User:JohnBronson/Procedural

This is regarding the date-linking case:

I was an uninvolved administrator that handled the WP:AN case, and was not involved whatsoever in the schema behind the date-delinking and -linking proposals and guidelines. On 14:23, 19 November 2008, I blocked for revert-warring hundreds of times over dozens of articles, which can be noted here. Most of the reverts have an edit summary that reads, "There is no consensus to delete existing date links," and involves multiple editors. The edit was for edit warring, and bore no relation to the case that I unaware of outside of the text inputted into the AN case.

Tennis Expert and repeatedly stated that there was consensus to link all relevant dates, although they failed to provide such evidence. Current guidelines state,
 * "Dates (years, months, day and month, full dates) should not be linked, unless there is a reason to do so. More information can be found at WP:CONTEXT," and
 * "Autoformatting: Dates should not be linked purely for the purpose of autoformatting (even though in the past this was considered desirable)."

I have repeatedly requested citations to the statement that dates should be linked, in reverse of what the current guideline stated. I have received no satisfactory response, which has included this, this and this.

Locke Cole has engaged in undesirable behavior, including threatening administrators with recall.

Locke Cole and Tennis Expert have engaged in the filing of frivolous AN3 requests, which include WP:AN3, WP:AN3, WP:AN3, and WP:AN3. All have been closed at one point or another, with "no action taken"/"no violation" as the closing descriptor.

On 19:26, 19 November 2008, began a draft of Manual of Style (dates and numbers)/Date Linking RFC, although as of now, it was still in draft. This was followed up with Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers), which was properly listed. The latter has had overwhelming consensus to continue with the process of de-linking dates, and to use bots only when they are authorized. Not surprisingly, Locke Cole and Tennis Expert have not voiced their opinion in opposition/favor in the RFC.

Locke Cole has instead engaged in heated discussions, stating that the RFC was disruptive and pointy, and that Masem's RFC was "ready to go." He also considers it "disruptive", and has made a veiled threat to ignore the RFC and its consensus. That can be construed that, given Locke Cole's many prior blocks and his history of edit warring, that he could potentially begin edit warring over the linking issue.

Noting Locke Cole's block history, he has been blocked 13 times, not including modifications to existing blocks or removals. This behavior is inexcusable, and any reverts on Locke Cole's part post-RFC should be construed as a continuation of prior edit warring on the topic, and subject to sanctions. I propose that Locke Cole, Tennis Expert and other editors who have been involved in date-linking (not de-linking),
 * respect consensus of the RFC and guidelines;
 * be subject to a 1RR restriction for any edits involving date-linking and over-linking topics;
 * be subject to a block approperiate for the number of reverts and for prior blocks for edit warring and violation of the 1RR restriction.

In addition, due to Locke Cole's excessive block log, I propose that he,
 * be warned on the first offense;
 * be subject to a 1 week block for the second offense;
 * be subject to an indefinite block for the third offense.

JohnBronson (talk) 03:35, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary

 *  Jerry  delusional ¤ kangaroo 03:31, 24 November 2008 (UTC)