Jump to content

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Arbitration‎ | Requests

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by L235 (talk | contribs) at 05:51, 8 June 2015 (Reverted 1 edit by Jim Carter (talk): Clerks-l. (TW)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Shortcut
Arbitration Committee proceedings
Request name Motions Initiated Votes
Ongoing problems surrounding Yasuke   16 September 2024 4/0/0
[edit]
Open cases

Currently, no arbitration cases are open.

[edit]
Recently closed cases (Past cases)
Case name Closed
Historical elections 13 Sep 2024
Request name Motions  Case Posted
Amendment request: Scientology none (orig. case) 20 May 2015
Amendment request: Acupuncture none (orig. case) 25 May 2015
Amendment request: GoodDay none (orig. case) 29 May 2015

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

Requests for clarification and amendment

Use this page to request clarification or amendment of a closed Arbitration Committee case or decision.

  • Requests for clarification are used to ask for further guidance or clarification about an existing completed Arbitration Committee case or decision.
  • Requests for amendment are used to ask for an amendment or extension of existing sanctions (for instance, because the sanctions are ineffective, contain a loophole, or no longer cover a sufficiently wide topic); or appeal for the removal of sanctions (including bans).

To file a clarification or amendment request: (you must use this format!)

  1. Choose one of the following options and open the page in a new tab or window:
  2. Save your request and check that it looks how you think it should and says what you intended.
  3. If your request will affect or involve other users (including any users you have named as parties), you must notify these editors of your submission; you can use {{subst:Arbitration CA notice|SECTIONTITLE}} to do this.
  4. Add the diffs of the talk page notifications under the applicable header of the request.
Clarification and Amendment archives
123456789101112131415161718
192021222324252627282930313233343536
373839404142434445464748495051525354
555657585960616263646566676869707172
737475767778798081828384858687888990
919293949596979899100101102103104105106107108
109110111112113114115116117118119120121122123124125126
127128

This is not a discussion. Please do not submit your request until it is ready for consideration; this is not a space for drafts, and incremental additions to a submission are disruptive.

Arbitrators or Clerks may summarily remove or refactor discussion without comment.

Requests from blocked or banned users should be made by e-mail directly to the Arbitration Committee.

Only Arbitrators and Clerks may remove requests from this page. Do not remove a request or any statements or comments unless you are in either of these groups. There must be no threaded discussion, so please comment only in your own section. Archived clarification and amendment requests are logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Clarification and Amendment requests. Numerous legacy and current shortcuts can be used to more quickly reach this page:

Shortcuts:
123456789101112131415161718
192021222324252627282930313233343536
373839404142434445464748495051525354
555657585960616263646566676869707172
737475767778798081828384858687888990
919293949596979899100101102103104105106107108
109110111112113114115116117118119120121122123124125126
127128

Amendment request: Scientology

Initiated by Francis Schonken at 20:16, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Case or decision affected
Scientology arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)
Clauses to which an amendment is requested
  1. Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Scientology#Rick Alan Ross instructed and restricted:
"26) User:Rick Alan Ross is requested to contact the Arbitration Committee by email to establish his identity or to rename; instructed to not edit using anonymous IP addresses; and restricted to one account only with his other named account, User:Rick A. Ross, indefinitely blocked and redirected to the main account."
List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request
Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
Information about amendment request
"26) User:Rick Alan Ross is requested to contact the Arbitration Committee by email to establish his identity or to rename; instructed to not edit using anonymous IP addresses; and restricted to one account only with his other named account, User:Rick A. Ross, indefinitely blocked and redirected to the main account."
First proposal: retracted, obsolete --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:25, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Second proposal
"Follow-up on Remedy 26: User:Rick A. Ross has contacted the Arbitration Committee and indentifies as Rick Ross (consultant). All other user accounts or editors claiming or pretending to be Rick Alan Ross will be blocked."

Statement by Francis Schonken

Subject was referred to Talk:Rick Ross (consultant) by OTRS. In order to proceed it should be best that the situation resulting from the 2009 Scientology case is cleared. See Talk:Rick Ross (consultant)#Discussion. --Francis Schonken (talk) 20:16, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Corrected Allen → Alan, sorry for the typo. --Francis Schonken (talk) 21:50, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @173.72.57.223: re. what can be done:
    • contact the Arbitration Committee by email (if you haven't done so already)
    • login as User:Rick Alan Ross and edit with that account exclusively (instead of editing as IP 173.72.57.223)
  • @Yunshui and Guerillero: (and other arbitrators), some suggestions:
    • check the ArbCom mailbox whether such email arrived recently, or in a more distant past, and if so see what actions have been of should be given accordingly
    • explain to Rick Alan Ross why it is advantageous to comply with the ArbCom decision, or what can be done.

Note that my only stake in this is dealing with WP:BLP issues under WP:COI conditions (not my COI, the COI of Ross/173.72.57.223), without my current actions risking to be ultimately invalidated for a technical reason related to a past arbcom case. I think ArbCom can do something to avoid such risk. Some creativity may be needed, my creative proposal to amend the Scientology case is only one among several possibilities to iron this out. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:23, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • @JzG: I suppose the recent exchanges at Talk:Rick Ross (consultant) (e.g. the IP at one point suggesting assistance from Wikipedia's "legal department") have made the "WP:IAR → business as usual" approach somewhat untenable. Proceeding without the IP being authenticated seems a bit unwise in these circumstances. I think OTRS people have handled this exemplary, don't know what they could have done better. The problem of the IP not being authenticated is not something that should have made a difference handling this at OTRS. But the problem exists now, for the handling of which I support the approach suggested by Newyorkbrad. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:55, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by 173.72.57.223

I was instructed by Matthew at the Wikipedia Support Team to go to my bio page and use the Talk Page to discuss problems there. My name is Rick Alan Ross and some years ago I may have entered the name Rick A. Ross on Wikipedia. I have never gone by the name Rick Allen Ross. I have no general interest in Wikipedia other than the bio about me at Wikipedia (Rick Ross consultant). My concern is that my bio has been used as a convenient propaganda platform for those who don't like my work to attack me. My bio is not NPOV and has a great deal of biased POV editing. That editing is often misleading, intentionally omits certain relevant historical facts and information and generally reflects the slanted POV of certain anonymous editors at Wikipedia. I have repeatedly complained about this matter to the Wikipedia Support Team. Again, Matthew recommended that I specifically explain this at my bio Talk Page. I have followed his directions and posted my points of concern with supporting references and sources at the Talk Page per Mathew's instuctions. Now I am somehow here. Excuse me, but I don't understand all the Wikipedia protocols and rules. Please explain what need to be done to resolve this and address my concerns.

Rick Alan Ross 173.72.57.223 (talk) 16:32, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:Rick A. Ross

Statement by User:Rick Alan Ross

Statement by Mdann52

As the user involved with the OTRS ticket, let me clarify something here. As the original user has effectively outed themselves, from what I have seen, this appears to be genuine. They do not have access to either of the accounts, or the email addresses used to create them, and their passwords no longer work. I fail to see how this is an unreasonable amendment - they could always make a new account if needed. As they are unfamiliar with Wikipedia, we should, IMO, be a tad more cautious, and the seeming bad knowledge may well be genuine. Mdann52 (talk) 20:47, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Salvio giuliano, Roger Davies, and Courcelles: As you appear to have made comments before the above, you may wish to revisit this. Mdann52 (talk) 19:15, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Newyorkbrad

A BLP subject wants to provide input into the content of the article about himself, which he thinks has issues of balance and weighting. (I agree that the article has issues, although this isn't the place to go into them; I am also less than certain that this article should exist at all.) He seeks to adhere to our guidance about COI editing, which urges article subjects to disclose their identity and confine themselves to the talkpage, but is being tripped up because he is not an experienced Wikipedian and does not understand the fine points of our decision in this case from six years ago. My impression is that Mdann52 is correct and that the editor does not have access to his vintage-2008 accounts, perhaps because he does not recall the passwords, perhaps for some other reason. My suggestion is that an arbitrator reach out to Rick Ross directly, confirm his identity (if not already done), and explain exactly what is required of him. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:55, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by JzG

I'm very familiar with the standard OTRS advice to BLP subjects - if memory serves, I assembled the boilerplate myself - and this request is precisely in line with it. I don't think we need to amend anything, we can just WP:IAR since it is obvious who is behind the IP and there is no attempt at deception (quite the opposite). Guy (Help!) 09:29, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Rich Farmbrough

It would seem trivial for OTRS to create a new account with a suitable name, in the normal way, and pass the details onto Mr Ross. Job  Done? All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 20:11, 31 May 2015 (UTC).

Statement by {other-editor}

Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the case request or provide additional information.

Scientology: Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Scientology: Arbitrator views and discussion

It also appears that the 2009 decision was never fully implemented; User:Rick A. Ross, the alt account, has never been blocked and doesn't appear to have been redirected to his main account. Yunshui 雲水 11:34, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Decline, in the absence of any reason for using an IP over an account. Yunshui 雲水 07:19, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Scientology (second proposal): Arbitrator views and discussion

Amendment request: Acupuncture

Initiated by A1candidate at 00:14, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Case or decision affected
Acupuncture arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)
Clauses to which an amendment is requested
  1. A1candidate (talk · contribs) is restricted to WP:0RR on the acupuncture article. Additionally, A1candidate is restricted to WP:1RR on articles related to alternative medicine. Gaming these rules, engaging in Battleground behavior, WP:IDHT behavior, or focusing on contributors over content will result in this being extended to a complete topic ban. Sanctions will expire one year from today or (with administrative review) one year from the most recent 0RR or 1RR violation, whichever comes last.


List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request



Information about amendment request
  • A1candidate (talk · contribs) is restricted to WP:0RR on the acupuncture article. Additionally, A1candidate is restricted to WP:1RR on articles related to alternative medicine. Gaming these rules, engaging in Battleground behavior, WP:IDHT behavior, or focusing on contributors over content will result in this being extended to a complete topic ban. Sanctions will expire one year from today or (with administrative review) one year from the most recent 0RR or 1RR violation, whichever comes last.
  • Please consider repealing these sanctions


Statement by A1candidate

This is an unfair sanction. Despite my demonstrable attempts to closely follow the relevant behavioral guidelines during a content dispute, I am now placed under severe editing restrictions and more importantly, my perfect record has been stained with a permanent log over here. According to the guidelines of core behaviorial policies such as WP:AVOIDEDITWAR:

Some experienced editors deliberately adopt a policy of only reverting edits covered by the exceptions listed above, or limiting themselves to a single revert; if there is further dispute, they seek dialog or outside help rather than make the problem worse, i.e., they revert only when necessary. This policy may be particularly appropriate for controversial topics where views are polarized and emotions run high, resulting in more frequent edit warring.

The bottom line: use common sense, and do not participate in edit wars. Rather than reverting repeatedly, discuss the matter with others; if a revert is necessary, another editor may conclude the same and do it (without you prompting them), which would then demonstrate consensus for the action. Request page protection rather than becoming part of the dispute by reverting."

Everyone can check my most recent contributions at the acupuncture page in order to verify that I had followed this guideline very closely. First and foremost, I made only a single (neccessary) revert to prevent a source from being distorted. Then, I sensed that temporary page protection may soon be necessary to avoid a potential edit war, so I quickly approached two administrators and asked them for the appropriate page protection [1][2] (as suggested by WP:AVOIDEDITWAR). Next, I backed off from the article immediately and stopped making any further edits. I also started an RfC on the talk page to discuss the controversial content with other editors [3].

After posting an RfC to resolve the content dispute, I voluntarily restricted myself to talk page discussions only and made no further changes to the article.

I took a short break from Wikipedia, came back, and found myself under a range of discretionary sanctions lasting for a year.

This is completely unfair and I am therefore appealing the sanctions per this guideline

I dispute the validity of these sanctions and I urge the Committee to lift them.

A1candidate 00:15, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Kww

Take note of the parallel discussion at ANI. It might well have proceeded to a topic ban if Adjwilley had not imposed lesser restrictions.—Kww(talk) 00:32, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Serialjoepsycho 2

Just saw this and wanted to note [4] I had both unarchived and removed the resolved tag to that ANI. It is currently active. I did so because I felt that the above sanctions were not placed to resolve the situation being discussed at ANI nor did they resolve the the situation being discussed at ANI.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 02:02, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Short Brigade Harvester Boris

1RR, not gaming the rules, refraining from battleground behavior, refraining from WP:IDHT behavior, and keeping the focus on content rather than contributors all are good practice for everyone. This leaves us with the WP:0RR at Acupuncture. On that point User:Bishonen's observation here is persuasive. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:05, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Adjwilley

As I mentioned here the sanctions were not in response to the most recent events at acupuncture described above by A1candidate. The timing was more due to me finally finding a few hours to sit down and go through the history of multiple editors on the page. A1candidate is obviously very stressed right now which I believe is affecting their judgement, and I would feel bad extending this to a topic ban just because of that. I believe they have a good knowledge of the sources and could still contribute at the acupuncture talk page. ~Adjwilley (talk) 18:07, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by JzG

A1candidate shows a worrying lack of self-awareness and self-criticism, and this request underscores that. The restriction was placed by an uninvolved admin (who, it should be noticed, had just been canvassed by A1candidate to protect the article at his preferred version) in a good faith attempt to allow A1candidate to continue contributing to an article where he clearly has strong feelings, but where his editing behaviour has been widely identified as highly problematic. An identical restriction has been placed on user:QuackGuru, an equally energetic partisan with the opposite POV.

Importantly, both the restricted editors are the current most active editors of the article itself, resulting in instability and see-sawing between opposing points of view, which is ridiculous in a mature article. The consensus seems to be that "jaw jaw is better than edit war edit war", to paraphrase a well known authority on conflict, and (importantly) this restriction still allows both parties to contribute on Talk, making specific proposals for article improvement. That seems to me to be an approach at least worth trying.

When A1candidate's recent request for arbitration was declined, a view was expressed that this might well end up at arbitration in the longer term. I believe that the restriction is a solid attempt to prevent exactly that drama. If this works, it will give us an additional proven tool to manage contentious topics.

The only obvious alternative to this restriction for this user at this time, would probably be a topic ban. I think the restriction represents a creative attempt to resolve the issue without recourse to such draconian measures, so I believe that we should at least try this and see how it goes. Guy (Help!) 11:20, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Cla68: You may not be familiar with Minchin's Law: by definition, alternative medicine either has not been proven to work, or has been proven not to work. The name for alternative medicine that has been proven to work, is "medicine". Wikipedia is and always has been unashamedly reality-based. And note that exactly the same sanction has been applied to another prolific and disruptive editor, who has a diametrically opposed POV - even though there is general agreement that his edits are in line with policy, where A1candidate's are very often not. Guy (Help!) 11:09, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Olive

With respect, I'd like to ask that the arbs be held accountable for the proposals they are making. In this case an indefinite topic ban, one of the severest judgements that can be handed down is being proposed without explanation. Such a judgement overrides the admin Adjwilley who had the situation in hand, and seems to be the response to A1 an editor who dared to ask that the sanctions against him be reevaluated. A simple decline and warning, as this is in the hands of a competent admin, seems fairer to A1 candidate, and respectful to the capabilities of the admin. The message to those in the community who are looking for a place to go if they feel something is unfair is, if you approach the arbs you risk draconian punishment without recourse or explanation. and can expect to skip the escalating-in-between sanctions as the last and worse is applied. Editors deserve explanation and fairness and they need a place to go where they can trust those in command. This is the second instance I've felt concern about an arbitration situation; I don't want to be here, but I am concerned that indef sanctions are being handed out like lollipops with about as much explanation. Disclaimer: I have very little experience with acupuncture in RL, and left the Acupuncture article after a few comments because the environment was poisonous.(Littleolive oil (talk) 16:26, 26 May 2015 (UTC))[reply]

Statement by Cla68

A1 editor, you gave it a good try to NPOV that article a little, but realize that you're up against an entrenched anti-alternative medicine bias in Wikipedia, one that extends to its administration, as you're finding out the hard way. These guys are experts into maneuvering you into a position of making it look like you're a fanatic with an agenda and they aren't. I suggest finding more productive things to do with your time than editing WP or else going out and recruiting about 10-20 other people who have a more open-minded and fair attitude towards acupuncture and bring them back to edit the article with you. Good luck. Cla68 (talk) 02:00, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by {other-editor}

Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the case request or provide additional information.

Acupuncture: Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Acupuncture: Arbitrator views and discussion

Amendment request: GoodDay

Initiated by GoodDay at 12:26, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Case or decision affected
GoodDay arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)
Clauses to which an amendment is requested
  1. GoodDay is indefinitely prohibited from making any edits concerning diacritics, or participating in any discussions about the same, anywhere on the English Wikipedia. This includes converting any diacritical mark to its basic glyph on any article or other page, broadly construed, and any edit that adds an unaccented variation of a name or other word as an alternate form to one with diacritics.
List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request
Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
Information about amendment request
  • Seeking to remove restriction on diacritics
  • Link to the principle, finding, remedy, section, etc for which you are requesting amendment
  • State the desired modification

Statement by GoodDay

It's been nearly 3 years since I was restricted from diacritics & almost as long since I've breached my restriction. It appears that I've shown the ability of restraint since that time. I'm requesting that my restriction on diacritics be lifted, as it's simply no longer required to keep me restricted from that area. GoodDay (talk) 12:38, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I won't be edit warring over article titles, content or infoboxes. Nor will I be filibustering over the issue at talkpages. GoodDay (talk) 15:54, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Courcelles - Would a 6-month probation be acceptable? Just to see if I can keep my temper under control concerning diacritics? As I understood it, I was restricted because of edit-spats, personal attacks & filibustering on talkpages. Not because of my opposition to diacritics usage. GoodDay (talk) 20:16, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Response to Yunshui - My major interests is the North American-based ice hockey articles. There's some dios in them, which can be deleted or hidden. Those articles are under an agreed compromise at WP:HOCKEY. I'm aware of the Village Pump discussion, but see it as mostly a waste of time, as there's no consensus for either total usage or total banning of diacritics. Even if such a consensus were to emerge for either way, such a consensus would be difficult to impliment across thousands of articles. So again, I'd rather limit myself to ice hockey articles. GoodDay (talk) 21:50, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not certain if it's relevant here. But, I have never committed sock-puppetry or evasion, in order to get around my restriction. GoodDay (talk) 15:46, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Steven Zhang - I'm not certain what your concern is about my touting my honesty. Would you elaborate? GoodDay (talk) 22:21, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Response to Steven Zhang - I've been on Wikipedia for nearly 10 yrs. I never have & never will resort to sockpuppetry or evasion. By bringing up this fact, I'm hoping that it will weigh in favour of a lifting of the diacritics restriction in any form. Obviously, if the restricton remains in place, I will 'of course' continue to honour it fully. GoodDay (talk) 22:30, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Seeking clarification - If 0RR is adopted. What would the penalty be for a breach? GoodDay (talk) 10:45, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Yunshui - Understood. GoodDay (talk) 10:53, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Seeking clarification - Does the proposed 0RR & lone comment on talkpage, apply to my userpage & its talkpage? GoodDay (talk) 12:35, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Steven Zhang - Ok, thanks. GoodDay (talk) 12:58, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A request - If my restriction is amended, would those of you here inform me (clearly) what the conditions will be? PS- I'm hoping a probationary period of 6-months will be considered, afterwards (if no breaches occur in those 6-months) my restriction will be fully lifted :) GoodDay (talk) 12:05, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by uninvolved TransporterMan

I'm only here because I saw the notice posted to Steven Zhang's talk page, which I stalk due to Steve's and my common interest in dispute resolution and the fact that he only occasionally comes around these days. I wasn't involved in the original case, nor have I had any prior dealings which were either so good or so bad with GoodDay that I can recall them.

I'm not necessarily opposing this, but I have to say that it seems suspicious to me. Why would any editor who doesn't have a bee in his/her bonnet about diacriticals care about whether or not s/he can edit or discuss diacriticals? In all my time here, I cannot recall ever caring about that issue, and though perhaps I'm just projecting my own apathy/lazy-editorism onto everyone else, I can't imagine anyone else caring about it enough to bother with this filing unless that bee is still buzzing around in their bonnet. (I do get it that a topic ban is kind of a black smudge on one's reputation and that one might want it removed for that reason alone. But not coming out and saying that kind of bespeaks some suspicion of its own if that's the reason.) If I were y'all, I think I'd want some additional explanation from GoodDay other than, "it's been a long time and I've been good," and perhaps a promise that even if the ban is lifted that s/he will continue to avoid doing the things that the ban covered so as to demonstrate and to continue to demonstrate that the Ɓ (that's a B with a diacritical or, by extension, a diacritical bee) is defunct. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:26, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by uninvolved Ghmyrtle

Prior to his site ban, GoodDay had been topic-banned - here - from contributing "from pages relating to the United Kingdom and Ireland, broadly construed." Since being released from his ban, GoodDay has returned to his old habits of contributing his opinions repeatedly and unconstructively on UK/Ireland matters - for example here and here - in exactly the same way as he always did. Having failed to learn any lessons as to his behaviour in relation to UK/Ireland matters, I think it is improbable, to say the least, that his behaviour will change in relation to the use of diacritics, were that topic ban to be lifted. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:37, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Beyond My Ken

GoodDay's statement doesn't make a lot of sense to me. If there's an area in which there is an agreed compromise, any editor on Wikipedia can make any of the changes GoodDay says he's interested in. Why do we need someone who's been a significant problem in this area back again? I believe that the Committee should turn down this amendment request, as I see no value to the project in allowing it. BMK (talk) 05:08, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to associate myself with AKG's remark concerning the amount of disruption GoodDay's actions caused at the time. BMK (talk) 22:03, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Steven Zhang

@TransporterMan: (and GoodDay) - Thanks for the heads up on this one. I'm really in two minds here. As a former banned editor myself (back about 8 years ago now?) I agree that past actions shouldn't hang over one's head for all eternity, especially if it's clear one has changed their ways. After a period of time, one should almost always be given a second chance. That said, I do have concerns about an outright lifting of the ban - diacritics was the issue that got GoodDay in trouble back when I mentored him, leading to the GoodDay case where this topic ban was placed. He was later banned, and it has since been lifted. It's been some time since then, but I'd still be uncomfortable with an outright lifting of the ban.

I like the idea presented by Courcelles of a 0RR on diacritics, and I'm not sure he needs to provide a detailed explanation as to why he wants to be able to edit them - yes, this may come as a surprise, but with AGF and all, I think "I won't stuff up again" will suffice. If his edits are really uncontroversial, they'll stick, if not, someone will revert them. If he causes trouble, well, the Arbitration Committee can impose sanctions again, so I'd say lifting the ban on a 0RR condition would be the way to go, making it clear that if it is broken or trouble starts again, sanctions can be imposed, up to and including sitebans. Steven Zhang Help resolve disputes! 06:30, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@GoodDay, that goes without saying to be honest - and that you bring up the idea is rather troubling... Steven Zhang Help resolve disputes! 22:15, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@GoodDay, saying "I didn't sock or evade to get around my topic ban", to me, makes me think that you may have considered it as an option at one point, otherwise you wouldn't even have mentioned the idea, if not the case, then I'm curious as to why you would mention it. It troubles me somewhat. Steven Zhang Help resolve disputes! 22:25, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@GoodDay, thanks for explaining. Part of me wonders why you want to be able to edit diacritics, as, well, there's so much else to edit (though after a year and a bit away, I admit I'm back to the same things I used to be - dispute resolution), but as I said in my statement, I don't think there's a need to explain yourself, as long as you keep your nose clean - a 0RR restriction is reasonably safe and I'm sure you understand what might happen if you break such a restriction/cause trouble. I'll end my involvement here (unless asked to comment again in an arb comment) - I'm sure they will come up with a resolution we can all live with. Steven Zhang Help resolve disputes! 22:35, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@GoodDay, I'd think the answer to that question would obviously be no :) Steven Zhang Help resolve disputes! 12:56, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Resolute

I think after three years, it would be fair to give GoodDay a fresh chance. That being said, GoodDay - you still gravitate towards drama like a moth to flame, so I do think an interim restriction would still be necessary. Personally, I am not thinking of 0RR, but rather a talk page restriction of one comment per sub-section of a debate, responding only to comments directed at you specifically. Otherwise, you're playing a risky game. Chances are your passions will plant you right on a treadmill right off Wikipedia, since I can't see the community being terribly lenient if we ended up back at square one. Resolute 19:16, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Snowded

I have a similar concern to Ghmyrtle in that GoodDay seems to be returning to old habits of throwing in comments that are either provocative or not helpful on B&I pages. However if is prepared to make an absolute commitment to stop that then I would agree a fresh chance. ----Snowded TALK 09:55, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by DJSasso

I would have to agree with Transporterman. If someone doesn't care about them longer there doesn't seem to be a reason to request a lift of the restriction. Seeing that he has returned to his ways on the B&I pages after that one was lifted. And seeing that he still manages to get involved in drama for seemingly the sake of causing drama in other topics I don't really believe this will end well. Not for the project and likely not for GoodDay who quite probably would see himself shuffled off the wiki again. Likely this request comes from seeing a new person on the polar opposite side of the scale from him pushing to move to using them everywhere as linked to below. If that is the case it wouldn't be good. I wouldn't be opposed to a 0RR with reinstatement of his site ban for a breach. -DJSasso (talk) 12:54, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

At a bare minimum a discussion restriction would also be needed as mentioned by a few. -DJSasso (talk) 13:16, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by {other-editor}

Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the amendment request or provide additional information.

GoodDay: Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

GoodDay: Arbitrator views and discussion

I'm actually leaning slightly towards accepting this, almost certainly with Courcelles 0RR restriction or something similar, but I would like to get an idea of your intentions first. Yunshui 雲水 21:37, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Accept, conditional on the imposition of a 0RR restriction for matters relating to diacritics. (I'd be happy to set an expiry on the restriction of six months or longer.) Yunshui 雲水 09:41, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@GoodDay: Assuming that a 0RR restriction was passed by motion, I assume we would treat it as an ArbCom sanction (since it would become a modification of the original case). Breaches would be reported at WP:AE, and dealt with there by, I would expect, a series of escalating blocks. Yunshui 雲水 10:51, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
After reading what Steven Zhang wrote, I agree with Yunshui, something like Courcelles' suggestion might work. Doug Weller 10:55, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
AGK's commments concern me. Certainly they suggest that a discussion restriction is required. Doug Weller (talk) 13:11, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I support the 0RR restriction, and per Resolute's comment I'd like to see a discussion restriction as well - perhaps no more than two comments in any single discussion about diacritics, excluding up to one succinct reply in answer to any direct question asked of him following those two comments. Thryduulf (talk) 12:10, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • GoodDay's disruption to articles in this area was so extensive that I do not think I can trust him to edit them again. I also keenly remember, as the drafter of this particular decision, that at the time we gave GoodDay the benefit of the doubt by warning, not sitebanning, him for disruptive editing. Less than a year afterwards, we had to site ban him by motion. Decline. AGK [•] 18:52, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment&oldid=665995469"