User talk:Ryan Postlethwaite/Date linking RfC/Archive 1

Archive 1

Date linking → Pros

(Moved from main page, under "Date linking → pros")

• Allows for date autoformatting for logged-in users with preferences set
  • This is only true of the current system, and not true in general. I think it's this kind of mixing of the two issues that has caused much confusion in the past, and we should avoid it here.
    • This is an argument that has been made by those wishing to keep the current system. Karanacs (talk) 22:29, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
      • My point is that it has nothing to do with date linking, only with autoformatting. Just because the current system combines the two issues doesn't mean they need to be discussed that way in an RfC. The issues around autoformatting are definitely valid; they just need to be discussed in a different section (and they are, in the section on date autoformatting.) --UC_Bill (talk) 22:32, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) these two points may be reasons for using some kind of mark-up for dates/years, but they're not reasons for linking to date/year articles:

• "Clearly indicates which strings are actual dates (as opposed to, e.g., quotations of dates)."
  
• "Simplifies automated processing of article text."

since the subject in these sections is linking, those two points really don't belong there. Sssoul (talk) 12:18, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

They're a "pro" of the syntax of linking aren't they? There's only so much separation we can have between auto formatting and the practice of date linking since they share the same syntax. Perhaps it would be better to explore when the community believes marked-up dates should generate links to articles instead? —Locke Cole • t • c 13:15, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

as already noted: these may be arguments in favour of using some kind of mark-up for dates, but if they have anything to do with date-linking per se - ie, the creation of links to articles about dates/years/etc - that needs to be spelled out clearly. or if "date-linking" is being used here to mean "the use of some kind of mark-up for dates", then that needs to be made explicit, and then we can discuss the pros and cons of using linking markup for functions other than linking. Sssoul (talk) 14:03, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

update: i've now created a separate section for other reasons for date markup. Sssoul (talk) 15:38, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I renamed the sections to better reflect the issue and merged the other reasons back in. —Locke Cole • t • c 15:55, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

i hope someone less deeply engaged in this dispute than Locke Cole will intervene (here is the dif where Locke Cole undid the section i created). "markup" and "linking" are not synonyms, and determining "the right questions" and how to phrase them is not up to Locke Cole or any single individual. Sssoul (talk) 16:05, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I never said it was up to me (or anyone else), just that there appears to be a disconnect forming in these pros/cons between the links produced by the auto formatting system and formatting itself. Remember: when dates are "linked" today, [[1975-08-07]] produces a link to August 7 (ex: 1975-08-07), not to 08-07. So the linking itself is a side effect of auto formatting. —Locke Cole • t • c 16:13, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Date linking → Cons

• The autoformatting can mask the fact that dates may use inconsistent formatting throughout the article
  • This is listed below, and again it has no relation to date linking per se, only to the current intermingling of date linking and autoformatting brough about by the existing software.
    • This is an argument that has been made by those wishing to keep the current system. Karanacs (talk) 22:29, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Problems with autoformatting in general

• There are some cases where multiple date formats should be present in an article. Autoformatting would/could try to override this.
  • That's not a problem with all systems, and it's not even a problem with the current system. Date formats can be "hard-coded" by prefixing the link with a colon (:) or by using the "piped" syntax for creating the link. For example, neither [[:January 20]] nor [[January 20|January 20]] will be reformatted.
• What problem exactly are we trying to solve? Is there really a harm in seeing dates in an alternative format, provided it is consistent within the article?
  • Okay, then let's all use YYYY-MM-DD from here on out. That's my preferred format, and if you have no problem with enforcing that on everybody else who reads Wikipedia, then let's go for it!
    • This has been one of the recurring arguments on the MOSNUM talk page. Because of that, I think it needs to remain as a con of autoformatting in general. (My personal opinion is that we should use one date format across WP, but I don't think there's consensus for anything but article consistency right now.) Karanacs (talk) 22:44, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
      • I agree that it's legitimate to question whether we even need date autoformatting, but I don't see how it's a 'con' of the current system or of autoformatting in general. Being unnecessary in and of itself isn't a mark against something — it just means that the actual problems with the system (such as extra complexity, etc.) probably outweigh the benefits. --UC_Bill (talk) 23:07, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Bots

Should this RfC also ask whether a bot should be tasked with cleaning up articles, even if that means some links that consensus believes should remain are inadvertently removed? That appears to be a key question at the arbitration. Karanacs (talk) 22:47, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

My own opinion is that bots should always err on the side of caution, and if they ever make incorrect edits, they should be halted. That applies to any task, not just ones involving dates. --UC_Bill (talk) 23:09, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

My opinion is that we should look at the total balance of good vs bad before deciding. I think it is critical that we get the opinion of the larger community. Karanacs (talk) 15:12, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Comments

Nice job so far, this is what I have:

"Some date links are of questionable relevance to an article." As this RfC aims to determine consensus on how often date links are relevant, this is subjective. I suggest a revision to "Date links can be of questionable relevance to an article." That way, there is no speculation on how often date links are relevant, but it establishes that date link relevance is a problem. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:55, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I've made the change you suggested. Since this is still in Ryan's userspace, I'm assuming he's okay with us just going ahead and making edits. I'd say you should feel free to do so. --UC_Bill (talk) 23:13, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

and now i've changed it again. i'm not trying to be contentious, i just think the "pro" and "con" sections should make their cases clearly, and i believe virtually no one claims that most month-day articles are relevant to non-almanac articles. the argument in favour of keeping month-day links has been more like "relevance isn't the only reason to keep a link". Sssoul (talk) 08:14, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

What this page is going to be used for

I thought it best I clarify what this page is going to be used for. In my mind, I have two main uses;

1. To provide background knowledge to the community who will be participating in the RfC - many will have no knowledge of the dispute and will not fully understand the concept of date linking/delinking. The majority will be used in an introduction to the RfC.
2. To provide pros and cons to inform people for individual proposals. E.g. We may decide to ask the question "Do you support the concept of year linking throughout Wikipedia?" and then we'd list the pros and cons before asking people to support or oppose.

I hope this helps define the scope. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 23:11, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Will the RfC be advertised through the channels used by the previous RfCs? Dabomb87 (talk) 00:58, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I was actually hoping for a watchlist notice, along with other well used channels such as CENT, VP and AN. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 10:39, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

So, basically, everything that was done before. I don't think there was a notification at AN, but they found out anyway because of edit wars, in which users were deleting and restoring RfCs (go figure). I would also recommend posting at some other places where many users hang out: WT:GAN, WT:FAC/WT:FLC, WT:RFA, WT:BAG (as the RfC will involve the usage of bots). Dabomb87 (talk) 13:40, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Clear distinction between date LINKING and date AUTOFORMATTING

Since it was a contributing factor in making previous RfCs confusing, and since it continues to confuse a lot of people, I think a clear distinction needs to be drawn between date linking and date autoformatting. The current autoformatting system requires that dates be linked. That's simply the way it was implemented, and is by no means a strict requirement for possible new autoformatting systems. So I think people should be careful not to mix up arguments for or against date autoformatting with arguments for or against date linking. We can have one without the other (or keep or dispense with both) and they should be discussed individually. ALSO, since they are currently connected with the existing date autoformatting system, they can be discussed together within that context. --UC_Bill (talk) 23:21, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I think it would be helpful for someone to write an explanation of exactly what autoformatting is as it currently stands on Wikipedia. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 23:23, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I'll be glad to do that, although it'll need to wait until tomorrow (PST). If somebody else wants to take a crack at it first, by all means do so. --UC_Bill (talk) 23:56, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I have summarized the present autoformatting system in the following table. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 00:53, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Present autoformatting table

The display that results from the wiki source text in the top row is shown in the following rows, according to the preference set by the logged-in user (if any). Emphasis and color is added to highlight points that might be missed. Cell contents that, arguably, falsely present Julian calendar dates as Gregorian calendar dates, are red.Cell contents that, arguably, violate the ISO 8601 standard by failing to obtain reader consent to use dates before 1583 are in orange. Linking is not shown so that other aspects of the appearance can be emphasized. Note that the Julian calendar date 24 Febrary 1582 is the same day as the proleptic Gregorian calendar date 6 March 1582.

Preference	[[24 February]] [[1582]]	[[February 24]] [[1582]]	[[February 24]],[[1582]]	[[1582-03-06]]
No preference or not logged in	24 February 1582	February 24, 1582	February 24, 1582	1582-03-06
16:12, January 15, 2001	February 24, 1582	February 24, 1582	February 24, 1582	March 6, 1582
16:12, 15 January 2001	24 February 1582	24 February 1582	24 February 1582	6 March 1582
16:12, 2001 January 15	1582 February 24	1582 February 24	1582 February 24	1582 March 6
2001-01-15T16:12:34	1582-02-24	1582-02-24	1582-02-24	1582-03-06

--Gerry Ashton (talk) 00:53, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedians who could help

I do not personally know of any wikipedians who could help us, but have done a little searching. I have found some active users who look like having the requisite skills, listed below:

• Chrispounds (talk · contribs) - professional statistician who does marketing research in pharmaceuticals
• Rick lightburn (talk · contribs) - professional statistician who does marketing research
• Kritikos99 (talk · contribs) - worked for various companies in executive positions in market research
• Statistician (talk · contribs)
• Arzel (talk · contribs)

I believe that the first three are your best bet, as they are likely to be more focussed on developing surveys and polls, yet are likely to possess the analytical skills to interpret findings. The latter two only list themselves as "statisticians", and may not be all that suitable, but it may still be worth a try asking them. Hope this helps. Ohconfucius (talk) 02:21, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Highly POV

The wording and larger structure of the text are significantly skewed towards pro-linker viewpoints. It needs to be challenged clause by clause. On no account can this be considered a starting point for an RfC. Tony (talk) 15:40, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not seeing how it's skewed. —Locke Cole • t • c 15:54, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Tony, can you try to rewrite what you think is skewed? I've already made an attempt at making the history a bit more neutral. Ideally, the wording for each point should be agreed by both sides of the dispute. That way we can come much closer to true neutrality. Karanacs (talk) 16:09, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Examples at random:

• Confusion: "Up until recently it was mandated that all chronological items (dates and years) be linked to take advantage of the autoformatting system."

Um, really? How does a link to "2001" take advanate of the DA system? What is "recently"? I have a suspicion that this is not so recent at all, but until DA is disentangled from the linking of chronological units, we'll never know. The confusion is repeated in the reference to the linking of "July" for "utilizing the date autoforamtting system".

• Bias in wording: Linking "includes" two examples (i.e., there are other reasons, unstated), whereas delinking is for just two examples. Subtle, hey? Linking is "to provide x or y", whereas delinking is to act according to "what is perceived".

Nice, but I don't buy this kind of underlying bias. The piece is littered with it.

The wording and formatting are poor.

It's for "the wider community", but refers immediately to "the RfC". Ah, what one would that be, I can hear from the front stalls. What is this all about, they're saying. Tony (talk) 10:19, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks all for your work on this. It will help to give some good background reading for the community during an RfC, but the formulation of the content still needs some work. Wikipedia:Date linking request for comment/Call for participation hasn't had too much attention unfortunately - It would be great to have more views from everyone about what they actually want from the process and the individual questions they want to pose to the community. Of course, format suggestions would also be much appreciated. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 22:57, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Is it alright if I post notices about this at a couple other pages, say WT:MOSNUM, and WP:VPT? Dabomb87 (talk) 23:23, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Please do. It's important that we get as many different interpretations as possible to make this successful. I'd appreciate more ideas for the RfC at Wikipedia:Date linking request for comment/Call for participation and anyone is welcome to query the pros and cons that this page has attempted to address. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 23:33, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Posted. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:48, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Would "special syntax" necessarily be complex?

Currently, I have no position on this date formatting /linking subject one way or the other. I read the following on this page, and would like to point out that it is technically inaccurate:

"This (special syntax) complicates editing syntax and presents an obstacle to new editors."

It depends on what you mean by complicated. I wrote a template {{start-date}} that is able to handle dates between -6999BC to 6999AD using natural language input (eg: "2PM, Friday, November 24, 1932"). The purpose of this function is not applicable to this particular problem, but I know after writing this template that it would be possible to allow users to have the following in the wikitext of an article:

{{dt|2PM, Friday, November 24, 1932}}

and have the template tease out the values and accurately generate whatever more complex wikitext is ideally required to display one way or another ("24 November 1932 at 14:00") depending on the CSS option the user specified. I'd be happy to create this template for you, if someone gives me a pointer to the something that generates this ideal "complex wikitext". The limitations I am aware of:

1. dates from 70 BC to 70 AD must be encoded in YYYY-MM-DD format.
2. editors will have to indicate either by parameter or implicitly by the template name how much precision they have indicated. What do I mean by this? If the user specified just month and year, they must explicitly declare that days were omitted, because the function has no way of understanding that they did not specify days. (The #time function very unhelpfully in this instance generates a day even if the user did not specify one. If it had a STRICT option to throw an error if the function asked for more precision than was present, then it would be no problem).

Please leave a note on my talk page if interested in a template that demonstrates this. Folks can then make up their minds if I am making this all up or if I have erred on something. -J JMesserly (talk) 19:27, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I think the complicating factor is that new or inexperienced editors often don't know what templates are, and/or do not understand why there are funky characters interspersed with text. ANY type of formatting will be more complicated to those new users. There is no intuitive way for them to figure out how they are supposed to write, for example, dates. Karanacs (talk) 19:36, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Sure. But when they make the edit "2PM, Friday, November 24, 1932", and some editor later comes by and sticks the {{dt| ... }} wrapper around it, instead of turning it into something really hostile like {{ddt|1932|11|24|14||||f}}, they still have something they can come back and change the 2PM to 2:15 and understand how to do that without any obstacles whatever. Like I said, I don't even know if I am for one side in this dispute or against. I am just pointing out that the "ddt" complex template is in all likelihood not technically necessary, so that should not be a key point to sway folks one way or the other. I could be wrong about this assertion, but on the face of it, it is not obvious to me that the quoted statement is accurate. -J JMesserly (talk) 19:48, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

This horse is dead

I understand that the term for this is churning (maybe not, since it's a redlink). We've already had numerous discussions and two very well publicized RfCs, which have settled these issues conclusively. Will people stop at nothing to try to bore the tired majority into accepting what they want? No more RfCs on this topic for at least a year, please.--Kotniski (talk) 10:12, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, that is my take as well, Kotniski. You're right, the issue has well and truly been decided, again and again. The strategy appears to be to keep battering until the door finally breaks down; the reason it doesn't is that the WP community has shifted significantly over the past few years towards a conservative line on the linking of chronological items and on tech-toys that masquerade as a solution, but for which there is no apparent problem.

It is good to see that many people care enough about the project to hold out against the continual battering. Sorry to be blunt, but the point needs to be made firmly. Tony (talk) 12:52, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

The issue has not been settled, because you and Greg haven't asked for comment on questions, but were begging the question, and the detailed RfC got too much comment to be easily analysed (and Tony's analysis differs from mine). At this point, I might go so far as to say that no two editors have consistent interpretations of the results of the RfCs. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:16, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Well isn't that why we have ArbCom - let it interpret them. You can't just keep asking the same questions until you get the result you want. Most ordinary editors will rightly decline to participate in any new survey on the grounds that they've given their views once already.--Kotniski (talk) 15:48, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Except for the detailed RfC, the questions weren't written in a way which allows answers to be interpreted as to proposed guideline changes or as to the meaning of the existing guidelines, and that one wasn't detailed enough, it appears. I think there's enough data to determine a lack of consensus for almost any specific action or policy, but as you do not, we need a better-written RfC. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:57, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Or for ArbCom to do their job and Arb.--Kotniski (talk) 16:07, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I though we were all in agreement that ArbCom's job does not including creating a WP:CONSENSUS as to content, or mandating content, but only confirming consensus which has been established. I don't think an adequate consensus has been established. If Arbcom finds a useful consensus as to date linking (which is a content issue), I'd be surprised. I'd actually be pleased, but I don't see such a consensus here (= at the 4 RfCs already run/running). — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:38, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Actual dates vs quotations of dates?

Could someone please give an example of what is meant by a quotation of a date, and elaborate slightly on the utility of year markup distinguishing between actual dates and quotation of dates? Thanks, Lini (talk) 03:36, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Meaning just an explanation here on the Talk Page, not necessarily to be added to the summary page itself; maybe I am just being dense :) Thanks again, Lini (talk) 04:28, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

This excerpt from the "Infamy Speech" is a an example of a quotation of a date:

“ Yesterday, December 7th, 1941—a date which will live in infamy—[the] United States of America was suddenly and deliberately attacked by naval and air forces of the Empire of Japan. ”

Under no circumstances should "December 7th, 1941" be reformatted, because it's part of a quotation. In this example Date Autoformatting wouldn't apply anyway (because of the "th" part) but there are other examples where it would, if there weren't some way of indicating which dates are actually dates and which are quotations of dates. Also in this case the quotation can be identified as such (because it's inside a {{cquote}} template) but again, that's not always the case.

The simplest way to solve the problem is to just put actual dates inside some sort of markup: [[January 15]], [[1941]] or {{date|January 15, 1941}} or <<January 15, 1941>> or something along those lines. Many editors are already used to the [[ ]] syntax (and there are still millions of dates linked that way, all across Wikipedia) and so we might stick with that, although other people argue that some editors are confused by the similarity of [[ ]] markup to the syntax for linking, and that we should use a different markup for dates (or none at all.) --UC_Bill (talk) 20:42, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

The whole [[ ]] being confusing argument falls apart when you realize that it's already used for:

• Category inclusion: [[Category:Example]]
• Image insertion: [[File:Example.png]]
• Date auto formatting: [[February 14]] [[2009]]

Of course the real irony here is the last one: we already use brackets for indicating dates which should be auto formatted, and editors have seemingly coped with it all these years without problem or issue (or at least have learned, as all people ultimately do, from experience). —Locke Cole • t • c 21:48, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, UC Bill, for the explanation, and thanks Locke Cole for the comment. Maybe we should add verbiage to the summary to the effect that it is desirable to avoid autoformatting of dates within quotations, so that this is clear to anyone reading it. Thanks again, Lini (talk) 01:36, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

First item under "Pros" for Month-Day Markup and Year Markup?

The first "Pro" under Month-Day Markup states "provides easy access to date articles". Earlier in the history it stated "provides easy access to date links". The first "Pro" under Year Markup states "provides easy access to date links". Is this meant to say "provides easy access to year articles"? The original statement "provides easy access to date links" in both sections seems confusing or circular to me. A "pro" of having date links (month-day or year) is that they provide easy access to date links? Thanks in advance for either fixing this or making it clearer to me if I am just not seeing it correctly. Lini (talk) 03:56, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Fixed by Locke Cole. Thanks! Lini (talk) 17:16, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Autoformatting vs. linking

Are autoformatting and linking "intrinsic[ally]" related? Locke Cole inserted two comments that said linking to month/day and year articles were pros of autoformatting in general, which I commented out. I think these are two different things. Dabomb87 (talk) 19:18, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I add them because of the "con" listing date links; the "pro" listed provides parity for the "con". As always I'm willing to discuss this, but I think it should stay given that. —Locke Cole • t • c 19:26, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Deceptive interpretation

It is deceptive to indicate that the recent RfC, in which a narrow majority of editors supported some form of autoformatting, indicates support for any system in which the preferences of non-logged-in users are not complied with. Until recent proposals were made, autoformatting always meant customizing date format to match the preferences of the reader. The fact that the developers of the present autoformatting system didn't think non-logged-in readers were important does not change that perception. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 20:17, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

It's not deceptive at all. Editors supported, by a majority, some form of auto formatting. This is exactly the statement they agreed with (from WP:MOSNUM/RFC):

The ability for the Mediawiki to convert dates into a form either appropriate for the page, or to user-defined preferences, is desirable, and the MediaWiki developers should be encouraged to find a solution that works without the problems of the current date autoformatting system.

I don't see how that's deceptive. You seem to assume that the final solution won't address all the stated concerns; these are concerns for the developers to attempt to address, and shouldn't be used as a logical fallacy in this RFC. —Locke Cole • t • c 00:42, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I still don't see how the reworded text addresses what I said above Gerry. You seem to be implying some form of "bait and switch" which, given the text above, is not at all what is going on. Please stop trying to misrepresent things: a majority exists for auto formatting, not for some specific implementation. —Locke Cole • t • c 01:57, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I've reread and counted Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)/Date Linking RFC#Is some method of date autoformatting desirable? I see that there was not as much emphasis on requiring autoformatting of dates for IP readers as I recalled. There are 82 editors who support and 72 who oppose. Of the supporters, 6 (Orderinchaos, BarkerJr, CBM, Dramatic, The Fiddly Leprechaun and King of Hearts) indicate their reason for supporting some form of autoformatting was so that IP readers could see a date format based on their preference or location. If these editors were to change their minds if presented with software that presented the same format to all IP readers, the level of suport would change to 76 support and 78 oppose.

So, although I overstated the demand among supporters that IP users see dates customized for their preference or location, there is not a majority, not even a narrow majority, who support a version of autoformatting that lacks that feature. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 17:04, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

And there's no reason a final implementation of date auto formatting couldn't address those six editors desires. In fact I think it's likely. Also, please don't try and read editors minds; you have no way of knowing if they would oppose an interim system that resolved many (but not all) of the problems, so suggesting some majority in opposition is totally illogical (and not to mention plain unhelpful). —Locke Cole • t • c 17:15, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

The only proposals I've seen that would provide autoformatting according to the preferences, browser settings, or locations of IP users were deemed not feasible due to an inability to buffer the articles. To my knowledge, there is no feasible proposal to do this that consists of more than a vague desire. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 17:43, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Proposed RfC wording to identify the nucleus of the disagreement

It would appear that Locke disagrees with this, but no reason has been given to move this here from the 'main' page. Greg also accepts that the wording may not be entirely neutral, and invites editors to revise if better wording can be found. I have therefore reverted pending further discussion. Ohconfucius (talk) 01:43, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

• This doesn't work at all and is already conveyed in the Pros/Cons in a much more even handed manner. —Locke Cole • t • c 00:54, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

• Locke's first removal was on the grounds of alleged 'disruption'. On challenge, he says the questions are loaded. Why don't you simply state "I don't like it" and be done? As I said, Greg invites changes to wording if more neutral phraseology can be found. Sidelining to the talk page is not the answer. Ohconfucius (talk) 02:15, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

• If Greg were serious he wouldn't start off the questions as loaded as he has. So far most editors have tried to keep largely neutral language, don't start kicking things off that just disrupt to make a point. —Locke Cole • t • c 05:23, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

• A few comments have already appeared in the relevant section. It seems to me that while word changes should be made on the article itself, comments should be moved here. Ohconfucius (talk) 04:16, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Relationship to WP:ENGVAR

I've seen it mentioned before that the formatting of dates (the two most common being either "January 1, 2009" and "1 January 2009") is similar to WP:ENGVAR. The argument is that we don't autoformat "colour" to become "color" and "metre" to become "meter" (or vice versa) so why should date formats be any different? I think this point should be mentioned in the main page. --seav (talk) 05:23, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Although one of ENGVAR's four guidelines is

an article on a topic that has strong ties to a particular English-speaking nation uses the appropriate variety of English for that nation

this is qualified by saying it is

primarily intended to avoid the (unlikely) case in which an article which will be overwhelmingly read by one nationality has been written in another national dialect.

This addresses a real issue, that of unfamiliar language which detracts from easy understanding of an article. Lesser differences in language, such as Seav's example of "colour"/"color", are simply left alone, because as ENGVAR notes in its introduction, editors should recognize that the differences between the varieties are superficial. This is even more true for date formats. It is hardly possible to find a more superficial difference than that between "January 1, 2009" and "1 January 2009". WP:DATEVAR anyone? — Hex (❝?!❞) 06:07, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Remain civil and use talk page please

This kind of edit summary is not an acceptable substitute for discussion. — Hex (❝?!❞) 06:43, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

• I accept that I could have phrased it better. Ohconfucius (talk) 07:15, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

• This, also, could have been phrased better:

"Please stop trying to disrupt this process" (Cole, of Greg's proposed wording).

Cole, we are by now all too familiar with three of your strategies:

1. Including the word "please" in every order, instruction, and borderline-uncivil comment you issue, to enable it to pass some "civility" test.
2. Using the word "disruptive", particularly in relation to a page or a process, to accuse of anti-social behaviour those who do not go along with your opinions. "Disruptive", in this usage, appears to mean "disrupting my agenda".
3. Edit-warring by variation (you know what I mean).

Please self-reflect on your use of language to get your own way; it is transparently disingenuous and is going to make it harder to move this page forward. I respect your right to push for what you want on WP, but at some stage you'll need to take stock of the fact that the community attitudes to DA and linking have matured, all the more rapidly in response to the innovations at MOSNUM over July and August. The peak processes are those that concern the running of our featured-content process, where style and professional standards are upheld. As I've pointed out before, nominators and reviewers would yawn at this broohaha, having accepted the evolution without a blink. Tony (talk) 09:43, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh come on. Greg dumped text on the page in a way that was completely out of keeping with the format that everyone else has been working well together on so far. There's no question that's disruptive; Locke was accurate in his assessment. Even the title is disruptive: "Proposed wording to identify the nucleus of the disagreement". That implies that it alone in the entire page is relevant and that the entire sum of everyone else's collaborative work is worthless.

This is more or less a blow-by-blow reenactment of Greg's disruptive 4th RfC, which he claimed was "carefully crafted to precisely drill down to the crux of three disputes that have been raging". Sound familiar?

How impressive that only a single day after being unblocked, Greg L has demonstrated that he is unable to play nicely with others. — Hex (❝?!❞) 10:05, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Nice assumption of good faith there Tony. Thank you for giving me a play-by-play of how you sideline my opinion and concerns by casting them as bad faith in this whole drama. Casting aspersions about my intent here is not helpful to the process at all. As regards "community attitudes", you'll forgive me if I don't put stock in what twelve editors (mostly MOS regulars) had to say about things back in July/August. That was a classic example of garbage in, garbage out. —Locke Cole • t • c 16:37, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

• Locke, you ask that we assume good intentions in the face of blatantly improper behavior from you. “Assume good faith” does not mean “suspend common sense in the face of wikilawyering.” You made four edits in a row in less than three hours that removed my post.[1] [2] [3] [4] Ohconfucius warned you that you were editwarring [5]. You clearly saw that advise because you deleted it only 47 seconds later [6] and two minutes after that, followed up with your “neener neener” fourth edit using stuck text. You know as well as anyone else here that the effect is the same and amounts to editwarring, which is clearly prohibited on Wikipedia.

  The preamble to the proposed RfC wording makes it abundantly clear that the proposed RfC wording may well be insufficiently neutral; I worded it to clearly illustrate the nature of the issues. The ArbCom can easily find neutral wording for an RfC that also conveys all the pertinent ramifications of the effects of the various proposals to ensure Wikipedians can make fully informed decisions when they participate in an RfC. This task can be made even easier if your camp proposes wording on the same issues that puts a happy-face slant on the issues as you see them.

  That approach would be exceedingly superior to your now-tedious tactic of branding everything you find particularly inconvenient as “disruptive” and then simply deleting it and editwarring in violation of Wikipedia policy. You’ve done this repeatedly in the past and it hasn’t worked before. Greg L (talk) 17:27, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Hyperlink from user page: When to link to date articles

From When to link to date articles:

• Comment: We don't impose this requirement on any other link. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:18, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

• Response to comment: Not exactly, but quite close. From Wikipedia:Mos#Links (as of Monday, March 2, 2009 at 03:47 UTC):

Make links only where they are relevant to the context: It is not useful and can be very distracting to mark all possible words as hyperlinks. Links should add to the user's experience; they should not detract from it by making the article harder to read.…

Date-related links are a special class unlike any other regular article to which editors link since the general date articles have an extremely wide variety of unrelated entries.

Debating this nuance here is beside the point anyway. The contention of our side is that the current community consensus, as evidenced by past RfCs, is already in support of this principle as it applies to dates. Wording similar to this (it doesn’t have to be exactly like this) in an ArbCom-sponsored RfC will definitively ascertain what the community consensus is on this general principle.

I don’t think the community will reject this because this slick little wording allows all the topic-related date articles to be linked to when it is germane to the subject matter, such as linking to Timeline of World War II (1942) from another article about WWII, or linking to 1787 in science when writing about a particular development on the metric system in that year. I added these examples to the above wording.

Besides, if, as you allege, this is an onerous step that goes well beyond the basic requirement that links must be “relevant to the context”, the community will reject this proposal. So, ‘no worries, mate.’ Greg L (talk) 04:10, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Hyperlink from user page: Autoformatting of dates

From Autoformatting of dates:

• Totally loaded questions and largely invalid on this page given the format. Please stop trying to disrupt this process. —Locke Cole • t • c 02:50, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

• The italicized preamble at the top of this section conveys my intentions quite precisely. Please WP:Assume good faith. Greg L (talk) 04:24, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

OK, I'm willing to presume good intentions on your part. However, the proposed wording above is unfortunately sufficiently removed from what would be a fair and neutral question as to not even be usable as a starting point. (For example, your text presumes that all agree with your definition of what is the "highest quality".) Any question posed in an RfC should instead seek to clearly present only the idea of autoformatting, perhaps with some opinions re: pros an cons, but without a bias to either position. --Ckatz^chat_spy 04:56, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

• The preamble to the proposed RfC wording makes it abundantly clear that the proposed RfC wording may well be insufficiently neutral; I worded it to clearly illustrate the nature of the issues. The ArbCom can easily find neutral wording for an RfC that also conveys all the pertinent ramifications of the effects of the various proposals to ensure Wikipedians can make fully informed decisions when they participate in an RfC. This task can be made even easier if your camp proposes wording on the same issues that puts a happy-face slant on the issues as you see them. I see that as imminently superior to deleting posts and editwarring in violation of 3RR [7] [8] [9] [10]. Greg L (talk) 17:34, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

A pointless exercise

I reject this project and will not participate in it.

All the important questions have already been settled, and settled with some of the most lopsided margins ever seen in any discussion on WIkipedia.

User:Dabomb87 has an analysis of the relevant RfC outcomes on a sub-page from his user page.

I quote below:

• Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)/Three proposals for change to MOSNUM#Proposal 1: A return to the linking of dates and date fragments – Overwhelming consensus that date fragments should not be linked unless there is a reason to do so; and at that, very rarely. Linking all dates is pointless; they should be linked only when they are relevant. There will be very few cases when a date link is relevant to the context. (7 support / 190 oppose)

• Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)/Three proposals for change to MOSNUM#Proposal 3: Automated/semi-automated compliance with any particular guideline requires consensus – The use of automatic or semi-automatic processes to bring articles in line with the style guide does not require special consensus. The majority believes that the existing bot-approval process is enough. Supporters do not believe that bots are capable of making edits in an area where human discretion may be needed. There is little distinction from all commentators over the use of semi-automated (human oversighted) edits; those who mention it believe that these type of edits are within policy. (24 support / 96 oppose)

It is vain to hope that the obstructionists will respond differently to the outcome of yet another RfC. In addition, the community at large (meaning those editors who are not regular contributors to the debate) are heartily tired of this by now and are suffering from "RfC fatigue". It is to be expected that community participation in future RfCs will steadily decline, rendering them increasingly less valuable.

Locke Cole's Request for Arbitration was a Hail Mary pass that succeeded beyond his wildest expectations. He will probably go down in WP history as the edit warrior with the tiniest following who won against the most overwhelming community consensus. Congratulations.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 18:45, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

• Goodmorningworld, I’m disappointed to hear you are calling it quits out of frustration with what you perceive to be Wikilawyering intended to obfuscate common sense. I agree with much of what you wrote above except the very last paragraph, which I hope will not prove true. It may take a short time, or it may take a long time, but I absolutely guarantee you that in the end, the true community consensus on these matters will  be identified and Wikipedia’s practices brought into alignment with them. It does not matter what you or I or Locke or Earl or Tony thinks; community consensus rules all on Wikipedia and there are policies and procedures in place to ascertain just what the community consensus is on issues. Thanks for all your assistance to date. Greg L (talk) 22:41, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

• • I noticed an error in Dabomb's comment, as well. He said "Supporters do not believe that bots are capable of making edits in an area where human discretion may be needed." The accurate phrasing is "Supporters do not believe that bots are capable of making edits in an area where human discretion is needed, such as deciding whether a year link is relevant to the article. I'll pass the word along to DaBomb. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:25, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Neutral phrasing on "clear" RfCs

I think everyone agrees that some aspects of the RfCs do not provide clear guidance. We disagree as to which components are clear (although I couldn't swear there wasn't an editor who has opined that all of the points are unclear), but it is incorrect to say that the RfCs provide clear guidance. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:24, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Discussion of "Voters' pamphlet method to resolving autoformatting"

From Voters' pamphlet method to resolving autoformatting.

• Support this approach. Greg L (talk) 23:24, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose. Too many sides of the issue, each of which probably would be inappropriately limited by the assignment of the person to a side, as well as limiting the total length of statements per side. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:31, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

• Regardless of how many “sides” there are, there would only be two camps: proponents and opponents and the input into each would be a team effort. As for limiting the length, that is necessary to even the playing field and not bore voters. If 500 words is too restricting, it can always be expanded; it just needs to apply evenly to both sides.

  P.S. I revised my proposal [11] to reflect that 500 words can be anything all parties agree to. Greg L (talk) 23:52, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

• That's not true. One can oppose some aspects of a proposal, support others, and be neutral on still others. Highly specific issues (unlike any so far proposed) might only have two camps. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:57, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

• Quite surprising. It seems that highly controversial laws affecting health care and taxes can be tied up into two statements in voters’ pamphlets in the U.S.; one each, for and against, with multiple points made. And shorter rebuttals too. But we’re not ready for such civilized cooperation within the two camps here on Wikipedia; is that what you’re saying? If so, I don’t buy it. Of course it can be done here. Greg L (talk) 00:14, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

• Two sides in voter pamphlets reflects, in part, that voters can only vote "yes" or "no" on the proposals. That is not the case here. (It also leads to lawsuits; in California, the ballot arguments for California Proposition 8 (2008) were in the courts twice before the ballots were printed.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:33, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

• And… No problemo; here we are, already in “court” where these issues can be smoothed out in advance. Greg L (talk) 02:56, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

• I really like the idea of using a third party solution to our problem. I also like the idea of having binary questions. The real problem with the RfCs conducted in December is that the questions failed to anticipate the 'shade of grey' responses. If we can and are able to identify a sufficient number of important questions and ask them in such terms, and I think we really ought to. After all, 32 shades of grey can be represented by 4 binary digits (2⁴) Ohconfucius (talk) 06:36, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Do you really want two separate questions on each possible instance in which years might be linked? (For each instance, "may years be linked?", and "should years be linked?".) That's the only way just that section of the RfC could be reduced to simple yes/no questions without "begging the question". As both sides have been accused of "begging the question", allowing those accusations to apply to this RfC seems counterproductive. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:27, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
    • This suggestion to use voters pamphlet-style method of conducting an RfC doesn’t pertain to linking; it pertains to autoformatting. Greg L (talk) 15:51, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

The 50 supporters: important evidence being censored by Cole

I refer to Cole's repeated removal of an important part of the "history of the dispute": the link to the page providing evidence of overwhelming support for the deprecation/removal of DA. Now, if Cole is going to censor references to evidence that does not quite fit his case, this page is a farce. Rather than reverting, he should place his argument here and debate it with the parties. Otherwise, two sides could play the censorship game, couldn't they. Tony (talk) 14:17, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Arthur, I have no problem with your edit that names me as the "collector" of the evidence: evidence is evidence, unless tainted; in the case of the survey of 100 articles, negative responses are certainly documented; below, for MOSNUM talk and my talk pages, it was my intention to directly provide evidence only of support, although I pointed to where the significantly smaller amount of evidence against could be found. I'd have thought you'd be hunting it down and collecting it as I did (a much quicker task, I believe). Tony (talk) 14:29, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Hunting down evidence of support on random talk pages seemed counterproductive to me, as they (the quotations) would almost certainly be taken out of context. (In fact, your collection clearly was taken out of context, but it is evidence of support, so it probably should stay here in the "history" section, as I was going to say before you commented here. In fact, both you and Locke have quoted opponents of their position as being in favor, by use of selective quotations.) Soliciting support might have been productive, but that would have been a WP:CANVASS violation. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:35, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I certainly didn't have to canvass, although I am guilty of speaking on my talk page in favour of moving on from the DA period. All of the comments from MOSNUM and my talk page were well aware of the context, I think. Tony (talk) 14:39, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

It's biased garbage, pure and simple, and it has no place in any neutral and objective discussion. As you insist on leaving it in, I'll be happy to provide some balance for it. —Locke Cole • t • c 15:31, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

As an aside, including this is putting us on a dangerous and slippery slope. I strongly oppose userspace rants, "analysis" or collections of "evidence" being presented in this RFC as they present an inherent bias not found in the actual discussions surround the issue. They are counter productive, unhelpful, and again, only serve to inflame discussion and attitudes (especially when it comes to things authored by Tony, who simply can't seem to restrain himself and repeatedly proclaims victory and "overwhelming support" over almost any minor showing of support). —Locke Cole • t • c 15:39, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

• Locke, please cease with your incessant deletion of stuff that you have unilaterally decided isn’t valuable for Ryan to consider (or is “disruptive”, or is “vandalism”, or whatever your verb or noun of the day is). As to your statement, I strongly oppose userspace rants, "analysis" or collections of "evidence" being presented in this RFC…, this isn’t an RfC for presenting to the Wikipedian community at large, it is “request for comments” from the parties so Ryan can have background input and evidence facts to use in the formulation of an RfC to be presented to the community. Tony has every right to offer his “comments” to Ryan here without you deleting his posts.

  Tony: Just do as Arthur Rubin did here on the page to make it clear that is comment from your hand. Greg L (talk) 16:03, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

What I say is "biassed garbage"? That most certainly is defined by WP as a personal attack, probably bad enough to result in a blocking. Would you like to repeat it? Tony (talk) 16:06, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

• A block? For something other than the fact that only yesterday, he did a flagrant 3RR violation after being warned about it upon his third deletion? [12] [13] [14] [15] IMHO, this is not “playing well with others.” Greg L (talk) 16:17, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

• For any admin accidentally taking Greg L seriously, please note the last diff he provides is in fact not a revert, but an edit. —Locke Cole • t • c 19:02, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

• No Locke. I’ve seen similar arguments before on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring, where other editors tried to justify their actions using the very same Wikilawyering argument. They were solidly shot down and blocked. According to WP:3RR, A revert is any action, including administrative actions, that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part. Merely being creative by changing your technique from deletion of text to striking of text is disallowed. Ohconfucius warned you that you were editwarring [16]. You clearly saw that advise because you deleted his warning only 47 seconds later [17] and two minutes after that, followed up with your “neener neener” fourth edit [18] through what you may have thought was clever circumventing of rules intended to prevent precisely what you did. You might as well stop trying to justify your behavior as acceptable; it was not. You are fortunate that Tony and Ohconfucius were disinclined to lodge a formal complaint against you. Greg L (talk) 20:44, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

• Ryan should be considering balanced and objective information, not cherry picked collections of out of context statements assembled by someone desperately pushing an agenda. —Locke Cole • t • c 19:02, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

• …someone desperately pushing an agenda. Uhm… Okaaaay. Greg L (talk) 21:08, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

• He (Locke) is not proposing use of his collection of (alleged) offences by date delinkers on this page. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:19, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

• I couldn’t possibly care less what Locke writes. Nor the writings of anyone else here. Believe it or not, I don’t bother reading what anyone from the pro-linking crowd writes because I don’t have the stomach for the editwarring that would no-doubt result from my pretending to tell you guys what you may and may not post. When was the last time any of you saw me deleting your stuff? Never. So I think it would be perfectly splendid if editors such as Locke afforded me some reciprocity here. Or is that simply way too much to ask because editors from your camp have been enobled by God herself with that unbiased, acute eye for deciding what is appropriate and germane for Ryan to see? Greg L (talk) 21:51, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

• And that's your problem. From WP:CON's nutshell description:

• Consensus is about how editors work with others.

• Consensus is reached via collaboration and interaction with other editors in the dispute. Not by striking off on your own, as you've done, and substantially modifying the format of the page to suit your own goals (when other participants seemed fine working with the format maintained up to that point). Disruption is not a helpful contribution to consensus seeking. —Locke Cole • t • c 22:08, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

• Quite — Hex (❝?!❞) 22:17, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

• Locke, Consensus is reached via collaboration and interaction with other editors in the dispute. Not by striking off on your own, as you've done, and editwar in flagrant violation of 3RR. Haven’t you yet noticed that your repeated deletions of my posts in the past—each time because you claimed they were “disruptive” (translation: you didn’t like them)—had been met with ANIs and WQA where you were told in no uncertain terms to knock it off. Wake up and smell the coffee. Greg L (talk) 22:20, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Comment: Removing the link to Tony's hand-picked list of comments supporting his personal cause is not "censorship" by any reasonable definition of the term, and to position it as such serves only to poison the debate. The list is in no way scientific, nor is it quite the "important evidence" that it is made out to be. In fact, Tony himself has admitted (unprompted) that it is "totally biased", even going so far as to state that in the body of the list. If he wants to present a link to his notes, he should do that on this talk page or in a section clearly labelled as his own comments, not as part of what is supposed to be a neutral history section. --Ckatz^chat_spy 18:04, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

• Since I haven’t looked at the details of what is being fought over, you may be right, Ckatz. In that case, I would say that the comments Tony is trying to get into evidence may properly be presented in a different fashion elsewhere on the page—properly disclosed for what it is—if he is trying to make a point about a common sentiment shared by a segment of non-party Wikipedian’s. There is always a place for germane evidence to be presented by the parties as long as it is properly located on the page and disclosed for what it represents. If the dispute is over whether it is “germane” or not, let’s let Ryan and other arbitrators decide that for themselves. Greg L (talk) 18:49, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

• The problem is that Locke, Ckatz and Earle are drumming their claim of lack of support back in August, so I think it's quite appropriate and indeed relevant for Tony to respond with the support he's received or otherwise garnered. The method of garnering this 'evidence' is undoubtedly flawed, but its coherence can be plainly seen when put together with the results of the RfCs started in November. Ohconfucius (talk) 02:12, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

• Ckatz, when you say "hand-picked", what exactly are you implying? The comments are listed quite opening in a section (indeed a page) that announces "Favourable comments" as its theme. How else would these comments be gathered? I'm led to think that this is another spin-term unless you can reveal exactly what the added meaning is in this context. Tony (talk) 06:45, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not implying anything; you yourself stated that the collection was "totally biased", as it is merely a collection of comments chosen to support your personal position. While I disagree that they should be incorporated into the history section, I've (of course) no problem with your opinions being presented. However, I do feel strongly that they must be framed as being what they are, and not presented - either on the RfC page or on the comments page - as an "official", unbiased survey. As per Greg's note above, it would be better to link to them from a section that is clearly labelled as being your opinion, as Greg and others have done with their points. Hope this clarifies things for you. --Ckatz^chat_spy 07:09, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

RfC analyses

Invisible comment by Cole overleaf: "NOTE: I would be strongly opposed to linking to the summaries of the RFC as all of them seem to have some form of bias; better to let editors read and decide on their own I think. -Locke Cole"

I think it's too much to expect most WPians, even those who are experts in their fields, to have the strategic and linguistic experience to analyse the underlying biasses and distortions in the framing of RfCs. They are better placed to peruse analyses and decide for themselves on that basis. No one is forcing anything down anyone's gullet: it's all for other editors to judge, and purposely withholding meta-information, even if written by an editor who has well-known beliefs about the issue at hand, is not useful to the debate. Tony (talk) 06:41, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

User names in the text ...

Ckatz, if you're going to include my name, and I'm unsure whether it's appropriate, this should be balanced by the mention of the names of pro-linkers. It is not fair to expose me alone in this way, as though I'm some King Tut leading troops. Tony (talk) 06:55, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Didn't see this until now, but I've already changed it. (Wow - we agreed on something...) Cheers. --Ckatz^chat_spy 07:02, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't mind what you've done there. Tony (talk) 07:40, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

We need intensive mediation

There's not enough mutual respect here on a personal level; there's understandably a breakdown in trust; finding common ground, things we do agree on—even if narrowly based—would be therapeutic all round, and a good start towards cooling things off. We're never going to find a solution that suits everyone perfectly (let alone the project), so inching towards a better understanding on a personal as well as technical level would be good. A mediator might be able to suggest mechanisms by which this can be achieved, and might even be willing to manage such a process. That is the kind of process I was hoping would emerge from the arbcom process. Tony (talk) 07:47, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

• Sounds sensible. I’m game. Greg L (talk) 19:56, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
• The trenches are well dug in. We can go on pretending the other side is the enemy, shelling each other or lobbing grenades in the form of personalised insults, or we can solve this thing with a little help. Ohconfucius (talk) 01:57, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

• Ryan made his last Wikipedia edit on the 28th of last month. Greg L (talk) 05:09, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm unaware of what has kept Ryan away, but I believe he has been ill. I'm sure we all wish him a quick recovery, irrespective of past differences. In any case, mediation would require a specialist who has not thus far been involved in the matter. Tony (talk) 06:11, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Ryan has been largely uninvolved except in his capacity as clerk of the arbitration case (and indeed, if he were considered "involved", he wouldn't be allowed to clerk the case). I believe he would be fine as mediator. —Locke Cole • t • c 06:57, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

• Just a note that Ryan is the Chair of the Mediation Committee and probably the most experienced Mediator on Wikipedia, having handled dozens of disputes that others threw their hands up at as impossible. MBisanz ^talk 07:00, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

No, he is unsuitable as mediator here. I'd have thought it was obvious. And MBisanz, you have shown a complete disregard of basic notions of conflict of interest (want the diffs?); I do not think it's appropriate that you chime in in this way. Tony (talk) 12:51, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

We've gone over at with Newyorkbrad, CoolHandLuke, and Ryan_Postlethwaite and all of them agree I am allowed to comment as a recused clerk and involved administrator in the dispute. MBisanz ^talk 22:05, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Mediation may help, but not whilst there's an active arbitration request going on. As soon as this is over, if the parties still want mediation, then please do file a request and should all parties agree, it will be accepted. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 23:19, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I have to ask, then, why this page is functioning "while there's an active arbitration request". Tony (talk) 03:57, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

MBisantz, the rules do allow you to participate in cases in which you are not a party. That is not in dispute, although it is a major problem that we will seek to have corrected this year. No, it is your utter contempt for the process—through contextual lying about me, and the fact that you introduced entirely irrelevant material—that has threatened the status of clerks and shown that you have no idea of your proper role. I see that Ryan P. wrote that at least part of your comment should not have appeared. You are not a proper person to judge CoI. Tony (talk) 03:57, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

"we will seek to have corrected" - On whose behalf do you speak? — Hex (❝?!❞) 04:06, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

This is not the place to discuss reform of ArbCom and its hearings process. Take it to my talk page if you want to. I have no objection if Ryan removes all of this off-topic stuff. Tony (talk) 04:38, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Ah, so you're happy to talk big in public until questioned, at which point it isn't the place. Right, I get it. — Hex (❝?!❞) 05:03, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh for heaven's sake, AGF: my talk page is very public, and you're welcome to migrate the topic to that location. It's off-topic here. Tony (talk) 05:12, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

So you admit that you were in error bringing it up in the first place. Thanks, that's what I wanted to hear. — Hex (❝?!❞) 05:34, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, please discuss these things somewhere else. It seems we can't discuss anything on any talk pages without degenerating into a slugfest and discussing irrelevant things. Dabomb87 (talk) 05:16, 6 March 2009 (UTC)