Wikipedia Arbitration
About arbitration Talk Arbitration policy (CU/OS) Guide to arbitration Noticeboard + Talk Search archived proceedings Ban appeals Report
Open proceedings All open requests Case requests Clarification and Amendment requests Arbitrator motion requests Enforcement requests
Active sanctions Contentious topics (Log) General sanctions Editor sanctions
Arbitration Committee Discuss + Contact Members Procedures Elections Talk History Clerks + Talk Clerk procedures
Audit Talk Statistics Talk Reports (pre-2016)
Track related changes

The purpose of the workshop is for the parties to the case, other interested members of the community, and members of the Arbitration Committee to post proposed components of the final decisions for review and comment. Proposals may include proposed general principles, findings of fact, remedies, and enforcement provisions, which are the four types of proposals that can be included in the final decision. The workshop also includes a section (at the page-bottom) for analysis of the /Evidence, and for general discussion of the case.

Any user may edit this workshop page. Please sign all suggestions and comments. Arbitrators will place proposed items they believe should be part of the final decision on the /Proposed decision page, which only Arbitrators and clerks may edit, for voting, clarification as well as implementation purposes.

Template[edit]

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template[edit]

2)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template[edit]

3)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

GoodDay restricted[edit]

1) For the duration of this case, GoodDay (talk · contribs) is prohibited from removing or otherwise making modifications to the use of diacritics on any page, broadly construed.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Please demonstrate why an injunction is presently required, based on recent edits by GoodDay. Injunctions tend to look less far back than do evidence and final decisions. AGK [•] 12:19, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there's a need to issue a formal restriction at this point. If GoodDay does indeed get into an edit war over diacritics while the case is open, then he'll have nobody but himself to blame for the likely consequences. Kirill ^[talk] 22:18, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Seems necessary in this situation. Steven Zhang ^{Get involved in DR!} 11:52, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@AGK, as noted in the filing statements of myself and other editors, GoodDay is at times unable to control himself, and has not heeded the advice of either DBD or myself on issues that have been getting him into trouble with other editors. I point to this thread from a month ago where GoodDay informed me he would begin removing diacritics for the sole reason that another editor had begun adding them again. I advised him against it, because the behaviour is essentially causing disruption to prove a point, but he has continued to do it anyways. Then there was this edit to the Zoë Baird article. It seemed pretty WP:POINTy to me. Then there are these two threads on his talk page from the last week and a half. Both lead me to feel that such an injunction is necessary. It's also for GoodDay's protection in a way. In my opinion he hasn't handled himself very well up to this point, but if he got in an edit war over diacritics during the case, that would not reflect well on him. Steven Zhang ^{Get involved in DR!} 12:45, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I shouldn't be restricted from Ice hockey articles concerning diacritics, as I've had the least trouble there. GoodDay (talk) 17:19, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't say that, that is where most of your trouble has started. -DJSasso (talk) 11:45, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're biased though, on this issue. GoodDay (talk) 12:19, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Whether I am involved or not, you have been in many disruptive arguments in the ice hockey topic area in fact one of your most recent major blowups was surrounding ice hockey articles. I would also guess that if you were to stop editing diacritics in the hockey area you probably wouldn't have the problems in the other areas as that is where your obsession with them seems to have started. Frankly I think you just need to walk away from diacritics, it does you nor anyone else any help that you obsess over them like you do. There are millions of other jobs you could do on the wiki where you aren't getting into arguments with people and attacking them. -DJSasso (talk) 12:25, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're the editor, that I've had the most problems with on those articles. You continue to resist implimenting fully the WP:HOCKEY compromise on diacritics. GoodDay (talk) 12:27, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't just me GoodDay. If it was then you would have gotten your desired outcome. Instead you haven't be able to get consensus for what you consider to be "fully implemented". Which of course means there are a number of other people who haven't agreed with you either. -DJSasso (talk) 12:41, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Template[edit]

2)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template[edit]

3)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template[edit]

4)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

North American Hockey Players[edit]

GoodDay has made many edits that hide diacritics by means of piped text. A sample is: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], [31], [32], [33], [34], [35], [36], [37], [38], [39], [40], [41], [42], [43], [44], [45], [46], [47], [48], [49], [50], [51], [52], [53], [54], [55], [56], [57], [58], [59], [60], [61], [62], [63], [64], [65], [66], [67], [68], [69], [70], [71], [72].

Was there support for these actions? Could someone provide links to dispute-resolution and discussion concerning these edits, as well as attempts to engage GoodDay in discussion about support of, opposition to, and the value of his actions? AGK [•] 13:49, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Those have support per the compromise listed on the main page of WP:HOCKEY. The issue brought here I believe is more with the revert warring and calling people derisive names and inserting comments about diacritics into unrelated discussions such as the one on Jimbo's talk page that someone linked to in the request for a case than it is to do with the majority of his diacritic edits which when done quietly are mostly not an issue. I believe Resolute links to some examples in his evidence. -DJSasso (talk)

Djsasso: That is helpful; thank you. GoodDay and others: I still welcome further comment here. AGK [•] 21:35, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As DJ says, we've come to this internal project compromise because the diacritics issue has been a concern for us as long as I have been a Wikipedian. Comes with the territory of having many Eastern European articles. Of course, our compromise is "enforceable" only so long as not challenged by wider community discussion, but given the wider community can not come to a consensus, we've operated under these guidelines for several years. GoodDay has probably spent more time enforcing it than everyone else combined, but he has not acted without support in these cases. It does help highlight his level of obsession with the issue, however. Resolute 22:40, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This has nothing to do with the present arbitration case, per se, but I note with dismay that the first three diffs listed above by AGK are for Québécois players for teams in the Quebec Major Junior Hockey League. These articles are not merely in the scope of the ice hockey wikiproject, but also within WikiProject Quebec. I wonder if the ice hockey compromise (which I was not aware of until this RfArb case) was hammered out with the participation or even awareness of WikiProject Quebec insofar as it affects articles with a very strong Quebec topic focus. I personally edit mostly on Quebec topics, and if I had come across these articles in the course of routine editing I would have restored diacritics in them as a matter of course, none the wiser. How are such things handled when there is overlapping scope among two or more wikiprojects, in which case it is no longer merely an "internal" project compromise? At some point I would hope to start a dialog about this with the ice hockey project. — P.T. Aufrette (talk) 23:26, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I hid diacritics on the Quebec league articles, because those articles are North American-based. GoodDay (talk) 01:35, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't recall where the actual discussion was, but GoodDay did complain in May about a Quebec "exemption". I suspect we've already resolved that conflict.  ;) Resolute 01:36, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I take it from that discussion that GoodDay acknowledges the existence of a "Quebec exemption" even if he is unenthusiastic about it. One way or the other, we should probably discuss it somewhere other than here. — P.T. Aufrette (talk) 03:26, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It was more like frustration, that diacritics had been in those Quebec league articles. It's likely best that both sides stay clear of them. GoodDay (talk) 03:57, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(to AGK) I'm the editor who created the WP:HOCKEY diacritics compromise. I usually edit around the NHL (mostly) & the AHL (sometimes) articles. I'm rarely around the juniors & other leagues. GoodDay (talk) 01:43, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Two comments by Djsasso and two comments by GoodDay removed. These case pages are not to be used to re-hash disputes. AGK [•] 14:31, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One of the comments you removed was actually a response to your question on if he had support for those actions. Seems that it should at least be restored as it does go to show he wasn't following the compromise/consensus when he was aware that QMJHL articles should maintain their diacritics. -DJSasso (talk) 14:57, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Those first three diffs above date from January 2, 2012, whereas the change clarifying WP:HOCKEY seems to date from January 26, 2012 [73], although words to that effect had existed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Ice Hockey/Player pages format since 2008.[74] So if we assume good faith those edits are probably in the clear. On the other hand, GoodDay stated very recently that "It's not certain that there is an exemption", [75] and that statement does seem to be inaccurate. — P.T. Aufrette (talk) 16:38, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is true, I didn't compare the dates. -DJSasso (talk) 16:43, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The earliest discussion I am aware of on the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ice Hockey page is Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ice Hockey/Archive32#Diacritics - again, in June 2009. Presumably some discussion took place somewhere before May 2008, but I haven't been able to locate it. isaacl (talk) 18:10, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I read over that archive & I'm amazed that Djsasso would claim that he has no concerns about diacritics usage. He's been defending diacritics usage, for years. GoodDay (talk) 23:10, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think you misunderstand what I mean. I prefer they be used, but I don't get worked up about them and obsess over them like you do. I don't generally edit them at all except to revert others changes. I have always been of the opinion of treat them like ENGVAR. Leave what you see, if that includes diacritics leave them, if it doesn't include them don't add them. -DJSasso (talk) 11:42, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed final decision[edit]

Proposed remedies[edit]

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

GoodDay restricted[edit]

1) GoodDay (talk · contribs) is prohibited from removing or otherwise making any modifications to the use of diacritics on any page, broadly construed.

Comment by Arbitrators:

I should make it clear that I am aware of this proposal, but do not wish to comment on potential remedies until I have finished considering the evidence and examining GoodDay's edits. AGK [•] 21:42, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Normally, I'd write up a full set of principles, FoF, remedies, but I think this will suffice here. I feel that per the evidence myself and others have presented demonstrates such a restriction is required. Steven Zhang ^{Get involved in DR!} 20:40, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

As I just noted in my evidence, GoodDay has zealously enforced a diacritics-related compromise within the hockey project, but also respected it. This motion would end his ability to continue in that regard, and I suspect would practically defeat the compromise as I'm not sure anyone else has the desire to monitor such articles so closely. I've no opinion on whether that is a good or bad thing, just noting for consideration. I don't follow requested moves pages much, so I am left wondering: is there behaviour there that needs addressing, which this proposal clearly would fail to do? Resolute 22:45, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In my observations, the issue of diacritics is doing more harm than good. It's up for ArbCom to decide what remedies are appropriate in this situation - the main issue is GoodDay at times has trouble disengaging from a dispute. As his mentor, I haven't been able to remediate this issue through discussion, and feel that other measures are unfortunately necessary. Occasionally, when multiple issues occur post an RFC/U, a site ban may be considered, but I think this would be extreme and thus suggested this option. I am not sure how open the Arbitration Committee would be to a limited scope restriction. I guess we will see soon enough. Steven Zhang ^{Get involved in DR!} 23:01, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't say that I have been monitoring hockey pages for diacritics, but I have applied the compromise whenever I have come across "violations" (for lack of a better word) of it. My impression is that several other editors, including for instance Djsasso, have been doing the same. HandsomeFella (talk) 12:53, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

General comments[edit]

Discuss this summary

The core problem is with the conduct of GoodDay. In 2011, a Request for Comments returned the result that his conduct was problematic but resolvable, and attempts were made to: "wipe clean the slate" with previous detractors (some of whom GoodDay had banned from his talk page); institute a mentorship arrangement (so that GoodDay had a source of advice); and discourage GoodDay's repeated translation of diacritics.

While there is some evidence of initial success, the situation deteriorated again at the beginning of 2012. He was topic-banned by the community in February 2012 from pages relating to the United Kingdom and Ireland. Until early 2012, many of his edits related to this topic. Until April, his edits to Canadian topics proved contentious; and until this case was opened, his treatment of diacritics has been especially contested.

According to evidence (including that submitted and my own review of his behaviour), GoodDay has engaged in battleground conduct and unprofessional conduct. Previous attempts to resolve these issues, including an intensive mentorship by two experienced editors, have been completely unsuccessful. From that, I must conclude that the problem resides with GoodDay's approach to collaboration rather than with his view on the merit of diacritics (although that this view is such a minority has certainly compounded the problem). I am therefore at a loss to determine what targeted remedies this committee could adopt in pursuit of a resolution. While we try to make every attempt to resolve contained issues with individual editors, we must also weigh the benefit of retaining an editor with the likelihood that a disparate set of remedies will be unsuccessful in resolving much deeper problems. My view is that the chronic failure of previous sanctions rests not with a fault in their breadth or security, but with fundamental shortcomings in GoodDay's treatment of the concepts of collegiality and consensus. In this case, I regret that I see no other recourse but to ban him outright, because I do not see that an alternative is viable: upon solving a problem in respect of one area, the same problem will shift to another topic, and then another, ad infinitum. I am open to being convinced otherwise (and comment on these thoughts is welcome on the talk page). AGK [•] 15:53, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed principles (AGK)[edit]

Recidivism[edit]

1) Editors sanctioned for improper conduct are expected to improve their behaviour should they continue to participate in the project. Sanctioned editors should be afforded assistance and a reasonable time to improve, especially if they have demonstrated the ability to positively engage with the community), but those who fail to improve may be subject to increasingly severe sanctions.

Comment by arbitrators:

With the understanding that GoodDay has already been sanctioned; we are at a final, not the first, stage of action. AGK [•] 15:31, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Fait accompli[edit]

2) Editors who make many similar edits, contrary to clear advice that these edits are controversial or incorrect, are expected to pursue discussion and dispute resolution. It is disruptive to use a repetitive or voluminous edit pattern to present opponents with a fait accompli or to exhaust their ability to contest the change, or to so edit in defiance of a reasonable decision arrived at by consensus.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed for possible inclusion. AGK [•] 14:04, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Updated. AGK [•] 15:31, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Although I don't have an issue with the concept of editing in defiance of a reasonable decision arrived at by consensus as being disruptive, I don't believe it quite fits the heading for this section, "fait accompli". I suggest it would be more suitable to separate this aspect into a separate principle, as editing in defiance is a different concept than editing to force a new consensus by making many articles comply to a new standard. isaacl (talk) 19:23, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mentorship[edit]

3) Editors whose conduct is repeatedly problematic may enter into a mentorship arrangement with one or more experienced editors. The purpose of such an arrangement is to allow the protégé (or mentee) to improve his or her behaviour by the advice of the mentor. Editors who accept mentorship are expected to be receptive to reasonable advice of their mentor, and failure to do so may be interpreted to mean that the conduct problems cannot be resolved by voluntary agreement.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed for possible inclusion. AGK [•] 14:04, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Agree. Sums up mentorship pretty well. Steven Zhang ^{Get involved in DR!} 02:32, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Consensus[edit]

4) Wikipedia works by building consensus through the use of dispute resolution and polite discussion, with a shared receptiveness to compromise—and involving the wider community, if necessary. Individual editors have a responsibility to help debate succeed and move forward by discussing their differences rationally. Editors must accept any reasonable decision arrived at by consensus, on all pages on Wikipedia but especially in relation to articles and article discussion pages.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed for possible inclusion. AGK [•] 15:31, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Etiquette[edit]

5) Wikipedia's code of conduct is one of the five pillars of Wikipedia that all editors should adhere to. Wikipedia editors are expected to behave reasonably and calmly in their interactions with other users, to keep their cool when editing, and to avoid acting in a manner that brings the project into disrepute. Unseemly conduct—including, but not limited to, edit-warring, personal attacks, lack of respect for other editors, failure to work towards consensus, disrupting Wikipedia to make a point, and failure to assume good faith—are all inconsistent with Wikipedia's standards of etiquette. Editors should not respond to such behavior in kind, and concerns regarding the actions of other users should be addressed in the appropriate forums.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed for possible inclusion. (Adapted from Civility enforcement and one of our most effective, well-written principles.) AGK [•] 15:31, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact (AGK)[edit]

GoodDay has engaged in battleground conduct[edit]

1) Over an extended period of time ([76]), GoodDay has strove for the removal of diacritics ([77]) and marginalised the concerns of opposing editors (#GoodDay has engaged in uncollegial conduct).

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed for possible inclusion. AGK [•] 15:33, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

GoodDay has engaged in uncollegial conduct[edit]

2) On many occasions, GoodDay has engaged in uncollegial conduct, including: misinterpreting the legitimate complaints of another editor ([78], [79]); casting aspersions about groups of opposing contributors ([80], [81]); and failing to conduct himself with due professionalism ([82]).

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed for possible inclusion. AGK [•] 15:33, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Prior attempts to resolve these problems have failed[edit]

3) In December 2011, GoodDay (talk · contribs) was the subject of a requests for comment in December 2011 about his conduct. From January 2012, GoodDay was mentored by two experienced editors ([83]). In February 2012, GoodDay was topic banned from "pages relating to the United Kingdom and Ireland, broadly construed" ([84]). Despite these community-based measures, GoodDay's conduct remains problematic.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed for possible inclusion. AGK [•] 15:33, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed remedies (AGK)[edit]

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

GoodDay topic-banned from diacritics[edit]

1) GoodDay is indefinitely prohibited from converting any diacritical mark to its basic glyph on any article or other content page, broadly construed.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed for possible inclusion. AGK [•] 15:36, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

GoodDay warned[edit]

2) GoodDay is strongly warned that serious violations of Wikipedia's conduct policies (especially of the nature recorded in this decision as findings of fact) are prohibited, and that substantial sanctions, up to a ban from the project, may be imposed without warning by the Arbitration Committee in the event of further violations.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed for possible inclusion. AGK [•] 15:36, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed principles[edit]

Template[edit]

1) {text of Proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template[edit]

2) {text of Proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact[edit]

Template[edit]

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template[edit]

2) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed remedies[edit]

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

Template[edit]

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template[edit]

2) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement[edit]

Template[edit]

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template[edit]

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Place here items of evidence (with diffs) and detailed analysis

Analysis of GoodDay's suggestion of censureship (or possibly censorship) on biographies[edit]

GoodDay suggests that biographies are being censured (though he may mean censored, which would make more sense in context) and his example is his edits at Zoë Baird. Whilst Zoe Baird might be an alternative for Zoë Baird, defining it as the "English" spelling is disruptive. This is compounded by the edit summary "Added English version of name to intro, alongside non-English version". Worm^TT(talk) 09:39, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Analysis of effects of periodically revisiting issues[edit]

GoodDay's habit of revisiting issues can be distracting; as he is a regular follower of Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ice Hockey, he is aware of past history and heated discussions that can result. However, given that consensus views can change, if he were to bring a bit more tact to his approach, and perhaps attempt to find new ways to move the discussion forward, such as trying to bridge the gap between different viewpoints, then he might find a warmer reception when he re-raises a topic for discussion. Unfortunately, his tendency to simply repeat his points of view does not permit a true dialogue to take place, and ultimately is counterproductive, since it fails to encourage anyone to establish a new consensus.

The regulars at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ice Hockey had been largely successful at not engaging GoodDay, which I believe is why they mostly did not participate in his RFC. However when he makes edits illustrating his point of view (contrary to current consensus) and subsequently re-adds them after being reverted, a response is required from other editors to align his changes with consensus. As he is aware of the prevailing consensus view, this behaviour lacks collegiality. isaacl (talk) 00:07, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Analysis of GoodDay's editing habits[edit]

As mentioned in the evidence and the statements in the case request, GoodDay is able to make productive edits that improve Wikipedia's consistency and appearance. Wikipedia depends on editors willing to take on clean up tasks to handle the numerous edits made by inexperienced editors. In spite of his tendency to repeat himself in discussions and, at times, difficulties in weighing the feedback of others countering his arguments, he is at least willing to enter into discussions on article talk pages after a revert or two, and usually stops making contested edits after a few discussions have been opened (see the discussion on Zoë Baird, as referred to by HandsomeFella and P.T. Aufrette). As Resolute stated, he generally (though unfortunately not always) follows consensus viewpoints where it has been stated unambiguously. isaacl (talk) 00:35, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template[edit]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template[edit]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template[edit]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template[edit]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others: