Wikipedia Arbitration
About arbitration Talk Arbitration policy (CU/OS) Guide to arbitration Noticeboard + Talk Search archived proceedings Ban appeals Report
Open proceedings All open requests Case requests Clarification and Amendment requests Arbitrator motion requests Enforcement requests
Active sanctions Contentious topics (Log) General sanctions Editor sanctions
Arbitration Committee Discuss + Contact Members Procedures Elections Talk History Clerks + Talk Clerk procedures
Audit Talk Statistics Talk Reports (pre-2016)
Track related changes
v t e

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.

1. AGK
2. Casliber
3. Courcelles
4. David Fuchs
5. Elen of the Roads
6. Hersfold
7. Jclemens
8. Kirill Lokshin
9. Newyorkbrad
10. PhilKnight
11. Risker
12. Roger Davies
13. SilkTork
14. SirFozzie

Inactive:

1. Xeno

View summary

Comments on my summary are welcome in this section. To avoid threaded discussion, I'd be grateful if comments could be added in stand-alone sub-sections. Naturally, at this stage these views are my own and do not represent any decision of the committee. Thanks, AGK [•] 15:57, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reply by GoodDay

A perma-ban, is a bit heavy handed for an editor who's never vandalized articles, nor used colourful language in discussions. I'm acceptable to being restricted to gnoming. GoodDay (talk) 16:11, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

After today, I'll avoid discussing diacritics on talkpages - my talkpage excepted, of course. Also, I'll avoid hiding/deleting diacritics - including hockey articles. GoodDay (talk) 18:10, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reply by Resolute

(intended as a threaded response to GoodDay, but per AGK's request, placing in its own section) There are many forms of disruption, not all of which involve vandalism. I'm trying to defend you somewhat, even as I argue against you here GoodDay, but you need to step back and realize that you are in a deep pile of shit. You have a habit of getting involved in disputes - passionately and obstinately parroting your views until the discussion ends, then moving onto the next dispute. If you wish to continue being a Wikipedian, you need to accept that this cannot continue. I can think of many gnoming tasks you can do that will benefit the project, and I am willing to ask that AGK and the arbs give you the chance to do so, but you have to realize that you have to make a fundamental change to how you interact with others in disputes. And honestly, that might well mean simply ignoring them altogether, no matter how passionate about a topic you might be. Resolute 16:19, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Steven Zhang

For the record, I have already aired my thoughts about this proposal elsewhere, and while I do think alternative remedies (topic bans, civility parole, namespace bans) may have some effect, I acknowledge how cumbersome and complex it would be to enforce a number of sanctions, especially without an admin mentor. If a siteban is in the PD (and it would likely be indefinite) might I suggest the normal provision of review after one year be reduced to six months? It might not seem like a long time, but as some of the committee is aware, I was site banned for 6 months in 2008, and it felt like an eternity. I did some work on other projects and once my ban expired came back to editing with a completely different perspective of Wikipedia, and our purpose. While I can't speak for GoodDay, I think that a six month ban would be sufficient in this circumstance, but of course this matter is up to the committee. Regards, Steven Zhang ^{Get involved in DR!} 16:26, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@AGK, in light of GoodDay's comments above, is it potentially possible ArbCom would consider, let's say, a suspended site ban, with a one strike rule for implementation (or a set of terms which if violated can result in the site ban being implemented, either by an AE admin or ArbCom by motion). It'd give GoodDay one last chance to correct his behaviour, but again, such a thing may get be cumbersome. Just a thought. Steven Zhang ^{Get involved in DR!} 18:28, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by isaacl

Given GoodDay's short list of blocks, it may be a bit soon to jump to a site ban. GoodDay is a big fan of consistency (for example, see this discussion on the naming of the world men's ice hockey championships), and his apparent fixation on certain lines of argument may be attributed to this. It seems he may get restless from time to time, and seeks opportunities to discuss his favourite topics, which I assume led to his first block due to this comment, violating his self-proposed topic ban. I believe, though, that it is not unusual for editors to have some difficulty weaning themselves away from a topic.

I do not have much knowledge of GoodDay's editing patterns in areas such as the British Isles, but regarding hockey, GoodDay has not engaged in mass edits contrary to established consensus since a guideline was set to follow (I am not familiar with any earlier behaviour). There have been times where he has been a bit quick to assume a discussion is over and implement a specific solution, which again I think is due to his eagerness to see consistency in Wikipedia articles. This drive can be quite valuable to the project if he is given a clear direction for action, such as this case.

I agree with Resolute that a greater commitment to collegial behaviour is required, starting with addressing the concerns raised in his RFC, and recognizing that many editors take issue with his behaviour, irrespective of whether or not they support similar views to him. Taking a more moderate tone in his conversations will go a long way to improve the congeniality of his interactions with others. (Note this does not mean a moderation in his opinions, but simply taking a more productive direction when discussing points of contention.) isaacl (talk) 17:26, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Agathoclea

As I said earlier I believe that clear defined restrictions can work. Steven's idea of a suspended siteban should work with a clear set of groundrules which I believe GoodDay will follow. This could encorperate some provision for similar behaviour with different issues to save ArbCom to have to deal with a fullblown case again but I think it will not come to that. Agathoclea (talk) 19:37, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]