Case Opened on 23:20, 12 January 2009 (UTC) Case Closed on 21:13, 14 June 2009 (UTC) Case Amended on 10:53, 2 August 2009 (UTC) Case Amended on 03:46, 17 August 2009 (UTC) Case Amended on 03:41, 8 September 2009 (UTC) Case Amended on 10:17, 24 October 2009 (UTC) Case Amended on 13:15, 4 September 2010 (UTC) Case Amended on 14:35, 9 November 2010 (UTC) Case Amended on 15:27, 8 February 2011 (UTC) Case Amended on 15:30, 8 February 2011 (UTC) Case Amended on 16:31, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Shortcut WP:RFAR/DDL Watchlist all case pages: 1, 2, 3, 4

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

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

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

• Locke Cole (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 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)
• Lightmouse (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Dabomb87 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Ohconfucius (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Guy Peters (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Hex (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Colonies Chris (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Tony1
• Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Greg L
• Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)/Date Linking RFC

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

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

— Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Episodes_and_characters_2/Proposed_decision#Fait_accompli

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

Motion request

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

Limited response to Dabomb87

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

Limited response to Tony1

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

Limited response to Arthur Rubin and Masem

The overall goal of this, for me anyways, is to remove the fait accompli from the table. This situation right now makes it impossible (or really difficult) to discuss the issue when a sense of inevitability pervades all discussions ("we're doing this, so talk all you want, but while you were typing that up, I delinked another hundred articles"). This inevitability isn't lost on the proponents of the change either: I get the general impression they feel empowered in these discussions to dismiss compromises and alternatives out of hand (yet another reason for the mass delinkings to stop). Hence my motion request. The community should be able to handle this, but not while editors are pushing their preferred version of things on the rest of us. Worth noting: there are 6,916,447 articles on Wikipedia, I really doubt all of them have been delinked already. —Locke Cole • t • c 11:56, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Sam Blacketer

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Addendum

• (a) Colonies Chris says it. Much of what I was going to add about the substantive allegations in the statements by the filers and their associates has been clinched in the more recent statement below by Colonies Chris.
• (b) The problem of scope and purpose. I believe the Committee may face a difficult task in defining exactly what it should arbitrate on in relation to this application. These comments may be relevant.

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

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

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

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

Clearly, with 6,916,447 articles on en.Wikipedia, there are probably over a million date links to be fixed, the vast majority of which take readers to unrelated historical trivia that has little if any relevance to the topic of the article containing the links. This is far too many to manually bring into compliance; human-guided bots are the only way I know of to address such an undertaking. The RfCs show that it should be a rare date indeed that is linked in the form of blued, in‑line body text. So the very few dates that should be linked and which are accidentally swept up by bot activity can easily be hand-restored. Furthermore, as I have illustrated above, there are alternative, often superior ways to let readers know about relevant material, such as entries in See also sections. Hand-restoring a relatively small number of links is a good opportunity for editors to avail themselves of these other techniques.

Another important factor to consider is which camp of editors is best trying to adhere to the community consensus on this matter. How is it that we are all here at ArbCom after a month‑long series of RfCs that enjoyed wide input? I am not seeing any pattern of behavioral problems with the respondents to this complaint. Tony and Lightmouse have exemplary block logs (here and here, respectively). Both are experienced and influential editors with a long track record on Wikipedia. The only block on Tony’s record was quickly withdrawn as being done in error. These sort of track records just don’t happen by accident; they happen only by an editor exhibiting a consistent pattern of being logical and reasonable and by abiding by Wikipedia’s rules—even when under duress when acting in a leadership capacity, as Tony often finds himself in.

What is not passing my “grin test” here is the block log for the filing party, Locke Cole, nor the block log for Aurthur Rubin. Lock Cole’s attempt to “archive” (here), Tony’s extraordinarily well-participated RfC after it had been up for only 14 hours (accompanied with the edit summary “being bold”) was, in my opinion, precisely the sort of tendentious editing that would account for such a block record. He cloaks uncivil, disruptive editing behind a veneer of civil words, much the same way a mugger might take care to not end his sentences with a preposition as he courteously relieves you of your wallet with a knife. I have precious little admiration for this sort of behavior. There seems to be a pattern here regarding the willingness of notable editors on just one side of the dispute to conform to expected conducted on Wikipedia. I think this is germane to the dispute’s origins and believe any reasonable interpretation of the RfCs will bear this out.

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

1. This statement by Colonies Chris. Notwithstanding that it is a hearty dose of plain-speak, I believe it all to be true and highly relevant.
2. The above statement and its addendum by Tony.
3. The entire statement of Ohconfucius, which I find particularly insightful.
4. Kotniski’s “Comment from vaguely-involved User (from the original RfA)
5. The below post by Dabomb87. It is quit succinct.

Greg L (talk) 23:45, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

Addendum

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

Important statement regarding User:date delinker

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

Limited response to User:Kotniski

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

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

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

Dabomb87 additionally wikistalked me, most recently WordPress.com[1]. This is quite disrupting in continuation to work for the Wikipedia which I started in 2003. —Guy Peters ^{Talk • Contributions • Edit counter} 10:47, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Limited response to Arthur Rubin & Franamax

Delinking still continues and despite the effort of Dabomb87, Lightmouse and others, millions of articles cannot be delinked in few months time. —Guy Peters ^{Talk • Contributions • Edit counter} 11:02, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Limited response to Tony1

Years are not autoformated, only days and months. —Guy Peters ^{Talk • Contributions • Edit counter} 11:06, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Additional: I am becoming more and more concerned with the behavior of Greg L. Edits such as this one are totally unacceptable behavior. — Hex (❝?!❞) 21:33, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

Response to Tennis Expert

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

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

• 8660 edits in two months by user:date delinker is a lot when Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Date delinker is a redlink. Has there been any communal approval of this bot? Very few of these mentions appear to be venues of broad community approval. ANI of Dec. appears to be the most recent discussion, and problems with the automated edits were raised. Have those problems been fixed? John Vandenberg ^(chat) 06:17, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I also notice that the last 10 edits by user:lightbot are outside of the approval given at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Lightbot, but this "solitary year unlinking" functionality was covered by Wikipedia:Bots/Requests_for_approval/Lightbot_2. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 11:11, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Accept with a tight scope of date delinking. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 23:51, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Courtesy archive links for examples of WT:MOSNUM and noticeboard discussions would be appreciated, particularly for discussions leading up to and following the RfCs. Vassyana (talk) 06:45, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you. Vassyana (talk) 08:28, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Accept, unless (in the words of FloNight) there is good evidence of a clear ongoing consensus building process that will end with a well-accepted solution. I think there are clear behavioral issues for ArbCom to examine here. The use of the consensus-building process and interpretation of its resolutions seems to be a fundamental issue here, along with related behavioral concerns. There is also a broad range of alleged behavioral issues surrounding these cirucmstances, including but not limited to (semi)automated tool abuse, incivility, OWNership, forum shopping and system gaming. Vassyana (talk) 22:35, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I also can not find anything indicating User:Date delinker is an approved bot and have asked WP:BAG to double check that. While the issue of date delinking is roughly 6 months old, other issues related to WP:MOSNUM have been brewing for roughly two years and I keep seeing many of the same users involved in the disputes. The issue of whether to link or not link dates is clearly a content issue outside of arbcom's purview. I'd like to see more input on behavioral issues related to MOSNUM and attempts to resolve them. — Rlevse • Talk • 13:04, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia_talk:Bot_policy#User:Date_delinker, it's using AWB on an alternate account, which is within policy. — Rlevse • Talk • 14:25, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Accept, largely per Vassyana and suggest renaming to MOSNUM due to larger issues. Date delinking is only the latest incarnation of MOSNUM problems. — Rlevse • Talk • 13:22, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Because of the potential for a dispute on this topic to cause instability to a large amount of articles and the length of the dispute, I'm willing to take this case sooner rather than late, unless there if good evidence of clear ongoing consensus building process that will end with well accepted solution. If the discussion is stalling due to problematic user conduct, then can address it if needed. If issues of unauthorized bot usage need to be addressed then make that clear. Please cite specifics of any problems. FloNight♥♥♥ 14:43, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Now Accept. Not to make a content ruling but to assist in developing a process that will result in stability to articles and address any user conduct issues that may be causing local article discussion or global topic discussions to stall without forming consensus. FloNight♥♥♥ 10:48, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment; I'm inclined to accept a case when the topic focus causes large, repeated threads on noticeboards with no visible signs of abating. This invariably means there is a behavioral problem, even if the problem is the repeated call to arms rather than the issue itself. — Coren ^(talk) 15:28, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Accept; the issue pivots around large scale implementation of style changes, and the behavior surrounding the propriety of such changes. I don't think the name change is necessary, but it is acceptable. — Coren ^(talk) 17:13, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Question Can anyone provide an estimate of: (i) the percentage of articles within the corpus that have so far been de-linked and (ii) the rough proportion of de-linked articles which have been subsequently reverted? --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 15:48, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • My estimation is very rough and is based on feeling rather than actual data: Perhaps 30 % of all articles with dates were forcibly delinked. Probably in less than 1 % the links were re-introduced. —Guy Peters ^{Talk • Contributions • Edit counter} 21:16, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I agree that the issue for ArbCom here is behavioural: whether large-scale implementation was premature and whether consensus was sufficiently established for such a profound change. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 16:50, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Accept per my comment. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 02:24, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. In the interests of full disclosure I made an early comment to Lightmouse on this issue, and participated in both the Date Linking RFC and the MOSNUM proposal. I don't think I have prejudged this case but if seriously asked to recuse on these grounds by a party to an accepted case then I would be bound to accede.

That being said, I am concerned at the time spent by a small number of editors who have been mass delinking - which cannot truly, I think, be regarded as writing an encyclopaedia. Removing links while doing other necessary changes on individual articles could not be disruptive, but systematically delinking for aesthetic reasons strikes me as a waste of server time.

There are two caveats to my opinion. First, the issue of whether to link or delink dates is not, in my mind, entirely on a level with the merging and deleting seen in the Episodes and characters case, and does not create the "fait accompli" mentioned in the title of the principle. Second, if we were to accept the case, the committee cannot issue binding policy on the issues within the RFCs. Sam Blacketer (talk) 18:44, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Quick reply to two comments (by Locke Cole and Protonk), I certainly agree that making superficial editorial changes along with delinking dates is substantially the same as just delinking them; I was thinking really of manual routine page maintenance rather than automated mass changes. I would accept a case strictly limited to the use of automated or semiautomated tools to delink dates on articles but nothing wider. The caveat about recusal still stands. Sam Blacketer (talk) 21:29, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Recuse I am a good friend of Tony and my ability to be impartial may not be accepted by all. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:39, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Accept pending what the name will be. I support just keeping it to the date delinking conduct issues; if we widen the scope it could be dangerous, so I oppose a rename at this time. Wizardman 16:29, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Recuse - I have participated in date-linking discussions previously, and while I don't hold a very strong opinion on the central issues, and my opinion has shifted over time (to the stage where I support most, but not all, date delinking), I'm involved enough and have discussed this with several of the editors concerned (at least four of the parties), to the extent that I don't feel I could impartially judge the behaviour issues here. I do agree with those who have stated that this case should most emphatically be about the behaviour here, and not the content. Incivility, unnecessarily strong criticism, tendentiousness, inability to compromise or see the other side's arguments, misreading of consensus (possibly in good faith, or being blinded by bias), edit warring, attacks against bot operators, impatient and unhelpful responses by bot operators, misguided application of the manual of style, and other issues, are among those that have taken place here (just a selection of the behaviour on both sides). I also echo the comments by those who point out that date delinking is not really the most urgent matter to be resolved here. Carcharoth (talk) 00:36, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1.1) Until this case is decided or otherwise directed by the Arbitration Committee, all editors are instructed 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. This injunction is entered as an interim measure and does not reflect any prejudgment of any aspect of the case. The Clerk will notify the parties of this temporary injunction and post a note of it on the appropriate policy page(s).

Passed 10 to 0 at 11:52, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

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

1) The purpose of Wikipedia is to create a high-quality, free-content encyclopedia in an atmosphere of camaraderie and mutual respect among contributors.

Passed 13 to 0 at 16:05, 14 June 2009 (UTC).

2) Contributors to Wikipedia may benefit the project by participating in a variety of ways. Good-faith participation is welcome whether it comes in the form of editorial contributions, image contributions, wiki-gnoming, bot and script writing and operation, policy design and implementation, or the performance of administrative tasks. Editors making any or all of these types of contributions are welcome. The project and our progress toward our goals are diminished if we drive away or demoralize a good-faith editor who contributes or has the potential to contribute, while complying with Wikipedia policies, in any or all of these areas.

Passed 13 to 0 at 16:05, 14 June 2009 (UTC).

3) Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other users; to approach even difficult situations in a dignified fashion and with a constructive and collaborative outlook; and to avoid acting in a manner that brings the project into disrepute. Unseemly conduct, such as personal attacks, incivility, assumptions of bad faith, trolling, harassment, disruptive point-making, and gaming the system, is prohibited.

Passed 12 to 0 at 16:05, 14 June 2009 (UTC).

4) Perfection is not expected from editors, it being understood that everyone will occasionally make mistakes or misjudgments. However, an overall record of compliance with site policies and norms is expected, especially from regular contributors. Editors are expected to adhere to policy regardless of the behavior of those they are in disputes with. Inappropriate behavior by other editors does not legitimize one's own misconduct, though it may be considered as a mitigating factor in some circumstances. Moreover, users who have been justifiably criticized or formally sanctioned for improper conduct are expected to avoid repeating that conduct.

Passed 13 to 0 at 16:05, 14 June 2009 (UTC).

5) Edit-warring is harmful. When disagreements arise, users are expected to discuss their differences rationally rather than reverting ad infinitum. Revert rules should not be construed as an entitlement or inalienable right to revert, nor do they endorse reverts as an editing technique.

Passed 8 to 2 (with 3 abstentions) at 16:05, 14 June 2009 (UTC).

6) Wikipedia works by building consensus. This is done through the use of polite discussion—involving the wider community, if necessary—and dispute resolution, rather than through disruptive editing. Editors are each responsible for noticing when a debate is escalating into an edit war, and for helping the debate move to better approaches by discussing their differences rationally. Edit-warring, whether by reversion or otherwise, is prohibited; this is so even when the disputed content is clearly problematic, with only a few exceptions. Revert rules should not be construed as an entitlement or inalienable right to revert, nor do they endorse reverts as an editing technique.

Passed 13 to 0 at 16:05, 14 June 2009 (UTC).

7.1) Users confronted with inappropriate behavior should not respond in kind, or engage in sustained editorial conflict or unbridled criticism across different forums; inappropriate behavior by others does not legitimize one's own. Editors who have genuine grievances against others are expected to avail themselves of the available dispute resolution mechanisms.

Passed 13 to 0 at 16:05, 14 June 2009 (UTC).

8) When either of two styles are acceptable it is inappropriate for a Wikipedia editor to change from one style to another unless there is some substantial reason for the change. For example, with respect to British spelling as opposed to American spelling it would be acceptable to change from American spelling to British spelling if the article concerned a British subject. Revert warring over optional styles is unacceptable; if the article is colour rather than color, it would be wrong to switch simply to change styles as both are acceptable.

Passed 12 to 0 (with 1 abstention) at 16:05, 14 June 2009 (UTC).

9.1) Policies and guidelines exist to facilitate the smooth running of the project. However, they should be applied with common sense. Over-rigid or over-zealous implementation can be more disruptive than the behaviour that they are intended to discourage.

Passed 11 to 0 (with 1 abstention) at 16:05, 14 June 2009 (UTC).

10.1) Users who disrupt the editing of articles by engaging in sustained aggressive point of view editing may be banned from the affected areas. In extreme cases, they may be banned from the site.

Passed 10 to 1 (with 1 abstention) at 16:05, 14 June 2009 (UTC).

11.4) The Manual of Style is a set of guidelines governing appropriate editing on Wikipedia. The Manual is prescriptive in areas that enjoy broad consensus; where there is no such consensus, the available options are described, but no prescriptive guidance is provided. Editors are expected to follow the Manual of Style, although it is not policy and editors may deviate from it with good reason.

Passed 11 to 1 at 16:05, 14 June 2009 (UTC).

13.1) A guideline such as Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Dates can be changed by the Wikipedia community; see the policy on how policies are decided, which provides for consensus decision-making by those users who are familiar with the matter.

Passed 12 to 0 at 16:05, 14 June 2009 (UTC).

14) Bots are processes that modify Wikipedia content in a fully or partially automated fashion. Scripts are also computer algorithms utilized to automate or semi-automate certain types of editing. These tools are extremely valuable for the purpose of facilitating the making of multiple edits that would be unduly time-consuming or tedious for a human editor to perform manually. Approval from the Bot Approvals Group is generally required before an editor may use a bot for automatic or high-speed edits.

Passed 13 to 0 at 16:05, 14 June 2009 (UTC).

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

Passed 13 to 0 at 16:05, 14 June 2009 (UTC).

16) Like administrators and other editors in positions of trust, bot operators have a heightened responsibility to the community. Bot operators are expected to respond reasonably to questions or concerns about the operation of their bot. An editor who (even in good faith) misuses automated editing tools, such as bots and scripts, or fails to respond appropriately to concerns from the community about their use over a period of time, may lose the privilege of using such tools or may have such privilege restricted.

Passed 13 to 0 at 16:05, 14 June 2009 (UTC).

17) Members of the Bot Approvals Group are trusted members of the community and are expected to follow Wikipedia policies. They are expected to pursue their duties to the best of their abilities. Occasional mistakes are entirely compatible with this; members are not expected to be perfect. However, consistently or egregiously poor judgment may result in the removal of BAG status.

Passed 13 to 0 at 16:05, 14 June 2009 (UTC).

19) System administrators are responsible for the MediaWiki software configuration of the projects run by the Wikimedia Foundation, such as English Wikipedia. They make changes to configuration based on a mix of Wikimedia Foundation, technical and project considerations. While their decisions may affect the English Wikipedia, those decisions are binding on the projects and beyond the jurisdiction of the English Wikipedia community and its Arbitration Committee. The local community may, of course, challenge these decisions at meta forums, such as Bugzilla, #wikimedia-tech ^connect, and wikitech-l, and foundation-l or meta.wikimedia.org, each having their own processes and customs which should be respected.

Passed 7 to 1 (with 5 abstentions) at 16:05, 14 June 2009 (UTC).

20.1) The software used by the English Wikipedia project is open source software and may be improved by anyone, by way of bug reports, design documents, code patches, technical documentation, etc. Fair criticism of open source software is acceptable; however, it is incumbent on everyone to participate in building a better mousetrap. Deriding the developers, who are in short supply, is not acceptable; they are volunteers, and may have priorities other than fixing non-critical problems.

Passed 13 to 0 at 16:05, 14 June 2009 (UTC).

21) The MediaWiki software used on the Wikimedia projects, and configuration of that software, is the responsibility of the developers and system administrators. In the same way that system administrators are the decision makers to enable new functionality, deprecation or removal of MediaWiki functionality is a technical decision, and implementation of that decision may have technical implications that need to be considered. The project community should engage the technical team in decisions which relate to use of the software.

Policies, procedures and the manual of style may govern how and when the software may be used, however decisions to deprecate or disable software features are best left in the hands of the technical staff. Likewise, decisions which will involve large scale changes (e.g. hundreds of thousands of pages), should be thoroughly discussed with the technical team, at venues like Wikipedia:Village pump (technical), due to concerns of appropriateness and efficiency.

Passed 7 to 2 (with 4 abstentions) at 16:05, 14 June 2009 (UTC).

1) The longstanding dispute in this case is a disagreement between two groups of editors on the issue of linking dates. It encompasses the MediaWiki "dynamic dates" functionality (a.k.a. date autoformatting, and "DA") and the utility of the linking of dates.

Passed 13 to 0 at 16:40, 14 June 2009 (UTC).

2) Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers) has been disputed on various forums since a straw poll at WT:MOSNUM in August 2008 resulted in dynamic dates being considered deprecated by the community. This page in the manual of style was taken to MfD on November 20, 2008, and has been protected from editing due to the unresolved dispute since November 18, 2008.[2]

A merge of Wikipedia:Only make links that are relevant to the context and Wikipedia:Build the Web into Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links) occurred on January 11, 2009, stabilising the following day[3][4]. However, this resulted in further disputes on these pages, requiring page protection[5][6], and spread to templates Template:MoS-guideline, Template:Guideline_list, and Template:Wikipedia_policies_and_guidelines and shortcuts WP:CONTEXT, WP:BTW and WP:BUILD.

Passed 13 to 0 at 16:40, 14 June 2009 (UTC).

3.2) Two RFCs held in December 2008 reaffirmed that the current date autoformatting functionality is undesirable, and that overlinking of dates is not desirable; however, consensus has not been found on when dates should be delinked.

Passed 12 to 1 at 16:40, 14 June 2009 (UTC).

3.3.1) All three of the RfCs regarding date links have been plagued by disputes regarding wording, presentation, claims of bias, and related issues. These disputes continued through the drafting and comment phases, as well as persisting after RfC closures. Additionally, there are varied and sharply conflicting interpretations of the discussion results. The contentious development and results of the December RfCs are reflective of this environment.

Passed 7 to 0 at 16:40, 14 June 2009 (UTC).

5) Deprecation of autoformatting and date-delinking have been problematically conflated in this dispute. While both sides of the date debate have conflated the issues, consensus for the deprecation of autoformatting has been abused as consensus for mass date delinking.

Passed 7 to 2 (with 3 abstentions) at 16:40, 14 June 2009 (UTC).

6) bug 4582 was raised in January 2006 to allow dates to be autoformatted without causing "overlinking" (a "sea of blue"). This bug is more relevant to wiki projects other than Wikipedia, especially where the project has little need for "month day" pages, or even "year" pages.

Due to the English Wikipedia Date debate, and the complexity of the problem, the bug was conflated with many issues, suggestions and feature requests. A number of these suggestions were built by developer Bill Clark between September 2008 and November 2008. During the course of this arbitration case, user:Werdna resolved this bug by creating parser function "formatdate", and at the same time resolved bug 17785 (a feature request initially proposed in comment 98 of bug 4582) to add Cascading Stylesheet and Javascript control to all autoformatted dates, such as presenting them as normal text (example), or as another colour to make them stand out[7].

Passed 13 to 0 at 16:40, 14 June 2009 (UTC).

7) Despite the ongoing dispute, mass date delinking has been conducted by many users via scripts, AWB, and bots, hindering dispute resolution and encouraging fait accompli. In conjunction with blind reverts, bot and script bugs, and articles being delinked multiple times, the mass delinking contributed to the tension of the dispute and was self-defeating.

Passed 12 to 0 at 16:40, 14 June 2009 (UTC).

8) Due to mass delinking, edit wars occurred across the breadth of the project, usually consisting of one regular contributor to an article pitted against a well-coordinated team of MOS enforcers and their automations. JV [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13]

Complaints and questions were directed to WT:MOSNUM and/or roundly dismissed.[14][15] [16]

Passed 12 to 0 at 16:40, 14 June 2009 (UTC).

9) A battle to delinking dates on tennis articles commenced in September 2008, with Tennis expert (talk · contribs) almost exclusively pushing back repeatedly with 751 reverts. As a result, the battle become excessively personal. JV Ohc TE

Passed 12 to 0 at 16:40, 14 June 2009 (UTC).

10) Bobblewik (talk · contribs) and Editore99 (talk · contribs) are former undisclosed accounts of Lightmouse (talk · contribs) which have a block log relevant to the community approval of bot account Lightbot (talk · contribs). [1], [2][3]

Passed 13 to 0 at 16:40, 14 June 2009 (UTC).

12) Bobblewik was a very prolific editor from March 2004 to October 2006 (65,000+ edits), who was blocked over 17 times [17] by several administrators and arbitrators for running fast automated date delinking processes. At the time he stopped editing, there was apparently a great degree of controversy at his talk page and the block lengths were a week to a month in length. Also, he submitted several rejected date-related bots at BRFA archive and was the subject of RFC/U.

Passed 13 to 0 at 16:40, 14 June 2009 (UTC).

13) Lightmouse created Wikipedia:Bots/Requests_for_approval/Cleanbot on October 19, 2008, requesting approval from the Bot Approvals Group for a new bot "Cleanbot" (account not created, and unrelated to CleanBot (talk · contribs)) to delink dates. It was advertised on three relevant discussion boards on October 21, 2008, and was mentioned on User_talk:Lightmouse.

The request was denied on October 22, 2008 by BAG member Mr.Z-man, with BAG members Bjweeks and Martinp23 also indicating that it was inappropriate for a bot to be undertaking delinking based on what they considered to be an insufficient level of consensus.

The denied status was reported to the village pump (link).

Passed 13 to 0 at 16:40, 14 June 2009 (UTC).

14) Lightbot has passed over articles multiple times. When errors in the first pass have been corrected by others, subsequent passes have repeated the original error. 1 2 3-1/3-2

Passed 13 to 0 at 16:40, 14 June 2009 (UTC).

15) Lightmouse has edit-warred to remove all date links. [18] [19] [20] [21] [22]

Passed 13 to 0 at 16:40, 14 June 2009 (UTC).

16) In an attempt to speed up the process of date delinking, Lightmouse has operated multiple instances of AutoWikiBrowser concurrently. [23]

Passed 12 to 0 (with 1 abstention) at 16:40, 14 June 2009 (UTC).

18) Tony1 (talk · contribs) has been incivil in his communication with other editors.1 23 4 5 more more and more

Passed 11 to 0 (with 2 abstentions) at 16:40, 14 June 2009 (UTC).

19) Tony1 has edit warred on the project pages related to the date debate. MB MB2 LC

Passed 11 to 0 (with 2 abstentions) at 16:40, 14 June 2009 (UTC).

20) Tony1 has edit-warred to remove all date links from a large number of articles.LC TE1 TE2 JV

Passed 11 to 0 (with 2 abstentions) at 16:40, 14 June 2009 (UTC).

22) Greg L has been incivil in his communication with other editors.1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Passed 13 to 0 at 16:40, 14 June 2009 (UTC).

23) Greg L has edit warred on the project pages related to the date debate. V

Passed 13 to 0 at 16:40, 14 June 2009 (UTC).

24) Ohconfucius has been incivil in their communication with other editors. 1 2 3 4 5 6

Passed 13 to 0 at 16:40, 14 June 2009 (UTC).

25) Ohconfucius has edit warred on the project pages related to the date debate. [24]

Passed 13 to 0 at 16:40, 14 June 2009 (UTC).

26) Ohconfucius has edit-warred to remove all date links from a large number of articles. JV V TE

Passed 13 to 0 at 16:40, 14 June 2009 (UTC).

28) Ohconfucius has informed users that in an attempt to speed up the process of date delinking, he has operated multiple instances of AutoWikiBrowser.[25]

Passed 13 to 0 at 16:40, 14 June 2009 (UTC).

29) Ohconfucius created alternative account Date delinker (talk · contribs) on November 11, 2008 with the express purpose of using it for date delinking. It performed 9307 edits without BAG approval until January 30, 2009 when it was indefinitely blocked.[26]

user:Date delinker unlinked years even when the year was a primary component of the subject.[27][28]

user:Date delinker was used in edit wars.[29]

Passed 13 to 0 at 16:40, 14 June 2009 (UTC).

30) Ohconfucius has unlinked dates while evading blocks in November 2008 using the Date delinker (talk · contribs) alternate account during a 24 hour block[30][31], and again in March 2009 when blocked for violating an injunction intended to stop the battle.[32]

The March 2009 block evasion included reverting users involved in this date debate, and he subsequently initiated Arbitration Enforcement against the same users he had reverted.reverts/AE

In addition, Ohconfucius was blocked for evading the Arbitration injunction in February 2009.

Passed 13 to 0 at 16:40, 14 June 2009 (UTC).

31) Former bureaucrat The Rambling Man (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) has made comments intended to encourage a contributor to return to retirement.([33], retirement, 1, 2, return, apology in April reaction/revert) (see also)

Passed 6 to 5 (with 2 abstentions) at 16:40, 14 June 2009 (UTC).

32) The Rambling Man has edit-warred extensively to remove the linking of dates on the tennis articles. JV

Passed 11 to 0 (with 1 abstention) at 16:40, 14 June 2009 (UTC).

33) Kotniski (talk · contribs) has edit warred on project pages related to the date debate. MB FG V

Passed 13 to 0 at 16:40, 14 June 2009 (UTC).

35) Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) has edit-warred extensively with respect to the linking of dates. LC TE([34][35][36][37][38])([39][40][41][42][43])

Passed 12 to 0 (with 1 abstention) at 16:40, 14 June 2009 (UTC).

37) 2008Olympian (talk · contribs) first became involved in the tennis articles by removing date links from Billie Jean King on November 12, 2008 during an ongoing edit war.[44] On the 15th, 2008Olympian excessively edit-warred for a few days on tennis articles and other ongoing related edit-wars. [45] TE

2008Olympian occasionally participated in the edit-wars afterwards. [46] [47] [48]

Passed 12 to 1 at 16:40, 14 June 2009 (UTC).

38) Colonies Chris (talk · contribs) has edit-warred extensively to remove the linking of dates. TE ([49][50][51])([52][53][54])([55][56][57]) JV

Passed 13 to 0 at 16:40, 14 June 2009 (UTC).

39) SkyWalker (talk · contribs) has edit-warred to remove the linking of dates. TE ([58][59][60])([61][62])([63][64])([65][66])

Passed 13 to 0 at 16:40, 14 June 2009 (UTC).

40) HJensen (talk · contribs) has edit-warred to remove the linking of dates. TE1([67][68][69][70][71])([72][73][74][75]) JV

Passed 10 to 3 at 16:40, 14 June 2009 (UTC).

41) Dudesleeper (talk · contribs) has edit-warred to remove the linking of dates. V

Passed 12 to 1 at 16:40, 14 June 2009 (UTC).

42) John (talk · contribs) has edit-warred to remove the linking of dates. 1 2

Passed 8 to 1 (with 4 abstentions) at 16:40, 14 June 2009 (UTC).

43) Pmanderson (talk · contribs) has been incivil. 1 2 3 4 T1

Passed 12 to 0 (with 1 abstention) at 16:40, 14 June 2009 (UTC).

44) Pmanderson has edit warred on the project pages related to the date debate. [76]

Passed 13 to 0 at 16:40, 14 June 2009 (UTC).

45) Locke Cole (talk · contribs) has been incivil. Oh T1

Passed 13 to 0 at 16:40, 14 June 2009 (UTC).

46) Locke Cole has edit warred on the project pages related to the date debate. MB FG ([77][78][79][80])([81][82][83][84][85])

Passed 13 to 0 at 16:40, 14 June 2009 (UTC).

47) Locke Cole has edit-warred on a large number of articles. Oh JV

Passed 13 to 0 at 16:40, 14 June 2009 (UTC).

47.5) Locke Cole has an extensive record of disruptive behavior spanning multiple years ([86]).

Passed 12 to 0 (with 1 abstention) at 16:40, 14 June 2009 (UTC).

48) Tennis expert (talk · contribs) has edit-warred extensively to restore linking of dates, primarily on the tennis articles, but also on other articles. 1 2 3 [87]

Passed 13 to 0 at 16:40, 14 June 2009 (UTC).

49) G-Man (talk · contribs) has edit-warred to restore linking of dates. 1 2 3 4 5

Passed 12 to 0 (with 1 abstention) at 16:40, 14 June 2009 (UTC).

50) Kendrick7 (talk · contribs) has edit warred extensively on the project pages related to the date debate. V [88] [89] [90]

Passed 12 to 0 (with 1 abstention) at 16:40, 14 June 2009 (UTC).

51) Arthur Rubin (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) has threatened to use administrative tools in a dispute in which he was an involved editor. MB V

Passed 11 to 1 (with 1 abstention) at 16:40, 14 June 2009 (UTC).

52) Arthur Rubin has edit warred on the project pages related to the date debate. MB V

Passed 11 to 0 (with 2 abstentions) at 16:40, 14 June 2009 (UTC).

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

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).

2.1) Date delinking bots will perform in a manner approved by the Bot Approvals Group.

Passed 9 to 0 (with 1 abstention) at 18:56, 14 June 2009 (UTC).

5.1) Lightmouse is banned from Wikipedia for a period of one year.

Passed 10 to 3 at 18:56, 14 June 2009 (UTC).

6) Lightmouse is topic banned indefinitely from style and editing guidelines relating to the linking or unlinking of dates, and any related discussions.

Passed 11 to 0 (with 2 abstentions) at 18:56, 14 June 2009 (UTC).

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

Passed 12 to 0 (with 1 abstention) at 18:56, 14 June 2009 (UTC).

Superseded by motion at 15:30, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

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

Passed 13 to 0 at 18:56, 14 June 2009 (UTC).

Superseded by motion at 15:30, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

9.3) Tony1 is indefinitely prohibited from editing any style and editing guidelines relating to the linking or unlinking of dates.

Passed 9 to 2 (with 2 abstentions) at 18:56, 14 June 2009 (UTC).

10) Tony1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is subject to an editing restriction for 12 months. Tony1 is prohibited from reverting the linking or unlinking of dates.

Passed 9 to 2 (with 2 abstentions) at 18:56, 14 June 2009 (UTC).

13) Greg L is topic banned indefinitely from style and editing guidelines relating to the linking or unlinking of dates, and any related discussions.

Passed 12 to 1 at 18:56, 14 June 2009 (UTC).

15) Greg L (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is subject to an editing restriction for 12 months. Greg L is prohibited from reverting the linking or unlinking of dates.

Passed 12 to 0 (with 1 abstention) at 18:56, 14 June 2009 (UTC).

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

Passed 12 to 0 (with 1 abstention) at 18:56, 14 June 2009 (UTC).

Superseded by motion at 16:28, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

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

Passed 13 to 0 at 18:56, 14 June 2009 (UTC).

Revoked by motion at 14:35, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

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

Passed 13 to 0 at 18:56, 14 June 2009 (UTC).

Superseded by motion at 15:27, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Superseded by motion at 16:28, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

19) Ohconfucius (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is subject to an editing restriction for 12 months. Ohconfucius is prohibited from reverting the linking or unlinking of dates.

Passed 12 to 0 (with 1 abstention) at 18:56, 14 June 2009 (UTC).

20) The Rambling Man is admonished for not pursuing appropriate dispute resolution methods.

Passed 6 to 5 (with 2 abstentions) at 19:21, 14 June 2009 (UTC).

22) Kotniski (talk · contribs) is reminded to pursue appropriate dispute resolution methods.

Passed 6 to 4 (with 3 abstentions) at 19:21, 14 June 2009 (UTC).

23.2) Kotniski is topic banned for three months from style and editing guidelines relating to the linking or unlinking of dates, and any related discussions.

Passed 8 to 4 (with 1 abstention) at 19:21, 14 June 2009 (UTC).

24) Dabomb87 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is subject to an editing restriction for 12 months. Dabomb87 is prohibited from reverting the linking or unlinking of dates.

Passed 10 to 1 (with 2 abstentions) at 19:21, 14 June 2009 (UTC).

25) 2008Olympian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is subject to an editing restriction for three months. 2008Olympian is prohibited from reverting the linking or unlinking of dates.

Passed 9 to 2 (with 2 abstentions) at 19:21, 14 June 2009 (UTC).

26) Colonies Chris (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is subject to an editing restriction for 12 months. Colonies Chris is prohibited from reverting the linking or unlinking of dates.

Passed 10 to 1 (with 1 abstention) at 19:21, 14 June 2009 (UTC).

27) SkyWalker (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is subject to an editing restriction for 12 months. SkyWalker is prohibited from reverting the linking or unlinking of dates.

Passed 9 to 1 (with 2 abstentions) at 19:21, 14 June 2009 (UTC).

28.1) HJensen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is subject to an editing restriction for 12 months. He is prohibited from reverting the linking or unlinking of dates.

Passed 8 to 4 (with 1 abstention) at 19:21, 14 June 2009 (UTC).

29.1) Dudesleeper (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is subject to an editing restriction for 12 months. He is prohibited from reverting the linking or unlinking of dates.

Passed 9 to 1 (with 1 abstention) at 19:21, 14 June 2009 (UTC).

30) John (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is admonished for edit-warring to remove the linking of dates.

Passed 7 to 0 (with 2 abstentions) at 10:53, 02 August 2009 (UTC).

31.1) Pmanderson is topic banned for 12 month from style and editing guidelines relating to the linking or unlinking of dates, and any related discussions.

Passed 8 to 1 (with 2 abstentions) at 19:21, 14 June 2009 (UTC).

32) Locke Cole is topic banned indefinitely from style and editing guidelines relating to the linking or unlinking of dates, and any related discussions.

Passed 12 to 0 (with 1 abstention) at 19:21, 14 June 2009 (UTC).

33) Locke Cole (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is subject to an editing restriction for 12 months. Locke Cole is prohibited from reverting the linking or unlinking of dates.

Passed 11 to 0 (with 2 abstentions) at 19:21, 14 June 2009 (UTC).

Note: superseded by motion, see directly below.

33.6) Locke Cole (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is banned from Wikipedia for a period of six months.

Passed 12 to 1 at 19:21, 14 June 2009 (UTC).

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.

Passed, by motion, 7 to 1 at 03:41, 8 September 2009 (UTC).

35.2) Tennis expert (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is subject to an editing restriction for 12 months. Tennis expert is prohibited from reverting the linking or unlinking of dates.

Passed 11 to 1 at 19:21, 14 June 2009 (UTC).

36.1) G-Man (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is subject to an editing restriction for 12 months. He is prohibited from reverting the linking or unlinking of dates.

Passed 9 to 1 (with 1 abstention) at 19:21, 14 June 2009 (UTC).

37) Kendrick7 is topic banned 12 months from style and editing guidelines relating to the linking or unlinking of dates, and any related discussions.

Passed 7 to 3 at 19:21, 14 June 2009 (UTC).

38.1) Arthur Rubin (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) is admonished for threatening to use his administrator tools to advance his position in a dispute.

Passed 11 to 1 (with 1 abstention) at 19:21, 14 June 2009 (UTC).

0) Should any user subject to a restriction in this case violate that restriction, that user may be blocked, initially for up to one month, and then with blocks increasing in duration to a maximum of one year.

In accordance with the procedure for the standard enforcement provision adopted 3 May 2014, this provision did not require a vote.

In accordance with the procedure for the standard appeals and modifications provision adopted 3 May 2014, this provision did not require a vote.

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.

Passed 8 to 2 at 19:29, 14 June 2009 (UTC).

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

• Ohconfucius (talk · contribs) blocked for a period of 48 hours for violation of the temporary injunction. Tiptoety ^talk 03:42, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Date delinker (talk · contribs) blocked indefinitely for violation of the temporary injunction. This is an alternate account of Ohconfucius. seicer | talk | contribs 04:10, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Ohconfucius (talk · contribs) blocked for a period of 72 hours for violation of the temporary injunction. Tiptoety ^talk 04:40, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Colonies Chris (talk · contribs) blocked for a period of 24 hours for violation of the temporary injunction. Tiptoety ^talk 21:10, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Ohconfucius (talk · contribs) blocked for a period of two weeks for violation of the temporary injunction, and evading the above-noted 72-hour block with IP addresses to violate the temporary injunction. Daniel (talk) 13:18, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) blocked for 24 hours for testing limits of WP:ARBDATE/Injunction. Jehochman ^Talk 02:34, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Ksnow (talk · contribs) blocked for violation of the temporary injunction until such time as he agrees to stop mass delinking, per WP:AE request at [91].  Sandstein  21:50, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Colonies Chris (talk · contribs) blocked for a period of 48 hours for violation of the temporary injunction. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 19:41, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Overweight and ugly (talk · contribs) blocked indefinitely for continuing even after being warned twice by NuclearWarfare that he was in violation of the injunction. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 23:01, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Later CU-blocked as a sockpuppet of UC Bill. NW (Talk) ^{(How am I doing?)} 04:30, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Locke Cole (talk · contribs) blocked for 6 months by way of enforcement of the "#Locke Cole banned" remedy. AGK 19:26, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Lightmouse (talk · contribs) blocked for 1 year by way of enforcement of the "#Lightmouse banned" remedy. AGK 23:14, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Greg L (talk · contribs) blocked for 48 h for violating his editing restriction at Kilogram, see AE report.  Sandstein  06:16, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Pmanderson (talk · contribs) restriction re-widened to include the pages and talk pages of all MOS and style guidelines due to continuing disruption. WP:AE report Shell ^babelfish 14:01, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(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.

Passed by motion 6 to 1 at 03:46, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

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.

Passed by motion 5 to 1 at 10:24, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

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.

Passed by motion 8 to 0 at 13:15, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

The Date delinking case is supplemented as follows:

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.

Passed by motion 7 to 0 with 1 recusal at 14:35, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Remedy 18 is amended to read the following:

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.

Passed by motion 12 to 0 with 1 recusal at 15:27, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Superseded by motion at 16:28, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Remedies 7.1 and 8 are amended to read the following:

7.1) Lightmouse is indefinitely prohibited from using any automation whatsoever on Wikipedia except for a bot task or group of related tasks authorized by the bot approvals group.

8) Lightmouse is limited to using only the account "Lightmouse" to edit. He may also use a separate bot account for any bot task or group of related tasks approved by the bot approvals group.

Passed by motion 12 to 0 with 1 recusal at 15:30, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Remedies 16 and 18 (as amended) 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.

Passed by motion 8 to 5 16:23, 9 September 2011 (UTC)