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 NativeForeigner (talk | contribs) at 18:10, 18 June 2015 (→‎GoodDay: Arbitrator views and discussion: decline). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Shortcut
Arbitration Committee proceedings

Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.

[edit]
Open cases

Currently, no arbitration cases are open.

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

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

Requests for clarification and amendment

Use this section 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
127

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:
Clarification and Amendment archives
123456789101112131415161718
192021222324252627282930313233343536
373839404142434445464748495051525354
555657585960616263646566676869707172
737475767778798081828384858687888990
919293949596979899100101102103104105106107108
109110111112113114115116117118119120121122123124125126
127

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]

  • @AGK: re. "the subject must (...) edit the article non-pseudonymously" – the subject doesn't and mustn't edit the article per WP:COI. The subject writes his suggestions at the article talk page. --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:19, 25 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]
  • Re. not the ArbCom's job to publically confirm a user's identity: acknowledged. However User:Rick A. Ross has come forward to the ArbCom, and that seems to affect the intent of "... User:Rick A. Ross, indefinitely blocked and redirected ..." which has the look and feel of having become unactionable now – only: it's not up to whatever average editor (like myself) to determine whether and how the original remedy is affected. ArbCom decided something many years ago, a follow-up declaration when a partial execution to that decision has been given (and all in all somewhat different to what the expectations of the remedy as formulated seemed to be) stills seems like a good idea to me (...to put editors like me sometimes editing in the contentious topic area without finding it particularily interesting at ease that no rash actions that would make the editing environment unstable again are imminent). What I think should be avoided is an editor showing up and typing "#redirect[[User:Rick Alan Ross]]" as the start of the User:Rick A. Ross ... an edit that would be covered by the old decision but seems angular to recent developements (of which there is no sign of ArbCom yet that these recent developements are recorded in the system). Similar, whatever admin blocking User:Rick A. Ross with the old ArbCom decision as pretext, could not be undone without recognizing the old decision has de facto been amended (I'd rather prefer it be amended by the ArbCom for which I created an opportunity here, than draw this to whatever dramaboard that would be less able to come to a conclusion in a sensitive area). A minimal update to the old decision seems to be something in this vein:

    Follow-up on Remedy 26: User:Rick A. Ross has come forward to the Arbitration Committee, which makes "... User:Rick A. Ross, indefinitely blocked and redirected ..." unactionable as an enforcement action of the Scientology case as long as the editor edits with a single account.

Maybe add something like "This doesn't diminish any other application of the Scientology case, including, for instance, what has been said in remedy 8 (D) regarding conflicts of interest." to make sure, but this might be unwarranted and somewhat WP:BEANSy.
When I say "something in this vein", I mean: please find a more suitable wording if possible, don't just decline on a minor technicality that can easily be neutralized by casting it in the right form. Thanks, and I owe you an apology for not having been able to keep this shorter. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:41, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Thryduulf: Re. "arbitrators are expressing their opinions about both proposals in the section above" [1] – trying to get some attention for the third one just above, which, I hope, nailed it; At least it tried to solve the issue with the second and explains why when a thing goes another direction than the actual wording of the ArbCom remedy I assume it is best to have it recorded somewhere. --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:29, 12 June 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

  • Why does he need to edit as an IP instead of using his account? Yunshui 雲水 11:29, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
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]
And Decline amended version as well; there is no need for a case amendment or motion here. Yunshui 雲水 08:19, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not inclined to grant this request --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 23:15, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline. I see no reason to overturn the committee's 2009 decision that the subject must identify and edit the article non-pseudonymously. AGK [•] 19:19, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline. I don't see why Alan can't use either of his accounts to edit Wikipedia: neither appears to be blocked... Salvio Let's talk about it! 09:52, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline The purpose of the restriction was/is to prevent random IP editors turning up and claiming to be Rick A. Rosss or whatever as there had been complaints about impersonation.  Roger Davies talk 18:04, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline per Roger. Courcelles (talk) 18:47, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline, noting that he has now contacted the committee. Doug Weller (talk) 14:48, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline both for what my colleagues have said about the first request, and the second as I don't feel it's our job to publically confirm a user's identity, and there are already sufficient community policy to deal with impersonations. If this user can't access previous accounts, that that's something we can sort out with the user by email. A motion to amend can be made by an Arb if he needs a new account, and it is authorized by the committee. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 20:22, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline both per DQ. Thryduulf (talk) 11:26, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline. LFaraone 14:35, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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]

Response to GorillaWafare - I wish to hide diacritics on Bouchard's & Beliveau's names here & Stralman's name here, for examples, per WP:HOCKEY's compromise. GoodDay (talk) 23:49, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Response to Steven Zhang - WP:HOCKEY compromise is here. As I mentioned earlier, there's no emergency to remove or alter my restriction. I merely figured that after 3 years, a request to ease that restriction wouldn't be unreasonable. GoodDay (talk) 01:02, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Response to Steven Zhang - Resolute, Djsasso, Ravenswing (to name a few WP:HOCKEY members), would be 'better able' to point you to the discussons that brought about the compromise. We at WP:HOCKEY, are quite proud that we've achieved something that no other WikiProject has, concerning diacritics usage. GoodDay (talk) 01:24, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Response to Steven Zhang - It's been years since the compromise was agreed on. I can't remember the exact dates the discussions were held. You're completely free to go through WP:HOCKEY's history, concerning diacritics. GoodDay (talk) 01:34, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Response to Resolute & Steven Zhang - My stature on Wikipedia has been deminished to such a degree in these last few years, that I'm in no position to enforce anything. We all know that I've been virtually editing with a Wiki-gun against my head. The 0RR suggestion would (of course) be me virtually editing with a Wiki-cannon to my head. GoodDay (talk) 01:56, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, a few years ago, I recommended that English Wikipedia adopt a mechanism with an on/off button for diacritics. Those who wanted to see dios, could press the on button & those who didn't want to see dios, could press the off button. I'm guessing that nobody had the technology to create such a mechanism. I really felt it would've ended all disputes (content & personal) over diacritics. GoodDay (talk) 02:11, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Resolute - I have accepted the WP:HOCKEY compromise. I have no plans to hid dios from hockey player articles or Non-North American based articles. As for the rest of Wikipedia, I'm quite aware that there's no possible way to hide dios from thousands of articles. Just like there's no possible way to push for the usage of the Soviet Union as the birthplace/deathplace for people from the Baltics 1940's to 1991 - though we've reached an understanding to allow this at hockey bios. Across the rest of Wikipedia, I'm as much aware of the former (Dios), as you & Djsasso (and myself) are aware of the latter (Baltics birth/death places). GoodDay (talk) 02:20, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If I may, AFAIK, I was never blocked for edit warring over diacritics. My problems were mainly on the talkpages, where I would loose my cool with those supporting dios. GoodDay (talk) 02:29, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, the successful WP:HOCKEY compromise we've been mentioning, is currently under threat of being scrapped by 2 or more editors who've little to no interest in ice hockey articles, at Wikipedia: Naming conventions (ice hockey). Restricted or not, there's little to nothing I can do about it. Thus the nature of Wikipedia. I'm fully aware of my limitations on Wikipedia. Again (for examples), I would prefer that British be used across British bio articles, but I accept that this won't be adopted. Also, I prefer the Soviet Union be used for the birthplace and/or deathplace of those Baltic people for the 1940-91 period, but I accept that this too, won't be adopted. GoodDay (talk) 09:50, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Djsasso - I'm already aware that my stature on the 'pedia is deminished to such a degree, that my participation in any diacritics Rfc, would have little influence. If anything my merely posting "hello"- in any such discussion, would invoke some form of pro-dios backlash. Given those apparent realities, it's rather strange that some of you are so anxious to keep me in chains. If my stature is so deminished around diacritics, one wonders why am I still 'restricted' after these last 3 years. It's been already pointed out, that I'm basically the seed that began the harmony tree across Wikipedia, concerning diacritics. GoodDay (talk) 20:35, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Suppose the Hockey compromise was abolished in favour of full-diacritics usage. What would an un-restricted GoodDay do about? one might ask. My question is - What could GoodDay do about it? The answer to that would be nothing at all. It would be a big waste of GoodDay's & WP:HOCKEY's time, for him to filibuster on hockey-related talkpages. He certaintly isn't going to edit war over it, as that would lead to a block under normal circumstances alone. So you see folks, I'm fully aware of the landscape across Wikipedia having changed in the last 3 years. One editor (In ictu oculi) 'alone', has moved hundreds of article to dios titles, sometimes unilaterally & sometimes with RM support. How far could I get, if I were to attempt to reverse any of those moves. How far would I get in attempting to remove dios from article content. TBH, How can I be dangerous, if I've little to no support in the diacritics topic? The consensus 'here', seems to be that GoodDay is no longer a problem due to the changed landscape, yet he should 'atleast' be fitted with an 'security ankle bracelet'. GoodDay (talk) 20:58, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Djsasso - There's no question about whether or not I was disruptive in the area of diacritics, 3 years ago. The question is - Would I be disruptive in that area today. You believe I would be. I tell you I won't be. Of course, the arbitrators will have the final word. GoodDay (talk) 22:36, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To the arbitrators - Would you consider a month-to-month (up to 6-months) probation? It's very difficult for me to prove that I won't cause disruption, if I'm kept restricted. GoodDay (talk) 15:32, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To the arbitrators - May I have my Userpage/talkpage exempted from the restriction? GoodDay (talk) 21:18, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Isaacl - I realize a full lifting of this 3-year old -and counting- restriction isn't going to happen anytime soon. I just felt after so long, some sorta easing of it, was a reasonable request. I'm not angry, nor will I be if all my requests are denied. Indeed, I think a good argument can be made that I've shown patients, concerning this restriction. GoodDay (talk) 22:45, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To the arbitrators - If a consensus is reached at WP:HOCKEY and/or the rest of English Wikipedia to use diacritics everywhere, then I'll abide by it. GoodDay (talk) 18:03, 14 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]

@GoodDay:, can you 1) link to the compromise agreed on and 2) explain why someone else can't make these changes? I mean, on reflection, there's an awful lot of other stuff you could do in WP:BACKLOG... Steven Zhang Help resolve disputes! 00:54, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@GoodDay: where is the discussion where this compromise was discussed and decided? Curious as to how this compromise works in with the guideline. Steven Zhang Help resolve disputes! 01:17, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@GoodDay, that's not really an answer...if I was making changes to articles as per a compromise that was once discussed (and may or may not be in line with the documented naming conventions guideline) I'd want to have the discussion link handy. Steven Zhang Help resolve disputes! 01:31, 10 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]

@Steven Zhang:, @GoodDay: - The hockey project's compromise dates back to 2007. Somewhat ironically, it was GoodDay himself who seemed to have proposed it. Looks like the idea coalesced into a local guideline in June 2007. At the time, there was polls being done in wider Wikipedia context, but nothing approaching consensus. The hockey project was, at the time, something of a focal point for it, with a lot of arguing and reverting. A few of us old timers have referred to it as the "diacritics war". The compromise largely quieted that. Of note, I was probably even more opposed to diacritics then than GoodDay was, but have long since swung toward supporting them outright, so personally I don't really enforce it. I'm not pushing to re-open that debate, but the no-diacritics argument is growing increasingly tenuous as a handful of NA teams have begun to use them regularly, including the Montreal Canadiens. My honest advice to GoodDay would be to simply tolerate them, even if he doesn't accept them. It's a losing fight. And with a 0RR restriction, not he could win. But if he wishes to try hiding the accents on those pages, once, I see no harm in it. If others revert, he has to consider stepping back. Resolute 01:45, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A 'cannon to your head' is probably an apt way of putting it GoodDay, but that archive page I linked to might put this into some context: The things you are fighting about now are the same things you were fighting about then. I can respect your passion for these topics, even if they tripped you up over time, but you might consider borrowing from chess: High level players will not fight on until the bitter end. They will resign and move on once their position becomes unwinnable. Wikipedia will never be what you want it to be, nor what I want it to be, nor what anyone else wants it to be. To work well here is to accept compromise. In this case, it may well mean accepting something you don't like isn't going away. There are plenty of other things you might consider doing here that you would enjoy, and which doesn't risk lighting that cannon's fuse. Resolute 02:13, 10 June 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]

@GoodDay That last comment about the "compromise" being under attack and you not being able to do anything about it displays exactly why you need to be under these restrictions. You can't help yourself from jumping into hotzone issues. If the people who oppose it open an RfC on the issue, it will be discussed and a consensus or non-consensus will be determined. Your one voice probably would not sway the discussion much on one direction or another. It would only serve to get you in more trouble. And based on past discussions I wouldn't hesitate to guess that your voice might actually harm your cause than help it. The wiki will work the issue out. It will either decide that they should be used or they shouldn't be used. -DJSasso (talk) 17:37, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@GoodDay You aren't restricted because you are dangerous. You are restricted because you are disruptive. You waste a lot of peoples time. That is the trouble you can get into if you have your restriction removed. You aren't "in chains" to prevent you from effecting change. You are restricted because you cause a lot of disturbance and waste a lot of peoples time, filibustering and edit warring, and bringing up the topic of diacritics in every unrelated discussion possible to complain about the state of affairs. -DJSasso (talk) 22:22, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Ravenswing

Seeing as my name's been dropped ... I do want to say something in the interest of full disclosure. I was -- and remain -- on the same side of the issue as GoodDay: I strongly believe that the use of diacritics violates WP:COMMONNAME and doesn't belong on the English Wikipedia. The hockey project's compromise was much less anything in which any of us believed than the only feasible way to settle a prolonged conflict, and the only reason I'm content with it is in the years of bad feeling and edit warring it's averted.

An aphorism of mine, however, is the nature of a consensus-driven project like Wikipedia means that sometimes you're going to be on the wrong side of consensus, and your only recourse is to lose gracefully and move on. Some have an easier time with this than others, but perhaps GoodDay's managed this, at last.

I certainly wouldn't be opposed to an 0RR caveat, although this seems to be a lot of fuss to go through simply for a single editor to be able to make particular edits to an article or two. In any event, in GoodDay's defense, may I suggest that if he goes off the rails again, there are likely to be several editors who will lose no time in seeking much harsher restrictions, and have few difficulties in getting them imposed? Ravenswing 05:37, 10 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

  • Decline --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 19:37, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I might be willing to replace this with a strict 0RR for anything related to diacritics, but not an outright lifting of the sanction. Courcelles (talk) 19:56, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • What prompted the sudden desire to edit diacritics? I'm genuinely curious, particularly in the light of the lengthy and heated discussion currently underway at the Village Pump. What diacritic-related changes were you considering?
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]
    • Decline based on comments subsequent to my one above, I'm now thinking that granting this would be almost pointless from a practical standpoint and when that is considered in combination with AGK's points there really would be no benefit to Wikipedia in allowing GoodDay to edit regarding diacritics at the present time. Thryduulf (talk) 14:14, 12 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]
  • Perhaps this is just indicative of my own ignorance when it comes to diacritics and all, but can you explain what edits you are hoping to make to North American ice hockey articles that this restriction is currently restricting you from making? GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:35, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Decline per Thryduulf. I'm not seeing any real benefit to the encyclopedia from lifting this restriction. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:59, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline - insufficient case made for lifting the restriction, and per AGK. -- Euryalus (talk) 13:40, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline per Thryduulf. The replies by GoodDay do not give rise to confidence. DGG ( talk ) 19:46, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline NativeForeigner Talk 18:10, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment&oldid=667523100"