Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GoodDay/Proposed decision

Main case page (Talk) — Evidence (Talk) — Workshop (Talk) — Proposed decision (Talk)

Case clerk: AlexandrDmitri (Talk) Drafting arbitrators: AGK (Talk) & Kirill Lokshin (Talk)

Behaviour on this page: Arbitration case pages exist to assist the Arbitration Committee in arriving at a fair, well-informed decision. You are required to act with appropriate decorum during this case. While grievances must often be aired during a case, you are expected to air them without being rude or hostile, and to respond calmly to allegations against you. Accusations of misbehaviour posted in this case must be proven with clear evidence (and otherwise not made at all). Editors who conduct themselves inappropriately during a case may be sanctioned by an arbitrator, clerk, or functionary, without further warning, by being banned from further participation in the case, or being blocked altogether. Personal attacks against other users, including arbitrators or the clerks, will be met with sanctions. Behavior during a case may also be considered by the committee in arriving at a final decision.

Arbitrators active on this case

AGK
Casliber
Courcelles
David Fuchs
Elen of the Roads
Hersfold
Jclemens
Kirill Lokshin
Newyorkbrad
PhilKnight
Risker
Roger Davies
SilkTork
SirFozzie

Inactive:

Xeno

Comments

Perhaps the topic ban could be reworded to "GoodDay is indefinitely prohibited from interconverting diacritical marks and basic glyphs, broadly construed."
I take it that the standardized enforcement provision can be automatically added to the Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GoodDay at the close of the case if Remedy #1 passes?

NW (Talk) 18:00, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think GoodDay's views on diacritical marks will ever be reversed :-).
As I understand it, the enforcement provision is presumed to apply to any case with an enforceable remedy unless a vote is held on an alternative. Unless I am mistaken, we therefore don't need to append a copy of the standard procedure to the final decision. AGK [•] 18:34, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hersfold seems to think otherwise on #2, though I think Courcelles and Roger have your position on things. Roger seems to imply that it should be appended onto the case page at the end though. Maybe you want to just hash this out amongst yourself on the mailing list?

I don't think we need to. The actual motion says it "shall be incorporated into all cases which include an enforceable remedy but which do not include case-specific enforcement provisions passed by the Committee". Easiest way to achieve this to have the standard language on the Proposed decision template so it's automatically loaded. This way it's there and acts as a reminder for the clerks and if anyone wants to produce something customised. Accordingly, I added it to the template earlier. Roger Davies ^talk 10:21, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Courcelles, regarding the remedy "GoodDay warned", I am of the opinion that a warning is inadequate but a site ban would be excessive. I think a remedy such as "GoodDay is placed under a suspended site ban of one year for one year, where further behaviour/violations/insert X behaviour) will result in the site ban taking effect" or something. Instead of dropping a ton of bricks on GoodDay right away, have them hanging over his head for a while. While unconventional, I think it's the appropriate remedy. Steven Zhang ^{Get involved in DR!} 22:44, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Minor correction

In proposed finding of fact 1, "has strove" should be "has striven". Though really, strive and striven are a bit too descriptive for arbitration decision language. Simpler phrasing would be "has removed and argued for the removal of". Carcharoth (talk) 22:57, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just noticed this. I madea change earlier, plus one now from "has strove for the removal of diacritics" to "has striven to remove diacritical marks", which seems preciserer. Roger Davies ^talk 10:30, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Carcharoth, thanks for your comment, and see my comment on FF1. I am at something of a loss to understand what type of language, if not formal and descriptive, we ought to adopt in our decisions. In any case, I think the Finding is clear enough, so I don't want to make more incremental changes unless there is something particularly objectionable. AGK [•] 20:29, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No need to avoid the use of strive. It just reminds me of the quote from Ulysses: ""To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield". Carcharoth (talk) 08:07, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(Off-topic) If there is one author whose language I would avoid emulating, it would be Joyce :-). AGK [•] 13:30, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Re: "GoodDay banned" remedy

I note that arbitrator Hersfold is open for comment here. It is my opinion that he can do good work, but these two areas have been a sticking point with him. A warning or admonishment is likely inadequate here, a site ban in my opinion is excessive - but the lack of a site ban may lead him to have a "phew, that was close" attitude to the case - I can't say of course, I'm not GoodDay. My recommendation is a one year site ban, fully suspended. It can last for one year, and essentially, if he behaves himself, the remedy can be lifted. Kinda like probation. His mentorship can continue, obviously, and myself and DBD will keep a close eye on his conduct and report any issues to the Committee. I realise that this is more lenient than normal, however I think that from his response at the Workshop , he realises just how much trouble he is in, and doesn't want to be banned. I've been in that situation before, and it's not a nice feeling. I would encourage the committee to consider an alternative to a full site ban. Willing to write up the remedy if required, but I think something similar to the real-world version of a suspended sentence should be considered here. Steven Zhang ^{Get involved in DR!} 04:34, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A good idea, I think, but it's not really all that substantially different from remedy #2. I'm not entirely comfortable with hanging a sword over someone's head in this manner. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 18:11, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am content with the fact that we could amend this case and site-ban by motion, in the event of further misconduct. The purpose of the "GoodDay warned" remedy is that, if it becomes clear in an Amendment request that GoodDay's diacritics ban has failed to improve his behaviour, we can site-ban by motion by citing the warning as clear evidence that every other type of remedial action has failed. (Regretfully, I see that the "GoodDay warned" proposal has attracted some opposition from my colleagues.) AGK [•] 21:04, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If an Amendment request has been filed, we can do that anyway. We don't need a remedy to do so. The problem with the remedy is that its wording allows us to ban him on the spot without an Amendment request or even a public motion. That's what I'm uncomfortable with. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 01:15, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I dislike remedy 2 for the same reason: it feels like a sword is being dangled over the editor's head, without having first attempted escalating blocks. In addition, it appears to be a more severe remedy than the standard enforcement provision, and so the standard enforcement provision has indeed been superseded. isaacl (talk) 06:04, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Diacritics ban

The way the diacritics ban is currently worded, you are effectively banning GoodDay from editing. For reference, emphasis mine:

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

Diacritics are everywhere. Does the ban mean that GoodDay can't make an edit that introduces a diacritic to an article? As noted in the case pages, the ice hockey convention at the moment (as a general consensus doesn't exist) is to remove diacritics for articles related to North America. Does that mean that GoodDay is banned from these articles?

Or, in general, would the remedy be violated every time GoodDay makes an edit where there is a word that involves diacritics? All the following would seem to be a violation: addition of diacritic; removal of diacritic; addition of word without a diacritic that should have one. Because it seems to be that way, and so the Committee is voting to restrict GoodDay to only using glyphs that do not, and should not have diacritics. Such a restriction will be breached very quickly. Maxim_(talk) 22:51, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Logically, I take it to mean he cannot change the article as it stands. So if it is in a non-diacritical version, he retains that style, but if it is in a diacritical version, he retains that style. WRT to our hockey compromise, he would have to leave any diacritics he finds, but you do raise a point about the muddy waters this creates. What does he do if the Anaheim Ducks article ends with a mixed usage of Teemu Selanne and Teemu Selänne at a random point in time and he wishes to add some piece of related information? Would he be in trouble if he used the former style, though it is used in the article already? Reso lute 23:02, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If it was already in the article, he wouldn't be adding it as an alternate. Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:21, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is an interesting point. I know if I was adding something to an article, I might forget to use a diacritical form, and wouldn't want to be constrained to carefully examining the existing article (which may be a very long one) for what the current usage is, if any. There is a presumption that has grown up that material added inconsistently by a variety of editors is then edited into uniformity and consistency by gnome-like edits and people and bots and automated and semi-automated editing that catches such slips. I've sometimes used UK spelling ('colour' vs 'color' etc) in articles and not realised that the article was using US spelling (I'm sure this happens the other way round as well). And someone else comes along and corrects it. Which is as it should be. The type of edit may also make a difference. There is a difference between adding a single sentence saying that a non-diacritical form is an alternate spelling (that is clearly banned here), and adding a whole paragraph or section that is well-sourced and well-written, and being forced to copy the existing WP-article style that may contradict the style used in the source (there are good reasons when adding content to concentrate on getting the content right first, and worry about style concerns later). The key here is whether ArbCom can require GoodDay to follow the existing style in an article, and Wikipedia's style, rather than the style used in the sources he uses. That comes close to ArbCom enforcing style guidelines over sourcing guidelines (though I know some diacritical forms change the meaning and are hence a matter of content, not style). Maybe the real lesson here is that if you kick up enough of a fuss about this, and are disruptive, you end up being constrained to reduce that disruption. But everyone else can continue to be inconsistent and leave it to others to maintain consistency? Maybe one day there will be a bot (like that disambiguation bot) that turns up on your talk page and politely informs you that you've been inconsistent in your use of diacritics on a page you have just edited... Carcharoth (talk) 08:02, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]