Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GoodDay/Evidence

Any editor may add evidence to this page, irrespective of whether they are involved in the dispute. Create your own section and do not edit another editor's section. By default, the evidence submission length is limited to about 1000 words and about 100 diffs for named parties; and about 500 words and about 50 diffs for non-party editors. While in general it is is more effective to make succinct yet detailed submissions, users who wish to submit over-length evidence may do so by posting a request on the /Evidence talk page. Unapproved overlong evidence may be trimmed to size or removed by the Clerk without warning.

Focus on the issues that are important to the dispute and on diffs which illustrate the nature of the dispute.

You must use the prescribed format in your evidence. Evidence should include a link to the actual page diff in question, or to a short page section; links to the page itself are insufficient. Never link to a page history, an editor's contributions, or a log for all actions of an editor (as those change over time), although a link to a log for a specific article or a specific block log can be useful. Please make sure any page section links are permanent; see simple diff and link guide.

General discussion of the case will not be accepted on this page, and belongs on the |talk page. The Arbitration Committee expects that all rebuttals of other evidence submissions will be included in your own section and will explain how the evidence is incorrect. Please do not refactor the page or remove evidence presented by others. If something is put in the wrong place, only an Arbitrator or Clerk may move it.

Arbitrators may analyze evidence and other assertions at /Workshop, which is open for comment by parties, Arbitrators, and others. After arriving at proposed principles, findings of fact, or remedies, Arbitrators vote at /Proposed decision. Only Arbitrators (and Clerks, when clarification on votes is needed) may edit the proposed decision page.

Reverted four times at article lead, despite there being 2 sources
Due to there being 2 sources &  in the Zoë Baird article, which presented a non-diacritics version of the article subject's name, I preceded to add that version to the article's intro here, my edit-summary should've been more accurate. Then I was reverted here, accompanied by a slightly annoying revert-summary. I then reverted back to my addition here, with a frustrated edit-summary & was reverted again here, with a put-down edit summary from the other editor. GoodDay (talk) 21:29, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I re-added the alternative spelling in a more neutral appearance, with a more neutral 'edit summary' here. Then I modified the addition to a less prominant appearance here. But again, my additions was reverted here, thus depriving readers of the knowledge of an alternative spelling in English. GoodDay (talk) 13:01, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Again, I readded the 'alternative spelling' for readers here & was reverted (info censored) here, for no reason other then personal preferences. GoodDay (talk) 13:22, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm mostly a gnome
Here's 3 examples of the types of gnome edits I mostly make. Here, where I minimize white space. Here, where I'm linking to an appropiate article. Here, where I replace hyphens in the intro. GoodDay (talk) 23:22, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Diacritics double standard?
Here's 2 examples of what one faces with the diacritics issue. I'm reverted here, for adding a sourced non-diacritics version to a diacritics titled article. Then, I'm reverted here, for removing diacritics from an intro name, so it matches its non-diacritics title. I'm prevented from adding a non-dios name (along side the dios name) to a dios titled article & yet prevented from removing dios from a non-dios titled article. Why the double standard? GoodDay (talk) 20:37, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

RfCs and centralised discussions regarding the use of diacritics
Since requested links to the diacritics RfC and other discussions in his statement, here they are: Naming conventions (use English)/Diacritics RfC, discussions which led to them: Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (use English)/Archive 8, Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (use English)/Archive 9, more recent discussion, supposedly BLP specific: Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons/Archive 34. Plenty more discussions can be found at various RMs. - filelake shoe &#xF0F6;  08:06, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Evidence presented by HandsomeFella
Disclaimer: I have been involved in several disputes with GoodDay, and is therefore not neutral.

Disruptive editing
GoodDay is generally a good editor. But – he's got One Big Hang-Up: diacritics. For some reason, he wants to rid en.wiki totally from diacritics, since they're not in the standard English alphabet. Alternatively, he wants to add the "English spelling" to the lede of all – as it appears – articles that have diacritics.

GoodDay is obviously entitled to whatever views he might have, but lately he has started to be rather disruptive, trying to impose his views on various articles where diacritics are involved in some way, trying to milk some sort of petty victory from the process. His behaviour lately has been a palette of WP:POINT:y edits (diff 1, diff 2, diff 3, diff 4, at least one of them apparently in response to some posts in the discussion in this move request), refusing to accept consensus against his edits, i.e. WP:IDNHT (François Mitterrand article history, Zoë Baird article history), reverts (although never crossing the 3RR line, same article histories as WP:IDNHT above), labeling other editors' posts on his talkpage (objecting his edits) as harassment (diff 1, diff 2), and a mildly intimidating post on his own talkpage (as a response to another editor's post, diff), only half-heartedly retracting it (diff 1, diff 2).

As he seldom obtains a censensus for his changes, he keeps repeating on his talkpage and in edit summaries ad nauseam that he is being "censored", that sources that spell certain names without diacritics are "blocked", and that diacritics are being "forced" on to en.wiki.

Although each of the violations are rather low-level (e.g. not exceeding 3RR), accumulated they are now amounting to the level of disruptiveness.

HandsomeFella (talk) 18:49, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

GoodDay may be engaging in disruptive editing
Per WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT

At recent WP:RM surveys involving diacritics in titles, GoodDay has been posting unconstructive one-line statements that "this is English language Wikipedia & there's no diacritics in the English alphabet"., occasionally with a slightly snarky comment, or a mere "support per nomination", more often than not failing to respond meaningfully to discussion other than with a terse restatement of his core position.

Although there is ongoing controversy over diacritics in Wikipedia, there is surely widespread consensus that names like Zoë or Chloë or Brontë are perfectly valid in English. His repetitive and almost robotic rejection of this consensus (for instance here) represents disruptive editing in the guise of "Failure or refusal to get the point". To his credit he has at least engaged in some kind of dialog at Talk:Zoë Baird, and there is the mitigating factor that it was myself who brought up the topic of Zoë Baird within a wider talk page discussion for a different article, which undoubtedly led to him editing that article; nevertheless, initiating a new flareup of reverts while in the middle of an RfArb, and in the very article whereby this RfArb may have been triggered, (my original statement here) does not show the soundest judgment.

GoodDay may be engaging in "battleground" conduct
Per WP:BATTLEGROUND

Repetitious claims of "censorship" also seem typical of a "battleground" mindset, as well as entirely unjustified claims of "stalking" and "harassment".

He sometimes veers into incivility, although he usually reconsiders afterwards (as he did in this case).

Evidence presented by Steven Zhang
Apologies to the Arbitration Committee for my tardiness in submitting evidence. My evidence will be relatively short and in regards to my observations of GoodDay as a mentee, and how I feel he has taken on board the advice of DBD and myself.

At times, GoodDay has disregarded advice provided by his mentors
I took on GoodDay as a mentee, alongside back in December 2011 as a result of a discussion on my talk page as well as the requests for comment (Requests for comment/GoodDay) that was opened regarding his behaviour. One of the outcomes of his RFC was a one-month topic ban from all articles concerning nationality and constititional issues. Following the expiration of this topic ban, he's had run-ins with other editors on several occasions regarding diacritics, generally where GoodDay has expressed his opinion that because this is the English Wikipedia, diacritics shouldn't be used as they are not English. The discussion here led to an ANI discussion where GoodDay and Djsasso agreed to a mutual interaction ban and a voluntary cessation of modifying diacritics (details at the link provided).

Some time later, GoodDay informed me that Djassso had begun adding diacritics to articles, and as a result he would resume removing them from articles. I advised him not to do so, that two wrongs don't make a right, and that doing something for the sole reason that someone else was doing the opposite constitutes disruptive editing. He proceeded to do so anyways, so I asked to look into if any action was appropriate, and he blocked GoodDay for 60 hours see diff, where he initially advised that after his block expired, he would continue to remove diacritics. An ANI thread followed, but he was unblocked afterwards by MBisanz after he made a decent unblock request.

The main issue with GoodDay surrounds diacritics. Evidence presented by others highlights the issues, however in my opinion GoodDay can and does good work elsewhere. I will be suggesting restrictions - not bans, as others may,. in the workshop, because I think it's the best solution here. I didn't bring GoodDay to arbitration to be punished, but because I don't think he can control himself re: diacritics, and a topic ban from UK articles has solved one problem. This will solve the other. Steven  Zhang  Get involved in DR! 20:15, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Evidence presented by Agathoclea
before using the last evidence template, please make a copy for the next person

GoodDay is capable of avoiding the issue
,, are some recent edits that show that GoodDay can show restraint despite his extremly strong feelings and it appears that he has stuck to the letter of the agreement made with his mentors. Personally I feel RfArb is a bit overkill for this situation but less of a dramafest than AN/I would have been and any restrictions that might be imposed here can be extremly narrow in scope as long as they are clearly defined.

Disruptive arguments
GoodDay keeps on repeating his routine argument, even though the argument has been long refuted which resulted in the edits leading to this case. I have chosen this particular diff (and there was another relating to a band that used to have a diacritic which I can't find right now) because it relates to a case where the diacritic should be removed. In this case a simple "x does not spell his name with a diacritic" or in the case of the band that they had decided to drop it from their name would have been a productive argument. Keeping on using a disproven argument festers a battleground atmosphere and does not help improve the credibility of an otherwise extremly productive editor. Agathoclea (talk) 20:53, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

The use of diacritics is the subject of some controversy
This is less evidence against GoodDay, and more a backgrounder on recent history for the Arbs, some of whom expressed confusion about why this is even an issue. Miscellany for deletion/Wikiproject English is a good start (I nominated that project for deletion), where a rather extreme anti-diacritics editor began a project designed to coalesce like-minded individuals into a unified organization to "combat" the problem of squiggly marks. GoodDay was supportive of the effort, but I would not classify his participation as disruptive. A look at WT:UE shows many debates on the issue, with Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (use English)/Archive 10 showing several debates and a couple RfCs. Given we have many articles related to Eastern European players and teams, the diacritics issue has been on the radar of the ice hockey project for many years. GoodDay and I both edit heavily within this realm. I don't have time to post specific discussions into evidence, but a search for "diacritics" in our project's archives show many discussions as project members are equally divided on their use. Ultimately, and organically, we settled on a compromise solution whereby North American focused articles would drop diacritics, but European and biographical articles would retain them. GoodDay has been zealous in his enforcement of this compromise (can provide diffs if requested), but to the best of my knowledge, has acted within it.

GoodDay's opposition to the use of diacritics borders on zealotry
Many of the links presented above speaks to this argument. He routinely dimisses supporters being "mostly from the home country/mother tongue pride of editors whom English isn't their 'first' or 'only' language." (incorrect, btw. While I formerly opposed, I currently support their use and I am a unilingual English speaking Canadian). He sees diacritics as something that needs to be "purged", and his obsession with eradicating them leads to irrelevant commentary and the rather silly building of strawmen. Or, in the case of the hockey project's compromise, he views a change in one aspect as requiring a counter change to maintain a balance of some kind.

Since the filing of this RFArb, GoodDay has stepped up his campaign against diacritics by opening discussions in various locations: Talk:Article titles, Talk:Zoë Baird, Talk:Montreal Canadiens (and probably more). While not disruptive per se, it does show a specific obsession with the topic that, IMNSHO, is not at all healthy, for either GoodDay or Wikipedia.

I could add more if time allowed, but mine has been limited such that I have not been able to go back through talk archives to find supporting links for half-remembered debates, discussions and actions. Resolute 22:40, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

GoodDay revisits issues periodically
From time to time, GoodDay revisits issues of interest to him, posting inquiries about them on the various talk pages. For example:

Diacritics used in player birthplaces:
 * July 2007
 * February 2008
 * June 2009
 * July 2009
 * May 2012

French team name in Montreal Canadiens infobox:
 * July 2007
 * July 2009
 * February 2010
 * May 2012

In 2010 and 2011, editors at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ice Hockey have not engaged GoodDay in isolation
The time span is based on my memory alone, but to my recollection, GoodDay's forays into diacritic-related issues over this time period did not, in isolation, trigger lengthy discussions. In GoodDay's Request For Comment, only one ice hockey project regular commented, and the topic of diacritics was only touched upon twice, in passing. I believe this is because the ice hockey editors had generally chosen to allow GoodDay's remarks to pass without comment, thereby avoiding a drawn-out conversation thread, and so no further preventative restrictions were required. (The relative peace was broken last year when other editors chose to initiate discussions regarding diacritics; GoodDay did participate, stating his support for omitting all diacritics and his views on supporters of the use of diacritics.)

Evidence presented by {your user name}
before using the last evidence template, please make a copy for the next person

{Write your assertion here}
Place argument and diffs which support your assertion; for example, your first assertion might be "So-and-so engages in edit warring", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits to specific articles which show So-and-so engaging in edit warring.

{Write your assertion here}
Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion; for example, your second assertion might be "So-and-so makes personal attacks", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits where So-and-so made personal attacks.