Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GoodDay

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[edit]

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

Inactive:

Xeno

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Additional statements[edit]

Statement by Resolute[edit]

I've interacted with GoodDay for many years in the hockey project. We've agreed on some things, we've disagreed on others, and in the case of diacritics, we used to agree but now disagree. I don't know much about his conflicts in the realm of the British Isles, but his attitude around diacritics has become increasingly combative as of late in my view. I would also point this edit on Jimbo's talk page out. This type of non sequitur is a not-uncommon behaviour and is disruptive. However, I do not think we are at the point of needing a full arbitration case and at any rate, I am not certain what Steven is actually expecting out of this - admonishment? topic bans? site ban? I would think a topic ban would be the most effective solution, as GoodDay does do some good gnoming work unrelated to his problem areas. Something like that could be done via motion rather than full case if enough commenters of this RFArb support them (or if the committee directs Steven to go to AN to propose something on the community level). I don't particularly want to silence GoodDay on the diacritics issue, but he does need to step back from it in my view, because his obsession with it is bordering on zealotry, and I've seen plenty of zealots run themselves right off Wikipedia. Reso lute 00:56, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Roger Davies and SirFozzie - The issue of diacritics is a rather trivial thing on its face, but one of GoodDay's oft-repeated arguments against their use lends a clue. He likes to dismiss support for the use of diacritics as being "home country pride". His attitude is borderline xenophobic with a heavy dose of "protecting my language" bent. On the pro-usage side, many feel that dropping diacritics introduces spelling errors in people and place names, which can also be characterized as "protecting my language". In a lot of ways, it can be framed as a sub-plot to the many issues we have had related to nationalism (e.g.: WP:BISE, which GoodDay is/was heavily involved in). Reso lute 13:33, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@DBD - We just had an RFC on diacritics not too long ago, and as another commenter noted, it ended no-consensus. I don't believe another RFC would resolve with a different outcome. Since WP:HOCKEY deals with many eastern European and Scandanavian names, the diacritics issue has been on our radar for several years now. After much gnashing of teeth, we've reached a compromise that generally works: North America-centred articles drop diacritics (save some articles about teams/events in Quebec) while European-centred articles and biographical articles use them. It has worked for us for some time. I would note that GoodDay has chafed under that agreement a little and zealously "guards" the NA-based articles against diacritics, but he has always respected the compromise. Reso lute 13:43, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@DBD - This seems to be the discussion where we codified our compromise. (Ironically, it was GoodDay himself who led the charge on it). It has been reinforced, debated and in some cases slightly modified in the five years since, but retains general consensus within the project (though I will note that my attitude on diacritics expressed in 2007 is considerably different than my attitude today, but I continue to support our compromise arrangement). As to what GoodDay's respect of the agreement means, I would say it means that I believe he will respect the outcome of this arbitration, even if he really dislikes it. My concern, however, would be if he were topic banned from the diacritics and BISE issues, if he would accept it and get down to some good gnoming work, or if he would find another dispute to involve himself in. Reso lute 15:31, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by P.T. Aufrette[edit]

At recent WP:RM surveys involving diacritics in titles, GoodDay has often posted one-line statements that "this is English language Wikipedia & there's no diacritics in the English alphabet".( [1] [2][3] etc). In challenging this blanket statement, I brought up English words like "resumé" and American names like Zoë Baird as counterexamples. GoodDay proceeded to make this edit to Zoë Baird, which was brought to my attention by another editor, and which really seems a bit egregious. I reverted this edit and four other similar edits that he made in the same time period, all of which he re-reverted with the edit summary "stop stalking me".[4][5][6][7][8] This is not an accurate characterization, as I don't recall any prior interaction with GoodDay's edits except on the talk pages of WP:RM surveys and on my own talk page. At that point GoodDay appeared to blow a fuse, several times deleting comments left on his talk page by myself and others.([9] and especially note this edit) I posted to his mentor's talk page[10] and I guess we have arrived at this point. He's been occasionally mildly uncivil,[11] but mostly a bit bullheaded, and somewhat uncollegial in the RM survey discussions in declining to engage in more than just terse repetitive restatements of his core position. — P.T. Aufrette (talk) 01:32, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the terse repetitive insistence that English text can never ever contain any diacritics whatsoever (eg, as at the last link above), especially without meaningfully engaging in any kind of debate when attempts are made to draw him into a discussion by suggesting counterexamples, constitutes a mild form of disruptive editing as per the definition of "repeating it almost without end, and refusing to acknowledge others' input". Not really a big issue, unless it's part of some longstanding pattern or track record which I am unaware of. — P.T. Aufrette (talk) 23:01, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@MakeSense64: Edit summaries with "Added English version of name to intro, alongside non-English version" don't appear in GoodDay's contributions until May 27, nearly four weeks after the RM discussion you mention. If there really is some causal-connection extenuating circumstance, let GoodDay state so himself.

But even so it's hardly comparable, because 1) Icelandic letters like ð and þ are more challenging than a mere diacritic on a very familiar letter, so there is a stronger case for displaying an "English" version alongside the name; whereas, who really needs a reminder that ë minus ¨ looks like e ? 2) the use of diaeresis, in particular, to break up a diphthong is long-established in English, for instance, the New Yorker has used "coöperation" for many decades, a bit old-fashioned but still perfectly valid. — P.T. Aufrette (talk) 20:01, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by isaacl[edit]

Response to statement by Jclemens: As can be seen from his edit history and the user box he added to his user talk page, GoodDay's preferred edits are gnomish ones, applying small corrections repetitively. He is willing to take on tasks that others may find dull, and in this way can contribute positively to Wikipedia. I do not believe a complete ban is warranted. It may be more suitable for a limitation, with specified penalties, to be set on GoodDay being involved in his hot button issues. isaacl (talk) 02:27, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Response to statement by Courcelles: Instead of a case, perhaps similar to how Steven formalized GoodDay's self-imposed topic ban at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, Steven can make a suggestion for a remedy at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard, upon which the community can subsequently express its views? isaacl (talk) 03:57, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Response to statement by DBD: GoodDay's willingness to abide by an agreed-upon course of action demonstrates that he can remain productive with restrictions imposed. Unfortunately, his chafing has led him to seek out other edits such as those described in Steven's statement which can be viewed as a flouting of consensus views, and so a broader restriction may be warranted. isaacl (talk) 15:29, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Response to statement by Steven Zhang: A recent RFC regarding the guidelines on using diacritics is Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English)/Diacritics RfC. (I believe some more smaller discussions have occurred since then.) isaacl (talk) 16:21, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Response to statements by SirFozzie and Jclemens regarding the nature of the underlying disagreement: Given your views on the relative importance of the dispute on the use of diacritics, and the mildness of the disruption—various edits to illustrate a point of view and a re-revert—perhaps it would be more appropriate to re-direct this discussion to a venue such as Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard, with a narrow scope focused solely on GoodDay's behaviour, or to deal with this by motion? I do not believe the behavioural aspects are terribly complex. (The dispute, of course, is complicated, but as a content-related matter, I do not believe it would be within the scope of this arbitration case request.) isaacl (talk) 17:29, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Fyunck(click)[edit]

I don't know the full background here of GoodDay so this is generally a comment about his actions lately in several rm's and such. I noticed this because his page is on my watchlist for all his tennis edits. One thing that disturbs me most is that this seems to be one-sided from the point of view of the we must always use diacritics editors. There are just as many pro-diacritic editors who push things to the limit yet nothing is brought here about them. Could he be more civil? Yes. Would it be better if he left more complex reasoning when editing an article or talk page? yes. Do I see dozens of edits a week in RMs and !votes by long time editors that are also the same quality of civility and beating a dead horse analogy? yes. Then what's the difference in this case? The problem isn't so much GoodDay as it is wikipedia guidelines and policies being unbelievably vague and ambiguous on the use of diacritics. The last big RfC on the subject ended in no consensus to use or not use and any attempts to really bring all policies and guidelines in synch hopelessly fails every time. With these policies to follow editors are pretty much cattle driven into having huge battles in article after article and, depending on who notices or is in town that week, articles wind up with or without diacritics depending on the English sources. This happens in tennis articles all the time because a name will be spelled with diacritics in a players' birthplace yet spelled without them in US, UK, Australia, Canada, the governing bodies of tennis, and even a player's own personal English website. We often need multiple spelling versions of a players name in the lead sentence so as not to have unfair censoring. This makes for huge battles and fights because of ambiguous wiki guidance. It's gotta be a shock if one is a new editor here. I can't speak particularly about UK or Ireland articles because I rarely edit them unless they pertain to tennis or music articles. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:37, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@ P.T. Aufrette - I've been involved in discussions where GoodDay has left the same sentence answer several times, but there are dozens of others on the pro-diacritic side that seem even more intense and leave the same 20 word Demands every day. Did they get dragged up here? No. Why? Is it because the pro-diacritic folks turn their heads and look away? That would be exceedingly unfair if so. And you're actually bringing up that an editor is deleting posts on his talk page? I've been told over and over that we can delete talk page chatter at any time for any reason unless it is a particular administrative warning or block. And when those items are over they can still be deleted. The link you gave on your post on his page was not exactly anything noteworthy anyway. If we arbitrated every editor that was mildly uncivil, a bit bullheaded, and somewhat "uncollegial" I think the list would be mountainous. And it would include some administrators too from what I've seen. My own skin had to become much thicker around here or I'd have fled long ago. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:37, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Filelakeshoe[edit]

I realise my experience with GoodDay's crusade against diacritics is not recent, but from what I can see, not a lot has changed. In a discussion on Wikipedia talk:Use English last spring he repeated the same mantras he's repeating now, and in response to clear evidence presented in that discussion that diacritics are used in English, he responded "your argument is unacceptable to me… diacritics should be eradicated from English Wikipedia & there's nothing you can do to change my stance".[12] I hate to bring up something from a year ago, but it's clearly still relevant, he's admitted that nothing can change his "stance", just like the other fringe POV pushers we get on Wikipedia often admit that they will never change their "stance" that dinosaurs lived on Noah's Ark or that astrology is science. I really don't see the difference between this and what GoodDay is doing with diacritics, since the allegation that "there are no diacritics in English" is so demonstrably false. There needs to be a new consensus about diacritics in article titles and leads (and I wish all diacritics related RMs would stop until we come to one), and GoodDay should be welcome to repeat his mantra at every RM in the meantime with the rest of us safe in the knowledge that most administrators with clue will probably ignore it, but the fact that he still feels the need to make edits like this one tells me that this request is necessary. I also hope this will be a step towards us coming to a new consensus about diacritics. - filelake shoe 09:30, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

re: to MakeSense: Sorry, what I meant was, come up with a new clearer, plainer guideline which we just follow and forget about it. The current one is, as you point out, too vague, and that's why admins closing RMs don't (know how to) follow it. As for Zoë Baird, without wanting to get into another long tedious round in circles discussion about diacritics on this page, the crazy part of it was the word "English", implying the accented form was... what language, exactly? And also the circumstance in which the edit was made as described above by P.T. Aufrette. - filelake shoe 16:13, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by DBD (mentor)[edit]

This is disappointing. GoodDay is generally a good editor. Yes, I have often reminded him to wind his neck in and just get on with gnoming. I concur that there should be arbitration regarding GoodDay's behaviour, but I don't believe that the wider issue can be solved until there is a decisive policy discussion regarding use of diacritics. I strongly suggest that either: such a discussion is had after this arb case, or this case is postponed until that discussion has closed with clear and unambiguous policy decisions. ✝D B D 11:32, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Resolute Thanks for shedding light. I think it might be useful to link the compromise (which I assume had a sort of consensus and thus represents a sort of guideline on this issue). You assert that GD has generally respected (or worked within the terms of) that compromise – how do you see that assertion's effect on this case? ✝D B D 14:40, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by MakeSense64[edit]

I have only encountered GoodDay in a couple of RM discussions, most recently here [13], and he does indeed always seem to vote with the same boilerplate text that does not cite any policy or guideline. But so do many other editors who always come to vote with "this is an encyclopedia" or "because it is her real name" as the only motivation for their vote. Can we complain that GoodDay continues to use a boilerplate text, when so many other editors on the other side of the diacritics-saga continue to do the same? The solution to this is not banning or blocking but in closing admins starting to give a bit more feedback when they close a RM. Why don't they simply list the votes that were not counted (because not based in policy) in their closing motivation? Is that asking too much? If editors like GoodDay see that their vote doesn't count, then they get useful feedback and will adapt (for example by educating themselves about our AT policies). This will be a bit more work for admins in the beginning, but will soon reduce their workload as voting editors learn how to vote and bring proper arguments to a RM discussion. That would be real mentoring. Now we just continue to muddle through on the basis of very ambiguous and fragmented policies and guidelines, with nobody being able to make sense of RM closures anymore (because most admins give little or no motivation). We can't complain that some editors like GoodDay continue to vote in the way they do, as long as they have the impression that their votes get counted. MakeSense64 (talk) 15:13, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@filelakeshoe. What good is a new concensus about diacritics going to do if it is applied as inconsistently as the current one? Without more consistency and transparency in RM closures, editors can only get the impression that RM are based mainly on headcounts or on the personal preferences of the closing admin. In the first case it leads to editors bringing on votes, in the latter case it leads to travesties like what we saw in the recent closing of the RM at Nico Hulkenberg. The problem is not GoodDay or other voting editors, the problem is hopelessly fragmented and diluted policies, and too many editors who want to keep it that way. MakeSense64 (talk) 15:32, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@filelakeshoe. The Zoë Baird edit you mentioned [14] was not at all crazy. Wikipedia:LEAD#Alternative_names requires us to mention significant alternative names (including alternative spellings) if they exist. Several of the sources used for the article render her name "Zoe Baird", so why not mention this commonly used alternative spelling in the lede? It is backed up by sources, and readers may doubt whether some "Zoe Baird" they have read about elsewhere is the same person as this "Zoë Baird". We can say it is most likely, but there might be a different "Zoe Baird" who is also a lawyer. MakeSense64 (talk) 16:09, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@filelakeshoe. I agree that "(Also:..)" would have been better than "(English:..)" in the Zoe Baird case. But with regards to that type of edits that GoodDay started making I would like to point the reviewing admins to this recent RM discussion where GD voted: Talk:Eiður_Guðjohnsen#Requested_move. It was brought up that the common English spelling of this person's name was missing in the lede, and several editors agreed that English spelling should be shown in the lede if the article was kept at native title. As it happened, GD put his vote in right after that discussion, so it is quite likely that he has read and picked up on it there. MakeSense64 (talk) 14:11, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by In ictu oculi[edit]

Apologies for arriving late here. I probably have seen GoodDay around before but the name didn't really register until he complained to me directly about edits (lede edits and sourcing and moves) to a group of martiniquais politician stubs sourced primarily from the French National Assembly website. There is an extensive section on GoodDay's talk page under the heading Thélus Léro. As a result of GoodDay's request I submitted several other martiniquais politician stubs to a RM at Talk:Hégésippe Légitimus which passed unanimously, except for GoodDay, illustrating again that outside tennis/hockey use of European names is generally not controversial - as indicated by any category in the Latin-alphabet name space (although I realise this may not be evident to GoodDay since one would need to know e.g. French to be able to assess whether French names are really 100% in use in France-related articles).

My second encounter was while starting an article on a French WWI pilot Jean de Gaillard de la Valdène where a hyphen edit nearly made me lose part of the content. I accepted GoodDay's explanation that it was a coincidence, but notified the interaction to his mentor, and notified GoodDay that I had done this. My observation of GoodDay is that he is easily upset, and easily egged-on on the diacritics issue, but not malicious. I don't have any knowledge on the UK edits mentioned above. I have no opinion on whether a topic ban on diacritics would be helpful to GoodDay, that is for his mentors to decide. In my view GoodDay's "English Wikipedia" Talk comments are considerably less disruptive than others' actual article space edits.

I do have one comment however, discussion here has centered on the "Zoë Baird (English Zoe Baird)" edit, and I also left a request to GoodDay on this. But now I would have more concern about the "François Mitterrand (English Francois Mitterand)" edit, because it seems to me to possibly have been deliberately selected since François Mitterrand is the example used at WP:FULLNAME and WP:OPENPARA, two examples which are sometimes disputed by those against full spelling of European Latin-alphabet names on en.wp. If that's the case then the selection of "François Mitterrand (English Francois Mitterand)" was not just silly it was also WP:POINTY. Apart from that edit I have no other edit which concerns me. AFAIK mainly GoodDay just Talks, and talk is free. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:03, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by HandsomeFella[edit]

I withdrew a statement here earlier, but I feel that I have to share some of the latest interactions between GoodDay and a couple of other editors, including myself, on his talkpage. The general pattern seems to be that, while other editors mostly go out of their way to be reasonable, GoodDay responds with one-liners full of self-pity, portraying en.wiki as a victim of those hateful diacritics that are "forced" on it, and himself as a victim of unfair treatment.

Key example:
Reasonable input from Isaacl. [15], followed by GoodDay's response: [16].

Btw, GoodDay has admitted [17], albeit misplaced (in another editor's section here), that the bold moves have more or less ceased, yes he insists that bold moves are "encouraged" and occurs "each day", while his bold edits – e.g. adding English: Zoe Baird – are being punished (here, by this process).

My impression is that GoodDay is regressing and behaving more and more immaturely as the dispute goes on, desperate to milk some kind of concession out of the process as a compromise (such as an alternative spelling in the lead section). Maybe he feels that he's got nothing to lose anymore.

HandsomeFella (talk) 19:08, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@GoodDay: how can it be baiting when the links don't involve my own edits? HandsomeFella (talk) 20:15, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Request for amendment (March 2013)[edit]

Original request

The amendment request was denied by the Arbitration Committee. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:15, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Initiated by GoodDay (talk) 15:12, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Notification: [18], [19], [20] and [21]

Statement by GoodDay[edit]

I fully understand the reason why I was restricted from the diacritics topic on June 14, 2012 via a report by my mentor Steven Zhang in concurrance with my other mentor DBD. It wasn't because of my stance on diacritics, but rather because of my conduct/behavour towards editors involved with the topic. I wish to have my restriction amended, so that I can impliment WP:HOCKEY's directive on North American related hockey articles. In particular, NHL non-bio articles & templates. I don't wish to get involved with RM, guidelines or any non-hockey discussions concerning diacritcs. Again, I fully accept that my past conduct was in error. GoodDay (talk) 15:12, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To reiterate, I wish only to hide diacritics on the player entries at the 30 NHL team roster templates (example:Template:Boston Bruins roster), in concurrance with WP:HOCKEY's directive on having 'no diacritics' in North American based hockey articles. GoodDay (talk) 23:25, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've never been topic-banned from diacritics, NW. I'm restricted from them, which means I can't mention them at my talkpage.

I'm not nor have I ever been topic-banned from hockey articles. But my restriction does 'prevent' me from carrying out WP:HOCKEY's directive (which hasn't been carried out lately by the WP:HOCKEY membership). GoodDay (talk) 00:10, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You (the arbitrators) may find this a tad funny or difficulat to believe, but until yesterday, I was hesistant to request an appeal. I believed that I would've been reported at AE for violating my restriction & thus ended up with a 6-month block or a site ban. GoodDay (talk) 00:16, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

General comment: If I may point out, my restriction is a paradox. I can only demonstrate to you that I won't fight over diacritics (personal attacks), if you'll lift the restriction. Othewise, the restriction being continued, removes that opportunity for me to prove myself to you. GoodDay (talk) 00:29, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Risker. I'm so discouraged by the continuing multiple RMs towards diacritics titles & the continuing refusal to compromise on having non-diacritics in article intros (regardless of article titles) across Wikipedia, that I've no energy or will power to participate in those RMs & intro discussions. I only wish to concentrate on the NHL North American related articles, particularly the 30 NHL team template rosters. I only wish my restriction amended, so that I can concentrate part of my gnoming in a 'grain of sand' on the beaches of Wikipedia. As for where diacritics could/would exist? that would likely be the AHL, CHL & other lower leagues. I've no interest in those & so wouldn't bother with them. GoodDay (talk) 00:14, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

General comment: Perhaps it's best to close this amendment appeal. I'm doubly discouraged with the lack of faith being shown in myself by others & the lack of effort by the WP:HOCKEY members to enforce their own North American directive concerning diacritics. When (and if) my restriction is 'ever' amended or repealed, the WikiProject members-in-question will likely have declared their North American 'directive' null & void by then - because of their lack of effort to enforce it. :( PS: Does the restriction 'still' include my userpage & user talkpage? GoodDay (talk) 15:36, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Commenting on Djsasso's statement: FWIW, I hope arbitrators will take note of my & DJsasso's confrontational past concerning diacritics & view his statement in that light. GoodDay (talk) 19:29, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Precedent setting?: I can't help but wonder. What will become of Fyunck(click), LittleBenW, Kauffner, Wolbo, etc etc. Though it's not intended, this restriction does appear as punitive & biased against the pro-english/anti-diacritics position. GoodDay (talk) 20:56, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Question by A Quest for Knowledge[edit]

Is GoodDay allowed to edit hockey-related articles if they stay away from diacritics? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:22, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Given NW's statement below that GoodDay is still able to edit hockey-related articles if they stay away from diacritics, I don't see any reason to lift this restriction. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:06, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Rich Farmbrough[edit]

Provided only that it is accepted that "hide diacritics on the player entries at the 30 NHL team roster templates" is non-contentious it would seem churlish not to at least loosen the restriction to specifically allow that, and to allow Good Day to respond to comments relating to those edits. If even that discussion should be seen as too risky, then allow him to make a standard response, referring interlocutors to his mentors, or to the hockey project.

Grasp this opportunity to make a positive step with both hands!

Rich Farmbrough, 03:40, 22 March 2013 (UTC).[reply]

@Risker, GoodDay is not requesting to edit diacritics out of hockey articles, but out of 30 clearly defined templates. He also says "hide" - by which I assume that links will be piped when necessary. As I understand it the templates are these.

Rich Farmbrough, 04:02, 25 March 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Statement by Resolute[edit]

@Rich - Given the number of Eastern European players under the scope of the hockey project, and given how contentious the matter of squiggly marks are, we reached a compromise several years ago, absent a Wiki-wide consensus, to show diacritics only on player articles and 'international' articles. As the NHL has consistently dropped them, the other side of the compromise was that NHL-related articles (North America-based articles, actually) would hide them. GoodDay is asking here for permission to enforce that compromise.

I ride the fence on the idea of lifting GoodDay's topic ban but would lean against supporting his petition at this time. Aside from his breaching experiments shortly after the ban was enacted, he has successfully stayed away from the area, including (to his credit) avoiding being baited into the area by editors seemingly on his side. However, the very nature of this request indicates a continuing obsession with "non-English letters" that helped drive him into that arbitration case. IMO, diacritics aren't the root of GoodDay's problem, they merely focus it. They are a symptom of an obsessive-compulsive need for things to match his personal world view. I think GoodDay is sincere in his request and at this point wants to lift the ban merely to "fix" some articles to bring them in line with the hockey project's compromise. But I also believe that the ultimate result of lifting the ban would be to give him the rope to hang himself with. I've had good and bad interactions with GoodDay, and the bad ones are fueled by what I perceive as his being a drama junkie. His obsession with diacritics is likely only going to lead to a site ban if he is allowed to edit within the topic area again, if only because he enjoys being in the middle of controversy. Reso lute 13:45, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by DJSasso[edit]

As a bit of background on the compromise that GoodDay is seeking to enforce if you were to allow him to. It was partially created because GoodDay at the time of its creation was edit warring with IP based editors over the use or non-use of diacritics. In an attempt to stop the edit warring that was spreading over numerous articles the compromise was created to try and limit the battles that were ongoing. If GoodDay is thinking that we aren't enforcing the compromise in his "absence" it is purely because we no longer have to because the compromise was created to stop edit warring, and since one of the main edit warriors on the topic is no longer able to edit them we no longer need to "enforce" it because there hasn't been any edit warring. GoodDay needs to learn that his editing in the area of diacritics hasn't been helpful to anyone, especially to himself. Modifying his topic ban is only likely to cause him to get into more trouble and end up with a full site ban. -DJSasso (talk) 18:54, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would note that his British Isles Topic Ban was just reinstated yesterday as well which shows the problems that were brought up in his Arb case have not gone away. He has just shifted them to other subjects again. I would actually suggest that Arbcom take over the other topic ban as well with a motion. -DJSasso (talk) 11:30, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes[edit]

Arbitrator views and comments[edit]

The restriction at issue is remedy 1 in Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GoodDay, in which GoodDay was prohibited from making edits concerning the use or non-use of diacritical marks, because he had been engaged in a series of controversies concerning when such marks should be used. At this stage, I think it best that GoodDay stay away from this area, even though he indicates that he accepts and is ready to implement a consensus that was reached. The non-substantive changes to names contained in hockey articles to which GoodDay refers can be made by other editors, and there is no threat to the integrity of the encyclopedia if it takes some time to make them all. Thus, I don't see the benefit to GoodDay's getting involved again with this aspect of editing that would outweigh the reasons it's best for him not to. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:32, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Newyorkbrad, and I don't think I have anything important to add to what has already been said. GoodDay seems to have edited successfully in recent months (though I recall there was difficult with his edits in the months after the arbitration case was closed), but I do not see compelling grounds here to vacate his restriction. I would deny this appeal. AGK [•] 23:01, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
GoodDay, there was significant dispute about your behavior last time with regards to diacritics, to such a degree that ArbCom felt the most effective solution would just be to topic ban you from them. I don't see any reason to change that now, per Newyorkbrad's last few sentences.
@AQFK: Yes. NW (Talk) 23:43, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I see no reason to lift this restriction at this time. Courcelles 00:58, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As per NYB, editors who have less baggage in regard to diacritical marks are probably best suited to be making the edits that GoodDay mentions. And probably as part of general editing of an article, rather than as a focused mass article edit session which might be seen as contentious or politicised. This is a delicate area which can flare up. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 18:48, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've given this request a lot of thought; while I'm not involved in WP:HOCKEY, I am quite informed about the topic generally, and the issues with diacritics in published sources as well. It will be very difficult for *any* editor of hockey articles involving the NHL level to completely avoid diacritics; just about every team has a few players, coaches, managers or other key figures whose names or earlier teams (sometimes) include diacritics. GoodDay, could you please help me to understand how you would address editing articles where diacritics [could/do] exist? Risker (talk) 23:26, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Per the statement by Resolute and the comments made by Newyorkbrad, I don't think this restriction should be lifted. Carcharoth (talk) 07:38, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Request for amendment (April 2013)[edit]

Original request

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Initiated by Steven Zhang ^{Help resolve disputes!} at 14:49, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Case affected: GoodDay arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

Remedy 2

List of users affected by or involved in this amendment

Steven Zhang (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
GoodDay (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
DBD (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Snowded (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that the above users are aware of this request

GoodDay
DBD
Snowded

Information about amendment request

GoodDay arbitration case - Remedy 2: "GoodDay Warned"
I would like the Arbitration Committee to analyse the current situation with regards to the conduct of GoodDay, and decide what action, if any, should be taken to bring his conduct in line with the standards of the Wikipedia community.

Statement by Steven Zhang[edit]

Hi all. In May 2012 I brought before the committee a case regarding my mentee, GoodDay, which in the decision included a remedy that warned GoodDay about his conduct and the potential consequences that could face him if the behaviour continued. I am here because I would like the Arbitration Committee to consider in light of his behaviour as of recent (as part of a pattern over an extended period of time) whether additional measures are necessary.

Concurrent to the indefinite topic ban from making changes to diacritics, GoodDay has been under a topic ban from editing articles related to the UK and Ireland, broadly construed, and as part of the ANI thread where this was imposed, I was delegated the ability to lift and reimpose this as required. The initial months of his editing after the case closed were good. He focused on gnoming edits and other maintenance tasks (which occasionally caused a small issue but nothing serious) and generally kept to himself, and after a while he requested his topic ban be lifted. Given his reasonably good behaviour, and with Snowded (talk · contribs) taking GoodDay on to help him in this area with some guidelines having been put in place, I agreed. For a while, as far as I saw (Snowded was taking care of GoodDay for the most part) things were going OK. It was only when I was notified on my talk page about an issue that had blown up did I look into things closer, and realised that the issues that were present before the topic ban was instated still existed. Reading over his contributions, one discussion (similar to many on my and GoodDay's talk page) at Snowded's talk page point to the problem - when something goes wrong, GoodDay tends to point the finger at others without acknowledging his culpability in the matter. As a result of this I decided to reinstate his topic ban.

However these are not isolated incidents, I've taken this as an example (that and the 2 sections below it) of the sort of conduct that is common. To me, this appears to be a recurring pattern of behaviour that mentorship and topic bans has been unable to resolve. It seems that when he is restricted from one set of articles, it just moves onto another area. Along with other Wikipedians, I have tried to advise him on the best course of action to take to keep himself out of strife, and suggested (even offered) to work with him on articles of interest to keep him out of trouble, but he has not heeded any of our advice. For this reason I ask the Arbitration Committee to consider the best way to resolve this. Thank you. Steven Zhang ^{Help resolve disputes!} 14:49, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Salvio, with respect, I brought this to ArbCom last year after the community (meaning me, along with other editors and administrators) tried to resolve the problem (being GoodDay's conduct) and ArbCom decided that a warning, combined with a topic ban would be sufficient, but the warning includes a proviso that ArbCom can implement further remedies as required if the conduct is not corrected. I am here for that reason, because after the ArbCom case closed, myself and others have attempted to help GoodDay reform his behaviour and we have been unsuccessful. I believe I have demonstrated, as required when requesting an amendment to an existing how the case, why the existing remedies are not sufficient to remediate his behaviour, and I have also demonstrated what the community has done to try and fix the problem itself. We have not been successful. It is therefore the responsibility of the Arbitration Committee to resolve this, so that is why I have brought it here, and I ask you to look into this and act accordingly. Steven Zhang ^{Help resolve disputes!} 20:48, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@GoodDay, the reason I brought it here (ArbCom) and not the community (ANI) is because ANI can be quite rough from time to time, and comments made by those leaving their thoughts on a matter can often be very blunt. As a result of this, I decided it to bring it here, because while the end result may be similar, comments like "good riddance" are unlikely to come from the Arbitration Committee. Steven Zhang ^{Help resolve disputes!} 12:44, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by GoodDay[edit]

I'm simply too tired to argue. I'll accept whatever Arbcom decides. GoodDay (talk) 15:01, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I just want to continue on with my gnoming & nothing more. GoodDay (talk) 02:06, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, I promise to stay away from politically charged (or any disputed) areas & to steer clear of talkpages. I'll avoid participating in politically charged topics at my own user-talkpage. I will refrain from labelling any editors. GoodDay (talk) 02:25, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Res to WTT: I shouldn't have gotten involved in any disputes, where I apparently caused more problems then I hoped to solve. I lost my temper with a few editors & should've followed Steven's advice of 'keeping my gab shut'. Also, I shouldn't have let my frustrations lead me into spats with those editors. I was wrong to allow my annoyances with the diacritics restriction, In ictu oculi & Daicaregos to push me towards Soviet related articles, aswell. Furthermore - I don't commit vandalism, never used sock-puppets or meat-puppets, rarely get into edit-wars & rarely drag editors to ANI. If arbitrators are certain that I can't change my ways? then it's impossible for me to convince them otherwise. GoodDay (talk) 14:25, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As I've been a member of the Wiki-community for 8 yrs. I ask that Steven's request, be taken to the Wiki-community. GoodDay (talk) 12:59, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To the arbitrators- I will mend my ways. A threat of a 1-year ban or site ban, will have that effect on a fellow. GoodDay (talk) 14:56, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Would a 1-month self-imposed ban, proove I'm capable of self-restraint? Would that stave off the 1-year exile? GoodDay (talk) 01:20, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To the Arbitrators & the inputing editors - I acknowlege my 'thick headedness'. I do have a problem in that I loose my temper when someone disputes what I see as being correct. I have been agressive, paranoid & narrow-minded, with my I'm right, you're all wrong attitude & my You're all out to get me attitude. I haven't shown enough respect for WP:V aswell. I welcome any assistance from anyone, at this point. I'm stubborn enough to reform myself, but it would be easier to do, with friends guiding me along. GoodDay (talk) 05:39, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Begging for Arbcom's leniency - Seeing as my last 'block' was 1-month, I request that my approaching ban be reduced to 6-months. GoodDay (talk) 12:58, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by DBD[edit]

Despite having agreed to 'mentor' GoodDay, I have had very little involvement since the topic ban was instituted. mea culpa. This has been mostly due to my being rather busier, but also due to the sheer tedious predictability of GoodDay's recurring patterns of misbehaviours distracting and detracting from his good contributions. I have not had the inclination to investigate GoodDay's ongoing behaviour in my scarce available time because doing so is extremely vexing. GoodDay portrays himself ever the victim, never the aggressor and manifold attempts by kind, experience, patient fellow-editors towards his correction have been frustratingly futile. I do not believe that anyone is beyond redemption, but GoodDay is, was and continues to be at best obtuse and at worst maddeningly obstinate and childish. D B D 15:13, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Snowded[edit]

I did my level best on the B&I articles but GoodDay seems to lack any ability to exercise judgement or learn. He seems to want to blame others and see himself as a lone warrior battling for truth. On his talk page he allowed himself to led on by an obvious sock to break the recently reimposed restriction. Checking out his other edits the behaviour has simply moved to other topic areas. I think he needs a holiday and a clear instruction that readmittance to the community is predicated on his showing evidence he has understood what he has done wrong ----Snowded ^TALK 15:25, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

An example on this talk page - responding favourably to this nonsense ----Snowded ^TALK 20:35, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Thryduulf[edit]

I haven't been involved with GoodDay to any significant extent and haven't investigated his behaviour. I feel though that clarification of the remedy is required to determine who may impose the sanctions it warns about.

The remedy reads:

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

This can be read two ways, in both cases assuming that GoodDay has violated conduct policies (and I am explicitly not expressing an opinion on whether this is true):

Without further warning from the Committee, sanctions may be imposed
Without further warning, the Committee may impose sanctions.

In the first interpretation it is not specified who may impose such sanctions, but I suggest that "an uninvolved administrator following a consensus at WP:AN/I or WP:AE" would be suitable. In the second interpretation a simple motion by the committee would seem to all that is required to impose any appropriate sanctions.

Even if GoodDay is not deserving of sanction at this point, clarification would be useful going forward. Thryduulf (talk) 18:48, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Bishonen[edit]

The law of diminishing returns has apparently set in. It's distressing to see the efforts of the experienced and heroic users who have tried to assist and educate GoodDay being wasted, when they could be doing so many more useful things for Wikipedia, and having a much better time. Since all three seem to have found him unteachable, I think he's done here. Bishonen | talk 21:02, 16 April 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Statement by Nug[edit]

I request that his sanction is amended to include a topic ban for Eastern European topics.

GoodDay was strongly warned by the committee not to violate Wikipedia's conduct policies, especially of the nature recorded in this decision as findings of fact [22] and [23]

since that time GoodDay has continued to engage in battleground and uncollegial conduct and continues to cast aspersions about groups of opposing contributors

Accusing editors of "revisionist POV pushing"[24]
Making disparaging statements other editors, with edit comment "What it's like discussiong Baltic states."[25]
Adding names of editors to his "Hall of Honour" with disparaging edit comment Ya gotta admire their determination. Revionist historians have a place in our hearts, too.
Accusing editors of nationalist PoV pusher when reverting[26]
Calling them "SPAs"[27]
Gives a back handed comment[28] attempting to reach out, yet others make this observation[29]

And he has failed to conduct himself with due professionalism:

Considerable discussion was conducted during an RFC [30], in which he strongly opposed any compromise to his long held position[31],[32],[33],[34]. At some point he observed that "the last one to actively oppose using Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia as the birth-countries "[35] begins to make disruptively WP:POINTy edits in other articles contrary to his own position and despite the RFC still being open and unresolved: [36],[37] [38],[39], [40],[41] [42],[43] [44],[45] [46],[47] and so one for many other BLPs

GoodDay then massively expands his WP:POINTy efforts to other Eastern European hockey related articles [48] (edit comment "per silent consensus at Baltics Rfc") [49] [50] [51] [52] ... and so on for a total of 28 templates, then cites the lack of participation by members of WP:HOCKEY in the RFC in response[53] a subsequent complaint over these pointy edits in a thread started by him titled Baltic no-shows

Then he was warned to stop [54], reminding him that his behaviour is similar to that got him topic banned from diacritics and British Isle topic[55]. GoodDay tells Resolute to not to post in his talk page[56] and deletes Resolute's warning, calling it "harassment"[57]

Warned again[58] and again[59], responds by justifying his edit warring as "protecting the project" from "Baltic nationalists" [60]

Now he continues to make disruptive behaviour across multiple Eastern European articles

Estonia [61],[62],[63]
History of Latvia [64], [65], [66]

while apparently trolling here and elsewhere, which was subsequently removed[67] and given yet another warning of the consequences of such behaviour[68]

Resolute stated in an earlier Arbitration amendment request where GoodDay unsuccessfully sought to have his sanction lifted:

"IMO, diacritics aren't the root of GoodDay's problem, they merely focus it. They are a symptom of an obsessive-compulsive need for things to match his personal world view. I think GoodDay is sincere in his request and at this point wants to lift the ban merely to "fix" some articles to bring them in line with the hockey project's compromise. But I also believe that the ultimate result of lifting the ban would be to give him the rope to hang himself with. I've had good and bad interactions with GoodDay, and the bad ones are fueled by what I perceive as his being a drama junkie. His obsession with diacritics is likely only going to lead to a site ban if he is allowed to edit within the topic area again, if only because he enjoys being in the middle of controversy."[69]

DJSasso also stated in that amendment request:

"I would note that his British Isles Topic Ban was just reinstated yesterday as well which shows the problems that were brought up in his Arb case have not gone away. He has just shifted them to other subjects again. I would actually suggest that Arbcom take over the other topic ban as well with a motion."[70]

The same obsessive-compulsive behaviour is now occurring in Eastern European topics. Being topic banned from British Isles and Diacritics, it now appears that GoodDay has now shifted his focus to Eastern European topics and now again is the centre of more controversy. --Nug (talk) 21:04, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Resolute[edit]

I wasn't going to comment, but Nug dragged me into the discussion, so: Given his own battleground mentality in this topic area, Nug is likely commenting because he believes it will help him win his war. His argument may be valid, but I find it rather hypocritical and therefore distasteful.

As I said in the comment Nug references however, GoodDay thrives on being around conflict. And the EE problem is a parallel of the BI problem. We are really down to two options at this point. Remove GoodDay from all conflict areas, or remove him from Wikipedia entirely. A long time ago now, I recall an editor (don't remember who) who was given an edit restriction of no more than one comment on a talk page discussion, except for noticeboard discussions about that editor specifically and on their own talk page. Such a restriction would allow GoodDay to remain on Wikipedia and do gnomish edits (though only if he makes a conscious effort to avoid potential conflict areas), while shortcircuiting his ability to participate in drama. However, as much as I hate to admit it, Bishonen's comment about diminishing returns is apt. Even this suggestion may not be sufficient to eliminate the problems, nor may anything but a site ban be desirable at this point. Reso lute 22:38, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Estlandia (Miacek)[edit]

Support amending the sanction to include a topic ban for Eastern European topics. I've been marginally involved in the conflict, but less so than Nug. However, diffs provided by Nug clearly show that GoodDay is disruptively searching new and new articles to pursue his grudge against a number of Baltic users, whom he contrary to policies labels as revisionists or nationalists. When confronted due to his edit warring that is supported by NO basis whatsoever, ZERO sources, he fails to provide anything that would substantiate his position, apart from general WP:IDONTLIKEIT arguments [71]. A topic ban is doubtlessly in order here.Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 14:30, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by DJSasso[edit]

The issue with GoodDay is that he always does things that he knows are likely to cause trouble and then when he gets caught he tries to play the innocent victim who didn't realize what he was doing was wrong. For example he did this a number of times with the original Arb decision and trying to say he didn't understand that "anywhere on the wiki" included his talk pages and was blocked a couple times for it. He now states "To the arbitrators- I will mend my ways. A threat of a 1-year ban or site ban, will have that effect on a fellow. GoodDay (talk) 14:56, 17 April 2013 (UTC)" However, in the Arbitration Case it was brought up that he could be site banned. And there were 4 arbs who at that time who voted in favour of it. He already has had the threat of a 1-year ban and it didn't change him. -DJSasso (talk) 15:08, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Ghmyrtle[edit]

Reluctantly adding my voice here, as (contrary to what GD probably thinks) I do not want to see him banned, I want to see him change. But, I know that won't happen. The fact is that GD is devoted to Wikipedia - for hour after hour after hour every day - but after seven years still does not understand how editors should behave. I don't think I could put it any better than this essay: "If a user has behavior problems that disrupt the collective work of creating a useful, encyclopedic reference, then the editor's participation in Wikipedia may be restricted or banned. These problems may be caused by personal immaturity, an inability to properly apply Wikipedia's policies, poor social skills, or other reasons.... In some cases, those actions [to improve behaviour] will ultimately be ineffective, and action must be taken to stop the disruption of the encyclopedia. This requires that Wikipedia editors accept our limitations at changing behavior or policing it, admit that we are not equipped to engage in extended efforts to change or improve someone's behavior, and follow the usual procedures to request a block or ban. Ultimately, it is not the responsibility of the community to develop or enforce a plan that enables the editor to be successful." I agree with all of that. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:53, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

PS: One point, perhaps, to be borne in mind. GD is very protective of his personal anonymity, as is his right, but it makes it more difficult to assess appropriate courses of action. It's not entirely clear why GD spends so much time on this site - he makes very few if any contributions to article content - but it does appear that one reason may be a desire for contact with others through WP, as a social forum. Obviously that's not why WP exists, but equally obviously it functions that way for some editors, for whom it is a central and essential part of their whole lives. Perhaps, if GD has genuine concerns over his own wellbeing if he no longer were to have that involvement, he could be encouraged to contact someone on Arbcom off-Wiki, to discuss it? Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:56, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Jeanne boleyn[edit]

Eight years of giving one's free time and energy to a project has to count for something. I propose one final chance at reform before imposing the year long ban. After this lengthy service at Wikipedia GoodDay deserves that. --Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:26, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Bill Reid[edit]

Yes, GoodDay spends a very long day, each and every day, here on Wikipedia and it isn't healthy. Bluntly, his contributions indicate that he has rather modest literacy skills but his knowledge base in some areas is impressive. Herein lies the problem. Some have attributed cleverness in pot-stirring or deftness in his repeat actions after a period of lying low on a topic. I don't think this is correct. I would say that GD has a genuine lack of clarity of thought as to the consequences of his actions. He does, I think, really believe that on some areas he is on a crusade to right the wrongs (in his mind) of WP. He has been a nuisance, that is undeniable but I'm sure he actually has the project at heart and I would suggest that a lengthy ban is inappropriate for GD. I felt from the start that the mentoring system wasn't going to work for GoodDay. What he needs is to be shown how to put his knowledge base, eg in North American politics, North American sport to good use by writing/improving such articles. There are many who would show him the basics of article writing, how to do the research and help him writing the articles. Starting with stubs and then developing and collaborating to boost them into well developed articles. Jeanne boleyn has previously offered to do such help. GoodDay should commit to doing this and NOTHING else. He should impose on himself a reduction of his time on this site. He should restrict himself to the talk pages of those articles he has properly edited. He should put wiki-gnoming behind him as this causes problems. This I feel could turn him around into an asset if he applies himself. If he doesn't or lets it slide, well....Bill Reid | (talk) 12:17, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by uninvolved Sjones23[edit]

I am not involved in any of this, but GoodDay spends a long day at Wikipedia and I have to agree that he has engaged in further violations of our policies, specifically the ones regarding the conduct. Even if the regular established editors tried to help him (I am one of these editors, having been with the project for over 6 years and contributed extensively to Wikipedia), these violations are utterly disgraceful to the community as a whole. Thus, I think a ban on this user should work until he changes his misbehavior. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 16:01, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by uninvolved Mojoworker[edit]

It seems like GoodDay is contrite and pleading for leniency. I've often wondered in cases like this, instead of an x–month long banishment, why not put the offending editor to work on the 'chain–gang' as a way to repay the debt to the community caused by their disruption – by imposing an editing restriction that only allows them to work on WP:BACKLOG items? Does this kind of decision ever occur or is it too hard to enforce? Seems like a win–win situation. Mojoworker (talk) 00:01, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes[edit]

This section is for administrative notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Arbitrator views and discussion[edit]

@Thryduulf: I believe that what the Committee meant, when they approved the remedy in question, was that, in the event of misconduct, ArbCom could impose sanctions without the need for further warnings. That said, in my opinion, this does not imply that the community may no longer impose sanctions, if they so choose. Which is why I wonder whether our intervention is really needed here: while I'm willing to examine GoodDay's conduct to determine whether it has been disruptive and then act accordingly – which would probably take a while –, I think that the community would be entirely capable of handling this issue... Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 19:57, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- @Steven: after examining Nug's submission, I think GoodDay's conduct does indeed warrant a long block. I merely suggested letting the community handle this because I thought ArbCom would take much longer to reach a decision. $Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 21:47, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is within our jurisdiction, and it is apparent that GoodDay's behavioral issues are not limited to the two topic areas from which he had been topic banned. Proposing motion. T. Canens (talk) 21:58, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Decline I think Salvio has a good point. The community can deal with this. It's fairly straightforward, and I don't like the Committee taking away the will and ability of the community to resolve straightforward matters. This should be a AN discussion, not an ArbCom one. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 22:09, 16 April 2013 (UTC) Supporting motion. Let's just get this done and over. Looking back at the case - I think there were aspects of the wording that could have been clearer. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 22:21, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
While I haven't investigated whether we need to take further action against GoodDay, I would reject out of hand the argument of Salvio and SilkTork. GoodDay's conduct has been brought into the committee's purview, as a result of last year's case. I am therefore opposed on the face of it to any attempt to return this matter to the community. They have wasted enough time on this; it's now our job. AGK [•] 22:14, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
GoodDay, this is clearly now within Arbcom purview, the community has not been able to solve the situation. I'm willing to hold off making my decision on the motion below because I'd like to hear your thoughts, but I'm not going to agree that this should be deferred to the community. Worm^TT(talk) 13:28, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
GoodDay, I agree with your statement, but that doesn't give me any confidence that you should be editing. You were editing under a clear warning from an arbitration case about you, knowing full well that a ban was on the cards. You ignored advice from mentors and now acknowledge that you should have handled situations differently, why on earth would we think that you weren't going to end up here again? Worm^TT(talk) 14:08, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Motion regarding GoodDay[edit]

For this motion there are 11 active arbitrators, not counting 2 recused. With 0 arbitrators abstaining, 6 support or oppose votes are a majority.

In remedy 2 of Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GoodDay, GoodDay (talk · contribs) was warned that "in the event of additional violations of Wikipedia's conduct policies (especially of the nature recorded in this decision as findings of fact), substantial sanctions, up to a ban from the project, may be imposed without further warning by the Arbitration Committee". It is apparent from the submissions in this amendment request that GoodDay has engaged in further violations of Wikipedia's conduct policies. Accordingly, GoodDay is banned from the English Wikipedia for a period of no less than one year. After one year has elapsed, a request may be made for the ban to be lifted. Any such request must address all the circumstances which led to this ban being imposed and demonstrate an understanding of and intention to refrain from similar actions in the future.

Enacted - Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:21, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support:

T. Canens (talk) 21:58, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Let's just get this done. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 22:21, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
$Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 22:24, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@GoodDay, though I want to believe that you will mend your ways, a 1-year ban was already proposed in the past (though that proposal was not successful) and yet you failed to change. As far as I'm concerned, this is a case of too little, too late and, so, I am confirming my support. I am sorry to have to ban someone who has been here for eight years and has contributed a lot of good content, but that is, in my opinion, the only way to stop the disruption you've also been causing, as we've seen that a limited topic ban only moves it to another area. $Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 09:49, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Courcelles 04:51, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I wrote the decision for our original case concerning GoodDay. At the time, I considered a siteban to be unnecessary unless GoodDay disruptively edited topics other than the ones from which we eventually banned him in 2012. Now that disruption to other topics has taken place, and given the significant community time that has been afforded to this matter, I do not think we can impose any feasible remedy other than a siteban. If GoodDay appeals his ban after one year, he should bear in mind that he would have to convince the committee that he has grown capable of contributing to a collaborative encyclopedia project; as it stands, I regret to say he is not. AGK [•] 13:54, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
GoodDay, I've read your follow-up statements and given it my deepest consideration. However, sorry as I am to ban you, in my mind the best thing for the project would be to separate it from you. The community and its editors have simply spent too much time on this matter, and it will be for the best that you part ways now. I consider this motion to be a reflection on the effect of your edits and your style of contributions, not on your intentions (which I'm quite sure are entirely pure—I don't think you ever meant to cause disruption). Confirming my vote, AGK [•] 23:35, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Roger Davies ^talk 08:31, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've given this a lot of thought, especially given GoodDay's comments. However, when it comes down to it, I don't see anything that really makes me believe that he will actually change. 1 year does seem like a long time and if there was a shorter period, I would support that. However, as it is, I do not oppose 1 year. Worm^TT(talk) 15:56, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

I think Salvio has a good point. The community can deal with this. It's fairly straightforward, and I don't like the Committee taking away the will and ability of the community to resolve straightforward matters. This should be a AN discussion, not an ArbCom one. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 22:07, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

I am ambivalent about this. I see strong arguments in favor of banning and less strong ones in favor of limiting this. I'll park myself here and move to support if my opinion strongly changes. NW (Talk) 11:21, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
On reflection, I keep myself here. I agree with Newyorkbrad. NW (Talk) 18:14, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
With some sadness—this is not a Good Day—I conclude that it necessary for GoodDay to be banned from editing for a significant period of time, during which he should continue introspecting on how he can best change his approach to editing. Bishonen's comments above explain well why this ban is necessary. However, I am not sure that we need set a period of a full year before we would even consider a request by GoodDay to return to editing. I would prefer to set the period at six months. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:40, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:

I would prefer to wait a couple of days before considering and voting on this motion. In response to being notified of this clarification request, GoodDay's reaction was that he is "tired" and will accept whatever the Committee decides. I think that in fairness to this long-time, if problematic, editor, we should give him another couple of days in case he has anything else to say for himself before we vote on excluding him from the project for a year or more. I counsel GoodDay that if he takes advantage of this suggestion, he focus on how he would change his editing methods—if he can—to address the many concerns that have been raised. If in all candor he does not anticipate that anything will change, then I will thank him for has candor and vote accordingly. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:18, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am happy for this motion not to be implemented until 18/19 April, and on those days I for one will review GoodDay's statement again to see if he has said anything significant. However, I do not think we really have any other recourse here than a siteban. With several topic bans, an arbitration case, and a mentoring arrangement having been imposed to no avail, we've tried absolutely everything else. AGK [•] 13:57, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to hold off putting my opinion until the weekend. GoodDay has answered my questions on my talk page so I'm going to dig a little deeper to see how likely I believe his statement to be. Worm^TT(talk) 14:39, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Amendment request: GoodDay (July 2015)[edit]

Original discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

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

GoodDay (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
Steven Zhang (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

[72]

Information about amendment request

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GoodDay

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[edit]

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]

A final request to Arbitrators - May I please have my talkpage 'exempted' from this restriction? GoodDay (talk) 01:52, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Thy - So I can respond to any editor who happens to bring up the topic there. GoodDay (talk) 15:57, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Thy - So, my requesting a lifting or easing of my restriction, is a sign that I'm obsessed with diacritics? In otherwords, anytime in the future, if/when I make this request again at ARCA, I'm going to be turned down, over & over merely because I made a request? GoodDay (talk) 00:05, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Request to Arbcom - PLEASE close this down :( GoodDay (talk) 19:22, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by uninvolved TransporterMan[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

@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]

@L235: - this request has been here for around a month now and with 7 arbs declining, can this now be archived/closed? Steven Zhang ^{Help resolve disputes!} 01:38, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Resolute[edit]

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. Reso lute 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. Reso lute 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. Reso lute 02:13, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Snowded[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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 Italick[edit]

I think there would be a benefit to the encyclopedia if the ArbCom would not condition every requested lifting of restrictions on whether it foresees that there might be some benefit to the encyclopedia.

As a rule of thumb, 6 months of editing within the restrictions and 250 conforming edits should suffice in most cases. You could tweak those numbers, but there ought to be a rule of thumb like that for evaluating the lifting of restrictions that is acceptable most of the time. Italick (talk) 21:26, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by {other-editor}[edit]

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[edit]

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

GoodDay: Arbitrator views and discussion[edit]

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: I'm not entirely certain what benefit exempting your user space would bring to the encyclopaedia? Thryduulf (talk) 11:26, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - @GoodDay: such discussion would be pointless as you wouldn't be able to engage in discussion about them anywhere else, nor take any action as a result of the discussion. History has shown that discussions about diacritics on en.wp are better when you don't contribute to them so I find it odd that anyone would solicit your opinion about them. That you are still pushing for even a tiny exemption to allow you to edit about diacritics over a month after you initiated the request and 2-3 weeks after it was declined, really does not convince me you have gotten over your obsession with them - quite the opposite in fact. Decline. Thryduulf (talk) 23:48, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - @GoodDay: It is not that you have made an appeal, it is that you have persisted with requests for ever smaller exemptions for so long. Let it go. Thryduulf (talk) 16:50, 2 July 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]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Amendment request: GoodDay (September 2015)[edit]

Original discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Initiated by GoodDay (talk) 17:11, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Case or decision affected: GoodDay arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

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

GoodDay (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
Steven Crossin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Steven Crossin

Statement by GoodDay[edit]

May I please have my diacritics ban lifted. I believe there's no longer a reason for it to exist, as it appears that the topic itself has been settled by the general community, in favour of dios usage. GoodDay (talk) 17:11, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Response - I'm no longer obsessed about diacritics. I merely wish the restriction removed, because it's a restriction. I wish for my slate to be clean. GoodDay (talk) 18:04, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Response - If WP:HOCKEY has chosen to abolish the diacritics compromise & thus have chosen to include diacritics on North American hockey articles (including NHL team articles rosters), then I've no choice but to abide by it. GoodDay (talk) 18:59, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Query from Resolute[edit]

If you believe the community has settled in favour of using diacritics, when is your position on our old compromise within WP:HOCKEY? Reso lute 18:54, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Steven Crossin[edit]

Since I was notified about this request, I'll make a brief comment. I largely side with the opinion of ArbCom here - the last request to lift the restriction was less than three months ago and I think not enough time or things would have changed since then to provide enough to support overturning their decision from less than 3 months ago. Steven Crossin (was Steven Zhang) 06:03, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Rich Farmbrough[edit]

While I understand the reluctance of arbs and most commentators to remove this sanction, it would be nice to see some progress here.

GD claims, and we have no reason to misbelieve him, that he is "no longer obsessed with diacritics" - whereas those opposing his request have no stronger argument than "insufficient passage of time" - or the Catch-22 argument "anyone asking for a remedy to be lifted should be denied because the request shows that they are unreconstructed." Neither argument is appealing because both are ad-hoc and neither concomitant with a fair process.

Nonetheless concerns need to be addressed. What, then, should be done? There are a number of options that spring to mind:

Limiting the duration of the restriction. This saves Good Day from having to return and face the "too soon" or Catch 22 arguments once more.
Imposing a test period, during which such edits are not forbidden per se, and at the end of which diacritic behaviour will be reviewed.
Reducing the scope of the restriction. For example permitting discussion of, but not editing of diacritics.

Or indeed any combination of the above.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 22:34, 22 September 2015 (UTC).[reply]

GoodDay: Clerk notes[edit]

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

GoodDay: Arbitrator views and discussion[edit]

@GoodDay: What has changed since your last appeal was declined in July? Thryduulf (talk) 17:56, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Decline. I'm sorry I just don't believe that, given how tendentiously you clung to the idea of getting even smaller exemptions last time. That request was open from 29 May to 3 July (36 days), yet 70 days later you're back here again asking for exactly the same thing - to me that shows that actually you still haven't let go. When you have a couple of years or more of editing cleanly in other areas, with no pushing boundaries and no appeals or amendment requests related to the restriction, then we might be convinced you really have moved on. Thryduulf (talk) 20:57, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Decline --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 19:36, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Decline. $Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 16:17, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Decline. Doesn't seem anything has really changed from two months ago. Courcelles (talk) 19:05, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Decline L Faraone
Accept Whilst I do think it's rather poor form to re-request this so soon after it was near-unanimously declined, I moved to accept last time (with the proviso that a 0RR restriction relating to diacritics was put in place) and see no reason to change my position now. Yunshui ^雲 _水 10:01, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Decline Roger Davies ^talk 10:03, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Decline Doug Weller (talk) 12:23, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Clarification request: GoodDay (January 2016)[edit]

Original discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Initiated by GoodDay at 15:53, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Case or decision affected: GoodDay arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

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

GoodDay (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
Steven Crossin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

here

Statement by GoodDay[edit]

Since I've been restricted (in June 2012), a new tool has been added to Wikipedia. This tool gives editors the ability to 'Thank' editors for their edits & posts, via a THANK button. My question is – Am I allowed to THANK editors for any edits or posts made in relation to ~~my restriction~~ diacritics? GoodDay (talk) 16:06, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Response to BMK – the 2 times that I was reported at AE for breaches of this restriction (both situations happened at my talk-page & my now deleted secondary talk-page), the results were a 1-week block & a 1-month block, respectively. I wanted to make absolute certain, a 3rd AE report wouldn't be made on me, merely because I THANKED anybody for making an diacritics changing edit or just posting about diacritics. GoodDay (talk) 02:25, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification – The only editors I would thank, would be those who's edits or posts I happen to agree with. I certaintly wouldn't pester any editor or editors, that I had differences with in the past concerning diacritics. GoodDay (talk) 18:12, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Steven Crossin – There seems to be a misunderstanding here. I'm not asking arbitrators for 'permission'. I'm asking arbitrators if my restriction covers 'thanking' editors. I'm seeking clarification & nothing more. GoodDay (talk) 05:23, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Having read over the opinons of arbitrators. It appears that none of them are forbidding me to thank editors in the area-in-question. Therefore, I'll thank editors on my own discretion. Fear not, 1 or 2 thanks per year, is hardly going to cause any disruptions. GoodDay (talk) 15:41, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To Thryduulf – FWIW, I'm not under any IBAN. GoodDay (talk) 14:38, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, that part of my comment is speaking "in general terms", i.e. not about you specifically. Thryduulf (talk) 23:19, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To Guerillero – I've no desire to try & influence anyone concerning diacritics. Your's is the first message to suggest penalties, regardless. If arbitrators want to officially or unofficially tighten my restriction via barring me from THANKING editors in this area? then so be it. I appreciate the clarification of this matter & will comply with your ruling. GoodDay (talk) 03:47, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To all arbitrators – Perhaps I didn't make myself clear. I planned to thank editors who made edits & posts that I agreed with. I wasn't looking to torment anyone. Anyways, I would appreciate it, if this request were closed. GoodDay (talk) 01:44, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To GorillaWarfare – This restriction has been in place for 3.5 years, with arbitrators showing no signs of ever lifting or easing it. I think, I've been quite patient about it. I certaintly haven't been frantic, as there's been no f-bombs flying. :) GoodDay (talk) 22:46, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Beyond My Ken[edit]

I'm not sure why GoodDay thought it was necessary to bring this here, since he got fairly good advice when he asked the same question on WP:AN#Arbcom remedies a couple of days ago. It's not like ArbCom doesn't have a couple of other things on its plate at the moment. BMK (talk) 02:12, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that you shouldn't do it, then. If you've under a sanction to avoid diacritics (probably "broadly construed"), then if you make a habit of thanking people for diacritic-related edits, you're not really avoiding the subject, are you? The answer seems pretty clear: stop obsessing about diacritics and find something completely and totally unrelated to do. BMK (talk) 04:13, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@GoodDay: "I would stay away from the topic area" is not exactly a green light to thank people for their edits in the topic area. As for your discretion – well, to be frank, your lack of discretion concerning diacritics is one reason you are under a topic ban in the first place, so I still think you would be better off turning your back to that subject entirely and doing something else – don't even monitor it for people to thank. BMK (talk) 23:56, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Steven Crossin[edit]

Kinda have to agree with BMK here, GoodDay. While not really objectionable and as the arbs say, there are worse things you could do, I'd encourage you to focus on other things. Probably a better use of your time, tbh. Steven Crossin (was Steven Zhang) 05:17, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by {other-editor}[edit]

Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should opine whether and how the Committee should clarify or amend the decision or provide additional information.

GoodDay: Clerk notes[edit]

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

@Kirill Lokshin:, Special:Log/thanks will show who's been thanked, but not the edit – although as there is a timestamp, so that can narrow down the edits that may be affected. Mdann52 (talk) 21:51, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

GoodDay: Arbitrator views and discussion[edit]

I can think of few things less objectionable than thanking people. Even so, technically, the language of the restriction is "making any edits", and thanks are not edits. Courcelles (talk) 00:46, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Meh. As a general principle: occasionally thank people if you like their edits, but don't do it with the intent of being objectionable. Spam-thanking people, or thanking people who have asked you not to interact with them, will likely lead to sanctions for disruptive editing. -- Euryalus (talk) 05:58, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Euryalus. GoodDay raised this issue at ANSpecial:PermanentLink/693889302 – User:BMK, for what I think are good reasons and can be read there, thougt it was a bad idea, and User:Nyttend pointed out that WP:IBAN prohibits it between IBANed (sp?) editors, Doug Weller (talk) 17:26, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I would stay away from the topic area. --In actu (Guerillero) | My Talk 14:51, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I want to further state, that using Special:Thank or another non-editing tool to further a dispute that you are topic banned from will quickly lead to your ban being restored or or any logged or unlogged action in relation to being added to your topic ban. Please do not take our kind advice as a carte blanche to continue your dispute. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 03:17, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've commented previously that you (GoodDay) should completely stay away the topic area you were restricted from, and I'm going to reiterate that advice now – let it go. In general terms, people who are topic banned should not be making any edits or logged actions relating to the relevant topic area, and thanking someone does breach an interaction ban. Thryduulf (talk) 11:37, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Whether or not it's technically allowed, this type of skating right up to the line (if not over it) is not the proper way to handle a topic ban. A topic ban means to stay well clear of the area, not try to game it and try to find ways to shout from the sidelines. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 02:24, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've received quite a few thanks here which are obviously not to be taken literally (for example, someone who wrote an article I deleted). I take it as an acknowledgement, even though it may have been meant as ironic or a mild form of protest. (People in such situations have even given me a barnstar a few times). I think the possibility of use in this manner sufficiently great, that it should indeed be covered by the restriction. DGG ( talk ) 01:39, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Would I support a sanction based on the use of the thanks tool on a page that falls within the topic ban? No, probably not. But this does strike me as a frantic attempt to participate in the topic area without technically being in breach of a ban, which frankly makes me think the ban was a good decision. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:40, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Decline for reasons outlined above by DGG and GorillaWarfare principally. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:50, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The use of the thank button is a logged action, and the use of it in an area one is topic banned from editing is a violation of the topic ban. So please don't do it, because I would really to see the inevitable AE report brought up for something such as this. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 19:33, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A technical question: as far as I can tell, the thanks log only shows the editor giving the thanks and the editor receiving it, not the specific edit for which the action was taken. While the latter information is obviously available to the recipient, is there any way for others to determine it? If not, then any topic ban applied to the activity strikes me as unenforceable. Kirill Lokshin (talk) 21:41, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Kirill is right; it's not possible for anyone other than the recipient (or a developer, I suppose) to see the notification or identify which edits were thanked. So there's not enough of an audit trail to call this a topic ban violation. But, use some common sense and don't do it. (And on the other hand, if you get one or two thanks that are borderline topic ban violations, don't come to AE about it.) Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:06, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with DGG, that it should be covered by the restriction. Drmies (talk) 20:18, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Amendment request: GoodDay (August 2016)[edit]

Original discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Intitated by GoodDay (talk) 12:56, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Case or decision affected: GoodDay arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

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

GoodDay (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
Steven Crossin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

[73]

Statement by GoodDay[edit]

Howdy. It's been over 4 years, since I was banned from editing around or mentioning diacritics on Wikipedia. I'm requesting that the ban be over-turned. GoodDay (talk) 12:56, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As in my previous requests, I again promise 'not' to be disruptive in that area. GoodDay (talk) 13:38, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Arbitrator - A clean slate would be good. Mostly though, I want to work on the Ice hockey articles in that area. GoodDay (talk) 21:13, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Arbitrator - I wish to concentrate on fully implimenting WP:HOCKEY's wanting to hide/remove diacritics from North American-based ice hockey articles. As for the question of what's changed since my last requests? I'm feeling stigmatized by this near half-decade ban. GoodDay (talk) 22:47, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Responses to Arbitrators - how to handle diacritics in ice hockey articles, is what I'm getting at. GoodDay (talk) 09:10, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Kelapstick - Exceptions are made in North American based hockey articles, concerning French Canadians. GoodDay (talk) 23:52, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Kelapstick - I wouldn't go 'round the Salming article, which is a player article. But, I would un-diacriticize Salming in any NHL-based team, tournament, or any other non-player articles, like Toronto Maple Leafs (for example). GoodDay (talk) 01:05, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Keeping an eye on things here :) GoodDay (talk) 11:39, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Response to DQ - in my opening statement, I wrote that "it's been over 4 years since I was banned from editing around or mentioning diacritics...". How is that a misleading statement? GoodDay (talk) 09:12, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Steven Crossin[edit]

Meh, it's been four years. I'd say lift the ban - ArbCom can always reinstate it if need be. I would pre-emptively disagree with people that state he needs to give detailed reasoning on why the ban should be lifted, I'd think after 4 years, a promise to behave is all that's really required, and he's done so. Steven Crossin 13:47, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by HighKing[edit]

I agree with Steven. GoodDay has kept his nose clean for 4 years (wow .. that's a long time!) and I also think that asking for detailed reasoning at this stage would be unreasonable. His actions and good behaviour on this issue speak for themselves. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 22:05, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

After reading some of the comments below from our Arbitration people, I'm worried and concerned that the prevailing reasoning being provided for not lifting the ban suggests that an editor should only request an unban if they declare that they've no intention of editing in the subject area in question again. Yet I've seen other requests where an editor makes a declaration along the lines that they don't intend to rush back to the topic only to be told that there's then no need to lift the bad. Should we not AGF once the editor declares they intend to mend their ways (and have shown efforts to do so) and that they intend to abide by policy? Am I missing something? -- HighKing⁺⁺ 13:21, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Thryduulf[edit]

The last clarification request makes it clear that you were not staying clear of the topic area then - for example GorillaWarfare said "this does strike me as a frantic attempt to participate in the topic area without technically being in breach of a ban, which frankly makes me think the ban was a good decision." so saying now you've kept your nose clean for 4 years is a bit disingenuous. Being patient is a lot more than remaining civil.

In my then capacity as an arbitrator I said then, "I've commented previously that you (GoodDay) should completely stay away the topic area you were restricted from, and I'm going to reiterate that advice now – let it go.". Coming back here 7 months later is not letting it go, so I would repeat my advice and add that when I say "let it go" I mean you should essentially forget that the topic exists and have absolutely nothing to do with it for at least a year - preferably two. I recommend to the current Committee that this appeal be declined and that adding a minimum time of 1 year before the next appeal should be considered. Thryduulf (talk) 15:41, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unhelpful comment by Newyorkbrad[edit]

I see no acute need to modify the restriction, but I recognize this is a grave decision. If the sanction is lifted, I hope that GoodDay will be circumflex in his editing. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:07, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Kurtis[edit]

I agree with Steven and support lifting the restriction on a provisional basis. If issues resurface after being allowed back to editing diacritics-related articles, then the topic ban can be reinstated at any time. I dislike the idea of permanent editing restrictions - they carry a stigma that lasts for as long as they are in place. These sanctions appear to have outlived their usefulness, so let's end them. Kurtis ^(talk) 20:55, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I retract my earlier statement; I think keeping the topic ban in place is necessary for the time being. The whole point of sanctions is to prevent people from becoming a disruptive influence in areas where they've been shown to have difficulty in separating their emotions from their editing. GoodDay appears hell-bent on enforcing his own preferences relating to diacritics, and I can't really envision this as being anything but counterproductive. Keeping the topic ban in place for the time being will help to prevent unnecessary bad blood from arising in the short-term. Kurtis ^(talk) 16:52, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I retract my retraction. GorillaWarfare (or Molly, whichever she prefers to be called) has swayed me back to my original point, which you can see in the first stanza of crossed-out words above. It sounds like there might be some issues, but if they do arise, we can always reapply the sanctions. Let's give GoodDay a chance and see how this works out. Kurtis ^(talk) 00:00, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by isaacl[edit]

In an earlier request for amendment, GoodDay stated "I'm no longer obsessed about diacritics." However with the latest statement indicating a desire to return to editing hockey player names, I believe this would result in a lot of wasted time arguing a matter that the English Wikipedia community as a whole has not managed to reach agreement upon. Thus I do not believe a removal of the topic ban would be beneficial to Wikipedia at this time. isaacl (talk) 03:14, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Callanecc: see Wikipedia:WikiProject Ice Hockey#Wikiproject notice for the compromise position on modified letters that had once been used by WikiProject Ice Hockey, and the amendment request from July 2015 for a discussion of the background of this compromise (in particular, the statement from Resolute). isaacl (talk) 03:31, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As a way forward, perhaps the topic ban can be modified to permit discussion of modified letters on talk pages, while leaving the prohibition on editing article pages in place. User:Resolute had previously suggested a restriction of one comment per sub-section of a debate, and only in response to questions directed specifically to GoodDay. I suggest extending this to also allow a single comment in any RfC, poll, or other discussion where an opinion on the use of modified letters is specifically being requested from the community at large. This would prevent GoodDay from interjecting non-sequitur commentary on modified letters into other discussions, as has happened in the past. isaacl (talk) 18:16, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Opabinia regalis: the whole issue of modified letters is an unresolved one in the broader community; the last time a Request for Comment discussion was held, the expressed views were nearly equally divided between those who feel that usage should follow what a majority of English-language sources use, and those who feel that any source that does not use the original spelling with modified Latin letters is, by definition, not a reliable source with respect to the subject's name. In these discussions, the compromise position on modified letters of the ice hockey project has been challenged. Ice hockey project members have responded that once English Wikipedia reaches a consensus on how to manage names with modified letters, the ice hockey project will be happy to follow suit; until then, though, the compromise stops the project from wasting time discussing the matter. At this point in time, though, it's unclear that the compromise position continues to have support, but without anyone changing spelling in articles, there has been no need to debate it. A resumption in removing or adding modified letters may retrigger a long discussion, which is an ineffective use of time since no definitive conclusion can be reached until the community as a whole provides guidance. Thus I do not believe a change to the current state of affairs would benefit Wikipedia.

If any relaxation of the topic ban in article mainspace is entertained, I strongly suggest that a condition be attached: if an edit is contested, GoodDay must revert the change and all similar changes made to other articles. This discussion thread on GoodDay's talk page illustrates the usual approach taken: numerous edits are made in alignment with GoodDay's point of view, and when objections are raised, GoodDay says that others are free to revert if they wish. This imposes a burden on other editors to restore the status quo, which is a disruptive behaviour, as described in one of the principles in GoodDay's arbitration case. isaacl (talk) 05:36, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Opabinia regalis: the key concern is that it is primarily an overall pattern of behaviour that adds up to a great deal of wasted time, rather than any one isolated interaction. GoodDay usually does not edit war, and no one can be compelled to participate in discussion to reach a consensus if they do not wish. Although it is generally uncollegial to fail to revert a sequence of similar changes upon request, and disappointing for someone to engage in making a type of change across multiple articles without any desire to follow up with discussion, it is difficult to make either of these a hard-and-fast rule as there are too many exceptional cases. Thus it is unlikely an administrator will take any action without a new arbitration case to evaluate the pattern of behaviour, or without a specific remedy specified as a consequence of the previous arbitration case. I feel that having a condition in place to revert contested edits will help guide GoodDay to more productive interactions with other editors. Increasing the cost of making test edits counter to consensus will reduce the temptation to make them (particularly en masse). isaacl (talk) 03:45, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Opabinia regalis: Given that GoodDay already has exhibited the pattern of behaviour I described since returning to editing, including during this discussion, I'm not sure the best approach is to loosen restrictions with the expectation that if it happens one more time, there will be a different set of consequences. I have no interest in seeing GoodDay blocked; I would much prefer that the editor be channeled towards productive pursuits. isaacl (talk) 02:05, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Francis[edit]

See Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (ice hockey): three broad discussions about the diacritics issue, the last one initiated less than a month ago. Doesn't seem like an area where the dust has settled.

Without prejudice what this means for this ARCA request: The OP's opinions in this matter may be as valuable as any other's (so that they should be allowed to edit in the area), or, alternatively, not a good idea to let the OP re-enter an arena where new surges of tension would not come unexpectedly? Maybe a transition period with no diacritics-related page moves without WP:RM and/or no diacritic-related WP:ENGVAR-like edits to articles without prior talk page agreement? --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:18, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Rich Farmbrough[edit]

KelapstickOpabinia regalis The Wikipedia:WikiProject Ice Hockey page says:

All player pages should have diacritics applied (where required, according to the languages of the player in question).
All North American hockey pages should have player names without diacritics, except where their use is likewise customary (specifically, in the Quebec Major Junior Hockey League and the Ligue Nord-Américaine de Hockey).
All non-North American hockey pages should have diacritics applied (where required).

The Wikipedia:Naming conventions (ice hockey) says (apropos of article names):

All player pages should have diacritics applied (where required, according to the languages of the player in question).
All North American hockey pages should have player names without diacritics, except where their use is likewise customary (specifically, in the Quebec Major Junior Hockey League and the Ligue Nord-Américaine de Hockey).
All non-North American hockey pages should have diacritics applied (where required).

These look identical to me.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 11:53, 17 July 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Statement/Clarification by Calton[edit]

User:HighKing wrote, "I agree with Steven. GoodDay has kept his nose clean for 4 years"

It's been two years, not four. From GoodDay's block log:

08:14, May 21, 2014 Worm That Turned (talk | contribs) unblocked GoodDay (talk | contribs) (Unbanned by Arbitration Committee https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:GoodDay&diff=609493697&oldid=609438782)
15:54, April 23, 2014 Newyorkbrad (talk | contribs) changed block settings for GoodDay (talk | contribs) with an expiration time of indefinite (autoblock disabled) (enable talkpage editing to allow for appeal, as one year from ban has elapsed)
06:25, May 6, 2013 Richwales (talk | contribs) changed block settings for GoodDay (talk | contribs) with an expiration time of indefinite (account creation blocked, cannot edit own talk page) (Banned by the arbitration committee - [74]; adding talk page to existing block)
01:16, April 22, 2013 Spartaz (talk | contribs) blocked GoodDay (talk | contribs) with an expiration time of indefinite (account creation blocked) (Banned by the arbitration committee - [75])

--Calton | Talk 15:02, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Miesianiacal[edit]

I am of two minds on this: One is that GoodDay has managed to, so far, not cause major disruption on any British Isles-related articles since his ban against editing anything related to that topic was lifted. He has veered back there once or twice, but, appears to back down relatively quickly from conflict, knowing that acting in the opposite way will result in another topic ban or worse. However, the other mind says to me GoodDay still craves the drama of conflict to spice up the seemingly endless hours he spends on Wikipedia. This thriving on discord was noted before, during the discussion at ArbCom on amending restrictions against him, and, based on both recent and older personal experience, I hold the opinion that his craving has not been entirely satiated. That falls in line with his history of being difficult to reform and would suggest the more restrictions on GoodDay the better.

I suppose my conclusion would be: While we can assume good faith and recognize that it's entirely possible GoodDay won't return to old habits in the area of diacritics, lifting the ban will open that door for him again, returning to GoodDay the choice to go through it or not. And This is where I'll add that both the eagerness and the slightly misleading nature of GoodDay's request prompts me to raise an eyebrow in suspicion. Keeping the ban in place, however, ensures the door to disruption remains locked and, if GoodDay has managed to be a contributive editor with the ban in place, it can't hurt to leave it be. Though, modifications, such as those mentioned by isaacl, could be safe enough. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 18:06, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by {other-editor}[edit]

Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should opine whether and how the Committee should clarify or amend the decision or provide additional information.

GoodDay: Clerk notes[edit]

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

GoodDay: Arbitrator views and discussion[edit]

What has changed since July 2015, September 2015, and January 2016? --In actu (Guerillero) | My Talk 17:36, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm mostly with Thryduulf and Guerillero. What's changed from the previous appeals and the comments arbitrators made then? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:16, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Just a breve comment OK, fine, NYB took all the good puns! @GoodDay: Do you want this restriction lifted because you want a "clean slate" or because you want to edit in the area? If the latter, what do you want to work on? Opabinia regalis (talk) 21:10, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- @GoodDay: Thanks. Maybe I'm uninformed - not much of a hockey fan - but can you clarify what hockey-related editing you want to do that involves editing or discussing diacritics? (And while you're here, see also Guerillero's question above.) Opabinia regalis (talk) 22:40, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - @GoodDay: I'm still a little hazy, could you please give me an example (a discussion about removing them and an article they'd be in)? Thanks, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:53, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - Callanecc I would presume (although I could be wrong), names of hockey players (either European or French-Canadian). --kelapstick^(bainuu) 02:57, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I wish to concentrate on fully implimenting WP:HOCKEY's wanting to hide/remove diacritics from North American-based ice hockey articles does not seem in line with what is at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (ice hockey). --kelapstick^(bainuu) 23:32, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Indeed. And that subject was specifically part of the problem that prompted the original case. Opabinia regalis (talk) 00:59, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Rich Farmbrough, the point I am making is GoodDay wishes to hide/remove diacritics from North American-based hockey articles, where:
    1. All player pages should have them as according to the languages of the player in question (I read this as all encompassing regardless of where the player is currently playing).
    2. There is an exception to removal from North American hockey pages, particularly around the names of French-Canadian players (who commonly have diacritics in their names).
  - Thus it looks like he wishes to have his topic ban removed, in order to go against what the standard practice is. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 23:50, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - So GoodDay, take a page like Börje Salming. This reads like to me, is that you would take this page, and move it to Borje Salming, because he's played for the Red Wings and Maple Leafs, but that stands contrary to point 1: All player pages should have diacritics applied (where required, according to the languages of the player in question). Or is the idea to keep the page at the same location, and change references to him in the articles to Borje Salming. For example, on Toronto Maple Leafs he is listed within the text as both Börje Salming and Borje Salming, depending on where one looks. Related to this, under the French-Canadian Exception on Montreal Canadiens, should Leo Dandurande should be listed as Léo Dandurand (which he is not)? I am just trying to understand what it is you want to do, and if this is the accepted practice with naming conventions and representation within articles. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 00:59, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      - Thank you GoodDay, that clarifies things a lot. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 01:07, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Newyorkbrad: did you take a dash, or possibly a double dash, of something illegal in some states while going through your high school French books and playing around on Wikipedia? Drmies (talk) 15:34, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Given GoodDay's statement that he intends to go around removing diacritics, I see no reason to lift the ban. Kirill Lokshin (talk) 19:37, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, the ban should stay. GoodDay has convinced me. Doug Weller talk 14:10, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I have to agree with the above; the ban should stay. Normally I'm inclined to lift long-standing sanctions, and I would've supported an "I don't care about this anymore and just want a clean slate" type of request, but the stated intention to go back to the area that caused the trouble in the first place convinces me we should leave the ban as-is. You've done plenty of other good work and there's plenty of other things to work on. Opabinia regalis (talk) 00:26, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately I don't think we should remove this ban. Opabinia said it well above; I'm inclined to lift such old sanctions, but that statement concerns me too much to do so here. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:24, 22 July 2016 (UTC) Actually, after noodling on this for a bit, I'm inclined to lift the ban. If someone is subject to a topic ban and no longer wishes to edit in the area they're banned from, why would they even appeal it to begin with? I don't feel right declining an unban request because they wish to return to that area; if they didn't, they wouldn't appeal. Let's give GoodDay a chance in this area; if it doesn't go well, re-bans are cheap. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:06, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I am of two minds on this, first I appreciate that GoodDay wishes to abide by the consensus of WP:HOCKEY and their article naming convention, and implement the agreed standard of a lack of diacritics in NA based hockey articles. I really don't see an issue with this, because it is making articles consistent within an article (as illustrated by the Toronto Maple Leafs example above, it currently is neither consistent, nor according to the agreed style guideline). On the other hand I agree with Opabinia's comment above, and can see this doing more harm than good. So at this time I am going to say no. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 00:31, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Doug Weller talk 15:41, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

GoodDay: Motion[edit]

For this motion there are 12 active arbitrators. With 0 arbitrators abstaining, 7 support or oppose votes are a majority.

The Committee resolves that remedy 1.1 (GoodDay topic-banned from diacritics) in the GoodDay arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t) is suspended for the period of one year from the date of passage of this motion. During the period of suspension, any uninvolved administrator may, as an arbitration enforcement action, reinstate the topic ban on GoodDay should GoodDay fail to follow Wikipedia behavior and editing standards while editing concerning diacritics, broadly construed, or participating in any discussions about the same.

In addition, the topic ban will be reinstated should GoodDay be validly blocked by any uninvolved administrator for misconduct related to diacritics, broadly construed. Such a reinstatement may only be appealed to the Arbitration Committee. After one year from the date of passage of this motion, if the ban has not been reinstated, or any reinstatements have been successfully appealed, the topic ban will be vacated.

Enacted - Miniapolis 16:42, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support

$Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 15:23, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
On thinking this over, I am going to very hesitantly support this, with the expectation that the topic ban will be promptly reimposed in the event of further problems. I do think people should have a chance to move past old sanctions. I would strongly encourage GoodDay to spend most of his time in other areas and not to worry too much about diacritics issues, because I feel like I'm still hearing a bee buzzing around in a bonnet here. Opabinia regalis (talk) 22:00, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Isaacl: I see what you mean, but I think that type of behavior is covered by the "participating in discussions" clause. Opabinia regalis (talk) 22:07, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Isaacl: I understand the concern, but I don't think more rules is the best approach. If this motion passes, and then you see this kind of behavior, take it to AE; there's no need for a new case. I think it will be quite clear to the admins at AE, based on the comments made here by arbs and community members, that this is meant to be enforced strictly and without room for wikilawyering. Opabinia regalis (talk) 20:27, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As we have a clear pathway to sanctions if there is a problem. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:51, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Per OR and Casliber. Anything which resembles disruptiveness in this topic area should lead straight to a reinstatement of sanctions so I would caution GoodDay to act very carefully. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:01, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Per my comments above. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:34, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Per OR and GW. Keilana (talk) 15:27, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with OR, GW, and Casliber. Drmies (talk) 14:42, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

--In actu (Guerillero) | My Talk 13:36, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Kirill Lokshin (talk) 15:20, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Doug Weller talk 15:41, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
DGG ( talk ) 23:18, 7 August 2016 (UTC) �[reply]
I can't shake the feeling that Good Day is not going to be able to drop the stick when it comes to the proper times. They have demonstrated this with the ARCA requests repeating and with a misrepresentation of the situation. Like in 2015, they said "I'm no longer obsessed about diacritics. I merely wish the restriction removed, because it's a restriction. I wish for my slate to be clean. GoodDay (talk) 18:04, 11 September 2015 (UTC)". The amount of appeals and time frames doesn't support that. Earlier in 2015, they also stated that "It's been nearly 3 years since I was restricted from diacritics & almost as long since I've breached my restriction.". They forgot to include/mention the ban that was only lifted a year earlier. In this request, they state it's been four years since the ban was lifted, not two as is. This makes me unable to trust them by their word. I therefore can not support this as is. A more gradual return to the area, like namespace restrictions might be possible, but I'd rather see some clear honesty and acknowledgement of history first. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 08:05, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain/Recuse

Discussion

Proposing this so we can hopefully move this forward. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:18, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Abstentions	Support votes needed for majority
0–1	6
2–3	5
4–5	4

Abstentions	Support votes needed for majority
0	7
1–2	6
3–4	5