius (talk · contribs) is permitted to use alternate accounts subject to normal community guidelines.

Statement by Ohconfucius

It has been three months since the previous amendment concerning me on the date-delinking case was passed. During this time, in addition to my content work, I have made edits to a large number of articles using scripts in furtherance to my stated objective to ensure date formats of articles are uniform, in compliance with WP:MOSNUM.

Since my last amendment, I have continued to perform valuable work in good faith for Wikipedia. 2010 Nobel Peace Prize has been declared a Good Article mainly through my efforts; I have also made significant improvements to the coverage of Paul Chater and Robert Hotung, Ho Tung Gardens, amongst others, in addition to a large number of minor, “gnoming” edits.

I hope to write a bot largely based on my WP:MOSNUMscript to reduce the manual gnoming effort, thus freeing more time for content-related work, which I love the most. I believe that the thousands of edits made using this script in article space in the last three months have proved to be highly successful, with almost no false positives and to my knowledge no objections by editors. To execute same by bot, I hope to submit the proposal, under an alternative account, for approval of BAG in due course once this restriction is lifted.

• Pursuant to the brief discussion below, I have today submitted a bot request, without creating the account MOSNUM bot (talk · contribs). --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 03:58, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Statement by other editor

{Other editors are free to comment on this amendment as necessary. Comments here should be directed only at the above proposed amendment.}

Statement by your username (2)

{Statement by editor filing request for amendment. Contained herein should be an explanation and evidence detailing why the amendment is necessary.}

Statement by other editor (2)

{Other editors are free to comment on this amendment as necessary. Comments here should be directed only at the above proposed amendment.}

Further discussion

Statements here may address all the amendments, but individual statements under each proposed amendment are preferred. If there is only one proposed amendment, then no statements should be added here.

Clerk notes

This section is for administrative notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Arbitrator views and discussion

• I see two justifications listed--in short "I've been good" and "I want to run a bot on an alternate account", but I don't yet see a proximate lack of potential benefit to the project. Pending more input and simply looking at the request at face value, I'd be inclined to address this by permission to run a single bot account, conditional on BAG approval for the task, and address a wholesale removal of the restriction once that has proven to be successful. Jclemens (talk) 16:33, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
• Awaiting any input, but my initial inclination is per Jclemens. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:35, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
• Also awaiting any input, and also noting that my initial inclination is per Jclemens. Risker (talk) 05:25, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
• Pending more input, I also agree with the approach outlined by Jclemens. PhilKnight (talk) 15:35, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
• Agree with the approach suggested by Jclemens. Shell ^babelfish 19:46, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
• Per Jclemens. Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:56, 2 February 2011 (UTC) per my recusal on initial case. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:28, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
• That would be my recommendation also. He hasn't made a case for needing multiple alternates, just a bot account. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:43, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Motion

Remedy 18 of the Date delinking case, which limits Ohconfucius (talk · contribs) to using a single account, is amended by adding the sentence: "He may also use a separate bot account for any bot task or tasks approved by the bot approvals group."

Since there are 17 non-recused arbitrators, a majority is 9.

Support:

1. There appears to be good reason and consensus for this modification. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:49, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
2. Have no problem with this. SirFozzie (talk) 00:52, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
3. Jclemens (talk) 03:02, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
4. Shell ^babelfish 03:15, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
5. PhilKnight (talk) 03:20, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
6. Risker (talk) 04:44, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
7.  Roger ^talk 11:19, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
8. Concur with the rationale offered. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 17:13, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
9. The Cavalry (Message me) 22:46, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
10. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 01:17, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
11. Cool Hand Luke 14:43, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
12. Mailer Diablo 19:24, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

1. per my recusal on initial case. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:28, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
2. –xeno^talk 14:17, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Motion adopted. Clerk to post and notify. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:14, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

---

Request to amend prior case: Date delinking (Lightmouse)

Initiated by Lightmouse (talk) at 11:00, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Case affected

Date delinking arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

• 7.1): "Lightmouse is indefinitely prohibited from using any automation whatsoever on Wikipedia."

• supplement): "Nonwithstanding remedies #7.1 and #8, Lightmouse (talk · contribs) is permitted to use his Lightbot (talk · contribs) account for a single automation task authorized by the Bot Approvals Group. "Automation" is to be interpreted broadly to refer to any automated or semi-automated tools whatsoever."

List of users affected by or involved in this amendment

• Lightmouse (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)

Amendment 1

Proposed amendment:

• Lightmouse (talk · contribs) is permitted to use his Lightbot (talk · contribs) account for another single automation task authorised by the Bot Approvals Group.

Statement by Lightmouse

• A single automation task was authorised by the Bot Approvals Group. See: Lightbot approval. The task ran between 18 December and 14 January for about 2500 edits. Lightbot has been dealing with units of measurement since June 2008 and has played a part in significantly improving the accessibility, consistency and smarter linking of units of measurement that we now see on Wikipedia. The task recently approved by BAG was confined to adding conversions to feet and miles. I'd like Arbcom to give BAG the scope to permit Lightbot to convert inches in addition to miles and feet.

Question by uninvolved Ncmvocalist

Given that the motion says that the account is authorized for a single automation task authorized by BAG, I think what Jclemens says would still apply. If BAG amended the single automation task (be it in terms of duration or nature), then the motion is still being complied with (making this request for amendment somewhat unnecessary). Is that correct? Or is this a drafting issue where arbitrators meant to write (in that motion) that the account is limited to the single automation task authorized by BAG (as set out at Lightbot 5) and that this task cannot be amended at any time without prior approval from ArbCom? Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:05, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Gigs

There were some minor concerns voiced about the most recent run, but nothing too serious. Jclemens wording seems to be the best way to clarify, as it was my understanding all along that the limitation was to one active task, not one task ever. Gigs (talk) 16:07, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Statement by yet another editor

{Other editors are free to comment on this amendment as necessary. Comments here should be directed only at the above proposed amendment.}

Clerk notes

This section is for administrative notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Arbitrator views and discussion

• Awaiting input. Comments by those who have interacted with Lightmouse's recent automated edits, and can comment on their quality and adherence to policy, would be especially helpful. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:37, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
• Rather than "one task" and "one additional task" and "one additional task", I would be more inclined to support one floating task at a time, which Lightmouse can negotiate with the BAG. If he's got an ongoing task which really needs doing on an ongoing basis, he should feel free to transition that to a bot operator not currently under a germane sanction. Jclemens (talk) 16:24, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
• I'm inclined to agree with Jclemens, but would also particularly appreciate the comments requested by Newyorkbrad. Risker (talk) 05:29, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
• Agree with Jclemens - support a single floating task to be agreed with the Bot Approvals Group. PhilKnight (talk) 15:38, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
• Adding inches to the bot would still seem to fall under the same "dealing with measurements" task. Shell ^babelfish 19:44, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
• Per NYB - some feedback would be nice. Eventually I guess we can take the lack of same to mean a lack of problems, in which case per Jclemens. Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:37, 2 February 2011 (UTC) should strike this. see below. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:27, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Motion

Remedy 7.1 of the Date delinking case, which as originally written prohibited Lightmouse (talk · contribs) from utilizing any automation on Wikipedia, is amended by adding the words "except for a bot task or group of related tasks authorized by the bot approvals group." Remedy 8, which limited Lightmouse to using a single account, is amended by adding the sentence: "He may also use a separate bot account for any bot task or group of related tasks approved by the bot approvals group."

Since there are 17 non-recused arbitrators, a majority is 9.

Support:

1. There appears to be good reason and consensus for this modification. I am not sure that the limitation to a single task (or group of related tasks) is essential, but I have no problem with moving one step at a time here. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:57, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
2. Jclemens (talk) 03:02, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
3. Don't see any issue with this. Shell ^babelfish 03:16, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
4. PhilKnight (talk) 03:21, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
5. SirFozzie (talk) 04:20, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
6. Risker (talk) 04:45, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
7.  Roger ^talk 11:19, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
8. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 17:14, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
9. The Cavalry (Message me) 22:46, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
10. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 01:17, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
11. Cool Hand Luke 14:43, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
12. Mailer Diablo 19:55, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

1. due to recusal from initial case. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:25, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
2. –xeno^talk 14:17, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Motion adopted. Clerk to post and notify. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:14, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Request to amend prior case: Date delinking (Lightmouse)

Initiated by Lightmouse (talk) at 12:54, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Case affected

Date delinking arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

• 7.1): "Lightmouse is indefinitely prohibited from using any automation whatsoever on Wikipedia."

• [33]: Remedy 7.1 of the Date delinking case, which as originally written prohibited Lightmouse (talk · contribs) from utilizing any automation on Wikipedia, is amended by adding the words "except for a bot task or group of related tasks authorized by the bot approvals group." Remedy 8, which limited Lightmouse to using a single account, is amended by adding the sentence: "He may also use a separate bot account for any bot task or group of related tasks approved by the bot approvals group."

List of users affected by or involved in this amendment

• Lightmouse (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)

Amendment 1

Proposed amendment:

• Clause 7.1): which said "Lightmouse is indefinitely prohibited from using any automation whatsoever on Wikipedia." is removed.

Statement by your username

The Lightmouse non-bot account and the related bot account (Lightbot) have been dealing with units of measurement for years and have played a part in significantly improving the accessibility, consistency and more functional linking of units of measurement that we now see on Wikipedia. Lightbot is currently authorised by BAG to edit feet and miles and there's an application to extend the scope to include inches. The workload of BAG is such that weeks have passed without a decision.

BAG and Lightmouse are in the unenviable position of having to debate code scope prior to testing rather than after. It means that non-bot automated edits must be elevated to bot status or remain undone.

Could I suggest that clause 7.1 be removed? This would reduce the administrative burden related to improving units of measure, which is a huge and ongoing task for Wikipedia. I believe it will be to the betterment of the project.

Statement by Gigs

The resumption of "MOS Warrior" tactics is not an acceptable outcome here. The manual of style is a true guideline that merely offers guidance, not a set of rules to be enforced using automation. Resumption of widespread and automated "MOS enforcement" will cause a lot of unnecessary conflict. The local consensus at MOS talk pages is often not reflected on a global scale, especially when it comes to units, which are often governed by different conventions in different fields of endeavor.

I remain unconvinced that Lightmouse understands that automation should only be used for truly non-controversial tasks. The correctness of a particular style is not important, what is important is whether the task is truly non-controversial.

The latest amendment was generous, and should not be expanded upon at this time. Gigs (talk) 17:07, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

BAG, and outside commentary during the BAG process, absolutely does examine "whether" edits should be done. BAG should not and generally does not approve automated edits that are controversial in nature. The bar for "whether" an edit should be done manually is much lower than the bar for "whether" mass edits should be done using automation. Gigs (talk) 14:30, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Please note that yesterday, Lightmouse became active again, asking for BRFAs to be approved for trials. Archiving this on the grounds that he has left would be a bad idea. Gigs (talk) 21:03, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Kingpin13

I'm very disappointed by the direction this case is going. It seems to me that no one at ArbCom is really bothered by Lightmouse having made at least 4853 semi-automated edits from his own account, at speeds of up to 15 edits a minute (faster than we expect bots to go) and without BAG approval (all of this is neatly listed at this page) despite being under a sanction which clearly stated he was to take no semi or fully automated edits from any account except his bot account, and even then to only do so with BAG approval. I fail to understand the point of ArbCom making sanctions if they are not then going to enforce them, and thus far the only "enforcement" I've seen is further relaxing of the sanctions, which I don't feel was done in an entirely open manner (I don't feel the most recent amendment really took into account this request, which was closed as stale). Personally I feel the action which needs to be taken in this case is further restricting and enforcement, rather than simply looking the other way. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 19:52, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

A slightly more accurate (and more worrying) tally of semi-automated edits:

• 09:37, 5 September 2010 - 12:22, 6 September 2010 - 1817 semi-automated AWB edits.
• 12:23, 6 September 2010 - 11:04, 19 September 2010 - 4690.
• 11:04, 19 September 2010 - 19:39, 17 October 2010 - 4535.
• 19:39, 17 October 2010 - 13:59, 18 October 2010 - 4963.
• 13:59, 18 October 2010 - 10:47, 28 October 2010 - 4676.

In total that's 20,681 semi-automated edits with AWB (judging by edit summaries) between 5 September 2010 and 28 October 2010. In addition, on the earliest page there are a few more AWB edits, but they date back to April 2009, and were not counted. Between 6 September 2010 and 28 October 2010 (nearly two months), around 94% of all of Lightmouse's edits were unit conversions in AWB. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 00:14, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

I would like some clarification if something is going to be done by ArbCom about this. I'm happy to explain my thoughts further and rebuff some of Lightmouse's comments. However, I do not want to waste my time debating over this only to have it closed with no action as stale due to a lack of response from none other than ArbCom, as happened last time. Thanks, - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 15:44, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Further discussion

Statements here may address all the amendments, but individual statements under each proposed amendment are preferred. If there is only one proposed amendment, then no statements should be added here.

• @Kingpin, did anyone file an arbitration enforcement request in respect of those edits made? –xeno^talk 19:56, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Not as far as I'm aware. I spoke to NuclearWarfare about this here, and he suggested it would be best to wait until Lightmouse made a further request (unfortunately I completely missed the previous request). - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 20:02, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't know the right place to post this to ensure it gets seen, if it's the wrong place please move it.

1. Gigs asserts that I'm a "MOS warrior". I don't understand what the terms means but it sounds negative. I don't think it's helpful for all of us here to be categorised as pro-MOS or anti-MOS. Even if the MOS were deleted, non-bot accounts would still be used with automation for tedious but popular gnoming tasks such as maintaining units of measure, correcting typos, making formats consistent. Please focus on that.

2. There have been many debating points made over the months and several rulings with nuances. The edits quoted here were intended as compliant edits. Sometimes I've asked for clarification on details of rulings. As Arbcom members have commented, wording has sometimes had alternative interpretations that isn't always apparent to all, I've sometimes misunderstood and have actually been allowed to do things that I thought I couldn't. Instead of debating about whether a good edit should have been allowed within wordings of Arbcom rulings, I'd rather we focussed on the principle that there is no remaining requirement for Arbcom to prohibit the Lightmouse account from doing such edits that improve articles.

2. The conversion of feet and miles by Lightbot has already been approved by BAG. I have an application to extend that to inches. If converting feet and miles is acceptable, then converting inches should also be acceptable.

3. The prohibition on automated editing of units of measure was never an explicit Arbcom or BAG decision, it's a collateral consequence of the now-resolved date delinking saga.

4. Arbcom said Lightbot could run subject to BAG. I understood BAG members were going to examine technical issues ('how' and 'what'), not 'whether'. Thus there was no technical issue with automated editing of feet and miles. I don't believe there's a technical issue with automated editing of inches.

5. If one or more BAG members oppose implementation of the Arbcom decision, that's an option for the individual member. But for due process they should either recuse or appeal the Arbcom ruling. Can Arbcom and BAG please resolve this?

6. This application is not about bots or Lightbot. It's about the normal Lightmouse account. Like all other normal accounts, it should be able to use automation. If there is still Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt persisting from the now-resolved date-delinking sage, then might I suggest that Arbcom retains the scope of the restriction on Lightmouse automated editing of dates.

7. With regard to this application being 'too soon', I understand the point. I'd have preferred to make this application after thousands of successful bot edits across a wide spectrum. However, I've got several small scope applications at BAG but after several weeks there is no decision. It'll take years before the scope will increase beyond the current 'feet and miles' into a wide spectrum. There's a lot of trivial units work that would never justify a bot but needs automation.

I hope that helps. Lightmouse (talk) 11:59, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

• @Risker and Brad: Lightmouse had just edited 8-9 hours before your last comments, asking for a 50 edit trial at his BRFAs. Can this be continued? NW (Talk) 13:37, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Clerk notes

This section is for administrative notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Arbitrator views and discussion

• I find zero compelling argument for revisiting this again so soon. Jclemens (talk) 20:37, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
  • And revisiting this more than a month later... again, decline. Jclemens (talk) 00:36, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
• Awaiting response from Lightmouse to some of the comments above. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:05, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Given that Lightmouse has not edited in two weeks and the other comments above, this requst can be closed without action. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:07, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Well, my timing on the prior post was obviously wrong. Based on the updated input so far, I think there is a consensus of arbitrators that this request appears premature and that Lightmouse should focus on the quality of the work he is currently permitted to perform for awhile before seeking to return to using automation. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:59, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
• It would appear from what Kingpin is saying that we should rather be looking at a tighter restriction on Lightmouse. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:11, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
• I tend to agree with Elen of the Roads here; however, as Lightmouse has essentially absented himself from the project since this request, I agree with Newyorkbrad that it is appropriate to close the request without action. Should a similar request be made, I am inclined to look very closely at Lightmouse's semi-automated edits. It would not be inappropriate for an editor to request arbitration enforcement, or to separately file a request for amendment/clarification in relation to these semi-automated edits. Risker (talk) 02:04, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
• Abstain. –xeno^talk 14:40, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
• Well, he did make a series of edits March 13. Given these edits, and the lack of response here, I would be disinclined to amend. Perhaps Lightmouse could convince me otherwise, but first he would have to show up here. Let's archive this, eh? Cool Hand Luke 01:46, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
  • I could only support something like Lightmouse's new proposal (see below) if it were indefinite. As written, it commits us to potentially a 100ish day timetable for apparently full removal of the automation restrictions on the Lightmouse account. Cool Hand Luke 03:13, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

---

Having read all the comments, I think there's another way forward. I now propose that Clause 7.1): is replaced with:

• "The following restriction will apply for the next 10,000 edits by the Lightmouse account: the Lightmouse account is prohibited from making more than 100 edits per day on Wikipedia.".

That's an explicit and measurable step forward. It'll allow me to continue to improve articles. It may also reduce the need for debates about whether converting inches is worse than the already agreed conversion of feet. Trying to help Lightmouse (talk) 13:28, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

In response to Cool Hand Luke: My restriction was imposed as a result of the now-resolved date-linking saga, not the rest of my work. Most of the restrictions imposed on others in that saga have been ended and I'm seeking similar treatment. The project has benefitted from my work on units over many years and from my collaboration with others, it will be able to benefit again if permitted. I'm not aware of any reason for the restriction to be continued. Coren said, I should be able to resume my well-intended contributions. However, if you'd prefer slower progress towards the goal of normalisation, I'm happy to suggest the following:

• "Clause 7.1): is replaced with:
• "The following restriction will apply for the next 40,000 edits by the Lightmouse account: the Lightmouse account is prohibited from making more than 100 edits per day on Wikipedia.".

I hope that helps. Lightmouse (talk) 08:58, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

• Given evidence above that Lightmouse has repeatedly gamed or flatly ignored this restriction, there is no compelling reason to believe that he would handle release of the restriction appropriately either. If Lightmouse would like to show he can play by the rules first, I'd have no problem lifting the sanction, but I see no reason to agree to hoping he'll get the point in his next x number of edits. Shell ^babelfish 11:59, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I can see there is still a lot of Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt. In that case, let's replace the x-edit sunset clause with an option for a review:

• "Clause 7.1): is replaced with:
• "The Lightmouse account is prohibited from making more than 100 edits per day on Wikipedia. After 10,000 edits Lightmouse may apply to Arbcom for a review".

The benefit of a restriction by edit count is simplicity. Simple for all to understand and audit. Simple for me understand and work within. I won't need to rely on nuanced clarifications permitting non-bot automation. We don't need to debate whether good edits were done by hand or by automation. There is a lot of good work that can be done. The proposal is a way forward. Lightmouse (talk) 14:46, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry but once again, you haven't addressed any of the concerns brought up by editors here or explained why you were violating the restriction. You can re-apply later without needing any kind of motion here and the prohibition is against automation, not based on a number of edits which really makes this seem like you're trying to get around the spirit of the restriction here. Shell ^babelfish 17:22, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

• Based on the discussion here, firmly decline. Suggest that Lightmouse waits at least 6 months before making a similar request. PhilKnight (talk) 18:50, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Request to amend prior case: Date delinking (Ohconfucius)

Initiated by Ohconfucius ^¡digame! at 06:31, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Case affected

Date delinking

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

1. Remedy 16) Ohconfucius topic banned
2. Remedy 18) (as amended) Ohconfucius accounts

List of users affected by or involved in this amendment

• Ohconfucius (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)

Amendment 1

• Link to principle, finding of fact, or remedy to which this amendment is requested

  16): "Ohconfucius is topic banned indefinitely from style and editing guidelines relating to the linking or unlinking of dates, and any related discussions."

  18) "Ohconfucius is limited to using only the account 'Ohconfucius' to edit. He may also use a separate bot account for any bot task or tasks approved by the bot approvals group."

• Details of desired modification: Termination of both the above clauses.

Statement by Ohconfucius

This week marks the second anniversary of the conclusion of the case, and six months since the remedies imposed on me were last amended. In the six months since the amendment, there have not been any issues arising from date linking, nor any drama involving same, with or without me. Although one might say that the remedies no longer have practical effect, I am seeking to having all remaining restrictions lifted. Call it housekeeping if you will. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 06:31, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Response to Xeno

• I have stated above that I consider this purely housekeeping. These days, there is no disagreement that can be cited on issue of whether or not to link dates. The issue is closed as far as MOSNUM is concerned, and I do not foresee having anything more to add to the discussion there. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 09:14, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Response to Jclemens

• The date-linking issue is dead. It is universally accepted that dates ought not to be linked. Terminating the two remaining remedies imposed upon me would technically allow me to operate alternative accounts from now on. I would state that I have no intention of doing so for the time being. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 09:14, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
• The Dates case has taught me a lot, and I can assure you that I don't take the issues of automated editing lightly. While the community has endorsed the termination of date-autoformatting, and much more selective use of date-fragment linking, these aspects are a minor part of my editing. I can only reiterate that my interaction with editors, particularly those who query my edits, is now strong and I make a positive effort every day to improve on it. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 04:12, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Response to Carcharoth

• Carcharoth and I been in a dialogue since the closure of the case, and I seriously take on board what he says. I also have little desire to see a re-run of the date-delinking case, and would certainly consider having more centralised (as opposed to local) discussions. A separate account for script edits will be considered once that option becomes available to me. Although I am now allowed to use the MOSNUM Bot account, I do not currently do so as the nature of semi-automated editing is quite different from bot actions. It's certainly a good suggestion to slow down: I do often take breaks by rotating the various types of work I undertake within WP, and will continue to do so.

  I would however, address particular comments of Carcharoth that could be misconstrued. First, there exists, IMHO, a healthy tension at the many MoS and TITLE talk pages; far better that issues be worked through in those more 'exposed' places, than at isolated article talk pages where revert-wars are much more likely. I believe it's all too easy to dwell on the negative – the tensions among editors playing out on its talk pages – and overlook the stability of the MoS over the past few years. The exchange of views and tensions are natural and healthy (so long as they remain civil), and I would genuinely welcome a wider participation in the formulation of style guidelines. The ensuing rules must be clear and consistent. Truth is that even animated discussions fail to get consensus for change; it is hard to find evidence that style and running bots/scripts are part of a connected agenda by anyone there. Things just do not work this cart-before-horse way: "...develops a consensus about a particular aspect of style that is amenable to being worked on with a script or bot". Third, style guides, like pillars and policies, are indeed a belief system on a wiki if they are to have an effect or function; but they take their place in the hierarchy.

  My personal "belief" is always within the context of the WP environment. My statement is, no more and no less, part of my effort to communicate with those who may have questions on what I do – many editors state on their userpages what they do and the rationale behind it in very similar terms. I regret the fait accompli apparently communicated. I stated: "However, the time and my skill-set is not yet ripe" – this was not quoted. I accept that I don't have more rights over other editors; my "weight" is because of what I do and how I do it. I try to be responsive and to queries and suggestions, and I believe that my talk page comments reflect this care. As to the 'project' of tagging articles for dmy and mdy dates, I am one user. There are some who use my scripts or variants thereof; there are others who tag independently; I do not know who these all are. As to my 'bot', perhaps I should have also linked to my failed bot application as a reference point. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 07:02, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

• Failed bot request is here. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 04:35, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
• Pursuant to the second comment, I have simplified my own project page; I am in the process of upgrading the scope and status of Wikipedia:Date formattings. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 05:04, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Response to Risker

• I regret some of my actions which might have given the impression that I have shown "tendentiousness on the topic of dates". I realise automated editing carries responsbiilities beyond that of normal editing. I do try hard to be responsive to the advice of other editors, and to avoid being drawn into destructive adversarial spirals. As can be seen from the exchanges on my talk page, I act immediately to correct mistakes when these are pointed out to me. I will take steps to improve my diplomacy, and my editing skills, whether manual or semi-automated; I will exercise greater care in selecting articles to process and adjusting the script from time to time. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 03:59, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Gimmetoo

Ohconfucius is still actively making controversial date-related edits. A well-attended RfC found no consensus to remove yyyy-mm-dd formatted dates from WP, in particular from the references. Ohconfucious nevertheless has been using a script which routinely removes that format from the references, in violation of WP:DATERET, even when an article is already consistently using one format or a style is clearly present. (A few recent examples: [34] [35] [36] [37].) Ohconfucius has been asked to stop many times; these scripted edits are producing a Fait accompli. This behaviour has led to ANI threads 1 March 14 May, 30 June and 13 August that I know of. (I started the last one.) Ohconfucious is editing against consensus expressed in the RfC and the current MOSDATE guideline. If anything is to be amended in the past decision, it should be to clearly apply it to date formats so that this behaviour can be addressed at WP:AE. Gimmetoo (talk) 01:18, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Carcharoth

I've been looking into some of the background to this, and I think Ohconfucius should have been clearer about what his plans are. I went and looked at his talk page and some of the script-editing relating to date format has already resulted in the following queries made ([38], [39], [40], [41]). Some of those problems were easily fixed, by the looks of it (but surely should have been detected in test runs before live editing?), while others look harder to avoid (date formats in image titles has come up twice already). Please read Ohconfucius's talk page to get a feel for how such problems are addressed.

My concern here, though, is what Ohconfucius said here, which is worth reading in full. The parts I want to quote here are:

• "Since starting to use scripts to automate the process, I always had the intention in the back of my mind to create a bot that crawls its way systematically through all wikipedia articles using categories. I created the templates as markers of the passage of the script (and ultimately the intended bot), making the updating schedule possible."
• "So far, over 125,000 articles have been tagged by the script for dmy dates, and nearly 12,000 articles tagged for mdy dates. You may find more details of my project at User:Ohconfucius/script."

The points to note are the ambition to bring all Wikipedia articles into line with this part of the Manual of Style (this could be construed as an attempt at a fait accompli), and the stated intention to develop this into something that can be done by a bot (my view is that this should be done on separate accounts, hence the restriction on the main account being used like a bot should remain). I think Ohconfucius should have stated here his intention to develop a bot for this and linked to his 'project' page to make clearer what his plans are.

I should disclose that I have disagreed with Ohconfucius in the past on the issue of script-editing, and have recently been discussing the issue of the Manual of Style, and the way it or those editing to bring articles into line with the MoS, can sometimes lead to friction (see User talk:Noetica). What I said there was that I am concerned that some see the MoS as a 'belief system' (see User:Ohconfucius/script, which starts out with a 'Mission statement' that says "I believe in Wikipedia's Manual of Style"). My other concern is that mass editing with scripts and bots, especially where the MoS is concerned, can destabilise things across Wikipedia as a critical mass of editors previously unaware of the issue of the day get drawn into arguing about it when they see various bot or script edits on their watchlist.

The general development of MoS disputes (only some issues seem to develop into disputes for some reason) seems to go like this:

• (1) Discussion among a relatively small group of editors at a Manual of Style page develops a consensus about a particular aspect of style that is amenable to being worked on with a script or bot. The number of editors participating in any such discussion is nearly always far smaller than the number of editors that eventually see such edits being made.
• (2) Someone writes a script or bot and (sometimes with other editors helping) proceeds to audit (or re-audit if this is a change from a previous change) all Wikipedia articles to make any changes necessary.
• (3) Sometimes resistance, mistakes, or misunderstandings result and further discussion ensues.
• (4) If the resulting discussions go poorly, an escalating dispute can result, with more and more editors drawn in due to the wide number of pages affected.

If the restrictions are lifted, my advice would be for Ohconfucius to take things very slowly, as any mass editing leading to another Wikipedia-wide dispute like the date-delinking case would not be a good outcome. I would suggest a separate account at the very least, more centralised discussions, and work done systematically by a team rather than single editors using scripts. Carcharoth (talk) 00:38, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

A couple more suggestions (not strictly related to the amendment request, but I'll put them here anyway). Would it not be better for MOS-related projects such as this to be in some Wikipedia namespace page, rather than personal projects run from the userspace of an editor, with an unknown number of other editors taking up and using scripts maintained by such editors? I had wanted to comment on the discussion page attached to Ohconfucius's 'project' page, but it just redirected to his user talk page. An example of a MOS-related userspace page that does have an attached discussion page is this one and another one is this one (those are more essays than projects, and relate more to the philosophy behind scripts to reduce overlinking rather than anything to do with date formats). There are various other userspace MOS-related pages knocking around, but my point here is that the boundaries between personal projects and essays and Wikipedia-wide MOS scripts, bots and projects seems to be easily blurred. About the failed bot request, I vaguely remember that but had forgotten it. I'm sure the arbitrators can find that if they need to do so, or you could provide the link. Carcharoth (talk) 13:22, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Further discussion

Statements here may address all the amendments, but individual statements under each proposed amendment are preferred. If there is only one proposed amendment, then no statements should be added here.

Clerk notes

This section is for administrative notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Arbitrator views and discussion

• Awaiting further statements. –xeno^talk 15:38, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Question for Ohconfucius: Do you anticipate returning to participating in editing "style and editing guidelines relating to the linking or unlinking of dates, and any related discussions", or is this strictly a matter of housekeeping? –xeno^talk 14:51, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
    • Based upon Ohconfucius' response to my/Jclemens' question, I agree with F&F below that a lifting of restrictions (with the standard expectations & retention of jurisdiction) does not seem unreasonable at this late stage. –xeno^talk 03:12, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
      • Striking my comment pending further review, as I've just been pointed to a somewhat related thread elsewhere that I won't have time to look at until later. –xeno^talk 03:48, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
        • Still reviewing, but unstruck - I do note that the now-archvived thread is about date formatting, a slightly-different (but closely-related) bird. –xeno^talk 02:36, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
• The last time we lifted sanctions on an editor sanctioned under this case, I regretted it, because the future behavior in the area was problematic. Would you care to explain to the committee how your case might be different? Jclemens (talk) 15:52, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
• Waiting for more statements if any, but my first thoughts are that lifting it wouldn't be that big a deal (of course, if there was a revert to previous behavior, we could quickly reapply) SirFozzie (talk) 15:33, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
• I'd support a removal of restrictions given that they can be swiftly reapplied if it is necessary, as Fozzie points out. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 19:05, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
• Unlike some of my colleagues, I see the date modifications that OhConfucius is currently doing as essentially the same behaviour for which he was sanctioned in the past, and think that this should be going in the opposite direction. Risker (talk) 03:16, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Motion

Remedies 16 and 18 (as amended) of the Date delinking case are terminated, effective immediately. Ohconfucius is reminded that this subject remains within the jurisdiction of the Arbitration Committee, and that he is expected to abide by all applicable policies and guidelines, especially those concerning the editing and discussion of policies and guidelines, and the use of alternate accounts.

For this motion, there are 15 active arbitrators, not counting 1 who is inactive and 1 who is recused, so 8 support votes are a majority.

Support

Proposed. Seems to be reasonable housekeeping, and can be brought back if any issues reoccur. Copyedits welcome. –xeno^talk 13:35, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Indent support. I initially proposed this prior to their being any views critical of the requested amendment. I may reinstate this, but I want to take another look at it and (given renewed activity in voting), would like to see if any of the other arbitrators active on this motion have further insight. –xeno^talk 00:44, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

1. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 15:22, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
2. Per the arbitrator comments on the request. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:07, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

   Leaving this vote here for now, but I'd appreciate Ohconfucius's responding to the concern raised below by Risker. The Clerks should please not close this motion for a couple of days (even if it is passing numerically) until we can receive and evaluate Ohconfucius's response. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:56, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

3. I think that the restriction has served its purpose and is, indeed, no longer required. — Coren ^(talk) 20:52, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

   This vote stands, but I would like to remind Ohconfucius that the bot policy requires that the task he proposes to do be done with a separate, approved bot account – if at all. Please make extra-double-crispy sure that you have broad consensus before doing mass changes, and be ready to backpedal if you encounter resistance. — Coren ^(talk) 13:46, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

4. Cool Hand Luke 16:00, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
5. SirFozzie (talk) 18:55, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
6. PhilKnight (talk) 21:37, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

   Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:06, 28 August 2011 (UTC) I forgot I recused on this one. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:14, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

7. I can only echo Coren's views. The Cavalry (Message me) 23:57, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
8. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 19:06, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Per my comments above: I see this current bot-editing by OhConfucius as being nearly identical to the behaviour for which he was initially sanctioned (i.e., using bot editing to impose his own preference, regardless of the wording of the MOS guideline). Risker (talk) 03:16, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

   I suppose remedy 18 could have relevance to this (if he started using an alternate, non-bot account, to change date formats - note that we already removed the restriction from his using automation [42]), but how does remedy 16 apply to his activities as regards date formatting? (i.e. not date delinking?) –xeno^talk 18:22, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

   Please see my request to Ohconfucius in the support section above. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:56, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

   It is my opinion that Ohconfucius has returned to the behaviour that led to finding #26 in the case, and which in turn led to other sanctions. This tendentiousness on the topic of dates is precisely what led to the Date delinking case, although Ohconfucius was not alone in his tendentiousness. I don't want to see a repeat of this behaviour (after having read the entirety of the previous case, which was half as long as War and Peace), do not want to see another case on this topic area, and lifting a sanction related to this case when the editor appears to be returning to the initially problematic behaviours does not seem indicated. Risker (talk) 22:08, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

2. While I wasn't going to oppose if I was the only one with concerns here, I echo Risker's rationale. Jclemens (talk) 19:11, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
3. I'm with Risker here. With apologies to the bot-runners among us, I feel it almost needs a higher standard among those who want to use scripts, bots etc, because they can do enormous amounts of problematic edits, and frequently seem not to realise what the problem is. Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:32, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

   If there are issues concerning Onconfucius and mass edits related to date formats (and there may well be), I would prefer to see those concerns brought directly rather than trying to address it in what is now a fairly historical case. –xeno^talk 00:40, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

   I disagree. His response seems to be "the community has now endorsed what I was sanctioned for doing before, so I should be free to do it now without restriction"--or at least take that sort of a tone. That is precisely the sort of editor we don't want running bots. Bot-runners and AWB users should be biased towards implementing consensus rather than modifying it. The vast majority of bot operators cause no problems whatsoever, but those who do have demonstrated a disproportionate effect on the harmony of the community. Jclemens (talk) 19:10, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

4. As per what Jclemens said right above. - Mailer Diablo 11:14, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
5. per Jclemens. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 16:07, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Abstain

Comments

Clarification request: Date delinking

This clarification request was re-opened by the Arbitration Committee. When that second iteration of the request is closed, the request will be recorded here again, in its updated state. AGK [•] 20:16, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Permanent link The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. Initiated by Gimmetoo (talk) at 18:17, 23 June 2012 (UTC) List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request: Gimmetoo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator) Ohconfucius (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) [43] Statement by Gimmetoo As a result of motions in Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Date_delinking, Ohconfucius editing of date-related material is subject to the jurisdiction of the arbitration committee, though it is unclear what provisions could be used for enforcement. This clarification concerns two issues. First, I and others have attempted to get User:Ohconfucius to follow WP:DATERET and stop removing YYYY-MM-DD format dates. This has been ongoing for more than a year, involving ANI [44] [45] [46] and User talk:Ohconfucius. For a recent example: [47], where the accessdates were 100% consistent in YYYY-MM-DD format, and the references used a style directly listed by WP:MOSDATE#In references as acceptable. A pattern of similar edits amounts to an attempted Wikipedia:Fait accompli. Second, User:Ohconfucius also uses a script that sometimes removes a number of accessdates. Ohconfucius was notified of this on 8 June 2012, and made similar edits after (See User talk:Ohconfucius#More editing problems. I noticed that this same behaviour is still ongoing. [48] [49] [50] Could the commitee clarify the arbcom enforcement of these behaviours? Statement by Ohconfucius Let me fix the problems on the articles and at the source, and I will reply later. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 07:33, 28 June 2012 (UTC) Statement by Rich Farmbrough The principle behind DATERET (we have an acronym for that now?) was primarily focussed on dates with written months. The use of "ISO" dates has been discussed extensively, and it appears a number of otherwise sane and well-informed Wikipedians had never run across the format before, and were confused, mystified and dismayed by it. For myself this reduced my support for such dates for access date fields from firm to dubious. Nonetheless proper usability statistics should be gathered before coming to a firm conclusion on this, and in general it should be noted that OhConfucious' efforts in this sphere are reasonably well thought out and carefully implemented. Rich Farmbrough, 01:09, 9 July 2012 (UTC). Statement by Arthur Rubin Ohconfucius seems to have retired. I suppose this request should be suspended or dropped. I strongly disagree with Rich's statement that OhConfucious's efforts are "reasonably well thought out and carefully implemented", but WP:DEADHORSE seems to apply here. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:30, 12 July 2012 (UTC) Clerk notes This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals). Arbitrator views and discussion The way I'm reading the most recent motion, "this subject remains within the jurisdiction of the Arbitration Committee" is simply a reminder that the Committee retains the authority to further amend his restrictions (or current lack thereof) should we feel it is necessary to do so; or in extreme cases open a full case or review. As (by the same motion) Ohconfucius is not currently subject to any Arbitration remedies/restrictions with respect to date delinking, any concerns with regards to that behavior should likely be handled through normal community procedures, and not via Arbitration Enforcement. However, if you feel that matters are becoming problematic enough that the community is unable to adequately enforce matters, an amendment request could be posted to attempt to (further) amend his restrictions. Hersfold (t/a/c) 19:40, 23 June 2012 (UTC) Agree with Hersfold. SilkTork ✔Tea time 22:16, 23 June 2012 (UTC) Ohconfucious has not edited Wikipedia since July 3, and there is a notice on his talkpage that he is on a break. As the concern here is the functionality of his date script, and I see from his talkpage that there have been concerns with his script for some time, perhaps people who use the script could be advised that there is a script by Lightmouse - User:Lightmouse/monobook.js/script.js - which appears to do the same thing, but doesn't appear to have reported problems. When he returns Ohconfucious could decide the value of repairing his script compared with advising users to use the alternative script. If Ohconfucious elects to repair the script, and there are further concerns he would be advised at that point to shut the script down and direct people to the alternative script; deciding to persist with a problematic script when there is a functioning alternative may be seen as unnecessarily disruptive. SilkTork ✔Tea time 15:15, 10 July 2012 (UTC) I also tentatively agree with Hersfold, but it would be useful to have a statement from Ohconfucius explaining what he is doing and why. Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:23, 26 June 2012 (UTC) Ohconfucious, please provide a substantive response to this request at this time. Thank you. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:44, 2 July 2012 (UTC) I'm not sure there's anything that needs arbitrator intervention here. If he's failing to follow WP:DATERET, as was pretty clearly shown in the example above, then an uninvolved administrator should block him for disruptive editing. Clear enough? Jclemens (talk) 19:48, 26 June 2012 (UTC) Allow me to repeat Newyorkbrad's observation: Despite continuing to edit Wikipedia, Ohconfucius has not responded substantively to the breaches of guidelines and return to previously sanctioned behavior alleged in this complaint. I will place a talk page entry noting the expectation that his next edit to Wikipedia will address this complaint here. Jclemens (talk) 17:10, 4 July 2012 (UTC) Concur with Hersfold's reading (and my colleagues' comments) that no sanctions are active. AGK [•] 22:33, 26 June 2012 (UTC) While I agree that no sanctions are active, a return to the same behaviour that led to sanctions in the past is a serious and concerning pattern. I would also like to hear from Ohconfucius on this; however, I would not rule out the reinstatement of sanctions if there has been recidivism. Risker (talk) 00:51, 27 June 2012 (UTC) I'd also like to hear a response to the issues here from Ohconfusius. Could one of the clerks please remind him?  Roger Davies talk 09:13, 6 July 2012 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Clarification request: Date delinking

Initiated by Gimmetoo (talk) at 18:17, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
Summarily re-opened by the Arbitration Committee per this. AGK [•] 20:19, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:

• Gimmetoo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
• Ohconfucius (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) [51]

Statement by Gimmetoo

As a result of motions in Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Date_delinking, Ohconfucius editing of date-related material is subject to the jurisdiction of the arbitration committee, though it is unclear what provisions could be used for enforcement.

This clarification concerns two issues.

First, I and others have attempted to get User:Ohconfucius to follow WP:DATERET and stop removing YYYY-MM-DD format dates. This has been ongoing for more than a year, involving ANI [52] [53] [54] and User talk:Ohconfucius. For a recent example: [55], where the accessdates were 100% consistent in YYYY-MM-DD format, and the references used a style directly listed by WP:MOSDATE#In references as acceptable. A pattern of similar edits amounts to an attempted Wikipedia:Fait accompli.

Second, User:Ohconfucius also uses a script that sometimes removes a number of accessdates. Ohconfucius was notified of this on 8 June 2012, and made similar edits after (See User talk:Ohconfucius#More editing problems. I noticed that this same behaviour is still ongoing. [56] [57] [58]

Could the commitee clarify the arbcom enforcement of these behaviours?

Statement by Ohconfucius

• Let me fix the problems on the articles and at the source, and I will reply later. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 07:33, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

• Given the trouble that ISO access dates have been causing, I am prepared to start a new regime of editing in relation to dates – one that is more conservative so as to avoid complaints. I would undertake not to touch them from now on, either manually or by script, until a new consensus is reached on them. As part of the problem was due to uncorrected script bugs, I also pledge to exercise greater diligence to scrutinise test and modify the MOSNUM scripts, and to rectify any reported errors as soon as possible.

  I believe it's not worth arguing this one out, and hope that the community resolves the matters in its own time. -- Ohconfucius ^{ping / poke} 01:37, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

• Because of family matters, I decided to resign on 12 July; shocked and demoralised by the FLG2 case, I had decided that the Ohconfucius account was too tainted if ever I made a comeback. So yes, it was a conscious decision to use another account I had created. I made 67 edits using the account since my reurn, quite a few of which were substantive content edits; I did indeed also make some date-related edits, and I regret the impression created that I was trying to avoid detection. I would reiterate the object for me was to avoid using the Ohconfucius account if at all possible.

  The Smalleditor account was and always has been a declared alternative account. And upon returning, I started using it exclusively. But I decided that I would not want the complexities of the scripts' migration affecting many files and many users. For personal reasons, my level of activity is and shall remain very much less than the volume of contribution I made in the past. My current activity, as Ohconfucius, is to improve the functionality of the scripts under my control; the mainspace edits, whilst affecting dates, actually span the entire MOS. Edits have been limited in number – I save but a small fraction of those I actually test on, as a record of the scripts' progress. I took the unblock to mean that my the undertaking in my email to Arbcom has been acceptable. As noted in my email(s) to arbcom, I now no longer change accessdates – the dates script has been modified to that effect. I have not made any substantive edits in mainspace since. I am open to suggestions from Arbcom as to how I might re-establish trust in my good behaviour going forwards. -- Ohconfucius ^{ping / poke} 08:49, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

• Clarification: "I now no longer change accessdates" was intended to be prefaced by the context of 'access dates in ISO format'. -- Ohconfucius ^{ping / poke} 04:54, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Rich Farmbrough

The principle behind DATERET (we have an acronym for that now?) was primarily focussed on dates with written months. The use of "ISO" dates has been discussed extensively, and it appears a number of otherwise sane and well-informed Wikipedians had never run across the format before, and were confused, mystified and dismayed by it. For myself this reduced my support for such dates for access date fields from firm to dubious. Nonetheless proper usability statistics should be gathered before coming to a firm conclusion on this, and in general it should be noted that OhConfucious' efforts in this sphere are reasonably well thought out and carefully implemented. Rich Farmbrough, 01:09, 9 July 2012 (UTC).

Statement by Arthur Rubin

Ohconfucius seems to have retired. I suppose this request should be suspended or dropped. I strongly disagree with Rich's statement that OhConfucious's efforts are "reasonably well thought out and carefully implemented", but WP:DEADHORSE seems to apply here. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:30, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Statement by JimWae

I bring to attention again that the script OhC has constructed (& that is used by numerous others) has a function to change any and ALL dates to MDY or DMY, but has no function to change any dates at all (specifically neither accessdates nor archivedates) to YMD. As more people use this tool, inevitably there can only be further violations of WP:DATERET for accessdates and archivedates as people use the tool without first fully examining WP guidelines that allow YMD for those dates. I submit that either 1> changing accessdates & archivedates to YMD be added to the script, OR 2> changes to any accessdates and archivedates be entirely removed from the script, OR 3> the script be retired. --JimWae (talk) 21:05, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Statement by BlueMoonset

Given that Ohconfucius stated on 20 September that accessdate edits had stopped, I was surprised to see that his tool had been used to make edit changes that included accessdate modifications to Vitamin D (Glee) early on 27 September [59]. This turns out to be one of hundreds of edits over the past few days, the summary of each being "style fixes (text)". Selecting the subsequent Walter Cronkite and Wadsworth High School edits, both included accessdate edits. Looking back, accessdate edits appear to have started on 24 September with Undershaw: [60].

My experience is that there have been testing problems with Ohconfucius in the past few months: as noted in User talk:Ohconfucius/archive23#More editing problems, despite being informed that valid accessdate fields were being removed, edits continued without fixing, and more dates disappeared. At least one of the edits noted there and in Gimmetoo's initial statement above, [61], has never been fixed.

The first responsibility of someone running a tool should be to fix any known damage immediately, the second priority should be to look for more bad edits and fix them, and a distant third should be to debug the tool and resume testing. I don't see this in the actions of Ohconfucius. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:33, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

• Any update on this? NW (Talk) 21:04, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
• I've asked the clerks to archive this request. AGK [•] 12:58, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Arbitrator views and discussion

• The way I'm reading the most recent motion, "this subject remains within the jurisdiction of the Arbitration Committee" is simply a reminder that the Committee retains the authority to further amend his restrictions (or current lack thereof) should we feel it is necessary to do so; or in extreme cases open a full case or review. As (by the same motion) Ohconfucius is not currently subject to any Arbitration remedies/restrictions with respect to date delinking, any concerns with regards to that behavior should likely be handled through normal community procedures, and not via Arbitration Enforcement. However, if you feel that matters are becoming problematic enough that the community is unable to adequately enforce matters, an amendment request could be posted to attempt to (further) amend his restrictions. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 19:40, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
• Agree with Hersfold. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 22:16, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Ohconfucious has not edited Wikipedia since July 3, and there is a notice on his talkpage that he is on a break. As the concern here is the functionality of his date script, and I see from his talkpage that there have been concerns with his script for some time, perhaps people who use the script could be advised that there is a script by Lightmouse - User:Lightmouse/monobook.js/script.js - which appears to do the same thing, but doesn't appear to have reported problems. When he returns Ohconfucious could decide the value of repairing his script compared with advising users to use the alternative script. If Ohconfucious elects to repair the script, and there are further concerns he would be advised at that point to shut the script down and direct people to the alternative script; deciding to persist with a problematic script when there is a functioning alternative may be seen as unnecessarily disruptive. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 15:15, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
• I also tentatively agree with Hersfold, but it would be useful to have a statement from Ohconfucius explaining what he is doing and why. Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:23, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Ohconfucious, please provide a substantive response to this request at this time. Thank you. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:44, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
• I'm not sure there's anything that needs arbitrator intervention here. If he's failing to follow WP:DATERET, as was pretty clearly shown in the example above, then an uninvolved administrator should block him for disruptive editing. Clear enough? Jclemens (talk) 19:48, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Allow me to repeat Newyorkbrad's observation: Despite continuing to edit Wikipedia, Ohconfucius has not responded substantively to the breaches of guidelines and return to previously sanctioned behavior alleged in this complaint. I will place a talk page entry noting the expectation that his next edit to Wikipedia will address this complaint here. Jclemens (talk) 17:10, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
    • I'm not finding the answer particularly plausible, OhConfucius. You don't explain why you undertook to continue editing date-related material, and frankly, your return to editing under an alternate account, to conduct date-related edits when I'd clearly told you twice that you needed to answer this charge of misconduct before doing so, is more concerning than any script error. Throughout this entire return, you claimed to be retired, only amending that in the last day or two. You spun a compelling tale in email when this issue was first raised, explaining why you would be less active, and you then reiterated your desire to leave the community entirely after the Falun Gong 2 finding against you. Yet, a few weeks later you're back, editing dates surreptitiously. Why should the community believe you when you say you won't cause any more problems, given your rather poor track record of congruence between your recent actions and recent statements? Jclemens (talk) 05:24, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
• Concur with Hersfold's reading (and my colleagues' comments) that no sanctions are active. AGK [•] 22:33, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
• While I agree that no sanctions are active, a return to the same behaviour that led to sanctions in the past is a serious and concerning pattern. I would also like to hear from Ohconfucius on this; however, I would not rule out the reinstatement of sanctions if there has been recidivism. Risker (talk) 00:51, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
• I'd also like to hear a response to the issues here from Ohconfusius. Could one of the clerks please remind him?  Roger Davies ^talk 09:13, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

---

Comments made after the request was re-opened

• Summarily re-opened per this statement by the committee. AGK [•] 20:19, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
• I agree with Risker's comments, firstly no sanctions are currently active, and secondly, a return to the same conduct which led to the imposition of sanctions could result in the sanctions being reinstated. PhilKnight (talk) 20:36, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
• While we agreed this matter must be re-visited, I must confess I've lost track of what, if anything, we need to decide here. If nobody can point to a pending problem with OC's edits (or any current arbitration decision) that requires this committee's attention, I think this request should be archived. Jclemens, if you are reading, might you point me to a summary of relevant, pending issues? AGK [•] 22:36, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
  • I have no summary of "issues", to the extent that I have no particular background in the date delinking issue in general. What I did do was block Ohconfucius' accounts when he surreptitiously edited date-related matters in defiance of instructions to contact the committee before doing so if he un-retired. That has been the extent of my involvement; to the extent that his deception has made me wary of his promises, I remain skeptical of his reassurances, especially given his history of past sanction, but that is not related to the issue that prompted this to be opened in the first place. Jclemens (talk) 06:15, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
• The point of this appears to have got lost. I am for this being archived. If there is an issue for us to clarify, a fresh request could be made. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 08:52, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

• If none of my colleagues weigh in soon, this thread should be archived by a clerk. The situation has clearly dissolved, leaving us nothing to decide for the time being. As SilkTork says, if our attention is needed in future we can be found here. AGK [•] 19:48, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Agree this can be archived now. PhilKnight (talk) 13:00, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

User Tennis_expert indefinitely blocked for sock puppetry

See blocking admin's notice.

This happened after the case closed.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  03:52, 10 June 2015 (UTC)