Wikipedia:Requests for comment/GoodDay

In order to remain listed at Requests for comment/User conduct, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126;. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: 18:15, 4 December 2011 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is:, 29 July 2024 (UTC).



''Users should not edit other people's summaries or views, except to endorse them. All signed comments other than your own view or an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page.''

Statement of the dispute
User:GoodDay tried unsuccessfully to remove the Monarch from the First Ministers infobox back in march see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Scotland, this was rejected by consensus, he then again attempted to do this again this week, claimed this was in order for consistancy with other boxes but his edit summary here There's no Scottish monarchy shows his obvious motive for doing so, I tried to warm with with regards to his actions but he simple reverted me with a summary of I don't have time for this. His conduct on the Talk:Scotland page has also been raised by other users with his contastsn raising of the same issues over and over again Talk:Scotland-- Barryob  (Contribs)   (Talk)  18:27, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

This is part of an extended pattern of similar disruptive edits. The partial list below has been collated over a few months my myself and other editors. In fact the pattern extends back years. Advice here with the links is also relevant-- Snowded TALK 04:30, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) 31 May 2011 This was a belated confession from GoodDay, that after losing a discussion on an article talk page, he intentionally picked a fight with another user who took an opposing view to his. The fight he picked with him had no relation to the article in question other than him being angry at losing that discussion.
 * 2) 29 Jul 2011 Provocation of MickMacNee either insensitive, stupid or vindictive, difficult to tell but the result was predictable.  Followed Mick's reaction with some typically childish one lines on the user talk page and on the arbcom ruling
 * 3) 14 Aug 2011 deleting welsh names from info box for the umpteenth time, he knows perfectly well that he has raised this before and had the ideas rejected. Typical childish bored seeking out of conflict on a sunday afternoon.
 * 4) 24 July 2011 "baiting" High King (and here), with a 'stiring' comment, following comment from an admin.
 * 5) 6 August 2011 Flaming. A complete non-sequiter post whinging about another editor. On being asked what GoodDay hoped would be achieved by the trolling, the response is "none of your beezwax" [sic].
 * 6) 5 September 2011 pointy edit Changing Limerick, Ireland and Cambridge, England to Limerick, United Kingdom and Cambridge, United Kingdom, in Elizabeth Anscombe infobox, which led to this complete waste of time and energy.
 * 7) 27 October Talk:Nadine_Coyle Insisting someone from Northern Ireland (both article subjects and other editors) must be British, despite being well aware that people from NI can be Irish, or British, or both.
 * 8) 27 October  Insisting that the President of Ireland Mary McAleese is British-Irish
 * 9) 31 October http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ireland_Collaboration&action=history
 * 10) 6 November: Talk England, Talk Wales, Talk Scotland, Talk Northern Ireland -a particularly disruptive and unnecessary series of edits complaining that the maps in the infoboxes make the countries "look independant" (sic).  Initial proposal is to remove Europe, but then changes his position just to remove world map claiming a "mistake"
 * 11) 10 November 2011 Trolling at MOS Icons#Use of icons for F1 racing drivers discussion: GoodDay posted a request to use only state flag icons (if used at all), despite being well aware from having taken part in this discussion, that F1 racing drivers articles only use state flag icons.
 * 12) More knowingly provocative stuff here
 * 13) 29th November: GoodDay makes the bizarre proposal that "British, should always be used, 'if' it's an individual who was born/lived/died, in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland or United Kingd of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. dif here Presumably this would include the vast majority of the Easter Rising leaders, not to mention the vast majority of IRA members?  Two users ask him to comment/clarify.  His only response is to correct indentation. Dif
 * 14) Australian High Court Judges mass changes again without agreement here

Desired outcome
That user GoodDay will stop trying to force his views against the consensus on the First Minister of Scotland articles.

That user GoodDay be placed under some form of restriction or mentorship in respect of edits on nationality and constititional issues

That user GoodDay be placed under some form of restriction in respect of provocative comments on talk pages

Description
GoodDay needs to learn to accept the consensus on the First Minister of Scotland articles and stop trying to impose his POV with regards to the inclusion of the Monarch -- Barryob  (Contribs)   (Talk)  18:27, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

More generally GoodDay needs to avoid provocation on minor issues over a broad range of articles -- Snowded TALK 04:39, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Evidence of disputed behavior
(Provide diffs. Links to entire articles aren't helpful unless the editor created the entire article. Edit histories also aren't helpful as they change as new edits are performed.)
 * 
 * 

Applicable policies and guidelines
{List the policies and guidelines that apply to the disputed conduct}
 * WP:POV
 * WP:CON

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute
(Provide diffs of the comments. As with anywhere else on this RfC/U, links to entire articles aren't helpful unless the editor created the entire article. Edit histories also aren't helpful as they change as new edits are performed.)

Attempts by certifier Barryob

 * 

Attempts by certifier Mais oui!

 * 

Attempts by certifier Snowded

 * Per Calil request on the talk page I found this example of an extended attempt to persuade GoodDay to act differently. There is another here which might better illustrate the long term nature of this and attempts by multiple editors to get a change of behaviour.  All attempts vary in tone based on the level of frustration at the time.

Users certifying the basis for this dispute
{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}


 * -- Barryob  (Contribs)   (Talk)  02:04, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * -- Snowded TALK 04:35, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Mais oui! (talk) 07:25, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Other users who endorse this summary

 * Kittybrewster  &#9742;  22:19, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Response
''This section is reserved for the use of the user whose conduct is disputed. Users writing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Outside Views") should not edit the "Response" section, and the person writing this section should not write a view below. Anyone is welcome to endorse this or any other view, but no one except the editor(s) named in the dispute may change the summary here.''

I welcome this RFC/U, as it might also encourage examination of the behaviour & conduct of other editors, who frequent the British & Irish political articles. GoodDay (talk) 15:28, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:
 * 1) GoodDay (talk) 15:28, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) JonC Talk 20:08, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * 3) GoodDay has a point which should be of concern to the wider community although this is unlikely to be the most productive place to raise it. Unless you are a Red Dragon with a Dexter hand carrying a skean dhu it can be problematic trying to apply content changes against what is frequently a ready made consensus of expert(s).  Leaky  Caldron  20:58, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * 4) Ivor Stoughton (talk) 01:42, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * 5) To be clear from the outset, GoodDay is neither Mother Theresa nor Bambi. But rather than assume that everything he says is empty rhetoric, the most constructive thing that GoodDay's detractors can do is agree with this obvious statement, and send him a very clear message below that the community is holding him to his commitment to accept mentorship. The more it looks as though there is a lynch mob out to get him, and/or that one side of the dispute will settle for nothing less than a whitewash, the stronger his defence would be if this ever went to Arbcom. —WFC— 17:12, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Views
''This section is for statements or opinions written by users not directly involved with this dispute, but who would like to add a view of the dispute. Users should not edit other people's summaries or views, except to endorse them. All signed comments other than your own view or an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" or "Response") should not normally edit this section, except to endorse another person's view.''

View by WFCforLife
(I would describe myself as having previously gotten involved with editors on both sides of this dispute. I have had one, fairly serious involvement in a nationality-related article three or four months ago, and would note that GoodDay was the relative peacemaker between myself and Snowded in that instance. It would also be reasonable to say that my POV is closer to GoodDay's than to the RfC proposers, but for balance it should be noted I personally agree with the inclusion of the Monarch parameter on Scottish First Minister articles. I believe what I am about to say is fair, but feel obliged to make the above clear for disclosure.)

In my view, it is clear that editors from both sides of this topic area are guilty of systemic pushing of strongly held POVs. Notwithstanding my positive words for GoodDay above, it is not unreasonable to single his long-term behavior out, as long as it comes with an acknowledgement that he is not the sole problem.

The community needs to express an opinion on how to move forward, to work out a way to relieve as far as possible the obvious tensions around nationality-related discussions involving these lands, particularly between long-term editors. For that reason I support Snowded's decision to start this RfC (Snowded didn't start this page, but was the one that set the wheels in motion), as I think the widely participated yet informal nature of an RfC/U is preferable to trying to go straight to Arbcom.

I agree with the first and third of the desired outcomes as listed here. I don't see how any user could be reasonably expected to agree to the restriction element of the second outcome, when only the behavior of one party to the dispute is being looked at. I do however strongly suggest that it would be in GoodDay's own interest to ask an impartial mentor to monitor and advise him on his future forays into the area. I believe an Arbcom case is inevitable if interactions involving GoodDay do not improve, and that it would in all likelihood result in sanctions to multiple users, including GoodDay. GoodDay's long-term conduct will be central to avoiding this outcome, but the behavior of others towards him will also be a major factor. —WFC— 06:18, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:
 * 1) Naturally. —WFC— 06:18, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) I wholeheartedly support this view, the clear balance that it sets out regarding the attitude & behaviour of long-term article editors and it's conclusions about the subject. There are 2 sides (at least) to every dispute and it is helpful that WFC has not been afraid to highlight the POV related issues that are prevalent in the articles which the various proposers, certifiers etc. of this RFC/U tend to look after. GoodDay is up against it in those places as he is both provocative & easily provoked. Abstaining from those areas, while difficult, might be another option for him. I think the calls at this RFC/U for him to receive permanent sanctions are premature and inappropriate.  Leaky  Caldron  13:18, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

View by Ghmyrtle
The basic problem with GoodDay is a lack of competence. See WP:COMPETENCE, which neatly sums up some of the problems that he has:
 * "Some people aren't able to grasp the subtleties of how Wikipedia works. They may still be able to do some easy jobs, but they'll probably run into trouble if they try biting off too much."
 * "Some people's personal opinions are so strongly held that they get in the way of editing neutrally or collaboratively."
 * "Some people get so upset over a past dispute that they look at everything through a lens of "So-and-so is a bad editor and is out to get me."
 * "The best good will is unavailing if basic understanding of the facts, of their mainstream interpretation and the cultural context are lacking."
 * "Some folks just can't act like reasonable adults."
 * "Some people just can't function well in this particular collaborative environment. We can't change Wikipedia to suit them, so if they're unable to change themselves, they'll need to be shown the door."

These basic failings are compounded in GoodDay's case by:
 * Repeated references to his own opinions, rather than using reliable sources
 * Frequently treating serious behavioural issues lightly
 * A complete inability to learn from past experience
 * The sheer volume of edits that he makes - some are appropriate, but a huge number are not
 * An intensely irritating obsession with having the last word in any discussion.

The behavioural issue ranges across many topic areas - I am sure he has caused as much disharmony in articles on Canada, ice hockey, and the use of diacritics, to give a few examples, as on matters to to do with the UK constitution and its countries, on which he is deeply misinformed.

The issue is what best to do about it. GoodDay has many of the features of a new editor who would benefit from mentoring. It's hard to see how that would work in his case, however, because of his stubbornness and unwillingness to consider that he may be wrong. (As shown by comments like this.) Equally, topic bans would probably not work, unless they managed to cover all his areas of interest. (All articles with diacritics, all articles that refer to UK countries as countries, etc. etc.) It's hard to see beyond a complete block on all articles, until sufficient time has elapsed until he either matures or finds ways to use his time more constructively.... which may be quite a while.

But, in all this, I'm sure that - in the sense that he actually does believe (often mistakenly) that he is being helpful, rather than disruptive - he acts in good faith.

Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:21, 5 December 2011 (UTC)


 * PS: As clarification - I have had frequent interactions with GoodDay over the years, but was not involved in the dispute that led to this RfC. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:31, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:
 * 1) This gives some flavour of the issue. Endrick   Shellycoat  14:45, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) I haven't observed the bit about holding grudges against other editors in this form. Everything else is, unfortunately, totally correct. Hans Adler 23:57, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * 3) It depends what you call "good-faith" - GD routinely makes statements that suggest he sees others as too bigoted to contribute and therefore the situation as a sort of campaign he is on. I do agree that there is a competence issue, but he is also thoroughly familiar with the tricks and games to be played and sadly uses them mainly on rather petty wind-ups. This is particularly clear in the UK and Ireland related articles, where he has hardly ever really tried to be constructive. We often saw him playing a really seriously distracting and undermining role when editors from many backgrounds and nationalities in these islands came together to try to be constructive - he would "run interference" and make endless trivial remarks, I suspect as a deliberate attempt to disrupt processes he felt might lead to his view not being sustained. I have to say that I think he will seriously struggle to use mentoring well and a permablock might be the best recourse, at least from articles related to a large swathe of related topics. All that said, I agree with Ghmyrtle's summary above. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 13:20, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * 4) The basic problem with GoodDay is his seemingly complete lack of self-awareness. For example, I am not a medical doctor, therefore I am not competent to diagnose a person with Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, or Obsessive–compulsive personality disorder, or any other irritating psychiatric condition. Nor am I competent to edit such articles on Wikipedia (apart from correcting typos, or other non-contentious WikiGnome activities.) Further, if I did edit one of these articles, and editors pointed out that I had not grasped some elementary facts, I would back off and absorb and retain this new information. But not GoodDay: he neither knows about the UK's constitution, nor cares. He is totally, completely and utterly deaf to any and all verifiable facts. And the strangest thing of all is that he seemingly lacks the ability to see that vaste swathes of Wikipedia editors have levels of knowledge and understanding of these topic light years above his own. In some ways, such lack of self-awareness is a precious gift. For his mother perhaps, but not for Wikipedia. We are tring to build a flippin encyclopaedia for goodness sake! We simply must insist on a basic level of knowledge, intelligence and social competence from Users. Otherwise, a big topic ban or showing the door are the only two options. (Try mentoring if you like, but I wouldn't hold my breath.)--Mais oui! (talk) 05:12, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * 5) This nails it for me. I have not interacted with him a lot, but on most occasions that I can recall GoodDay seems to be driven by attention-seeking behaviours such as re-opening old arguments that everyone else is bored to tears with. (Without, as suggested elsewhere, bringing anything to the discussion except a personal opinion). There may well be those who appreciate his prodigious editing and although annoying he is (sometimes) fairly affable and even engaging at times. I don't have a solution for his shortcomings but it would suit me if he was topic banned from any article containing the words "Scotland". There must surely be lots of other areas he could be making a useful contribution to.  Ben   Mac  Dui  08:28, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * 6) Good summary. Interesting the way that GD deliberately sets out to provoke the Scots, Northern Irish, Welsh and Irish. And so unnecessary. Kittybrewster   &#9742;  22:30, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

View by Skyring
I am saddened to see this pattern of behaviour continuing. About this time last year I found myself involved in a protracted argument - which was taken to mediation - with GoodDay over a point which was trivial in itself, but depended on constitutional interpretation. At every stage GoodDay ignored or dismissed the published views of the most eminent of Australian constitutional scholars, people like Quick and Garran, in favour of his own notions. More fool me for persisting, I suppose, but it's disheartening to see the basic principles of Wikipedia thrown aside for the insertion of extreme minority or individual views. And then staunchly defended when other editors object.

I have every affection for GoodDay, who comes across as a gentle and likeable chap, but I've been where he is, and I like to think that I've learned from my own harrowing experience to get along with other editors. However, if he cannot modify his behaviour to be more co-operative and less disruptive, then community sanctions may be the final resort. The idea of mentoring is a good one.

--Pete (talk) 17:10, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Kittybrewster   &#9742;  22:31, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Outside view by Jeanne boleyn
Over the years I have enjoyed a friendly rapport with GoodDay, who is basically a decent person with good intentions. He has, however, a strongly stubborn streak when it comes to enforcing his opinions onto articles. This pattern of editing unfortunately often extends into areas of which he has minimal knowledge such as Irish-related subjects and the nations making up the United Kingdom. Despite countless editors pointing out the difference between countries and sovereign states, he refuses to listen and continues on his merry way, changing articles sans discussion and generally leaving chaos and exasperation in his wake. I have on countless occasions attempted to steer him away from the inevitable precipice onto which he is now poised. I still have faith in GoodDay's ability to eventually turn over a new leaf and commence to make positive contributions to the project. This metamorphosis, alas, will not come about overnight and I fear it won't happen until he has a mentor who will instruct him in working in a collaborative manner and keep him from rushing headlong into areas of potential conflict. This summary is backed by the sincere affection I have for GoodDay and hope he will accept it in the same manner that it is being offered.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:32, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:
 * 1) Absolutely.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:32, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) Pete (talk) 17:45, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * 3) Basically correct, although I do not share the hope that he will improve. It's not impossible, but will take a lot of time and off-wiki experiences. Hans Adler 23:59, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * 4) As per Hans Adler.  The fact that he will not accept mentoring on British and Irish articles, and still blames other editors for the problem - here - shows that he does not recognise that it is his behaviour that needs to change.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:33, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * 5) With a note that if editors do not agree with a fundamental pillar of what Jeanne is saying, they probably shouldn't sign here. —WFC— 08:01, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * 6) I would agree to this if it was absolutely clear that during that time he would be permablocked from all related topics if (a) there were repeats of the usual talk page drivel (irrelevant remarks, last wordism, repetitive flippant remarks designed to annoy) and (b) he makes any further bulk edits of more than one article at a time on the same point in the same article space. Sadly, unless this is crystal-clear and acted upon, it will carry little weight. As it's hard to define, I fear that mentoring will not truly work. I am willing to see it tried for a while though under similar conditions. Might bring a few editors back - his constant vexatiously idiotic interruptions tended to put people off being involved in useful efforts, myself amongst them. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 13:59, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * 7) This case from Jeanne, who, notably, has been trying to support GoodDay, really puts it in a nutshell: "This pattern of editing unfortunately often extends into areas of which he has minimal knowledge" and "he refuses to listen and continues on his merry way". However, I cannot endorse her view that she has "faith in GoodDay's ability to eventually turn over a new leaf and commence to make positive contributions to the project". This chaos has gone on far, far too long for her wish to have any hope of success. (Note to closing Admin: I am unfamiliar with this Rfc process, and apparently I am only allowed to endorse one person's views. In that case I primarily endorse Ghmyrtle's WP:COMPETENCE statement, however, I actually agree with quite a lot that the other contributors have said too, including Jeanne. If I have done this thing wrong, please say.)--Mais oui! (talk) 05:20, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * 8) When a friend of GoodDay's like Jeanne feels she has to make comment on his editing then it is surely time to look closely at it. I endorse many of her comments except one. His ability to turn things around. If I can quote him from one of his previous discussions on an admins page."Also, upon reflection, I wish to point out that Carson's assumptions about why I made the edits I did at the British boxing articles, are accurate. I was infuriated by the current results of discussion about the UK intro & second paragraphs & thus 'in a fit of anger', moved onto the British boxing articles - looking for a fight. Therefore, due to my inability to control my temper around these topics, I request that I be restricted from such articles - except for on my own talkpage."  Now, he knows that he needs to avoid certain articles. He is absolutley certain of it. Yet he can't help himself and almost immediately dives into those articles he believes he should avoid. If he promises to turn things around with a mentor can we be sure he will when he can't stop himself from going to those articles that causes him problems? It may be that a mentor will indeed help him but I have my doubts sadly. In the end he can only help himself and if being banned from certain subjects for a time helps him to realise that then it could be the right path to go down.  Carson101 (talk) 15:29, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

View by Daicaregos
I share the concerns many other editors have about GoodDay's behaviour, and have done for some time. GoodDay bases his edits on his own mis-informed views - no amount of verifiable, reliable sources will change his mind. He peppers talk pages with his ignorant, provocative views, never troubling to research the subject, or provide references to support his pronouncements. And he seems incapable of reading (or understanding) reasoned argument. Individually, nothing here would warrant sanction. However, his low-level, continuous disruption to articles and talk pages, made over several years, is counterproductive to this project and needs to be addressed. Included among my specific concerns are that GoodDay:
 * Makes statements that prima face appear to be authoritative. However, on closer inspection are nothing more that his own POV:
 * e.g. David Haye (note the edit summary), this is the resulting thread. Prince Edward Island (again, note the edit summary), a reversion of his edit resulted in GoodDay's edit warring: more false statements in edit summary, the resulting thread at Prince Edward Island showed further false claims by GoodDay, that were cited by nothing more than his POV. Other editors showed concern at his behaviour here, noting that GoodDay was just ignoring all other editors' points.


 * Makes Pointy, disruptive edits:
 * e.g. Robert Burns, deleting 'Scottish' from Robert Burns intro, adding UK to his place of birth and death in the infobox, and deleting 'Scottish' from the nationality field in infobox. This is his apparent admission of disruptive, pointy editing; at Scotland, discussed here.


 * Stifles constructive debate:
 * e.g. Talk:Scotland - until his intervention, the debate appeared to be leading to collaborative, consensual compromise:this is the resultant discussion on GoodDay's talk page.


 * Embarks on controversial campaigns on sensitive subjects without prior attempts at agreement: e.g. he decided that languages in country article infoboxes should be in alphabetical order ... so he just changed them:
 * e.g. at Philippines, putting English before Filipino; at Republic of Ireland, putting English before Irish; at Wales, putting English before Welsh; at Israel, putting Arabic before Hebrew.


 * Embarks on multiple re-naming sprees, with no prior discussion, and with no good reason other than his innate misunderstanding of the English language:
 * David Cameron, Tony Blair, Margaret Thatcher, Gordon Brown, Benjamin Disraeli and William Gladstone. Discussed Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom/Archive 3.


 * Dumbs down Wikipedia:
 * e.g. National Assembly for Wales election, 2011, GoodDay added "31 seats were needed for a majority" in the infobox – for an assembly of 60 seats. Re-added here. Discussion at National Assembly for Wales election and GoodDay's talk page (started by User:Timeshift9, complaining of a similar series of edits in the Australian elecion infoboxes. Every editor participating in the discussion opposed GoodDay's edits, yet GoodDay re-added it (here)


 * Disregards talk page consensus:
 * e.g. Guy Fawkes Night, pushing through his own agenda regardless, this time having waited for the article's protection to be removed.


 * Joins discussions on subjects about which he is ill-informed:
 * e.g. Republic of Ireland; here is an editor's appreciative response.


 * Makes numerous pronouncements over many articles - often nothing more than soapboxing. I imagine most of you will have seen them for yourselves:
 * e.g. here; here; here; here; here; here; here; here; etc., etc., etc.

Of my 13,000 contributions to Wikipedia over half have been to article main space. I have created 62 pages and have been a main contributing editor bringing several articles (including: Parc Cwm long cairn; Ebbw Valley Railway; Sibyl de Neufmarché (in collaboration with User:Jeanne boleyn); Wales (in collaboration with User:FruitMonkey); and Timothy Everest) to GA. I had noticed for many months that GoodDay had been distracting me from editing (e.g., ). Between 24 February 2011 and 18 March 2011 I had improved Timothy Everest from a COPYVIO to GAN review and began editing Alfred Janes (while waiting for the Timothy Everest GA review). I progressed it to DYK and had every intention to bring it to GA. In response to an IP placing a Notability tag on Timothy Everest, an article with which GoodDay had hitherto had no involvement, GoodDay posted "I've never heard of that British fellow. But, I'll leave it up to you folks." on the talk page. Clearly GoodDay hadn't bothered to read the article, or even to look at the reference sources, before offering his opinion, which included taking the opportunity to define the subject as British rather than Welsh – just what you want when waiting for a review. My protestation was greeted with a personal attack (note the edit summary). My thanks to another editor (for their help on Alfred Janes) on their talk page was met by this from GoodDay. When that editor complained, GoodDay just laughed. That incident made me stop editing Alfred Janes - the article has been the subject of no subsequent, substantive improvement. Other than collaborating with User:Jeanne boleyn to take Miami Showband killings to WP:GA I haven't really done much content creation since. Following GoodDay's more recent, and condoned disruption, (including deleting reliably sourced, verified text from National emblem (as well as POV trolling on the talk page); deleting reliably sourced, verified text from Peter O'Toole (and a technical breach of edit war re 1RR restrictions – again); and a disruptive proposal here), I decided to cut down the time I spend here, and have not contributed since. Shame really, I had been quite proud of my work here. This RfC/u has been a long time coming, but for some editors it is too late. Sadly, based on the community's inability/reluctance to prevent, or even to recognise that there is a problem, I have no confidence that GoodDay's disruptive, destructive behaviour will improve. A topic ban from all UK and Ireland related articles would solve the immediate problem, but would probably only shift it elswhere. Only a permanent block is likely to be effective. I would welcome being proved wrong. Daicaregos (talk) 22:15, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:
 * 1) Each individual case of disruption may be molehill, but they build up into a vast mountain of crud that other editors have to clean up (and Daicaregos has only provided a tiny fraction of the available diffs). What really worries me is that we are heading into a very sensitive period in the history of the UK. The referendum on Scottish independence is just over the horizon, and with it the very real possibility that the Union will either be dissolved or substantially re-constituted. Now, the media, blogs etc are going to get pretty heated about this, and I predict that Wikipedia will feel the effects of this. We need all editors who understand elementary concepts like WP:VERIFY and WP:OR to hold out against what is likely to be persistant attempts to dumb down the encyclopaedia and use it as a platform. That means Unionist editors, Nationalist editors, Devolutionist editors, Home Rule editors, Devo Max editors, and editors who are none of those things but at least understand Wikipedia's founding principles and understand the constitutional complexities. If the Sysops do not sort out the GoodDay problem, then hell mend you, because he is going to be a thoroughly poisonous thorn in the side of everybody working for some kind of consensus. At every turn he will try to provoke and disrupt and dumb-down. We know from his past record that he will do anything and everything within his power to prevent a consensus developing which his contrary to his (deeply, deeply misinformed) world view. Wikipedia has a choice: to raise its game and attempt to become an academic reference work, or to give in to the primary school tendency. I consider the GoodDay case to be a test case for the community. What are Sysops going to do about it?--Mais oui! (talk) 05:43, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) Endrick   Shellycoat  07:59, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * 3) Endorse. A very good introductory essay on a vast subject, namely, GoodDay's inane "contributions". Note that despite the considerable extent of Dai's research, the full extent is very, very much larger. I am more tilting towards a complete block from the project now really - the more I read, the less convinced I am that this "editor" is going to change his spots. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 15:44, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * 4) Support. --Bill Reid | (talk) 10:17, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * 5) Very good collection of links, though of course by no means exhaustive. As someone else mentioned above, GoodDay's behaviour is basically that of an attention seeker. GoodDay constantly reminds me of the toddler who used to get into my way wherever I went, and the small child who used to put her hands over the keyhole whenever I wanted to open a door. Wikipedia is not therapy, and if GoodDay can't grow up soon (appears unlikely), he will have to be shown the door. Hans Adler 13:01, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * 6) Definitely not exhaustive, his behaviour extends to other topics as well. Diacritics, Canadian politics... He is very rapidly reaching a point where he will need to be shown the door as many people have tried to help him change and grow up like Hans mentions. Soon there won't be any option left. -DJSasso (talk) 14:15, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * 7) I mentioned in Jeanne's section that I doubted that GoodDay could change his ways. On reflection Dai's summary probably sums everything up best. Carson101 (talk) 16:00, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * 8) I will not give up on a fellow human being, but I'm not seeing a lot of support for change from GoodDay. My fear is that he will see a mentor as someone who will pay a lot of attention to him, rather than someone who can direct internal change. --Pete (talk) 21:17, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * 9) Fully support. Bjmullan (talk) 15:58, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * 10) Support. Take the FA David I of Scotland, a great article authored by Deacon of Pndapetzim, who hasn't been around for a few a while. Last Februray GoodDay got into a dust-up with Deacon and others over the use of Gaelic names in the infobox. GoodDay battled to remove the Gaelic forms altogether. After some reverting back and forth, a consensus was forged on the talkpage - that the English and Gaelic names would appear side-by-side in the infobox. GoodDay even implemented the agreement himself (see here ). That was on 18 February 2011; fastward to 4 December 2011 where GoodDay pulls the same stunt all over again, when he removed the Gaelic names altogether under the innocent edit summary "Fixed pipe-link". That was only a couple days ago... it never ends. So I see it the same as Daicaregos. I think we should decide right here and now whether we are going to tolerate any more of these games from GoodDay.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 10:27, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * 11) Support the analysis and proposed remedy. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:33, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * 12) Fully support. Kittybrewster   &#9742;  22:40, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Completely Process-Wonk view by Hasteur
It should be noted that this RfC/U was certified after the 48 hour window. While I don't think that this is a automatic failure of the RfC/U I question if the Certifiers have exhausted all previous options and did the appropriate groundwork prior to opening the formal complaint. It could be grounds for fault when we don't even follow our own policies on a very well defined process.

Users endorsing this viewpoint:
 * 1) As viewpoint author Hasteur (talk) 19:28, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) Agreed. (see also WT:Requests_for_comment/GoodDay).  Leaky  Caldron  21:50, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * 3) Yes, there's no problem with GoodDay that can't be addressed by editors showing a bit of tolerance and assuming good faith in dealing with him. Time to close this and move on. Ivor Stoughton (talk) 08:15, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * 4) While I don't put any weight at all in the technical breach of procedure, James' decision the decision of multiple editors to sign this section in order to shout it down only reinforces the underlying point that is being made. The single largest view here does not propose a resolution that will work if GoodDay is willing to comply, endorsing strong sanctions if he does not. It calls for GoodDay to be removed from the site permanently. Can I be sure that mentorship will work? No. But for someone who has never been blocked, and who to my knowledge has never been the subject of or heavily involved in a clear-the-air-and-look-to-the-future resolution process, we are obliged to try it. People are entitled to the opinion that a leopard won't change its spots, and entitled to make this clear. But calls for sanctions that cannot be applied at this stage are not going to help the situation. It is also not helpful that several people have taken upon themselves to disagree with any statement that calls for anything short of a long-term block or topic ban. This poisoning of the waters would probably count in GoodDay's favour should this matter to escalate to Arbcom one day. —WFC— 11:11, 13 December 2011 (UTC) Underlined text added at second timestamp. —WFC— 11:27, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

refactored per WP:IAR Gerardw (talk) 12:37, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) No - there is simply too much weight in the arguments for serious action above to dismiss this important issue on a technicality. GoodDay's behaviour needs to be firmly addressed. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 10:59, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) * You don't endorse positions you don't support. Read the policy docs on RfC/U and try again. Hasteur (talk) 12:21, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * 3) Disagree.  GoodDay is a loose cannon littering Wikipedia with troll-like comments and is someone who knows very well that his comments will flame.  His actions are deliberate and calculated.  However acknowledging that an RfC/U isn't the vehicle for implementing some of things being called for it does establish that experienced editors are now looking for an end to GoodDay's behavioural shortcomings.  --Bill Reid | (talk) 11:23, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * 4) * You don't endorse positions you don't support. Read the policy docs on RfC/U and try again. Hasteur (talk) 12:21, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * 5) Strongly disagree. The catalogue of events detailed on this page by multiple users cannot be ignored, least of all by GoodDay himself. He must therefore change the situation for the better or have changed imposed upon him by others and by means other than an RfC/U.  Endrick   Shellycoat  12:15, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * 6) * You don't endorse positions you don't support. Read the policy docs on RfC/U and try again. Hasteur (talk) 12:21, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

View by DBD
I've had periodic interaction with GD, and have generally found him to be direct but not disagreeable. However, I recognise that that may be because I haven't been involved with some of the more spectacular squabbles, and because we more often agree than not. Bearing these in mind, along with my (I hope) good standing and well-earned reputation for courtesy and cooperation, I would happily volunteer to mentor or adopt GD. DBD 16:48, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:
 * 1) Leaky  Caldron  17:03, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) Qualified endorsement, see my 'View' below. Endrick   Shellycoat  17:39, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

View by Endrick Shellycoat
Having examined this and the associated discussion page, I've formed a picture of a user who, having started out with the best of intentions, has ultimately succeeded in paving a road to hell.

GoodDay, for all his apparent shortcomings, has in the past and in certain areas continues to make useful contributions to the project. However, a quick look at GD's user contributions shows, IMHO, an almost obsessive and compulsive approach to editing, which cannot be healthy; either physically or mentally. Any quality which exists in these edits often gets lost in a blizzard of quantity, with many edits seemingly relating to 'housekeeping'. Occasionally though, possibly as a result of hours spent hammering the keyboard in splendid cyber-isolation, GoodDay inclines to pick a fight; I suspect in order to break the monotony of 'tidying up' countless articles and bringing conformity and consistency to all. Knowing the likely outcome, he makes for his article of choice, lights touch-paper, and retires. Alternatively, he'll make for an article's discussion page or user's talk page and try to illicite a response there. Again, I suspect this is more a means of countering the onset of boredom as opposed to an overwhelming desire to improve individual articles.

A high level of input into the project is not necessarily a bad thing. An individual editor working to bring an article up to GA or FA status can spend hours both on and off-line, working away as the hours stack up. However, the editor who jumps between subject matter, spending hour after hour each day, every day, tweaking here and adjusting there, is a different animal.

But I write in order to help GoodDay, not to assassinate his character, and I suspect that part of his 'problem' is the time he devotes to this site; his user contributions page showing a worrying trend in that respect. With that in mind, I suggest that GoodDay take a self-imposed wiki-break for a period of 1 month, followed by a period of mentoring upon his return for a period of 3 months. A period away from this place might benefit both himself and, by his returning with a fresh perspective, the project.

Such a wiki-break would also provide a Mentor with sufficient time to examine this page, the discussion page, GoodDay's editing history, his editing style, and the associated issues in relation to the articles where disputes have occured so as to form an opinion and determine a course of action; without further ongoing edits and/or disputes simultaneously taking place in the background.

In agreeing to this course of action GoodDay would demonstrate to all his intention to draw a line under what has gone before, and start afresh; allowing his fellow editors to once again take his contributions to the project at face value and, most importantly, be able once again to assume good faith.

Users who endorse this summary:
 * 1) Needless to say.  Endrick   Shellycoat  16:58, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * 2)  Leaky  Caldron  17:03, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * 3) Excellent suggestion.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:54, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * 4) Support, but the last sentence of Endrick's statement hopefully mean that, in the terms of an RfC/U, GoodDay makes a very explicit statement that he has understood why the RfC was taken in terms of all those who have felt it necessary to support his censure, and how he intends to remedy his conduct in future (post mentoring, that is). --Bill Reid | (talk) 18:02, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * 5) Support. Kittybrewster   &#9742;  22:47, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * 6) From reading the above statements, GD has demonstrated a pattern of disruptive behavior. This obviously must stop. Since he's also contributed much to the project, I don't believe that taking harsh measures is justified at this point. This suggestion's a good alternative. -- Piast 93  01:46, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Outside view by ExampleUsername
{Add your summary here. You must use the endorsement section below to sign it. Anyone is welcome to endorse this or any other view, but do not change other people's views.}

Reminder to use the talk page for discussion
All signed comments and talk not related to an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page. Discussion should not be added below. Discussion should be posted on the talk page. Threaded replies to another user's vote, endorsement, evidence, response, or comment should be posted to the talk page.