After considering /Evidence and discussing proposals with other arbitrators, parties, and editors at /Workshop, arbitrators may make proposals which are ready for voting. Arbitrators will vote for or against each provision, or they may abstain. Only items which are supported by an absolute majority of the active, non-recused arbitrators will pass into the final decision. Conditional votes and abstentions will be denoted as such by the arbitrator, before or after their time-stamped signature. For example, an arbitrator can state that their support vote for one provision only applies if another provision fails to pass (these are denoted as "first" and "second choice" votes). Only arbitrators and clerks may edit this page, but non-arbitrators may comment on the talk page.
For this case there are 14 active arbitrators. 8 support or oppose votes are a majority.
If observing editors notice any discrepancies between the arbitrators' tallies and the final decision or the #Implementation notes, you should post to the clerk talk page. Similarly, arbitrators may request clerk assistance via the same method, or via the clerks' mailing list.
Under no circumstances may this page be edited, except by members of the Arbitration Committee or the case Clerks. Please submit comment on the proposed decision to the talk page.
Arbitrators may place proposed motions affecting the case in this section for voting. Typical motions might be to close or dismiss a case without a full decision (a reason should normally be given), or to add an additional party (although this can also be done without a formal motion as long as the new party is on notice of the case). Suggestions by the parties or other non-arbitrators for motions or other requests should be placed on the /Workshop page for consideration and discussion. Motions have the same majority for passage as the final decision.
A temporary injunction is a directive from the Arbitration Committee that parties to the case, or other editors notified of the injunction, do or refrain from doing something while the case is pending.
Four net "support" votes needed to pass (each "oppose" vote subtracts a "support")
24 hours from the first vote is normally the fastest an injunction will be imposed.
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.
Support:
Proposed. (With the understanding that GoodDay has already been sanctioned; we are at a final, not the first, stage of action.) AGK[•] 17:21, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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.
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.
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.
Support:
Proposed. (Adapted from Civility enforcement, which contained one of our most effective, well-written principles.) AGK[•] 17:21, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
ie changed "has striven for the removal of diacritics from articles within various topics" to "has striven to remove diacritical marks" Roger Daviestalk 10:26, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure if it should be "striven" or "strived." Maybe "sought" avoids the issue. Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:46, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to labour the point, but our decisions refer to a specific period—that is, from the beginning of GoodDay's recent edits until the opening of this case. Therefore, should the simple past (strove) not be used? Sought would be fine too. AGK[•] 20:24, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
2) On many occasions, the behaviour of GoodDay has been disruptive. Among other recurring issues, GoodDay has: misinterpreted the legitimate complaints of other editors ([3], [4]); cast aspersions about groups of opposing contributors ([5], [6]); and failed to conduct himself with due professionalism ([7]).
GoodDay's talkpage archives indicate the level of unrest regarding his editing, and his tendency toward dismissive and unhelpful responses which can serve to aggravate matters. SilkTork✔Tea time 21:52, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Also rather concerning was the appearance that GoodDay felt he was "owed" a concession from the hockey project after the compromise was made there. Hersfold(t/a/c) 03:39, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Prior attempts to resolve these problems have failed
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 ([8]). In February 2012, GoodDay was topic-banned from "pages relating to the United Kingdom and Ireland, broadly construed" ([9]). Despite these measures, the conduct of GoodDay remains disruptive.
And especially concerning is the fact that GoodDay seems to have deliberately ignored his mentor's advice to avoid disruptive conduct on at least one major occasion. Hersfold(t/a/c) 03:39, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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 (1)
1) GoodDay is indefinitely prohibited from converting any diacritical mark to its basic glyph on any article or other content page, broadly construed.
I think we should also ban GoodDay from discussing the matter - there is evidence to show that people are worn down by his unhelpful involvement in discussions. SilkTork✔Tea time 21:49, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Distant second, per NYB. Pretty much moot as that one appears to have clear majority support now, but this is a reasonable, if probably insufficient (per the opposes), remedy. Jclemens (talk) 15:44, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Woefully inadequate. Courcelles 22:23, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Insufficient in light of the volume of evidence showing comments in discussions that range from unhelpful to outright disruptive. GoodDay needs to be completely removed from this area. Hersfold(t/a/c) 03:41, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As above - it's more than just removing the squigglies that's the problem. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:08, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Support:
This is a bare minimum of what is necessary, and I really think the needful here is a site ban. Courcelles 22:25, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Would prefer a second sentence along the lines of 'This includes converting any diacritical mark to its basic glyph on any article or other page, broadly construed'. PhilKnight (talk) 22:30, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fairly obvious that would be included in making an edit concerning diacritics, but, harmless. Courcelles 00:20, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
First choice. This also includes any edit that adds an unaccented variation of a name or other word as an alternate form to one with diacritics, since GoodDay has shown that his judgment is not reliable in this area. Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:52, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Have added NYB's gloss as well - feel free to revert if that's felt to be too much. Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:08, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Equal support for this and R1. I don't think it is necessary to "blacklist" diacritical marks in this manner, given that the problem has been exclusively confined to GoodDay's changes to them, but at the same time I would rather our remedy be a little over-broad than be too narrow in its scope. AGK[•] 20:32, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Copyedited by adding "further," as this decision itself is a warning (and I might add a very strong one). Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:52, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support unless a ban passes, in which case this would be moot. Jclemens (talk) 15:42, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As the ban is failing, better than nothing, as I apparently am the onlu one that thinks the actual problem here is GoodDay's attitude toward the project. Courcelles 16:21, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not comfortable with the wording - would prefer this to be a warning regarding behaviour, and the enforcement aspect to be in the enforcement section; however, I do support the principle, and will not oppose on a technical quibble. SilkTork✔Tea time 11:17, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
I'd rather just site ban now, GoodDay has been a serious problem in two different topic areas in under half a year. Courcelles 22:28, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm opposing this for a few reasons. First, this seems fairly obvious in the first place. If an editor already under Arbitration sanctions continues to be an issue, they're not likely to remain on the site for terribly long before a) the community loses patience and ban them, or b) someone brings a second case and we ban them, or c) the AE admins lose patience and decide to block them indefinitely making a de facto ban. Second, it seems rather redundant to the Recidivism principle at the top of this decision and thus unnecessary. Finally, I'm not entirely comfortable granting ourselves carte blanche to fling lightening bolts from on high without warning, particularly for so vague a reason. I believe such an action, if deemed to be necessary, should be done as part of a Review or Amendment request. Hersfold(t/a/c) 03:54, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Would rather this was in the enforcement section. Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:10, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I understand the thinking behind this, though am not comfortable with the wording. Steven Zhang has suggested a suspended site-ban, and that may be clearer and simpler. SilkTork✔Tea time 09:44, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm wondering if this could be split into a warning not to engage in battleground or uncollegial conduct, and then, as Elen suggests, putting the potential site ban in the enforcement section. SilkTork✔Tea time 15:35, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hersfold: If you followed the workshopping, As you may have noticed in the very early stages of this case, you will be aware that we considered a site-ban to be justified, but have ultimately proposed a lesser sanction. The subtext of the decision to adopt a lesser sanction ought to be codified, in order to make it clear in our final decision that we have shown leniency—and therefore that a very dim view will be taken of further misconduct. At the same time, the message has probably been made clear enough (by GoodDay's own admission), and while I do think this is necessary I do not view it as essential. AGK[•] 20:40, 10 June 2012 (UTC) Edited to make my meaning clearer. AGK[•] 13:44, 11 June 2012 (UTC) Thanks. Hersfoldnon-admin(t/a/c) 15:30, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Understood, but I still feel as though putting this particular wording in the decision is sort of a Damocles Sword for GoodDay, not all that distinct from the suspended siteban. As for documenting it, GoodDay knows that we've considered it, and he's really our "audience" in this particular case. In any event, this page won't be deleted or blanked or whatnot, so it seems redundant to me to document this consideration both here and on the final decision. Hersfoldnon-admin(t/a/c) 15:30, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Quite so, and the mere fact that we have proposed here that GoodDay be site-banned might be considered to be warning enough. AGK[•] 15:51, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
GoodDay banned
3) 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.
Support:
Someone this disruptive, on two distinct topic areas this quickly? This has to be considered, and, in my opinion, is the only real solution to keep this from spreading to yet another topic. The problem isn't diacritics or Britain, they are just hotspots where trouble has sprung up, it is GoodDay's approach to this project. Courcelles 00:35, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Second choice, prefer the combination of 1.1 and 2 at this stage given that GoodDay has done useful gnomish editing on other areas of the project for some time. But he needs to be aware that he must not become disruptive in yet a third fashion, or he will not be able to continue editing. Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:52, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Per Courcelles. While the fact that a topic ban is presumably working is a good sign for compliance, topic bans are not appropriate remedies for editors who manage to get embroiled in controversy and uncollegial behavior in multiple areas. I would be happy to see this sanction proven to be unnecessary if it fails to garner support here, but the message needs to be absolutely clear that a siteban is a reasonable next step, and that GoodDay needs to completely rethink his Wikipedia interactions, not just take his unmodified conduct to another facet of Wikipedia. Jclemens (talk) 15:39, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
I'm not convinced a total ban is necessary at this point. Kirill[talk] 12:23, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
While drafting, I already dismissed the notion that GoodDay's problems are deeper than diacritics or the topics of Ireland, Britain, or Canada, because no evidence of such a notion was ever submitted. Unless I have missed a swathe of evidence, we therefore cannot justify a site-ban at this time. In the event of further misconduct, I will be first in line to propose a site-ban, but we have a workable alternative in hand. Let us try it first. AGK[•] 20:43, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
AGK puts it well. Offering editors a way on-wiki of demonstrating good-faith rehabilitation on-wiki is always going to be more effective than just banning them; considering evidence wasn't submitted of a more general nature I'm inclined to give the benefit of the doubt.. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 01:30, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I can certainly see this, and am leaning towards support, especially in light of the number of errors in judgment on GoodDay's part that led us to this point. However, there are a couple points which may indicate there is yet hope - the willingness to enter into mentorship (even though he ignored mentor's advice), his acceptance of the Hockey project's compromise (although as I've noted above it seems he wasn't entirely satisfied by that). I'm open to being convinced either way. Hersfold(t/a/c) 04:03, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments:
GoodDay banned (suspended)
3.1) GoodDay is banned from the English Wikipedia for a period of no less than one year; the ban to be suspended indefinitely. If GoodDay engages in battleground or uncollegial conduct, the ban will be enacted by motion of the Arbitration Committee. After one year has elapsed, a request may be made for this suspended 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.
In light of Rich Farmbrough's behavior post-case and the associated brouhaha, it probably should be standard practice to include such a clause in every decision that involves sanctioning, but not yet banning, any editor. It makes the consequences of flagrant non-compliance clear to the sanctioned editor as well as the community and removes one justification some committee members have used to not ban a user when a ban is an admittedly appropriate outcome. In other words, if circumstances had not already demonstrated that the lack of such an "or else" was drama-producing, I wouldn't be supporting it. They have; I do. Jclemens (talk) 15:36, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
We have the general authority impose a ban by motion subsequent to the case regardless of whether a specific provision is made in the case decision; thus, I see no substantive distinction between this and remedy #2, and consequently no reason to use a such an unusual formulation. Kirill[talk] 12:23, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Substantially per Kirill. (I think what some people are grappling for here would take us back to the "general probation" types of remedies that were used in the early years of this Committee, but I think those faded out for a reason.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:52, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Would prefer that a siteban was simply included as part of the enforcement escalation. Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:12, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose due to my reasoning in #2. Hersfold(t/a/c) 18:03, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If there is further misconduct, the warning in this case (presuming its proposal passes) will be more than sufficient to justify site-banning by motion on the Amendments page. As a secondary consideration, like Hersfold I am also uncomfortable with holding the sword to GoodDay's neck in this manner. Let us be content with the fact that we are able to amend a case by motion in the event of further misconduct. AGK[•] 20:49, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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.
This provision shall apply unless a different enforcement provision is adopted below.
Enforcement by block
1) Should GoodDay violate any topic ban imposed as a result of this case, he may be blocked, initially for up to one month, and then with blocks increasing in duration to a maximum of one year. All blocks are to be logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GoodDay#Log of topic bans and blocks. Appeals of blocks may be made to the imposing administrator, the appropriate administrators' noticeboard (currently arbitration enforcement), or to the Arbitration Committee.
Support:
Proposed. Standard enforcement provision that seems to have been omitted. Hersfold(t/a/c) 04:13, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Despite our recent motion, voting for the "standard enforcement" does serve a purpose, which is to make clear that we have considered whether to vary the standard terms in this particular case, and decided not to. Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:52, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I would have no objection to voting, pro forma, on the standard enforcement. However, I will point out that this particular proposal is not identical to the standard enforcement provision. Kirill[talk] 14:37, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Quite, the Standard Enforcement provision needs to be added here (and built into the page template for future cases), I think. Perhaps one of the clerks could deal? Roger Daviestalk 04:52, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, that was the point of the standardized enforcement, such that unless there was any novel deviation or extension of that boilerplate, it would apply to all future cases. Thus, procedural oppose per Courcelles: we've got it covered. Jclemens (talk) 15:49, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Standard enforcement applies, so this is unnecessary. PhilKnight (talk) 17:01, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Forgot about the standard motion; it's essentially identical so no real need to apply something different. Hersfold(t/a/c) 17:58, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Procedurally. For the record, my understanding is that the standard enforcement provision will be included by default unless a variant is proposed. AGK[•] 20:50, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is discussed on the talkpage. It is felt that the SEP we recently voted for will come into effect - that is, if an enforceable remedy is passed in this case, then the SEP will automatically be applied by a clerk without our need to vote on it. I assume the procedure would be that we don't need any templates on the case for us to vote on. Could a clerk look at the wording to confirm I am right, and clear away the SEP template until after an appropriate enforceable remedy is passed and the case is being closed. SilkTork✔Tea time 09:36, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Surely this is a case where standard enforcement applies, but equally, if we wish to consider an additional enforcement provision this is where we would put it, eg "in addition to standard enforcement procedures relating to violation of his topic ban, should GoodDay engage in battleground or uncollegial conduct, he may be banned indefinitely by motion of the Arbitration Committee. After one year has elapsed, a request may be made for this 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." Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:21, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Clerks and Arbitrators should use this section to clarify their understanding of the final decision—at a minimum, a list of items that have passed. Additionally, a list of which remedies are conditional on others (for instance a ban that should only be implemented if a mentorship should fail), and so on. Arbitrators should not pass the motion to close the case until they are satisfied with the implementation notes.
These notes were last updated by Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 18:55, 12 June 2012 (UTC); the last edit to this page was on 20:39, 28 January 2023 (UTC) by User:MalnadachBot.[reply]
Important: Please ask the case clerk to author the implementation notes before initiating a motion to close, so that the final decision is clear.
Four net "support" votes needed to close case (each "oppose" vote subtracts a "support"). 24 hours from the first motion is normally the fastest a case will close. The Clerks will close the case either immediately, or 24 hours after the fourth net support vote has been cast, depending on whether the arbitrators have voted unanimously on the entirety of the case's proposed decision or not.
With five arbitrators yet to vote on remedies, the site-ban and/or warning could still pass. We need a definitive choice. AGK[•] 13:49, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And we need to establish whether we are just using standard enforcement, or a tailored enforecment giving us the option of a siteban by motion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elen of the Roads (talk • contribs) 13:58, 11 June 2012
