The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.

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

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

Case Opened on 21:47, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Case Closed on 08:00, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Amended by motion on 00:29, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Amended by motion on 08:13, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Amended by motion on 16:55, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Watchlist all case pages: 1, 2, 3, 4

Please do not edit this page directly unless you are either 1) an Arbitrator, 2) an Arbitration Clerk, or 3) adding yourself to this case. Statements on this page are original comments provided when the Committee was initially requested to Arbitrate this page (at Requests for arbitration), and serve as opening statements; as such, they should not be altered. Any evidence you wish to provide to the Arbitrators should go on the /Evidence subpage.

Arbitrators, the parties, and other editors may suggest proposed principles, findings, and remedies at /Workshop. That page may also be used for general comments on the evidence. Arbitrators will then vote on a final decision in the case at /Proposed decision.

Once the case is closed, editors may add to the #Log of blocks, bans, and restrictions as needed, but this page should not be edited otherwise. Please raise any questions at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Requests for clarification, and report violations of remedies at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement.

Case information

Involved parties

Steven Zhang (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party
GoodDay (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Requests for comment

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/GoodDay
Mentorship by myself and DBD (talk · contribs)

Preliminary statements

Statement by Steven Zhang

It is with great disappointment that I bring this request to the committee, especially in the position that I currently am in, however I feel that all other avenues have been unsuccessful in remediating the issue. GoodDay has been on Wikipedia since 2005, and to his credit has done some good work, but there have been a few sticking points - edits to articles relating to the United Kingdom and Ireland, and the use of diacritics within articles. He's currently under a community-imposed topic ban regarding the former (see ANI thread) and the modification regarding use of diacritics has been discussed in length, a few examples are here, and more recently here, however many other examples exist. GoodDay's general argument regarding diacritics is that because this is the English Wikipedia, no diacritics should be used in articles as they are not part of the English language, and at times he is rather uncivil when discussing his objections with other editors. When questioned on his edits, he will often remove the comments from his talk page, citing harassment [1][2] (and see talk page history). I do not feel that anything short of arbitration will resolve this issue, and therefore ask the committee to accept this case. Regards, Steven Zhang ^{Get involved in DR!} 23:28, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Resolute, an admonishment I think would be insufficient in this situation. I think a topic ban may be in order, but the committee may find other action necessary here. This has been brought to ANI before, as well as the RFC. Advice that has been provided to GoodDay by myself and others has not helped resolve this issue, so arbitration seemed to be the best avenue. Steven Zhang ^{Get involved in DR!} 01:29, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@SirFozzie, you're preaching to the converted mate. If only people would work on things like article improvement or dispute resolution, Wikipedia would be a much better place :-) Steven Zhang ^{Get involved in DR!} 03:16, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@ArbCom, I'd be open to a resolution of this by motion if it seems like the best solution. Steven Zhang ^{Get involved in DR!} 04:25, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@DBD, the issue of diacritics needs to be addressed for sure. There appear to be quite a few requested moves from dios to non-dios versions and vice versa. Here is an example. I didn't mention it because it didn't seem to fall under ArbCom's jurisdiction, but if there's been a recent RFC on the use of diacritics (link, anyone?) then it may be something the committee can look at. I'm not sure. Steven Zhang ^{Get involved in DR!} 15:33, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by GoodDay

There's nothing for me to add here, accept that folks should take a look at the English alphabet. GoodDay (talk) 23:40, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For many articles that are currently under diacritics titles, there are non-diacritics sources, but past-experiences has led me to develope a feeling of hopelessnes - that those sources will be ignored & replaced by diacritics sources. My goodness, there's CNN & NY Times sources that used Zoe Baird, when writing about the US Attorney-General nominee. I'm not looking to mass move articles to non-diacritics (as there'd be -strangely enough- hell to pay), but is it really asking too much to show the non-dios version in the intros? We should atleast freeze page moves, until English Wikipedia decides on how to handle diacritics. Mass moving articles to the dios version (without benefit of RMs) is rather arrogant & annoying -- Heck, Mass moving articles unilaterally, period - is kinda disruptive. GoodDay (talk) 20:36, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's very bad taste for any editors, who discuss diacritics usage with me at my talkpage & then run off to report such discussions or parts of such discussion 'here'. It creates the impression that such editors are only contacting me in a baiting manner. Infact, it's bad taste to copy any diacritics discussions from my talkpage, to this RfAr page. GoodDay (talk) 20:01, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Preliminary decisions

Clerk notes

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

Recuse. -- Lord Roem (talk) 03:23, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Recuse as I have blocked one of the involved parties. Tiptoety ^talk 05:44, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (6/0/0/2)

I note GoodDay's non-response response, and am tempted to support opening the case based on the perspective of a former mentor--having been in that position before, I know the sense of personal failure when one realizes a mentee is just not understanding and/or improving. However, I would like to hear from other community members who have had recent experiences with GoodDay's editing before we have a whole case. If the user is completely intransigent and at odds with the community, a community ban may be more appropriate than an arbitration case. Jclemens (talk) 23:56, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Accept. The community statements illustrate that this is not simple enough to handle by motion. Also, per Sir Fozzie: really, we're arguing about this?! Jclemens (talk) 16:30, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Waiting for more statements, but I'm currently going to vote Accept, as I think that GoodDay's statement indicates that there are issues that require Committee review. And as a personal note, I may seem a bit befuddled here, about some of the things people will get into endless arguments about. Hypens/Endashing... date linking/unlinking. And now, diacritics. Don't we have other, more important things to work on? Have the BLP issues that Wikipedia has faced solved? SirFozzie (talk) 03:04, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Provisionally voting to accept as GoodDay's response to the filing just extenuates the sense that this case is needed =. Open to being persuaded by others, or GoodDay, that this is not needed, however. Courcelles 03:40, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Accept to examine GoodDay's conduct. Only with excessive time and attention could the community resolve this complex set of issues. AGK [•] 09:58, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comment: I would not have this case examine the content issues at play, including diacritics. In order to give GoodDay an opportunity to supply a rebuttal in evidence, I would handle this by a full case, and certainly not with a roving hearing on this page. AGK [•] 16:06, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Accept: to examine GoodDay's behaviour. I'm as bemused as SirFozzie by the core issue here. Roger Davies ^talk 10:09, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Given the narrow focus of the situation I feel a motion for ArbCom to take over the UK Topic Ban and to impose a ban on discussing or removing diacritics would be the most appropriate action. If there are other areas of concern that people would like to raise regarding GoodDay's conduct that would be useful in making a final decision regarding if a motion would be sufficient. If GoodDay is prepared to offer a fuller explanation for the conduct under question, that would also be useful. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 10:50, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Accept per above. Kirill ^[talk] 12:08, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
First choice: Handle by motion per SilkTork. Second choice: Accept for a full case. Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:30, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary injunction (none)

There was no temporary injunction.

Final decision

Principles

Recidivism

1) Editors sanctioned for disruptive behaviour are expected to improve their behaviour, should they continue to participate in the project. Sanctioned editors should be afforded assistance and reasonable time to improve (especially if they demonstrate the ability to engage positively with the community), but if their conduct does not improve they may be subject to increasingly severe sanctions.