Wikipedia talk:Date formatting and linking poll/Archive 3: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 22:26, 9 April 2009

Revision as of 15:48, 12 April 2009

Line 407:

::::::* Peace. <span style="white-space:nowrap;">'''[[User:Greg L|Greg L]]''' ([[User_talk:Greg_L|talk]])</span> 23:16, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

== Thinking ahead.... ==

Without prejudice to the end result, the autoformatting part of the poll isn't looking as conclusive as I'd have liked to see it. I recommend we move to a second poll that breaks down autoformatting into individual sections (like we did for the year and month-day linking). Proposals would include turning off autoformatting completely, keeping the status quo, and exploring other methods of autoformatting for the future that wouldn't require date linking. I think it's going to be the only way to get a conclusive result. Whilst some may say that the poll is clear, I'd say it's far from it in the Wikipedia sense of polling/consensus. '''[[User:Ryan Postlethwaite|<font color="green">Ryan</font> <font color="purple">Postlethwaite</font>]]^{See [[Special:Contributions/Ryan Postlethwaite|the mess I've created]] or [[User talk:Ryan Postlethwaite|let's have banter]]}''' 22:24, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

:What about the linking issues? [[User:Dabomb87|Dabomb87]] ([[User talk:Dabomb87|talk]]) 22:42, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

::They don't need discussing at this point in time in my opinion, we can wait till after the poll finishes (We can wait till after for autoformatting as well, but I just wanted to float an idea around). '''[[User:Ryan Postlethwaite|<font color="green">Ryan</font> <font color="purple">Postlethwaite</font>]]^{See [[Special:Contributions/Ryan Postlethwaite|the mess I've created]] or [[User talk:Ryan Postlethwaite|let's have banter]]}''' 22:43, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

* '''Shit'''! Don’t you think the community is sick enough of this dispute, Ryan? Are you getting paid by the hour on this? Again, the IEC prefix issue (mebibyte, MiB v.s. megabyte, MB) took <u>three years</u> to undo because of Wikipedia’s outdated sense that no action can be taken unless there is a colossal landslide of a vote. The litmus test of overwhelming lopsided vote should be applied ''only when an idea is being tried the first time.'' But, rarely is that the case. For example, Wikipedia’s use of “256 MiB” was retarded beyond all comprehension. Yet, the decision for Wikipedia to adopt that practice was made by a few dozen editors on some remote, backwater page after only ''24 hours of deliberation.'' And after all that *infinite wisdom*, it took ''fifteen'' “Binary” archives on WT:MOSNUM to finally get that fiasco reversed. And “Why did it take so long to abandon that idiotic practice since no other publication on the planet wrote that way?” you might ask? Because the propeller-headed proponents of the practice insisted that only an overwhelming lopsided vote could revert the move.<p>It’s time for the leadership of Wikipedia to get some balls here. The three past RfCs can be taken into consideration here too. Between those, and this one, it is clear that there has been ample community debate and share of views.<p>I would argue that the wisest course here is to state that{{cquote|Whenever any issue has been ''thoroughly'' and ''widely'' discussed, a clear majority is a valid consensus.}}

:Wikipedia simply must, IMO, get away from this mindset that a clear majority is insufficient and grandfathers in ''any'' practice. I’ll bet $100 that ''one-hundredth'' as much debate and deliberation went into implementing autoformatting as has been devoted to trying to decide whether to jettison it. <span style="white-space:nowrap;">'''[[User:Greg L|Greg L]]''' ([[User_talk:Greg_L|talk]])</span> 22:49, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

;Support: moving on about the issue of autoformatting. The number of !votes has doubled in a week, but the percentage of supports/(supports + opposes) has remained practically unchanged. The result won't become any more or less clear than it is in another week. (And I'd propose the first question of the second poll should read: ''Should the current system of autoformatting of linked dates, Dynamic Dates, be disabled (i.e., writing <code>$wgDynamicDates = false</code> in the configuration)?'' And I think that there ''would'' be a "colossal landslide of a vote" on such a question.) --<span style="font-family: monospace; font-weight: 600; color: #00F; background-color: #FFF;">[[User:A. di M.|A. di M.]]</span> (formerly Army1987)<small>&nbsp;—&nbsp;''[[Special:Contributions/A. di M.|Deeds]],&nbsp;not&nbsp;[[User talk:A. di M.|words]]''.</small> 23:24, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

* On the contrary, I dont think '''anyone''' wants the status quo. Let's break the connection between date linking and autoformatting forever. I'd suggest if you wanted to break this out, it would focus on tagging first: "I support metadata tagging of relevant dates to an article", then expand to "I support the current autoformatting system with date-linking turned off (ie: the simple change)" and finally "I support a more capable autoformatting system for all viewers, registered or not (ie: the more complex change)". [[User:Dmadeo|dm]] ([[User talk:Dmadeo|talk]]) 23:32, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

**Concur with Dmadeo, take a look at [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)/Date Linking RFC|question 1 of the MOSNUM RfC]], I think we all know that keeping the current system is out of the question. [[User:Dabomb87|Dabomb87]] ([[User talk:Dabomb87|talk]]) 23:34, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

:* Quoting you Army: {{xt|And I think that there would be a "colossal landslide of a vote" on such a question.}} Yeah, I completely agree. It doesn’t take an Einstein to look at the vote comments (there are quite a few to read now) to figure out what would happen in another one—that is, if everyone doesn’t respond with '''''Awwwe Crap! Not <u>another</u> RfC?!?''''' <span style="white-space:nowrap;">'''[[User:Greg L|Greg L]]''' ([[User_talk:Greg_L|talk]])</span> 23:39, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

*If we must have another RfC, I suggest that we set up something like voting subscriptions. E.g. we could have a dozen or so pages where we can sign statements such as "I am opposed to each and every form of date autoformatting other than perhaps in citation templates and I want the RfCs to stop and all autoformatting code that isn't supported by a majority of the community removed". These could then be transcluded to all the upcoming RfCs in the appropriate sections. --[[User:Hans Adler|Hans Adler]] ([[User talk:Hans Adler|talk]]) 00:01, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

::I will repost what I wrote for the benefit of those who may have missed the entry I made earlier in the discussion:

::*'''''Point of information''': the community voted in August 2008 to deprecate date autoformatting, and endorsed it overwhelmingly (i.e. by a supermajority) in [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)/Three proposals for change to MOSNUM#Proposal 2: A return to date autoformatting|(1)]] and [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)/Date Linking RFC#Deprecating the current date autoformatting|(2)]] specific questions in December 2008. Therefore, '''date autoformatting as we knew it is dead''', and the software should have been disabled at that point. What we are now discussing is the desirability in principle of a <u>new system</u>. Any eventual consensus to adopt would need to be followed by a formal consultation process and vote on detailed specifications. Looking at the stability of the 60%+ vote opposed to that principle, it is likely that a consensus will not be attained.''

::I think the poll votes (questions 2 and 3) are transparently clear that the linking of dates is considered highly irrelevant and unpopular by the community. I believe, based on the present result, it is hard to argue that there is insufficient consensus to remove the vast majority of date links. Furthermore, that they do not want another vote on the desirability of date links. Many respondents already made comments that they do not want any prolongation of the debate. For your recollection, the background statement said:

::*'''''What happens if autoformatting is accepted?''' Consensus will be sought on specifications, which will then be used by developers and editors to establish a system based either on a modified version of the existing software or on a new markup or template scheme; dates will be marked up accordingly.''

::*'''''What happens if autoformatting is rejected?''' The markup used by the previous system will continue to be removed, and any dates that are inconsistent with the overall format for their article will be corrected, manually or using automatic means.''

::Without needing much interpretation of the results, it is obvious that the previous system of DA based on date linking was highly unpopular. While there may be some belief within the community that an autoformatting system may be desirable for readers, the threshold for general acceptance of the principle was clearly insufficient. Many are still wary of the pitfalls and risks of development of a replacement - whether expressed in terms of 'there is no problem to solve' or simply the rejection of the failed system such as 'I dislike date linking'. Then, there is the 'inegalitarian' argument which is also a significant concern.

::In accordance with how things have always worked here on WP, the ''[[status quo ante]]'' prevails where a consensus is not reached for the adoption of a new proposal. There is no denying that both Ryan and Ohconfucius would be happier if there was a 6% swing for a "conclusive result", but I think the only reasonable conclusion to draw at this point is that acceptance of autoformatting has not been gained by the community, and we must accept that it is about as clear it is likely to get. If we fail to recognise this inherent limitation of [[WP:CONSENSUS|consensus]], we would be rightly accused of [[Decision making|indecision]]. Whilst accepting that [[WP:CCC|consensus can change]], the next question which should be asked is whether the community is prepared to accept a prolongation of this discussion ''ad infinitum'' until it is conclusive enough for you or I? [[User:Ohconfucius|Ohconfucius]] ([[User talk:Ohconfucius|talk]]) 02:38, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

::* I endorse what Ohconfucius has written here 100%. His logic is unassailable. <u>I ask that you, Ryan (and the other arbitrators) read it ''thoroughly</u>.'' The old system of autformatting has been officially dead for months now. The motion to adopt a new method of autoformatting has now failed muster. Moreover, the Wikipedian community is about ready to put a pistol in its mouth on this issue. I’m quite done fighting and dwelling on this issue; it ''has'' to end. There has clearly been enough debate. I’ll accept what the arbitrators and admins decide with grace and dignity. I just ask that they <u>grow some huevos</u> here, step up to the plate, and ''do something.'' '''Lead, follow, or get out of the way.''' <span style="white-space:nowrap;">'''[[User:Greg L|Greg L]]''' ([[User_talk:Greg_L|talk]])</span> 02:50, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

::Oh, something else in Ryan's post which struck me upon further reflection after making my post above: I would pertinently remind all that this RfC vote is '''not''' on a specific DA scheme but for the <u>general principle</u>. However "far from it in the Wikipedia sense of polling/consensus" the poll result may be on the issue, to go and explore "other methods of autoformatting for the future that wouldn't require date linking" seems to me to be counter-intuitive and "''anti-consensus''", as it would presuppose the eventual adoption of DA when the community will have voted 60% <u>against</u> it ''en principe''. Of course, if you were to include the 'oppose' in the second poll, the outcome may be something interesting like this: <small> 'keep old DA' 5%, 'new DA with <nowiki>{{#formatnumber}}</nowiki>-style markup' 12%, 'new DA with no markup' 20%, no DA at all 58%, undecided 5%</small> - what will fractioning that vote change??? Anyway, as there is supposed to be a 2 week discussion based on these results, I think perhaps Ryan may be jumping the gun here a little... [[User:Ohconfucius|Ohconfucius]] ([[User talk:Ohconfucius|talk]]) 03:50, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

*This is '''crap'''. You present some non-linking date-autormatting system and > 60% of people say they '''don't want autoformatting in concept'''. Why do you see a need to prolong this accursed issue? Just what kind of result do you ever think you'll get out of a fractionated RFC? It beggars belief. [[User:Tony1|<font color="darkgreen">'''Tony'''</font >]] [[User talk:Tony1|<font color="darkgreen">(talk)</font >]] 03:58, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

:* Indeed. The trial balloon Ryan floated here amounts to “OK, we heard you. The old system of autoformatting has been dead for months. And now, as to whether the community wants some ''new'' kind of autoformatting to replace it, only forty percent of you said you do. So, just ''what specific kind'' of autoformatting technology do you want to have?” <span style="white-space:nowrap;">'''[[User:Greg L|Greg L]]''' ([[User_talk:Greg_L|talk]])</span> 05:15, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Thinking ahead, if the arbitration committee drags this out too long, what is the procedure for removing the committee from office? --[[User:Jc3s5h|Jc3s5h]] ([[User talk:Jc3s5h|talk]]) 04:03, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

* LOL!! <span style="white-space:nowrap;">'''[[User:Greg L|Greg L]]''' ([[User_talk:Greg_L|talk]])</span> 05:02, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

*I would like to know when/if the date linking case will set a new record for the length of deliberation by Arbcom? [[User:Ohconfucius|Ohconfucius]] ([[User talk:Ohconfucius|talk]]) 05:27, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Quit your complaining. I already suggested a way to end this right away, so you can get back to your de-linking. All you have to do is agree not to interfere with the development of a ''candidate'' system to replace the existing date autoformatting. You agree to that, and the autoformatting supporters agree (and I see no reason why they wouldn't) then we can turn off the existing DA immediately, lift the injunction, and everybody gets busy either de-linking or developing new software. In a month or two (or however long it takes to develop the new software) we have one last poll to either adopt the new software or drop the issue once and for all. There is ''absolutely no downside'' for the autoformatting opponents. The only downside for autoformatting supporters is that (if the new system is adopted) we'll have to re-link (or otherwise markup) the dates you've de-linked.. but that's not a huge deal. --[[User:Sapphic|Sapphic]] ([[User talk:Sapphic|talk]]) 06:22, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

*I don't presume you're talking to me, because I wasn't complaining. However, in case you ''were'', RP bounced a recommendation, and I was responding to it with my thoughts. I am entitled to my views, and nobody but me can articulate them, so I do my best. If you can't stand that, then it ain't my problem, Sista! As to your suggestions, I believe you very simplistically glossed over a huge chunk about 'How to get there'. Anyhoo, I already responded to them: Thank you, but ''nyet''. [[User:Ohconfucius|Ohconfucius]] ([[User talk:Ohconfucius|talk]]) 08:19, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

*Oh, and I thought you promised to stop flogging your "compromise"? Oh well, ho hum... [[User:Ohconfucius|Ohconfucius]] ([[User talk:Ohconfucius|talk]]) 08:23, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

:Since nobody (except Greg &mdash; ''once'') on your side has explained ''why'' they're opposed to my suggested compromise, I'll ask again: What have you got to lose? You get everything you want ''immediately'', without futher debate and with the full blessing of arbcom (to keep people from disrupting your delinking, at least on autoformatting grounds) and all you have to do is not interfere with the development process for coming up with a possible replacement system. Then you have to let it be presented in a ''final'' poll... which it looks like there'd be ''anyway'' (and possibly more than one) so it's not like that last part is anything special. Give me an answer (that actually applies ''to the suggested compromise'', not just autoformatting in general or arbcom's deliberations or the polling process itself) and show you're acting in good faith, here. I may be obnoxious, but I've never once acted in bad faith. --[[User:Sapphic|Sapphic]] ([[User talk:Sapphic|talk]]) 14:25, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

::I believe that people are opposed because it would render the current poll impotent. The results of this poll are supposed to show whether the general community wants people to work on an autoformatting system. Your suggested compromise, as reasonable as it sounds, would cut across any decisions made from analysis of the results. Furthermore, no offence but you aren't in the position to propose such a compromise at this moment, and neither is anyone here in the position to accept it. Let's wait for the closure and analysis of the poll to happen before we further discuss this matter. That way we can be ''informed'' by the results of a fully completed community poll. [[User:Sillyfolkboy|Sillyfolkboy]] ([[User talk:Sillyfolkboy|talk]]) 15:13, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

:::... if you're really interested, Sapphic, i can explain why i haven't leapt on your "compromise offer": 1] the main points in your "offer" (turning off autoformatting, ArbCom rescinding the temporary injunction, etc) are things you have no authority over, so i don't know why you keep "offering" them; and 2] neither i nor anyone else is authorized to accept or reject "deals" on behalf of "this side". [[User:Sssoul|Sssoul]] ([[User talk:Sssoul|talk]]) 16:52, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

*Ryan, what, yet another one? Or as Greg puts it, do you really not think the community is sick enough of this dispute? You are on the way to destruction! You have no chance to survive make your time! [[User:Bishonen|Bishonen]] | [[User talk:Bishonen|talk]] 16:41, 8 April 2009 (UTC).

:* Awe, don’t shoot the guy. I think he recognized that there was a dispute amongst the combatants over where to go next. So he floated a trial balloon to provoke discussion here to sort out the issues. <span style="white-space:nowrap;">'''[[User:Greg L|Greg L]]''' ([[User_talk:Greg_L|talk]])</span> 16:49, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

===Arbitrary break===

:* Sapphic: Rules are rules. Reality is reality. History is history. A review of that history is in order here:<p>As Ohconfucius correctly pointed out, the old autoformatting system was tossed on its ear by an overwhelming supermajority in Dec. ‘08. Lest anyone forget why we were all dragged here by a certain someone, it was because a bot was doing mass de-linking (and was removing all those not-so-precious links to trivia while it was at it). Since this practice was sucking the Wikipedia lifeforce from that certain someone, he teamed up with a developer and started promoting “Son of autoformatting” and the bot delinking was suspended to see if there was a community consensus to adopt this NEW™®© kind of autoformatting technology. The previous RfCs (like, there hasn’t been enough of these now) made it clear to “that certain someone” that “Son of autoformatting” didn’t have a snowball’s chance in hell of being well received by the community so he insisted that only the “generalities” of autoformatting be run by the community in <u>this</u> RfC. So how did the “generalities” fly? The bottom line from the community is this: '''Hell no!''' There is ''clearly'' no consensus that the community wants to have anything to do with the new stuff you’re selling. Far from a “clear consensus for”, there is ''clear majority <u>against</u>.'' And as you can also see from the RfC results, the community likes the old system’s links to trivia about as much as finding ''half'' a worm in their apple core. So…<p>We’re going to let this RfC continue its course. And if/when the results conclude with results largely like they are today, bot-delinking of the old autoformatting/linking <u>must</u> continue, and the small cabal of volunteer developers will go away and stop agitating on this subject. The community doesn’t want what you’re selling.<p>And, like Peter Isotalo wrote above (06:04, 7 April): “Like others have already pointed out: start acting like normal people. Bury this issue for at least a few years and don't even think of reviving it until something positively groundbreaking has come up. Stop wasting time.” <span style="white-space:nowrap;">'''[[User:Greg L|Greg L]]''' ([[User_talk:Greg_L|talk]])</span> 16:49, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

::*I echo Bishonen's, Greg's, Ohconfucius's, Sssoul's and Sillyfolkboy's comments. In particular, talk of individual editors' doing deals, offering compromises, etc, seems weird when the community has spoken. Who are we to cut across community opinion in ''so'' many RFCs on this topic. (Is this the fourth? Hmmmm ...)

::*Since 50% more people oppose the general concept of DA than support (247 to 167 at the moment), there is no point in holding yet another poll (with fractionated questions about what the community by a sizeable majority has said it doesn't want? 15% want this, 11% this, 8% this, 6% that ... do they add up to 40%?). There is almost ''no'' support for the creaking old DA, and the job of auditing and removing the coding needs to be resumed (just switching it off centrally may be a good idea, but would leave the blue-linking). The resumption of cleaning up the date mess involves checking consistency and format choice for each article, as was being achieved gradually until the temporary injunction. We enjoyed the skilled, dedicated and responsive [[WP:Wikignome|wikignoming]] of users such as Colonies Chris until then. We need to move on and resume this program of detailed improvements to our articles, for the sake of our readers, our editors and the broader project. [[User:Tony1|<font color="darkgreen">'''Tony'''</font >]] [[User talk:Tony1|<font color="darkgreen">(talk)</font >]] 16:57, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

:Ok, well I see people don't like this idea. I think perhaps that people could have expressed their disapproval in a more collegial manner - when people start attacking users based on something that was merely supposed to promote discussion it doesn't really get their point across well. When the poll's over I'll poke a few developers and see what their thoughts are on the results. '''[[User:Ryan Postlethwaite|<font color="green">Ryan</font> <font color="purple">Postlethwaite</font>]]^{See [[Special:Contributions/Ryan Postlethwaite|the mess I've created]] or [[User talk:Ryan Postlethwaite|let's have banter]]}''' 18:27, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

:: Sadly, Ryan, I think you have put your finger on the problem in the RfAr -- a lack of collegial manner over this issue. One side is eager to enforce what it believes to be a mandate to fire up a bot & ''remove all links to dates and years,'' without consideration of opposing opinions no matter how they are expressed. Launching a systematic removal of all of those links without making any exceptions will only take us back to this same impasse, maybe with some new players. As others have pointed out, I feel that there is a flaw in this poll that the option I admittedly prefer -- linking birth & death years & dates -- is not clearly approved or disapproved. While I can accept that the consensus of the community does not favor these links, from the categories & comments I am not certain that one can objectively determine what that consensus is: the majority say they only want relevant dates & years linked, but do they consider these ''relevant links?'' -- [[User:Llywrch|llywrch]] ([[User talk:Llywrch|talk]]) 20:03, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

:::If you only count !votes, yes, it is obscure. But if you look at the comments, you'll see that consensus is for very few or no date links. [[User:Dabomb87|Dabomb87]] ([[User talk:Dabomb87|talk]]) 21:13, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

::* Quoting you llywrch: {{xt|One side is eager to enforce what it believes to be a mandate to fire up a bot & ''remove all links to dates and years,'' without consideration of opposing opinions no matter how they are expressed.}} Wrong. The opposing side’s views ''have'' been considered. You are confusing “considered” with “bought into and adopted.” And with specific regard to {{xt|…no matter how [those opposing opinions] are expressed}}, you can paint lipstick on a pig of an idea and dress it up as a prom date, but you’re still not going to get any takers.<p>The problem is that developers have been circumventing “consensus and approval” for too long (witness Werdna's recent shoving in of the new patch without so much as a warning). You may not like it, but this has been a problem with an attitude of “I’m a lotus leaf-eating programming god and can just post my code to Wikipedia and my children will love it.” Uhm… not always. Giving a select few registered editors a view of editorial content that all the rest of Wikipedia’s readership can’t see (autoformatting of dates) what brain damaged at inception. And it was finally tossed on its ear in December.<p>As for the developers’ desperate attempts to pitch a replacement, the community has turned its back on a handful of volunteer programmer gods and said “we’re not interested in this sort of thing.” Over and over and over with RfCs, the community has said “'''No'''”. C'est la vie. The developers can simply shrug their shoulders and go find something to offer the community that it truly wants. <span style="white-space:nowrap;">'''[[User:Greg L|Greg L]]''' ([[User_talk:Greg_L|talk]])</span> 22:11, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

::::Unfortunately, as the developers are the ones that actually implement any autoformatting changes that we may require (i.e. turning it off), they most certainly won't have to just shrug their shoulders. If they don't think that the poll reflects a big enough consensus, they won't do anything. '''[[User:Ryan Postlethwaite|<font color="green">Ryan</font> <font color="purple">Postlethwaite</font>]]^{See [[Special:Contributions/Ryan Postlethwaite|the mess I've created]] or [[User talk:Ryan Postlethwaite|let's have banter]]}''' 22:31, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

::::*Ryan, perhaps you could rephrase your comment above as it appears to imply that developers have a veto on community consensus? Whilst it could be a mere statement of fact that their cooperation is necessary and desirable, they are not the guardians/[[supreme court]] of the consensus; if they were, I am certain the community would have something to say about that. [[User:Ohconfucius|Ohconfucius]] ([[User talk:Ohconfucius|talk]]) 02:56, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

:::::*What I'm saying is that the developers don't act unless they have consensus for a change. I'm not 100% convinced that the developers will see our current poll on autoformatting consensus for anything so won't act. '''[[User:Ryan Postlethwaite|<font color="green">Ryan</font> <font color="purple">Postlethwaite</font>]]^{See [[Special:Contributions/Ryan Postlethwaite|the mess I've created]] or [[User talk:Ryan Postlethwaite|let's have banter]]}''' 07:25, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

::::::*If all it is is your fear, we can work on that. But we are agreed that they cannot and should not stand in the way of consensus, right? [[User:Ohconfucius|Ohconfucius]] ([[User talk:Ohconfucius|talk]]) 11:20, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

*"''In a month or two (or however long it takes to develop the new software) we have one last poll to either adopt the new software or drop the issue once and for all''"—to the programming community: please be very careful with this approach. This strategy smacks of the approach that was taken many years ago—the one that delivered the current problem-riddled date formatting and linking system. If you want to get your programming teeth into something beneficial, then get consensus for a replacement system from the community <u>before</u> any coding takes place. At the very least, create a page that has the specifications for what is being developed so that there is transparency and the possibility for comment. The best programmers that I've seen in my career are the ones that don't want to operate in secrecy from their end-users. A happy and safe Easter to all. [[User:HWV258|<b><font style="color:Navy;background:LightSteelBlue;font-family:Arial" size="2">&nbsp;HWV258&nbsp;</font></b>]] 22:25, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Every here needs to chill out and discuss this calmly and stop bashing the clerks, who are only trying to do their jobs in a neutral manner. Yes, consider this is a final warning. <span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — [[User:Rlevse|<b style="color:#060;"><i>R</i>levse</b>]] • [[User_talk:Rlevse|<span style="color:#990;">Talk</span>]] • </span> 22:40, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

:I will second my colleague's stern ''and very final'' warning. &mdash;&nbsp;[[User:Coren|Coren]]&nbsp;^{[[User Talk:Coren|(talk)]]} 22:48, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

:* I <u>completely</u> agree: no clerk bashing. Calmly too. I wrote above (16:49, 8 April) that people shouldn’t “shoot the clerk” for floating a trial balloon to gauge community reaction on how to deal with the RfC results.<p>Whereas it would be nice if Wikipedia’s volunteer developers would abide by the community’s wishes regarding autoformatting, what they do or don’t want to do is irrelevant in this particular matter. The community voted in December to deprecate autoformatting by no longer putting double-brackets around dates and to just write out dates in fixed text so that everyone sees the same thing. It doesn’t take any developer buy-in if editors aren’t using double brackets or double-curly-brackets and template names. Further, a bot was busy removing the double-brackets already in place when Locke dragged us all kicking & screaming into an ArbCom because he refused to acknowledge that the past RfCs were a legitimate measure of the community consensus. We don’t have too much longer to go on this (fourth) RfC and there isn’t a [[WP:SNOWBALL]] of a chance that a consensus will suddenly develop that the community wants something new to replace the now-deprecated old system of autoformatting.<p>I’m glad you floated this trial balloon, Ryan. Why? Because Sapphic had been ''exceedingly'' uncivil the last few days[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3ADate_formatting_and_linking_poll&diff=282011805&oldid=282011694] (without so much as a ''warning'', let alone a block) arguing her point. I don’t mind the uncivil tone; I focus on the ''message.'' And her message is that there must be a clear consensus for the community to '''''not''''' eat any new ideas a small cabal of volunteer developers desire to force upon us. That’s simply not the way anything works in the real world and I see no reason for Wikipedia to be some sort of exception.<p><u>I’ll remind everyone here that there was no community consensus in the first place to bring the first version of autoformatting to bear.</u> Ponder the ramifications of that sentence for a moment. It took an overwhelming supermajority of a consensus in December to undo that fiasco. Sapphic has consistently made a case that amounts to the argument that ''any'' volunteer developer can continue to implement new ideas on autoformatting <u>without first obtaining a ''clear'' community consensus inviting them to do so</u>. That idea seems bankrupt to me.<p>I take issue with that attitude not because I give ''that'' much of a dump about date links to irrelevant trivia. It’s just that Wikipedia is actually a valuable resource that is truly a benefit to all mankind and ''thousands'' of man hours have been squandered arguing over this issue instead of contributing to articles. It’s a darn shame too, because—like the IEC prefix issue before (mebibyte, MiB versus megabyte, MB)—ill-considered ideas are '''''far''''' too easy to implement and '''''far''''' too difficult to reverse. The community has spoken clearly enough (and often enough) that it ''has <b>not</b>'' invited any developer to keep pushing what it is they’re selling. It’s simply time for the needs of the many to outweigh the incessant demands of the few. <span style="white-space:nowrap;">'''[[User:Greg L|Greg L]]''' ([[User_talk:Greg_L|talk]])</span> 23:50, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

===Arbitrary break 2===

Sigh.. okay, where to begin?

* My incivility (which I acknowledge as such) was in response to your (Greg) fabricating a quote by me out of thin air, immediately after an exchange in which I thought we'd been making some progress. That type of bad faith behavior always rubs me the wrong way, and I tend to lash out with profanity.

* No "authority" is needed to either suggest a proposal, nor to accept it. It's only ''enacting'' a proposal that takes some official authority, and that's what I've explicitly left up to arbcom, every time I've mentioned this.

* My compromise proposal doesn't undercut this poll, because it's pretty clear that this poll didn't uncover any pre-existing consensus. I'm hoping that enough people will support my proposal (or one by anybody else for that matter &mdash; ''come up with one'') that we can get arbcom (or whoever has the authority) to act on it. That's not presumptuous, that's not trying to subvert process, and it's not disruptive. It's being helpful.

* I have never suggested that the developers work on software in isolation from end-user input. I've simply pointed out that some of the date autoformatting opponents have intentionally disrupted previous development efforts, and want to make sure that they won't be allowed to do so again.

* I don't think it makes sense to have a poll/rfc/whatever to approve a specification ''before'' starting development work, mostly because it's unnecessary and people are obviously sick of these polls. Without opponents actively disrupting the process, it's quite easy for interested parties to collaborate on a specification in a more informal manner, in parallel with the actual coding. Also, a significant number of date autoformatting ''opponents'' have made it very clear that they only want new software presented to the community in the context of a working, tested, already-completed version, so that people aren't giving an opinion on "vaporware" that might never be developed.

* I ''agree'' that what Werdna did wasn't really very cool. I ''do'' think the development of new features should occur with community input, which clearly wasn't the case with the new parser function he committed to the code without so much as a word to the folks who had been discussing the issue (and developing a workable, if incomplete, specification for how it should work.)

--[[User:Sapphic|Sapphic]] ([[User talk:Sapphic|talk]]) 00:27, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

:* OK, I’ll meet your ''(*sigh*)'' and raise you a “Oh… ''jeeeeeez”''. As to your first bullet point, if you had read what I actually wrote, you’d see I didn’t even imply that I was directly quoting you, but was ''summarizing your position''. I wrote this:

{{cquote|I don’t have much sympathy for an argument <u>that amounts to this</u>:}}

:: (emphasis just now added) It seems clear enough to me that I wasn’t implying those words were a direct quote.<p>I’m ignoring the rest of your post; you and I have both become quite redundant. Since getting in the last word seems to be desperately important to your getting a good night’s rest, you may have the last word tonight. Lots of white space below. <span style="white-space:nowrap;">'''[[User:Greg L|Greg L]]''' ([[User_talk:Greg_L|talk]])</span> 01:35, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

*If I am guilty of [[Shooting the messenger|clerk-bashing]], please forgive me. I would once again reiterate my polite opposition to Ryan's recommendation as well as Sapphic's suggestion, for the reasons already stated in this section and the [[Wikipedia_talk:Date_formatting_and_linking_poll/Archive_3#Exit_strategies|one above]] respectively. [[User:Ohconfucius|Ohconfucius]] ([[User talk:Ohconfucius|talk]]) 02:47, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

With respect to the Werdna thing, why is anyone bashing him? From what I can tell, all he did was address a bug request that had been around for years, and that had been actively discussed. There was community input, and it had to be approved by other developers before being incorporated into the software, so it's not as if he "went rogue" or anything like that. --'''[[User:Ckatz|Ckatz]]'''''<small>^{[[User_talk:Ckatz|<font color="green">chat</font>]]}_{[[Special:Contributions/Ckatz|<font color="red">spy</font>]]}</small>'' 02:31, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

*With all due respects to Werdna's contribution to WP, I would say that that little piece of code was probably relatively harmless, and I'm sure he was confident it wouldn't crash anything. However, if he were my IT Director, I'm sure I would have had words with him about it for potentially risking the stability of my live servers by running a test piece of code. Although a bug-fix request may have been lodged a long time ago, it was a completely new piece of code and not a "[[bug fix]]" by any meaningful/commonly-accepted definition/interpretation of the word. If in fact it was done after adequate testing, then I would apologise, but add that the process is lamentable for its completely opacity. In contrast, [[Special:Contributions/UC Bill|User:UC Bill]] did the right thing by running his code 'Son of DA' thingy on a test server, completely off-wiki. [[User:Ohconfucius|Ohconfucius]] ([[User talk:Ohconfucius|talk]]) 06:07, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

::* I find GregL's plea for calm language disingenuous. Your response to me above at 22:11 shows no sign that you bothered to read my statement, or tried to even understand what my concerns are. '''I don't give a rat's ass about autoformatting!''' Further, I find your confusing my interests with that issue offensive. What I refer to is the same single issue I have brought up before, & still stand on. Last summer I asked a question about making an exception over linking dates of birth & death on the MoS -- & had a slab of the MoS tossed at my head while you lot giggled over who "Harvey J. Wallbanger" was. Not a "yes" or "no" -- just the equivalent to "RTFM", a response which still leaves me angry. When I brought a related issue up some time later -- that the MoS is advisory, not mandatory -- Tony responded again with a curt dismissal. Discussing a matter, & losing the argument is one thing; but you lot are acting as if only you understand how Wikipedia works, & the rest of us are in need of correction. The whole point of a Wiki is for people to discuss issues; consensus is rarely permanent; & if you cannot provide a convincing explanation for your edits, they will be reverted. You bunch simply don't get it. -- [[User:Llywrch|llywrch]] ([[User talk:Llywrch|talk]]) 05:39, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

:::* Quoting you: …{{xt|had a slab of the MoS tossed at my head while you lot giggled over who "Harvey J. Wallbanger" was.}} I don’t know jack about who or what Harvy J. Wallbanger is nor could I ''possibly'' care less. I don’t know what you are talking about. Don’t care either. I frankly don’t even recognize your majuscule-deficient name (llywrch) although that doesn’t mean we hadn’t cross paths before. It sounds like you’ve got an axe to grind. If I offended you in the past, I’m sorry; it wasn’t personal. I see you’ve voted in the appropriate places in the RfC; that’s nice.<p>As to {{xt|if you cannot provide a convincing explanation for your edits, they will be reverted}}, again, I don’t know what you are talking about (which is probably a good thing) because I might make one date-related edit ''per month.'' But I note, from your pledge/threat to revert, that you seem to have an {{nowrap|''*extra special*''}} attitude about how [[User:Greg_L#The_perils_of_collaborative_writing_.28stress_reducer.29|collaborative writing]] works. As to {{xt|Tony responded again with a curt dismissal}}, I’ve had an epiphany here. I will not respond to you anymore. Goodbye and happy editing. <span style="white-space:nowrap;">'''[[User:Greg L|Greg L]]''' ([[User_talk:Greg_L|talk]])</span> 22:21, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

**CKatz, no one is "bashing" developers; for heck's sake, we ''need'' them. What people are nervous about is that major technical changes can be made by anyone without reference to the community. I don't even see ''one mention'' of Werdna's response to the three-year Bugzilla discussion. What I ''do'' see there is a pointed message from Brion Vibber in relation to UC_Bill's program strings: "Since this tweaks around markup, it really needs some parser test cases." Well, yes. Development needs to be more open to community comment, just as bot running is. You cannot blame us for feeling more caution and step-by-step community input is required ... this is now not even world-best practice: it's ''standard''. What company board or public organisation would allow people (no matter how skilled) to come in and make changes to their programming without due process? [[User:Tony1|<font color="darkgreen">'''Tony'''</font >]] [[User talk:Tony1|<font color="darkgreen">(talk)</font >]] 06:59, 9 April 2009 (UTC)