Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Tony1


 * The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.  

A summary of the debate may be found at the bottom of the page.

In order to remain listed at Requests for comment/User conduct, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126;. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: 15:51, 8 September 2008 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is:, 29 July 2024 (UTC).



Users should only edit one summary or view, other than to endorse.

Statement of the dispute
''This is a summary written by users who are concerned by this user's conduct. Users signing other sections ("Response" or "Outside views") should not edit the "Statement of the dispute" section.''

Tony1 has been using a script to unlink dates in articles without discussion on the talk pages, in defiance of requests by several other editors that he hold off so that the unlinking can be discussed in the broader context of date autoformatting. Tony1 has accused editors who oppose his unlinking of trying to stall the process, which he feels is justified by recent changes to WP:DATES.

Desired outcome
It is desired that Tony1 temporarily stop unlinking articles, until a consensus can be reached on whether to disable date autoformatting in the MediaWiki software for the English Wikipedia. Until such a consensus has been reached, unlinking is premature and is causing disruption.

Description
Tony1 continues to unlink dates en-masse, in defiance of despite requests to temporarily refrain from doing so while discussion is ongoing.

Evidence of disputed behavior
Examples of Tony1 using a script to perform mass unlinking of dates:


 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 

Applicable policies and guidelines

 * DATES

Evidence of trying to resolve the dispute
Examples of Sapphic and UC_Bill requesting that Tony1 temporarily halt unlinking:


 * 
 * 

Evidence of failing to resolve the dispute
Examples of Tony1 continuing to unlink dates after being asked to temporarily refrain:


 * 
 * 

...and Tony1 continues to unlink dates using a script, clearly indicating contempt for this process:


 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 

...and on, and on. Taking this to AN/I.

Users certifying the basis for this dispute

 * --UC_Bill (talk) 16:07, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * --Sapphic (talk) 18:47, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Response
''This is a summary written by the user whose conduct is disputed, or by other users who think that the dispute is unjustified and that the above summary is biased or incomplete. Users signing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Outside Views") should not edit the "Response" section.'' ''

{Those diffs all look fine to me. I was initially concerned to see that I'd changed the fourth one from US to European format, but realised that, yes, this was a reasonable application of the MOS concern to allow international for US military purposes; as well, most of the subjects were non-American. The edits are clearly in line with the new guideline that "deprecates" date autoformatting, which has evolved after a long and extensive debate at MOSNUM and elsewhere, with WPians overwhelmingly in favour of removal.

Although I suspect that Bill is also in favour of the removal of DA; but he wishes to pursue his own strategy for doing so—at another "link" in the chain, involving WikiMedia—and to base this on his collection of data at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject_Dates. At that page, the discussion of the stats appears to be going around in circles: doubt has been cast on the validity of the stats by several editors, both there and at MOSNUM, and uncertainty as to how exactly the data would inform such strategy. At MOSNUM talk, the reluctance of MediaWiki (which serves hundreds of sites) to make structural and technical changes (such as turning off date autoformatting) has been aired many times after a two-year request to improve the autoformatting mechanism was rejected. This desire is apparently central to Bill's wishlist, against the experience of many at MOSNUM talk.

As for the propriety of using the human-supervised script at this stage, there are at least six compelling reasons to do so:
 * (1) it represents the first proper audit of dates in WP articles, and has uncovered and corrected inconsistencies, faulty syntaxes and globally wrong choices of format to the extent that only about 40% of articles have had no issues;
 * (2) it spares editors the manual labour of removing numerous square-brackets in their articles;
 * (3) it corrects the inaccurate Julian/Gregorian date inaccuracy that comes with autoformatting, a matter that has come to light only recently;
 * (4) it has been undergoing continuous refinement, which would be impossible without its use and the helpful feedback from editors we have received;
 * (5) it promulgates the change in the guideline (via the edit summary), and the existence of WP:MoS, WP:MOSNUM and WP:CONTEXT, to editors who would not otherwise have thought of consulting these modes of achieving project-wide cohesion in style and formatting; and
 * (6) it has been instrumental in prompting the experts at MOSNUM talk to negotiate, several years too late, a guideline for which format should be chosen for articles unrelated to anglophone countries.

I believe that these are reasonable grounds for the application of the script by me and others at present, and that the complaint is unjustified. Tony  (talk)  16:59, 8 September 2008 (UTC) }

Users who endorse this summary:
 * 1) Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 19:24, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Hesperian 23:43, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 3)  Ceoil  sláinte 00:26, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 4) Karanacs (talk) 01:51, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 5)  «JavierMC»  |  Talk  02:23, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 6) WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:02, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 7) Closedmouth (talk) 05:24, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 8) Teemu Leisti (talk) 05:52, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 9) The Rambling Man (talk) 09:48, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 10) Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 14:07, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 11) SWTPC6800 (talk) 15:06, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 12) LuciferMorgan (talk) 18:30, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 13) Lightmouse (talk) 21:33, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 14) Waltham, The Duke of 21:57, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 15) Tony is going a good job. Giggy (talk) 00:39, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 16) EdJohnston (talk) 02:59, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 17) Eleassar my talk 08:05, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 18) Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 17:07, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 19) Ottava Rima (talk) 19:29, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 20) Professor marginalia (talk) 21:39, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 21) Donald Albury 14:01, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 22)  Steve  T • C 15:28, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 23) Orderinchaos 16:11, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 24) Greg L (talk) 18:26, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 25) Any time you change some formatting status quo there's bound to be complaints from people who were used to the articles on their watchlist a certain way.  This, however, has been a measured and patient approach to the problem, involving a lot of people in discussion.  It's worth considering how similar attempts at change like this have gone.  This has been radically better than the firestorm in which all spoiler tags were removed, for example.  Thanks, Tony. --JayHenry (talk) 03:03, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 26)  Paul Erik  (talk) (contribs) 03:32, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 27) Tony should be thanked for ridding the MoS of this redundant formatting. Spellcast (talk) 11:47, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 28) RfCs on users applying MOS is not the way to try to change MOS. That's most unfair. --Dweller (talk) 12:02, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 29) Also, the nascent general agreement at WT:MOSNUM is to not change all articles immediately to conform to the new MOSNUM style (and not everyone there agrees with that). This does not mean no articles can be changed (I've changed some too, as have others), and an increasingly popular idea is to test this change on all incoming FAs for a month to gauge community reaction better.  What Tony's been doing with the script is simply another experiment of this sort and it's produced good data and increased WP-wide attention/participation. I think an RFC is rather farcical if it is launched against someone for being bold (an official policy not a guideline) and doing something interesting, just because it happens to conflict with a new "rule" that they feel said editor is simply ignoring because he feels that the encyclopedia can be helped by doing so (policy), when that "rule" doesn't even seem to have consensus (policy) yet. —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93;  ‹(-¿-)› 19:10, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 30) Well discussed and at last implemented changes with reasonable consent and consensus. Only complaint, some of "my" articles still to be done! Thanks to those doing this script assisted work, dave souza, talk 07:57, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, did I forget to sign here? This RfC is inappropriate. --Dweller (talk) 09:41, 15 September 2008 (UTC) I had. Duh!
 * 1) Moondyne 04:06, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Surprised to find myself agreeing with Tony. --Hans Adler (talk) 18:25, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) Having looked at a few of the diffs above, I conclude that Tony seems to be doing good work swiftly.  shows T correcting several errors and inconsistencies - if T makes the occasional error then such can be corrected by page-watchers (as usual). Bouquets rather than brickbats. Occuli (talk) 17:22, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Response to Outside view by Arthur Rubin (reply to Orderinchaos)

 * It's not a bot, but a human-supervised script; it does not make "millions of edits", and does not run without scrutiny by its operator. Tony   (talk)  04:58, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Outside view from SandyGeorgia
''This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Response") should not edit the "Outside Views" section, except to endorse an outside view.''

I don't think wording like "in defiance of" is helpful in dispute resolution. Tony1's editing is in conformance with WP:MOS on an issue that has been worked on diligently and within process, involving many editors for several years.

UC_Bill mentions refraining from making edits that adhere to MOS "until a consensus can be reached on whether to disable date autoformatting in the MediaWiki software for the English Wikipedia". Tony1 and others have already attempted for several years to get the Wiki developers to pay attention to the problems created by autoformatting of dates. Only after those attempts failed to gain any attention from developers did consensus form at MoS for delinking of dates.

Finally, date delinking has been widely well received, with a minority of editors taking difference with it, but doing so vocally.

In conclusion, I suggest that the editors presenting this RfC find a more effective means of conceptualizing and resolving their differences. Consensus on date delinking was long in forming, involved many editors, and all indications were that developers didn't intend to resolve the problems.

Users who endorse this summary:
 * 1)  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 19:23, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) And to reemphasise that Tony now has a large majority behing him, given the number and range of editors thanking and congratulating him on his talk page, and in other rooms, over the last number of weeks. It had been until recently a long and thankless struggle. Tony should be given some sort of athletically shaped bronze object, not an RfC.  Ceoil  sláinte 22:57, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) Hesperian 23:43, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 4)  «JavierMC»  |  Talk  02:22, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 5) I do think there is something of a problem at MOSNUM, but it's not Tony. Gimmetrow 03:46, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 6) WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:02, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 7) Closedmouth (talk) 05:26, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 8) Teemu Leisti (talk) 05:54, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 9) I too have been routinely unlinking dates of late, to near-universal unconcern from article editors. Tony's actions should be welcomed, not questioned. We've had the debate - now let's get on with making the encyclopaedia better. Colonies Chris (talk) 09:39, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 10) The Rambling Man (talk) 10:22, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 11) Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 14:09, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 12) With the exception that it is not clear, and is becoming steadily less clear, that the objectors are a minority; it is tolerably clear that the claims of consensus by the deprecators are somewhat exaggerated.   Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:57, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 13) SWTPC6800 (talk) 15:09, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 14) Lightmouse (talk) 21:34, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 15) Waltham, The Duke of 22:10, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 16) EdJohnston (talk) 03:00, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 17) Eleassar my talk 08:06, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 18) Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 17:07, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 19) Ottava Rima (talk) 19:30, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 20) Donald Albury 14:02, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 21)  Steve  T • C 15:29, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 22) Orderinchaos 16:15, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 23) Developers very rarely deprecate something when it can be deprecated the way Tony is doing so.  Autoformatting as a technical feature is not really a problem.  Using it every single time a full date appears, on the other hand...  Course of this RFC thus far suggests that concern with the unlinking is minimal. --JayHenry (talk) 03:03, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 24)  Paul Erik  (talk) (contribs) 03:33, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 25) Spellcast (talk) 11:47, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 26) Well said. --Dweller (talk) 12:03, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 27) Indeed.  I think this RFC can probably be closed per WP:SNOWBALL since not a single endorsement of the nomination has been posted. —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93;  ‹(-¿-)› 19:13, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 28) dave souza, talk 07:58, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 29) Moondyne 04:06, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 30) Hans Adler (talk) 18:26, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 31) Tony shouldn’t have to waste another minute of his time responding to these games here. He is trying to do the right thing for Wikipedia. Greg L (talk) 21:32, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 32) Occuli (talk) 17:27, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Outside view from Dm
''This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Response") should not edit the "Outside Views" section, except to endorse an outside view.''

I'm not sure if I'm technically an outside view, but was not aware of this RFC, nor would have recommended it as a course of action. In any case, I dont think this should be directed at Tony1 individually, though he is certainly championing the aggressive mass removal of all linked dates. I also think that everyone at the MOSNUM page needs to chill out a bit and start doing a lot less badgering and a lot more assuming of good faith and behaving with civility. There is a middle-ground that has yet to be found.

All of the arguments presented above and at MOSNUM about why auto-formatting or date linking are bad are somewhat irrelevant. The MOSNUM changed in August to indicate deprecation. As some people interpreted that as encouragement to implement mass unlinking, more people became aware of this change and started contributing to the discussion (CCC). Most of the new contributors seem to be arguing against unlinking for whatever reason, again, the reasons are irrelevant to this RFC. What the two people above and I separately have been asking is that the group hold off mass unlinking temporarily while we see if we can address most of the concerns in a different way (patch/template/whatever). My particular concern is that even though this data is arguably structured badly, it is still a lot easier to parse than plain text. Once it's unlinked, it's gone.

I had taken a few days off from the group due to the Sturm und Drang. When I came back, and before I knew about this RFC, I suggested this Proposal to stop mass unlinking for 30 days and no other changes We'll see where it goes. My only question is, if it took 2 years to build to this consensus, what is a temporary hold on mass unlinking really going to cost? Ironically, the more aggressive the unlinking, the more users we'll see respond like this, this, this, this, and this. None of which are mine, UC Bill or Sapphic's.

Finally, I would encourage anyone contributing on this page, regardless of your position, to give a hand in bringing civility and good faith back to MOSNUM, it's sorely missing.

Users who endorse this summary:
 * 1) dm (talk) 06:24, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Tennis expert (talk) 09:05, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) I can endorse this too. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:57, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 4) --UC_Bill (talk) 20:39, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 5) Endorse, also.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 15:08, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 6) Full agreement.  There may have been a consensus present among regular editors of MOSNUM, but the mass delinking of dates has brought more eyes onto the topic; it is prudent to stop, or at least slow down for a bit, while the larger body of editors have a chance to notice and contemplate this major change.  Powers T 15:29, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Outside view from PMAnderson
''This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Response") should not edit the "Outside Views" section, except to endorse an outside view.''

This should be an RFC, but it should not be on user conduct. For Tony, this is civil; I've seen him when he's not civil. But as long as the substantive discussion takes place, I don't care what it's called.

On the substantive matter: Date linking and autoformatting was an attempt, from 2003, at a technical solution to a behavioural problem; date warring over 8 September 2008 vs September 8, 2008. It did not solve the behavioural problem, and it has has several undesirable side effects. We would, I think, resolve the problem, were it arrise now, by telling editors to live and let live, as we have with color/colour and AD/CE; the technical fix was a failed idea.

But not every bad idea should be torn out by the roots. Tony is not being uncivil, but he may be being imprudent. The "consensus" of a small number of editors at WT:MOS can normally be assumed to be the consensus of Wikipedia, but not in the presence of numerous complaints.

We should suggest, page by page, that the page be delinked, presenting our reasons. I think them formidable, and we will see if others do. In a couple months, we will be in one of two states:
 * Either we will convince most editors that we do have a new standard and it is sensible, in which case they will routinely delink dates just as they used to routinely link them.
 * Or we will have firm evidence that some, but not all, editors judge that delinking is helpful, in which case WP:MOS should be rephrased.

Either would be better than quarrelling over it.

Users who endorse this summary:
 * 1) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:12, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Quite. — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 15:07, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) Tennis expert (talk) 20:32, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 4) dm (talk) 22:28, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 5) Too many forget that on Wikipedia, we don't need to be in a rush. There's no need to get out the date whacking sticks. People are always telling us that "I don't like it" is not an argument, against this proposal for example, while their own case often boils down to "I do like it".  Certainly, the number of edits that the pro users are willing to make to dates in articles in an attempt to create a de facto consensus should not be the resolving factor. I particularly agree that "The 'consensus' of a small number of editors at WT:MOS can normally be assumed to be the consensus of Wikipedia, but not in the presence of numerous complaints". Whiskeydog (talk) 09:00, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Outside view by Arthur Rubin
''This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Response") should not edit the "Outside Views" section, except to endorse an outside view.''

I see a consensus at WP:MOSDATE that date linking is depreciated, but not one for automated, mass removals. I think WP:CHILL says it all, for the moment. Could we all hold up on making mass edits which affect most Wikipedia articles until a clear consensus of a large number of editors can be performed determined. It should also be pointed out that many WikiProject Time subprojects, particularly WikiProject Days of the year, are directly affected by whatever decision is made, the decision is arguably within the project's field, and the project was not informed. (At least, until a few days ago.)

I don't think this is appropriate as a user conduct RfC, but as a Wikipedia content RfC. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:16, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:
 * 1) — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 15:16, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Tennis expert (talk) 20:33, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) dm (talk) 22:28, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 4) UC Bill

Outside view by Arthur Rubin (reply to Orderinchaos)
''This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Response") should not edit the "Outside Views" section, except to endorse an outside view.''

I see about a 5% grammatical error rate in the sample edit Orderinchaos mentions above. Not bad for a person, but unacceptable for a bot which will make millions of edits. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:02, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:
 * 1) — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 17:02, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Outside view by Orderinchaos
''This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Response") should not edit the "Outside Views" section, except to endorse an outside view.''

Change is always difficult, there is always a sense of "it's always been done this way so therefore it's somehow right." Sometimes that stops us from actually standing back and considering how things should be done, rather than how they are. Many things on Wikipedia are the way they are because someone back in the days when Wikipedia was small and informal had a bright idea which fixed a problem back then, but now with millions of pages and editors, cracks have appeared. I think Tony and others have handled objectors with good faith; I was initially strongly opposed to delinking because I felt on principle people should be able to see Wikipedia through preferences, but Tony and Greg in particular were good in explaining why it was not only not meeting its specifications, but arguably counterproductive. I can't see the unlinking being a problem if it's being done intelligently and responsibly, and edits like this reassure me to that end. I'd rather a bot handle Australia's 60,000 articles for this issue than have sparse editors taken off content duties at some later stage to make the changes.

Users who endorse this summary:
 * 1) Orderinchaos 16:28, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Donald Albury 16:44, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) Professor marginalia (talk) 19:07, 11 September 2008 (UTC), don't see 5% error rate in this diff; script's a great tool in this case, fixing the nearly 50% of dates entered in US format, and is not a bot but a user assisted script
 * 4) I don't like change, so I understand the problem. But I also understand that my not liking change is problematic also, and I try to just accept things without too much of a fight. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:54, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 5) Also noting, in response to Arthur Rubin, that date delinking is not being done by a bot making millions of edits; it is a script operated by a human being on each article it edits.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 05:45, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 6) Closedmouth (talk) 06:31, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 7) Teemu Leisti (talk) 08:02, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 8) —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93;  ‹(-¿-)› 19:18, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 9) "Intelligently and responsibly" about sums it up.  Ceoil  sláinte 19:33, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 10) Per Tony and Sandy, the script is good, much better than an unsupervised bot. I initially had objections as the link to related year events was fun, but Wikipedia's outgrown that now and users are much more used to finding things, particularly with improvements to the go / search function. . . dave souza, talk 08:04, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 11) Moondyne 04:06, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 12) Hans Adler (talk) 22:00, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Outside view by Greg L
''This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Response") should not edit the "Outside Views" section, except to endorse an outside view.''

Tony has conducted his affairs on Wikipedia with conservative and well controlled advocacy. He properly read the general consensus on the autoformatting issue and moved at the appropriate time. There will always be editors who come late to a discussion and don’t see all that has transpired in the last few weeks and months. There will always be editors who have followed all the goings-on but passionately disagree with the general consensus. A general consensus on Wikipedia does not require that all editors be in 100% agreement. And it never did. RfCs are often the tool used by editors who vehemently disagree with the consensus view. But, precisely because they are passionate about the issue, makes their views biased and slants their view of the true facts. What Tony is doing is proper. Greg L (talk) 18:33, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:
 * 1) I think this is appropriate. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:53, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Agree generally.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 05:43, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) Closedmouth (talk) 06:32, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 4) Teemu Leisti (talk) 08:40, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 5) Agree; this has been a very long and divisive debate, and I believe Tony has handeled himself well in what were sometimes heated conversations.  Ceoil  sláinte 18:19, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 6) —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93;  ‹(-¿-)› 19:20, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 7) WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:26, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 8) Moondyne 04:06, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Outside view by SMcCandlish
''This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Response") should not edit the "Outside Views" section, except to endorse an outside view.''

This consensus has been building for years; there was no need to inform every potentially interested party or group of parties individually. Anyone simply not aware of it but having a WikiProject-wide stake in its resolution has simply not been paying attention, and our normal consensus-building processes can't really be expected to compensate for such operator error.

That there are some complaints about the change is inevitable (it would be really, really weird if there weren't any, and a strong sign that a decision was being made in a forum no one pays any attention to, and thus a lack of meaningful consensus). There were the same types and range (and sometimes panicky tenor) of responses to the initial consensus to autoformat dates by overloading the wikilinking function. There were the same kinds of responses to consensus to stop adding spoiler tags to all film and fiction articles about 2 years ago. There were the same kinds of responses to MOS finally settling on logical quotation around that time. There are still the same kinds of responses to some people first discovering WP:ENGVAR and being stymied in their ability to force everyone to use one "correct" form of English. And there are the same kinds of responses going on right now at WT:MOSTEXT to an effort I'm spearheading to get basic XHTML semantic phrase elements used properly. Anything that will require the (eventual) editing of thousands and thousands of articles inevitably produces responses like this from those who do not fully understand the proposal and its rationales, who simply don't like it for reasons that don't have anything to do with its logic and merits, for whom expediency is a higher priority than long-term best practices, or for whom 20,000 articles needing to be changed is a scary number. Evidence to date strongly suggests that this will be the case no matter how long the change has been planned, what process is used to arrive at it, how many editors are involved in that process, and how important and sensible it is that it be done (though not by any particular deadline). It's just a de rigeur "noise" level, as seen in all socio-political systems of human interaction, of all sizes and natures, and is nothing to get worked up over.

Users who endorse this summary:
 * 1) —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93;  ‹(-¿-)› 19:42, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Closedmouth (talk) 06:30, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) Moondyne 04:06, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Outside view
''This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Response") should not edit the "Outside Views" section, except to endorse an outside view.''

{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.}

Users who endorse this summary:

Discussion
All signed comments and talk not related to an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page. Discussion should not be added below. Discussion should be posted on the talk page. Threaded replies to another user's vote, endorsement, evidence, response, or comment should be posted to the talk page.

Conclusion
After reading the RfC and all the comments/endorsements, I have come to the following conclusion: Disagreements on non-conduct issues aside, the consensus is quite clear that User:Tony1's edits and conduct are accepted as correct. I feel comfortable closing this fairly quickly based on how obvious consensus is in this particular instance. Wizardman 20:39, 18 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Strongly disagree Tony1 continues with his objectionable behavior, and has repeatedly refused a WP:TRUCE to discuss better approaches. This issue is to remain open for the full 30 days, it is not closed.  --Sapphic (talk) 01:04, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * There's technically no timetable for closing RFCs on user conduct (unlike content rfcs where they are auto-archived at 30 days). That being said, I'll leave it open, but keep in mind that unless some shocking diffs come up late in the game, the Conclusion above will be the same conclusion reached in 3 weeks. Wizardman  18:27, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Sapphic, an RfC can't force a user to do something. The comments overwhelmingly support Tony's actions.  Thus far, consensus agrees that his actions are appropriate (not objectionable) and that they should continue.  The only reason to keep an RfC like this open is if you think that consensus will change, and that appears very unlikely.  There has been little discussion here for the last three days....I'm not really seeing a reason to keep this open. Karanacs (talk) 18:37, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

As the originator of this RfC and one of the two sponsoring signatories, I'm okay with closing it. I understand Sapphic's point (the comments on this page are mostly off-topic and irrelevant.. it's Tony1's refusal to take a break from using a flawed script that several people legitimately object to that's the problem, not whether delinking dates is a good idea or conforms with policy) but I've lost faith in the RfC process and see no point in continuing with it. People (sadly, including some administrators) seem to view it as a vote or a contest of some sort, rather than a Request for Comments that it truly is. Tony1 has shown bad faith in his discussions by continuing with behavior that others legitimately find objectionable, rather than discussing it. I'm a reasonable person and am open to discussion and being convinced &mdash; but not while somebody is rushing (note his many mistakes while using the script) to make changes that undermine the entire discussion. I'll talk to Sapphic about this later and make sure she agrees to closing this. --UC_Bill (talk) 20:03, 19 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with the originator. There appears now to be, at least among those who haven't actually looked at Tony's edits, a weak consensus that he is doing the right thing, even though there is clearly no prior consensus anywhere that mass delinking should be done.  For what it's worth, I consider it clear that Tony has not looked carefully at each of his edits, as I noted above, as the exemplar above introduced a number of grammatical errors to the article.  (The day of the week should be removed from each of the full dates, anyway, which, if done carefully, would have removed the grammatical errors — but, nonetheless, errors were introduced.) — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 23:02, 19 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.