From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
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[edit]

Involved parties[edit]

Requests for comment[edit]

Preliminary statements[edit]

Statement by Steven Zhang[edit]

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)

@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)

@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)

@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)

@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)

Statement by GoodDay[edit]

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)

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)

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)

Preliminary decisions[edit]

Clerk notes[edit]

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).
  • Recuse. -- Lord Roem (talk) 03:23, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Recuse as I have blocked one of the involved parties. Tiptoety talk 05:44, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

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

  • 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)
    • 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)
  • 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)
  • 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)
  • 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)
  • 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)
  • 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)
  • 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)
  • Accept per above. Kirill [talk] 12:08, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
  • First choice: Handle by motion per SilkTork. Second choice: Accept for a full case. Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:30, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Temporary injunction (none)[edit]

There was no temporary injunction.

Final decision[edit]



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.

Passed 12 to 0, 07:59, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Fait accompli[edit]

2) Editors who make many similar edits, contrary to clear advice that these edits are controversial or incorrect, must pursue discussion and dispute resolution. Repetitive or voluminous edit patterns—which present opponents with a fait accompli and exhaust their ability to contest the change, or defy a reasonable decision arrived at by consensus—are disruptive.

Passed 12 to 0, 07:59, 14 June 2012 (UTC)


3) Editors whose conduct is repeatedly problematic may enter into a mentorship arrangement with one or more experienced editors. The purpose of such an arrangement is to allow the protégé to improve their behaviour by advice and guidance. Editors who accept mentorship are expected to be receptive to the reasonable advice of their mentor, and failure to do so may be taken to mean that the associated conduct problems cannot be resolved by voluntary measures.

Passed 12 to 0, 07:59, 14 June 2012 (UTC)


4) Wikipedia works by building consensus through the use of dispute resolution and polite discussion, with a shared receptiveness to compromise—and involving the wider community, if necessary. Individual editors have a responsibility to help debate succeed and move forward by discussing their differences rationally. Editors must accept any reasonable decision arrived at by consensus, on all pages on Wikipedia but especially in relation to articles and article discussion pages.

Passed 12 to 0, 07:59, 14 June 2012 (UTC)


5) Wikipedia's code of conduct is one of the five pillars of Wikipedia that all editors must adhere to. Editors are expected to behave reasonably and calmly in their interactions with other users, to keep their cool when editing, and to avoid acting in a manner that brings the project into disrepute. Unseemly conduct—including, but not limited to, edit-warring, lack of respect for other editors, failure to work towards consensus, disrupting Wikipedia to make a point, and failure to assume good faith—are all incompatible with Wikipedia's standards of etiquette. Concerns regarding the actions of other users should be addressed in the appropriate forums.

Passed 12 to 0, 07:59, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Findings of fact[edit]

GoodDay has engaged in battleground conduct[edit]

1) Over an extended period of time ([3]), GoodDay (talk · contribs) has striven for the removal of diacritics from articles within various topics ([4]) while marginalising the concerns of opposing editors (#GoodDay has engaged in uncollegial conduct).

Passed 12 to 0, 07:59, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

GoodDay has engaged in uncollegial conduct[edit]

2) On many occasions, the behaviour of GoodDay has been disruptive. Among other recurring issues, GoodDay has: misinterpreted the legitimate complaints of other editors ([5], [6]); cast aspersions about groups of opposing contributors ([7], [8]); and failed to conduct himself with due professionalism ([9]).

Passed 12 to 0, 07:59, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Prior attempts to resolve these problems have failed[edit]

3) In December 2011, GoodDay was the subject of a requests for comment about his conduct. Since January 2012, GoodDay was mentored by two experienced editors ([10]). In February 2012, GoodDay was topic-banned from "pages relating to the United Kingdom and Ireland, broadly construed" ([11]). Despite these measures, the conduct of GoodDay remains disruptive.

Passed 12 to 0, 07:59, 14 June 2012 (UTC)


Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

GoodDay topic-banned from diacritics[edit]

Remedy vacated by motion.

1.1) GoodDay is indefinitely prohibited from making any edits concerning diacritics, or participating in any discussions about the same, anywhere on the English Wikipedia. This includes converting any diacritical mark to its basic glyph on any article or other page, broadly construed, and any edit that adds an unaccented variation of a name or other word as an alternate form to one with diacritics.

Passed 12 to 0, 07:59, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
Amended 7 to 5 by motion at 17:03, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

GoodDay warned[edit]

2) 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.

Passed 9 to 4, 07:59, 14 June 2012 (UTC)


Standard enforcement[edit]

0) Should any user subject to a restriction in this case violate that restriction, that user may be blocked, initially for up to one month, and then with blocks increasing in duration to a maximum of one year. Appeals of blocks may be made to the imposing administrator, and thereafter to arbitration enforcement, or to the Arbitration Committee. All blocks shall be logged in the appropriate section of the main case page.

Log of blocks, bans, and restrictions[edit]

Log any block, restriction, ban or extension under any remedy in this decision here. Minimum information includes name of administrator, date and time, what was done and the basis for doing it.

  • Blocked for one week following this Arb Com enforcement request and decision.[12] --Slp1 (talk) 23:49, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Blocked for one month by Coren per this AE discussion on 3 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Blocked indefinitely by Spartaz (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) per ban decision on 22 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Expanded existing indef-block to bar editing of talk page. GoodDay has continued to be disruptive (if only on his talk page), and at this point, he has no legitimate reason or need to be editing his own talk page anyway. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 06:28, 6 May 2013 (UTC)


April 2013[edit]

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.

Passed 7 to 0, 00:28, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
Superseded by motion, 08:13, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

May 2014[edit]

GoodDay's site-ban is suspended on the following terms: -

  • For the period of one year after unblock, if GoodDay violates any user conduct policies at any time, any uninvolved administrator may restore the ban. Furthermore, if GoodDay is given any legitimate block by an administrator during the period, the ban will be restored.

This condition will be posted to GoodDay's user talk page (at which point he will be unable to remove them for one month, so that they are clearly visible to any editors who views his talk page during his transition back to contributing). The condition will also be announced at the "WT:BASC" Wikipedia page, and a link to it will be included in the block/unblock log for the account.

Passed' 7 to 0, with 6 abstentions, 08:13, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

August 2016[edit]

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.

Passed 7 to 5 by motion at 17:03, 11 August 2016 (UTC)