Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/GoodDay

Under the microscope
Truth is, I have & will continue to have no concerns about any political sensitivities on the British & Irish politicial articles. I don't & won't apologize for my neutral approach to these articles. GoodDay (talk) 16:38, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Are you saying that this problem stems from political senstivities regarding British and Irish articles? GoodDay, I'm afraid that blinkered viewpoint is not going to improve the situation.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:48, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm also concerned, that Skyring (at his talkpage) is threatening to re-start his Governor-General is Head of State campaign. GoodDay (talk) 17:54, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * This Rfc is about your behaviour, not Skyring's. Don't try to derail the discourse. I suggest that you address the issues which directly concern you.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:56, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * There's a group-ownership around those articles. An editor has just restored the change I attempted at First Minister of Scotland, I hope he'll be treated with less commotion. GoodDay (talk) 17:58, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Was there consensus for your change and did you discuss it beforehand?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:00, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Was it vandalism? GoodDay (talk) 18:01, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Nobody is accusing you of vandalism.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:02, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * @Jeanne. Here in the link within that section by one of the certifiers of this RFC/U. "I see that your vandalism spree continues...". In fact, for an RFC/U the certification is particularly poor. Certification is supposed to demonstrate attempts to resolve disputes but looking at them they are just  critical attacks talking about GoodDay's vandalism & trolling. I cannot see the "attempt to resolve" just the desire to persuade GoodDay to leave the articles alone.  Leaky  Caldron  15:32, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Then I'm bewilderd by this Rfc/U. GoodDay (talk) 18:03, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * To be perfectly honest, I'm sorry to see it come to this but you were forewarned. Please read what people are saying. You are not being attacked; however your editing is being evaluated and found wanting. The ball is now in your court. I suggest that you accept mentoring.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:07, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll accept a mentor, as long as he/she doesn't advise me to 'stay away' from the British & Irish political articles. But rather helps me when I'm involved with such articles, as I've no empathy for other editors political sensitivities. GoodDay (talk) 03:22, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * GoodDay, it's your editing at these articles which has landed you here. The mentor would perforce insist that you stay away from those articles. A topic ban is likely to be imposed.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:31, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * But I haven't vandalized those articles. A topic ban would be OTT. GoodDay (talk) 08:34, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Edit warriors often wreak more havoc than vandals who typically attack a wide range of pages and are quickly spotted.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:39, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I haven't edit-warred (i.e. breach 3rr). GoodDay (talk) 08:40, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Time factor
This Rfc/U buisness has already distracted me 'too much. I'm getting back on to the editing track. GoodDay (talk) 10:29, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I notice that you made a constructive edit on the Derry article! That's a step in the right direction, GoodDay.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 12:36, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Mentor
How does one get assigned a 'mentor'? GoodDay (talk) 04:43, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Topic Ban
The impression I'm getting from this Rfc/U, is that some of the editors want to skip mentorship & go straight to topic ban. Am I correct in this? GoodDay (talk) 07:40, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * You shouldn't need either. Surely, from your own inner resources, you can think to yourself, "What would my mentor say to me about this edit I'm about to hit 'Save page' on?" And then act on this wise voice from within? Or better yet, not even go to topics where you know you will have to think twice.
 * There's a string of editors all saying the same thing about your participation. What they say is resonating strongly with my own experience with you. Why not listen to what is about as solid a consensus as I've ever seen? You aren't stupid, you aren't evil, you do good work when you have a mind to. It shouldn't have come to this, and even if community sanctions are imposed, without a change from within they won't work. If you don't think you can change, then give up right now. --Pete (talk) 08:05, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll accept a mentor, if that's what the participants (here) want. GoodDay (talk) 08:15, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

cough, cough
Could the certifying users fill in the section "Users_certifying_the_basis_for_this_dispute" please. Also Snowded if you are stepping in to certify you should add some info on how there were attempts to resolve the disputes you mention in your part of the "Statement of the dispute" in the appropriate section. This will help Outsiders evaluate the issue & comment. Also, with reference to this please see Requests_for_comment: "While an RfC doesn't create sanctions, it may provide justification for them by collecting information, assessing consensus, and providing feedback to the subject. Sanctions may then be created separately through the administrative, community sanction, or arbitration processes."An RFC will not bring about sanctions in and of itself, and should be undertaken in hope of a resolution of conflict-- Cailil  talk 15:49, 6 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I've been trying for years (literally) will trawl through my talk pages for some examples.  -- Snowded  TALK  16:29, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Concur with Cailil, As we have claims of people who might certify this RfC, but as of yet haven't, I'm intending to remove it from the Certified disputes on the template and stick it back in the "Candidate Pages" Hasteur (talk) 18:53, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Having added material post Cailil's request, perhaps you would help me out and tell what is needed that has not been provided? -- Snowded TALK  19:00, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * As I said above those who want to certify this need to fill in the section "Users_certifying_the_basis_for_this_dispute" (ie sign it). At least 2 of the 3 of you must. Barryob really should have done this at the start, and unless Mais oui! is actually going to present evidence they shouldn't be called a certifier (this *will* cause confusion later unless it's sorted out)-- Cailil  talk 01:12, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * OK done - thanks for the clarification. Never done one of these before and too a bit of time deciding if I wanted to join in  -- Snowded  TALK  04:37, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Wikiquette
FWIW, I was never taken to Wikiquette. That should've been the first place to go, before this Rfc/U. GoodDay (talk) 20:19, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
 * You can be abrupt and offensive, but no more than a good many other productive editors. The views expressed here regard your behaviour as an editor, promoting your own sometimes odd notions without taking mind of concerns expressed and authorities given. In many cases repeatedly inserting the same erroneous material after being corrected. You should read carefully the comments made by other editors and address their concerns. --Pete (talk) 20:33, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I should've been taken to a Wikiquette, first. GoodDay (talk) 20:50, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
 * FWIW, having been around the project for over 6 years you shouldn't need Wikiquette, nor indeed Rfc/U, but here we are. Endrick  Shellycoat  08:58, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * That's wiki-life. GoodDay (talk) 16:56, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Its way past that GoodDay, and has been from sometime. You have already been taken to ANI once, and it will likely end up there again.  Are you taking up the mentor option proposed here? -- Snowded  TALK  10:19, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I said all along, I'd accept a mentor. GoodDay (talk) 16:54, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * GoodDay, please accept the mentoring. It's the best road to take.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 12:47, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I already agree to accepting mentorship. But so far, I haven't acquired one yet. GoodDay (talk) 16:38, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Too late for WQA and the mentor option is your best bet. However, as an alternative, no matter how you dislike it, why not just leave the national articles alone? You know perfectly well that in common with hundreds of geo-political articles they are effectively controlled by a small number of experienced editors, with national symbolism dripping from their User pages. Do you realistically think that you can succeed in making other than trivial changes to those articles? After all, historically there is nothing new to say about Scotland & Wales. All you can do is tweak things a bit, there is nothing more encyclopaedic to write so just leave it to those who happily edit articles associated with their declared national allegiances. When editor's start blaming you for edits that you did not even make, not only is it an act of extreme bad faith but a sure sign that any contributions you make will never be welcome. Weigh a doubt against a certainty and walk away. I'm not able to act as your mentor but if you would like me to preview any particular change you can give me a nudge, although I'm no more welcome there than you! Leaky  Caldron  13:41, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I won't voluntarily stay away from those articles, if & when I have concern about their accuracy. I just need somebody to help me formulate my concerns (i.e. posts) so that I don't get OTT heated reactions. There were times when I felt like a referee at a British soccer game. GoodDay (talk) 16:51, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't believe anything has been decided as yet on whether you should stay away from those articles or not, though that is the least that should happen in my opinion. There is also a strong feeling that you should perhaps be permaband. The question that has to be asked is this. Do you understand the concerns raised here or do you still believe you have done nothing wrong, even after all the diffs showing otherwise? If you are still of the opinion that people are just out to get you then you have learned nothing from this and the final decision may not be to your liking. If you take a mentor without any understanding of what is being expressed here then I don't see it working. Carson101 (talk) 17:22, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * There's no basis for perma-band, as I'm not a vandalizer, sock-master or a chronic civility-breaker. GoodDay (talk) 18:06, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * That has yet to be decided by someone else. GoodDay, it would be nice if you could answer my questions on what you have so far learned from this. Carson101 (talk) 18:10, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I shouldn't let my 'lack of empathy' for politicial sensitivites at those articles, show in my future posts there. GoodDay (talk) 18:12, 12 December 2011 (UTC)


 * PS: Any editor who seeks a perma-band of me (at this stage), won't succeed. GoodDay (talk) 18:13, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Comments like that worry me. Take more time looking at what you are doing wrong instead of bragging that no-one can touch you here as far as perma-banning. I can't see a mentor working well with you at this stage. Carson101 (talk) 18:25, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not bragging. GoodDay (talk) 18:37, 12 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Agreed. Why not take control of the situation yourself GoodDay instead of leaving your fate to others? A self-imposed 6 month Wiki-break might do you the world of good, and on your return a 3 month probationary period with a mentor might both defuse and resolve this entire situation in one fell swoop. Your recent editing sprees have been heavy on quantity and light on quality. Your perspective on what is/is not of importance and relevance to the project might improve following an extended period back in the 'real' world, and away from this. Endrick   Shellycoat  18:26, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * My editing style, over the last 2+ weeks, shows a change. GoodDay (talk) 18:37, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * So you say, but I suspect this particular horse had by that time already bolted. Remember this? - User_talk:GoodDay That advice still stands; I humbly suggest that you heed it. Endrick   Shellycoat  18:42, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Good advice, Endrick. The fact that GoodDay is still blaming other editors' "political sensitivities", when the problem is entirely down to his own unyielding stubbornness and covers a range of topics much wider than UK-related issues - such as his stance on the use of diacritics, where his editing patterns and propensity for getting up good editors' noses is quite similar - shows to me that anything like a topic ban or mentoring is simply unworkable.  He simply needs time out away from this project, in the hope that it will help broaden his experience and understanding.   Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:03, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * When I complete the US Governors series of articles, then I'll take a few walks. GoodDay (talk) 19:26, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * "controlled by a small number of experienced editors, with national symbolism dripping from their User pages". Like this you mean,  Leaky ? Your remark, whilst intending to lend support to GoodDay, merely betrays your own issues with regard to how this place works. The process of contributing to any Wiki article is a very straightforward one; subject matter supported by references, extracted from reliable sources, consolidated into a format readily available to all readers is what this place is about. The only contentious issues should be the agreed format and what constitutes a WP:RS; these being resolved through concensus. This place is not about endless POV pushing by those who see things differently from the majority and who, when challenged, consistently fail to support their own arguments with anything close to a WP:RS. Editors having 6+ years experience should not need to be dragged here to be reminded of the basics!  Endrick   Shellycoat  17:31, 12 December 2011 (UTC)


 * To add further. You, Leaky Cauldrin, are not helping GoodDay in any way. If you really want to help you could advise him to take everything on board, try to understand why his editing style has brought him here, and help him down a road that will aid him. As I said before, he doesn't appear to think that he has done anything wrong so the more people that can explain it to him the better. That should include you if your intention is to help him remain editing on wikipedia in the long run. Carson101 (talk) 17:47, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * mmm. I seems to have touched a few raw nerves. Carson, RFC/U cannot impose involuntary sanctions, blocks, bans, or binding disciplinary measures so your 17:22 comment is way off.


 * @Endrick - this RFC/U isn't about me. Raise one if you wish, although on reflection you may not have aimed that diatribe at me.


 * @GoodDay - there is a quantum of good advice above (18:25). You are provoking editors with some of your remarks. Leaky  Caldron  18:44, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the link. I don't understand the "raw nerves" part. What have you said that would make peoples nerves raw? My nerves are just fine thanks. Carson101 (talk) 19:03, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Outside View?
I believe some editors may have made an oversight here. All the editors who've described their view as outside, are in error. Your views are acutally inside. I trust that you've all merely made a mistake. GoodDay (talk) 21:43, 12 December 2011 (UTC)


 * This is a point I actually raised with Hasteur - it's again a technicality but something that would help outsiders. Ppl who are "semi-involved", "peripherally involved", "involved", "inside", etc should label their views as such (or as WFCforLife did leave out the adjective altogether). The reasoning for this is that in the end when this is closed, the closer can see what actually uninvolved commentaries are saying and weigh that with what the involved users are saying. This helps reach a community-wide consensus on an editor's behaviour-- Cailil  talk 21:49, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * No editor providing an 'Ouside View' here was involved in the dispute cited (as far as I know), namely 'Monarch from the First Ministers infobox'. If that is required, perhaps we should request the editor who was first involved be contacted for their opinion of GoodDay's behaviour – on that matter and elsewhere. If, after reading my submission, the closing admin is in any doubt as to my 'involvement' with GoodDay, they can't have understood what they were reading. Nevertheless, for the sake of good order, I have amended my statement's heading to read 'View' instead of 'Outside view'. I trust the evidence I presented will now be accepted and answered for, rather better than thus far. Daicaregos (talk) 22:21, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm happy to do the same, for exactly the same reasons - past interactions with GoodDay, but not in the dispute cited. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:29, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks to both of you. As someone with a somewhat different perspective, I think it wouldn't be a bad idea to notify the aforementioned editor (whoever that is) of this RfC. —WFC— 22:35, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Notified. Daicaregos (talk) 23:12, 12 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Just to clarify (in case outsiders don't look at the links), Jimbo's involvement concerned the Scotland infobox, not the First Minister of Scotland infobox. GoodDay (talk) 07:19, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * You are mistaken GoodDay. The subject of the discussion you created at WikiProject Scotland was First Minister bio infoboxes. And (in case outsiders don't look at the links), User:Jimbo Wales also opposed your changes highlighted at the project pages re: Northern Ireland First Minister bio infoboxes and Wales First Minister bio infoboxes. Daicaregos (talk) 18:37, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not mistaken. JW's involvement concerned my removal of Elizabeth II from the infoboxes at Scotland, England, Wales & Northern Ireland. It didn't involve my recent alteration of Elizabeth II to Monarch of the United Kingdom at First Minister of Scotland, First Minister of Wales, Deputy First Minister for Wales and First Minister and deputy First Minister (which I later reverted). GoodDay (talk) 18:41, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I suggest you, and anyone else, follow the relevant link to the discussion you initiated at First Minister bio infoboxes, and read it. BTW, the links you provide are to nothing relevant; you need to privide diffs, or links to specific talk page discussion(s). Daicaregos (talk) 18:54, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * You & I can argue 'til the end of time. We mix like water & oil, so let's leave it at that. GoodDay (talk) 19:14, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Anyone actually interested in the facts - follow the relevant link to the discussion initiated at First Minister bio infoboxes, and read it. Daicaregos (talk) 19:25, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * It isn't oil and water, GoodDay; it is RS vs POV. Kittybrewster  &#9742;  23:09, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Concerning myself & Daicaregos, it's oil & water. GoodDay (talk) 23:32, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * and recognising that and avoiding conflict while still being able to contribute will be a key factor for you. Your position has been understood by some contributors to this RFC. Leaky  Caldron  23:41, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * @Leaky_caldron: Are you suggesting 'some contributors to this RFC' understand GoodDay's position that 'Jimbo's involvement concerned the Scotland infobox, not the First Minister of Scotland infobox', as GoodDay claims, and agree with that position, having read the discussion? @GoodDay: Your propensity for last wordism is intensely irritating. If you had anything worthwhile to add (e.g. links to RSs, or relevant diffs) it would be acceptable, but as usual this is nothing more than your opinion. I am hoping this is but one of the traits your mentors will help you grow out of. As always, these interminable discussions are not about 'you and I arguing', it is about an editor (in this case me) presenting facts and GoodDay providing his opinion and attempting to blame some imagined conflict of personalities. This is the link to the discussion on First Minister bio infoboxes initiated by GoodDay and opposed by Jimbo Wales (among others). As anyone can see, your statement that “Jimbo's involvement concerned the Scotland infobox, not the First Minister of Scotland infobox” is complete nonsense. Daicaregos (talk) 14:46, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
 * @Dai. I was responding in general terms to GoodDay. I have not the slightest knowledge of or interest in Jimbo's involvement, the Scotland first minister infobox which interests me even less than a Higgs boson and only a passing interest in Scotland. I'm not here in relation to the position on any particular article. Leaky  Caldron  16:20, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Closing this - when the time comes
The process for closing an RFC/U requires a motion to close here on the talk page. The project page has many calls for bans of one kind or another. RFC/U cannot impose or enforce involuntary sanctions, blocks, bans, or define binding disciplinary measures. It allows users to collaborate in discussing wider issues they see with a particular editor's conduct ✅, allows an editor who is the subject of an RFC/U to understand the problems, and change or explain their conduct ✅, and allow users to share information which might be relevant for later steps in the dispute resolution process, should that become necessary ✅. All those expecting this process would lead to a quick ban for GoodDay have failed to understand what RFC/U can and cannot accomplish. As he has agreed to the use of a mentor it would be helpful in moving things along if a section is created in which the full specifics of the mentorship can decisively agreed, for the avoidance of doubt on GD's part, and to form the eventually motion to close. Can one of the certifying editors please agree to the creation of such a section? Leaky Caldron  21:49, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I doubt whether anyone here has ever "expect[ed that] this process would lead to a quick ban for GoodDay..." But some may share a view that it may be required in the longer term.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:06, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * One of the uses of an RfC is to test the general view of the community and that is fairly clear. Its in GoodDay's hands if he takes the advise for mentorship etc.   If the behaviour starts up again then the next step is ANI, referencing this RfC.  -- Snowded  TALK  04:15, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

The time is now
I acknowledge that my past conduct on articles about British & Irish politicial articles, aswell as the topic diacritics, have upset many editors. More so, my conduct on the corresponding discussion pages, were somewhat stinging. I still don't have empathy for other editors sensitivities on those articles-in-question & acknowledge that 'if' I did - my posts would've been less stinging. I've adopted a mentor & I'm hopeful that my future appearances at the aforementioned articles & topics, will be more productive & less disruptive. GoodDay (talk) 20:34, 13 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Well done for that and progress with finding a mentor. The close will take a while yet. It needs a motion to close, which I believe the closer will produce and that may also require some input from yourself and your mentor. Good progress and good luck! Leaky  Caldron  20:39, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. GoodDay (talk) 20:56, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I think it would make sense for GoodDay to replace his current Response on the main page with his statement above and acceptance of mentorship by SZ and DBD. Gerardw (talk) 23:42, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * It's already been supported by some editors. Therefore, I'd have to delete them, aswell. GoodDay (talk) 23:58, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * You can strike it with the and and place the new statement below their endorsements. Gerardw (talk) 00:02, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
 * May I add a 2nd response? TBH, I'm still concerned about 'possible' political motivations in the British & Irish political articles. GoodDay (talk) 00:11, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
 * As am I, friend. I have noticed before and been slightly concerned. Perhaps we shall have a look at it once January has passed. DBD 00:15, 14 December 2011 (UTC)


 * You can certainly may, but I'd advise against it. I don't think this is the time or place for that discussion. Gerardw (talk) 00:18, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

process
The RFC/U guidelines say the RFC may be deleted by CSD after 48 hours, not will. As it is clearly certified now, there is no reason to doubt its validity. Note also the not bureaucracy policy specifically rejection of a request on procedural error. Gerardw (talk) 03:52, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Even the person that raised the issue wasn't arguing for deletion. The underlying point was that some people have jumped the gun on mediation and are rooting directly for a permanent punishment, and that this is manifesting itself in the way the RfC is happening. I'm on the fence as to whether I agree with all of what Hasteur says, but clearly more than one person is of that opinion. —WFC— 10:04, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Did not mean to imply anyone was arguing for deletion, that was just a reference to the documented policy. My interpretation of Hasteur's comment was that the RFC/U could come to an end and a closing editor declare "it was late by n hours, despite multiple days and multiple editors contributing, it doesn't count!" I'd suggest if Hastuer meant to say "some people have jumped the gun on mediation and are rooting directly for a permanent punishment," alternate phrasing (e.g. "some people have jumped the gun on mediation and are rooting directly for a permanent punishment") would have been clearer. Gerardw (talk) 12:07, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Several RfC/U complaints have been closed for that reason, and at this point there's been enough technical fouls (Expired certification, Non-outside "Outside viewpoints", Endorsing of viewpoints that the editor doesn't agree with) that I would not be surprised if the complaint gets either closed with no action or thrown out when it's attempted to be used for building the case of future sanctions. In short, I meant exactly what I wrote.  From my knowledge most RfC/U complaints are prepared in userspace, refined, and certifiers are lined up prior to being created in the project space so that there's no question.  It appears that the people who are bringing this complaint have not prepared correctly and read through the policies, guidelines, and help pages for this process. Hasteur (talk) 12:31, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * That was happening but GD went to ANI claiming bullying and harassment and the page was deleted. Mo ainm  ~Talk  12:37, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Indeed: User:Snowded/GoodNight. was its location. To be honest, I'm not bothered what happens to this RfC/U as my hope is that with all the evidence placed before him, GD will alter his editing style for the better in the understanding that there exists a sizeable body of editors who are not prepared to let his behaviour go unchallenged and that sanctions via means other than RfC/U will be likely in the event that no improvement is evident. It may take a while, but he likely will be shown the door if he fails to act. Endrick   Shellycoat  12:44, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Reference Needed. If that was the case, why did the administrator delete a draft RfC? Was it just a collection of random complaints or did it have the full structure of an RfC/U? When I go to the tomb of that page I only see a CSD:G7 (Single Author/Editor request). I don't see any complaint in the deleting admin's talk space contesting this. Unfounded assertions don't hold water with me and in fact poision me against the viewpoint. Hasteur (talk) 12:55, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Because it went to ANI and the drama that GD so loves ensued and it was deleted as a compromise. Nothing unfounded about what I said. Mo ainm  ~Talk  13:01, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The administrator deleted it as a result of Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Snowded/GoodNight. —WFC— 13:07, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Again, you come back with text but no DIFFS. The specific thread (in addition to WFCforLife's finding) was Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive726. It appears to me from the commentary that Snowded wasn't drafting a RfC/U (nor by their own claims was intending to) but keeping a evidence page. The MfD lays it out pretty well, Snowded blanked the page prior to the MfD closing because a MfD delete would have been a kiss of death for the content. Hasteur (talk) 13:13, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * In relation to the material mentioned above, it was a 3 months old laundry list subscribed to by various editors. The content was deprecated as WP:POLEMIC with a tasteless title GoodNight added for good measure - an obviously jibe at GoodDay's user name incorporating an incivil play on words (Goodnight as in you'll not be coming back). It had no RFC/U structure whatever - just a list of diffs of GD's troublesome interactions - some valid, some not. At MfD Snowded agreed to maintain it off line and it has made a reappearance here, in an abbreviated form.   Leaky  Caldron  13:35, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

The elephant in the room here is a catalogue of behaviour on the part of GD which runs contrary to the spirit of the project. No amount of procedural filibuster can obscure that fact. For your own part Hasteur, a modicum of WP:AGF wouldn't go amis here. Endrick  Shellycoat  13:16, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Indeed. In the event that this RfC were closed for technical procedural reasons, we could just open the next one, adding this one to the list of earlier attempts to resolve the problem. What would that accomplish? Attempts to undermine this RfC based on the drafter's complete inexperience with the process (which, in an experienced editor, is often a good sign) are in very bad taste. Hans Adler 13:45, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Indeed, Indeed. We have GD's agreement to work under guidance, a process that must now be driven out in full detail. I would be very disappointed if GD attempted to have this RFC/U closed on a technicality without the promised mentor in place and he would loose support, I feel, if he gamed the process. However, I am confident that will not be the case and would encourage those seeking a positive outcome to urgently press ahead with the mentoring plan and that Hasteur and Hans who at least appear to understand the RFC/U process, will be around to provide guidance on the motion to close and closure. Leaky  Caldron  15:02, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but I don't understand the RfC/U process. It's rare enought that I come here, and I always have to look things up. Hans Adler 16:33, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm drafting a motion for closure that I expect will hit on the following points (Mentorship of GD for a period of time, agreement to "seal" the records for a period, reiteration of WP principles). I'll try to get this up by the end of the day. If others can think of items to include in the motion, please let me know. Hasteur (talk) 15:35, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I have pointed GoodDay in this WP:Adopt-a-user direction. Am I correct in thinking that the motion to close needs to incorporate the mentor action plan? Leaky  Caldron  15:38, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I remain of the opinion that a wiki-break should be part of any 'rehabilitation', for want of a better description. 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. A period away from this place might benefit both himself and, by his returning with a fresh perspective, the project, followed by a period of mentoring upon his return. I'd therefore like to propose a (self-imposed) wiki-break of 1 month, followed by mentoring for a period of 3 months upon his return, being included as part of any motion. Endrick   Shellycoat  15:47, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Endrick. In an ideal world GD would agree to that and I can see that it might be helpful. However, from a pragmatic pov, RFC/U cannot impose involuntary sanctions. Leaky  Caldron  15:52, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm aware RfC/U can't impose anything, but I'm sure I'm not the only one who considers such a persistant level of editing to be unhealthy. If GD did decide to take a break then I'm sure his fellow editors, myself included, would commend him for it. We all, I'm sure, know individuals in the real world who have pushed themselves that little bit too far and suffered for it in the longer term. It would be unfortunate to see GD progress to a boiling frog situation. Endrick   Shellycoat  16:00, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Forgive me highlighting an inconsistency. On the project page you signed up to a proposal for a permanent block. Your suggestion above is much more in keeping with what an RFC/U could achieve. Why not propose it on the project page? If fewer people demanded serious sanctions and more followed your latest suggestion it might send a more supportive message to GD. Don't you agree? Leaky  Caldron  16:07, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Absolutely. As I read the opinions of others, they in turn affect my own and to be honest my attention has turned more towards this page than the other of late. I will be happy to do as you suggest, although quite how to word it in the context of an RfC/U I'm not certain, but here goes... Endrick   Shellycoat  16:12, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

What's an RfC/U really for:
What RfC/U CANNOT do is:
 * Impose/enforce involuntary sanctions, blocks, bans, or binding disciplinary measures;

What RfC/U CAN do is:
 * Allow a number of users to collaborate in discussing wider issues they see with a particular editor's conduct.
 * Allow an editor who is the subject of an RFC/U to understand the problems, and change or explain their conduct.
 * Allow users to share information which might be relevant for later steps in the dispute resolution process, should that become necessary.

Ok, we get what this process CAN'T do, and many users have most certainly highlighted GoodDay's poor conduct and yes, the information provided in the the primary page will be invaluable to any future process, but what we haven't heard from GoodDay is his take on his understanding of the problems, his stated willingness to address these problems and to explain his conduct specifically on the problems raised. Until at least that is done, then this should RfC should not be closed. --Bill Reid | (talk) 16:43, 13 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I think Billreid hits the nail on the head. I have just read Endrick Shellycoats proposal on the main page and it appears to be a good solution. What I would like to hear first though is some kind of acknowledgement from GoodDay that his editing style has been a problem and why he thinks it is a problem. If he walks away from here believing he is the victim it won't do him any good. Carson101 (talk) 17:12, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with this assessment. It behoves GoodDay to acknowledge that his editing behaviour is problematic and that he is prepared to accept the mentor's guidance. So far I've just seen denial followed by counter-attacks against other editors based on a notion of his that they object out of "nationalist POV". Well, I have found many of his edits regarding Irish/UK articles OR/disruptive/inaccurate, and I have the Californian state flag on my User page! Honestly, I am deeply disappointed by his cavalier attitude towards all this. I assumed Good Faith in his ability to change, but he needs to assure us that he is indeed prepared to try!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:23, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * This discussion from 2 days ago leads me to believe that he thinks it is everyone else who is at fault. As I said, walking away from here thinking that he is the victim will make this process worthless. If he is not willing to acknowledge his faults here after all the evidence has been put forward why does anyone think that one mentor/editor will get through to him. I would be more than willing to endorse Edrick Shellycoats view if GoodDay showed some kind of understanding of why this process began. Carson101 (talk) 17:54, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Even before the post below, in my opinion he has already done all this. He has stated that his primary problem is a lack of empathy for people with different POVs, and that he would be happy to work under a mentor to address/mitigate against this. Indeed he said that eight days ago, before the most vociferous views were even added to this RfC (revision at the time of GoodDay's post above). While a failure of mentorship caused by GoodDay's actions would probably lead to a topic ban, I don't see what else there is for GoodDay himself to say at this stage. —WFC—  18:43, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Indeed, I lost count as to how many times I posted that I'd accept mentorship. GoodDay (talk) 18:56, 13 December 2011 (UTC)


 * (e/c) But some of us believe, strongly, that the problem is not "a lack of empathy for people with different POVs." It is GD's resolute belief that all editors, including himself, edit on the basis of those POVs and opinions. How many times has GoodDay said, "nothing will change my opinion" - as though that matters here? Most longterm editors - including most editors on the British and Irish articles - do not edit on the basis of their personal opinions; they edit on the basis of reliable sources, and consensus. It is GD's failure to recognise that the problem lies within himself, and in his attitudes to editing and building an encyclopedia, that is the problem. Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:00, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Indeed. Well put Ghmyrtle. Let us hope that User:DBD (or, indeed, any mentor) is as level-headed as User:Steven Zhang. Daicaregos (talk) 19:06, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The first step in combatting POV is acknowledging that you have one where applicable. In that regard I don't see GoodDay as being any better or worse than half a dozen other contributors to this process. —WFC— 19:23, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * And GoodDay has not taken that step. I remind you that this RfC/u is about GoodDay and not about others, which would, of course, include yourself. Daicaregos (talk) 19:30, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * At no point did I state that he had taken that step, simply that he is on an equal footing to other editors in that regard. The context in which GoodDay interacts with other users, including myself and yourself, is entirely relevant to this RfC/U. —WFC— 19:54, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

When I finish my series of gnome edits to the US Governors bio articles (which will be today), then I'll go the mentor adoption route. GoodDay (talk) 18:30, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

I just sent out my adoption request. GoodDay (talk) 19:59, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * WFC, Yes GoodDay accepted mentorship but it was conditional i.e "I've no probs with a mentor, as long as he/she doesn't advise me to 'stay away' from the British & Irish political articles. But rather helps me when I'm involved with such articles, as I've no empathy for other editors political sensitivities." Mentorship doesn't come with conditions.  His proposed mentor would need to know clearly that he does intend to turnover a new leaf otherwise what's the point.  GoodDay needs to assure concerned editors that he acknowledges that his editing has caused problems across numerous areas within WP and that he understands that the project only works if editors act in a collegiate manner.  We need to hear this from him not you. --Bill Reid | (talk) 19:27, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Why not wait until I get a mentor & then give it a chance to work. Don't drown the horse before I hook it up to the wagon. GoodDay (talk) 19:59, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I'm happy to mentor GoodDay alongside DBD. Steven  Zhang  Join the DR army! 22:47, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I will accept a co-mentorship. GoodDay (talk) 22:53, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Good, then we 3 are in agreement. DBD 23:37, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Cluster B Personalities
Do cluster B People not lack empathy? Kittybrewster  &#9742;  00:31, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Proposed Motion to close
Whereas Therefore
 * 1) It is the responsibility for all editors to respect the consensus of the community, even when the consensus is against your viewpoint.  Consensus may be checked at reasonable periods to see if it has changed
 * 2) The article area of United Kingdom, Northern Ireland, and Scotland is under special observation by many editors
 * 3) Nationalistically and Ethnically motivated editors provide a significant threat to the Neutral Point of View that Wikipedia is charged with upholding
 * 1) GoodDay has acknowledged that there are editors who have concerns about his editing
 * 2) GoodDay has engaged with DBD and User:Steven Zhang in a adoption/mentorship relationship and will present a mentorship/rehabilitation plan
 * 3) That GoodDay has entertained the idea of both a WikiBreak and a break from editing in spaces that other editors have expressed concern
 * 4) That GoodDay endeavour to avoid conflict in their editing habits.
 * 5) That those who previously have had complaints with GoodDay "seal" the records of their complaint for a reasonable amount of time while GoodDay makes positive progress in their efforts.

What do people think? Obviously not everyone is going to get what they want in terms of their initial demands, but I think this hits on what I understood the concerns to be. Remember to be civil and collegial when responding. Hasteur (talk) 03:43, 14 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Looks pretty good to me. Steven   Zhang  Join the DR army! 03:47, 14 December 2011 (UTC)


 * No issues with all bar one statement and a general concern.  If you check the history over a range of articles you will find that there is as much a problem with Unionist editors and the insertion of "British" where it is inappropriate.  It is not correct to say that one side of that continuous issue is in the wrong without including the other.  The general concern relates to the degree of confidence that GoodDay is taking this seriously.   We have been here many many times before.   When he finally realises it is getting serious he steps back only to return later.   I think it needs to be very very clear that if this doesn't work then it goes to ANI for a permanent ban.   Giving mentorship a go is only fair, but the motion to close should reflect to concerns on the RfC which are overwhelmingly expressing concern.   -- Snowded  TALK  06:36, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Fine by me bar nitpicking below. @Snowded - editors with a Unionist POV are surely just as much in the frame as any other "Nationalisticly and Ethnicly motivated editors". Could someone define "seal" in this context? Now on to the interesting stuff.
 * "Nationalisticly" and "Ethnicly" are not in my dic - "Nationalistically" and "Ethnically" are.
 * It should be "That GoodDay endeavor s
 * "previosuly" and "acknoledged" are typos.

Our thanks should go to DBD and User:Steven Zhang for taking this on. If successful, the community will benefit. If unsuccessful, I fear the path ahead is clear. Ben  Mac  Dui  09:22, 14 December 2011 (UTC) PS "Don't drown the horse before I hook it up to the wagon" Is that your own invention GD? Rather an apt phrase.
 * I'm using seal in the way that (in the US) court proceedings (Record sealing) of minors can be sealed away against common inquiries so as to prevent actions of a minor from coming up in run of the mill inquiries, but still be used to demonstrate a pattern if there is a significant case in the same patern. Hasteur (talk) 13:26, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

I can endorse Hasteur's motion. I make no predictions as to what may happen when and if. (And, Ben, if we're playing that game, "endeavor" is not in my dictionary! :P) DBD 11:11, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Perhaps not, but it is in mine. Incidentally, in case this wasn't clear I was not suggesting adding anything from the para: "Our thanks should go to... etc." Ben   Mac  Dui  19:18, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Fine by me, but with Snowded's caveats. If this doesn't work within a reasonable timeframe, an indef ban will be back on the table. I have already said what the odds are in my opinion, but we should all give him a chance now. Hans Adler 11:28, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Fully support. No need to insert threats about potential future sanctions in the close. What will be will be, and telling GoodDay the inevitable consequences of his failure to live up to expectations is not a measure that embodies good faith. He knows full well that the future is in his heads and that he should guard it well. Leaky Caldron  11:35, 14 December 2011 (UTC)


 * While I do understand the strength of feeling here, I don't think it's constructive for editors to imply that this arrangement is taking place at knifepoint. Particularly not the editor that thinks "GoodNight" was an appropriate play on words in the context of wanting to kill GD off. While it's sage advice I think the Wikibreak element of part 3 should be removed. The current implication is that if he doesn't take a Wikibreak, that will be held against him. The same could be said for a short-term abstention from a certain topic area; the difference is that a failure to pause and take stock of what has happened in that topic area probably would count against him. I just about agree with Ben. If GoodDay is the primary reason for the failure of mentorship, the path ahead is clear. However, it is important that every editor gives it a chance to succeed, either by attempting to work constructively with GoodDay, or by giving him a wide berth. If mentorship can be proven to have failed primarily due to the determination of other editors not to allow it to work, the fallout would be anything but a foregone conclusion. —WFC— 11:47, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Point 3 was added as both people have asked GoodDay to go on WikiBreak/Holiday and GoodDay has suggested (on talk pages) that perhaps they should step away from the British Isles Area for a while. I was putting it in as a assertion of fact to demonstrate that they are attempting to reform.  If the complainants don't think it's needed then we can remove it. Hasteur (talk) 13:26, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Suggest:

Whereas Therefore. Gerardw (talk) 12:40, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) It is the responsibility for all editors to respect community consensus.  Consensus may be checked at reasonable periods to see if it has changed.
 * 2) The article area of United Kingdom, Northern Ireland, and Scotland is under special observation by many editors.
 * 3) Nationalistically and ethnically motivated editors provide a significant threat to the Neutral Point of View that Wikipedia is charged with upholding
 * 4) Point of view editors provide a significant threat to the encyclopedic quality of Wikipedia.
 * 1) GoodDay has acknowledged that his past editing practice has been unnecessarily combative.
 * 2) GoodDay has engaged with DBD and User:Steven Zhang in a adoption/mentorship relationship and will present a mentorship/rehabilitation plan.
 * 3) GoodDays endeavours to avoid conflict in their editing habits.
 * 4) That those who previously have had complaints with GoodDay remove compilations of past actions from the wiki, and refrain from raising past behavior in ongoing discussions.

This User:Snowded/GoodDay has been fully incorporated into the project page of this RFC/U - as far as I can see word for word. I have asked the owner how long they intend to retain it but the question was not answered. It does not require a motion here to request its removal since it has clearly served its purpose and should now be removed per the relevant content guideline WP:UP. Leaky Caldron  13:02, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
 * That was just a sandpit to get the formatting right before putting it in the RfC Leaky, as is pretty self evident.  Once this RfC is closed and archived I will store a reference to it in case it is needed in the future/
 * The only thing that is self evident is that the original version (GoodNight) was entirely inappropriate and that the current version (GoodDay) no longer serves a purpose. When/how will it be removed, please? Leaky  Caldron  17:03, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I am afraid that I strongly object to the "Nationalistically and ethnically motivated ..." phrase.  That position is a strong PoV of GoodDay and some others used to excuse behaviour.  Its an accusation made from time to time, but its proponents have not had the guts to raise an RfC or go to ANI probably because they know there is little evidence.   It also clearly does not include the Unionist and anti=nationalist factions, especially given GoodDay's opening comments in response to the RfC.   In practice there several editors seeking to insert "Britain" opt "British Isles" and some attempting to remove it.  Until a year or so ago the former were in the majority, now its reversed.  However both are minorities and largely contained, and restricted by Arbcom rulings.  The bulk of editors may be or may not have personal preferences but generally work from evidence.   i really don't see an evidence for the statement, and we should not be encouraging it as an excuse.  I suggest instead "Editing from a strongly pro or anti-nationalist perspective is disruptive to Wikipedia and editors are enjoyed to use evidence from reliable sources, and seek agreement on the talk pages"  I have let out "ethnicity" as the use of that word has also been a battle ground and we are looking for something more neutral here-- Snowded  TALK  13:41, 14 December 2011 (UTC)


 * It's still my belief that there's a devolutionist flavour to the articles-in-question. But, what's important, is that I don't let that 'belief' influence my editing & posting on those articles/discussons. An editor's beliefs/suspicions can't be changed, only his/her conduct can. Also, I'm concerned with the 'next step' (if mentorship fails) - i.e. indef block/perma-ban. What happened to 'topic ban'? GoodDay (talk) 14:14, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I've revised my suggestion to take into account Snowded's suggestions. Since I have every faith in both GoodDay's willingness to be a positive contributor to Wikipedia and the quality of DBD and SZ's mentorship, any discussion of a "next step" is absolutely unnecessary. Gerardw (talk) 15:20, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
 * and if a more wiki-savvy editor could format the above so the second #1 is a #3, I'd appreciate it. Gerardw (talk) 15:22, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

The motions proposed above in themselves lack a degreee of neutrality IMHO. I therefore propose the following suggestion:

Revision
Whereas

Therefore
 * 1) It is recognised that community consensus may be challenged at reasonable intervals, it remains the responsibility of all editors to respect such Consensus.
 * 2) It is recognised that articles concerning nationality and constititional issues may be under special observation, it remains the responsibility of all editors to Assume Good Faith on the part of contributors to such articles.
 * 3) It is recognised that editors of such articles may have strong opinions and hold opposing views, it remains the responsibility of all editors to ensure article content projects a Neutral Point of View.


 * 1) GoodDay acknowledges the controversial nature of his past editing practices and refrains from editing articles concerning nationality and constititional issues until XX January, 2012.
 * 2) GoodDay engages with both DBD and Steven Zhang in an adoption/mentorship relationship in order to formulate a rehabilitation plan.
 * 3) Editors having complaints with regard to GoodDay detailed within this RfC/U shall remove compilations of GoodDay's past actions from the project, and shall refrain from raising past behaviors in ongoing or future discussions.
 * 4) Participants of this RfC/U having concerns with regard to GoodDay's behaviour in future are requested to copy such concerns to DBD and/or Steven Zhang in addition to raising these directly with GoodDay.

I think that about covers it. Endrick  Shellycoat  15:45, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd remove " with regard to politics and ethnicity" per Snowded's concerns above; the point stands without that clause. I actually considered adding something like #4 (concerns to mentors) myself, but I am concerned that part of the skill set we want to help GoodDay achieve is dealing with concerns. It's also problematic, an editor unaware of this RFC would naturally just express a concern on GoodDay's talk page. I think the details of response to such concern would be best worked out between GoodDay and the mentors. Gerardw (talk) 16:02, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Done. Endrick   Shellycoat  16:21, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The idea that "Editors having complaints with regard to GoodDay detailed within this RfC/U shall... refrain from raising past behaviors in... future discussions" seems unrealistic. It effectively seeks to wipe the slate clean - is that usual practice here?   The revision also fails to reiterate the point made by Snowded, that edits should be based on sources and consensus, rather than personal opinions (a point that applies across all articles, not just those concerned with national identity in the UK and Ireland).  And GoodDay's editing practices have not necessarily been "controversial", but they have sometimes been disruptive.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:37, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Absolutely spotlessly clean. The goal is proceed forward. An eye for an eye makes Wikipedia blind. We want to forgive and assume good faith. Of course edits should be made on sources and consensus, but it's personal motivation which compels edits to go find them and participate in discussions in the first place. Controversial/disruptive is a distinction not worth getting bogged down in. Gerardw (talk) 17:56, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Is that just your personal opinion, or based on guidelines? Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:09, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
 * That's a false dichotomy. It's my personal opinion based on experience on understanding and applying guidelines. Gerardw (talk) 19:32, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
 * So can you please direct us to the guidelines that suggest that a "clean break" is preferred to Hasteur's suggestion, as I understood it, that evidence of past behaviour can be adduced if similar behavioural patterns are repeated in future? Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:38, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think Hasteur and my suggestions differ in substance so much as emphasis. Note I did not say "forgive and forget;" the idea is that proceeding on the assumption the mentorship will be successful helps generate a self-fulfilling prophecy and will greatly improve the chance of success. It is likely that GoodDay, being human, will slip from time to time. It is at this point the best interests of the community will be served by stepping back and letting the mentors do their job. Other editors' jumping in and bringing up past actions typically provokes a counterproductive defensive reaction. In any event, no one is suggesting oversighting any logs; in the unfortunate event the RFCU remedy fails, they will still be there. Gerardw (talk) 19:51, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
 * That seems fair and reasonable to me - thanks for the clarification. Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:52, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The idea is to not have the giant millstone hanging around GoodDay's neck while he's trying to resolve these issues. Obviously if GoodDay doesn't complete the rehabilitation or causes more problems the complainants are perfectly justified to refer to this RfC if there's a problem. Hasteur (talk) 18:06, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I fully support the intention but this wording suggests the reverse. I am not sure what to propose - perhaps adding "unless further formal proceedings to review GoodDay's actions commence."? I would hope it is not necessary to include suggesting that such proceedings should not be brought by participants here during the period of mentoring at least.  Ben   Mac  Dui  19:31, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Is it the mentor's responsibility to deal with any breach of #3 relating to bringing up the past? Leaky  Caldron  19:04, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
 * That seems reasonable to me. Gerardw (talk) 19:52, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Anybody else require clarification or object to the wording? Do we give it until 00:01UTC on Saturday 17th December for comments from those who object to adopting the wording as outlined above, prior to concluding the RfC/U? I'm unsure as to the process here. Endrick   Shellycoat  21:11, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

I think what's missing here is something like "Concerns with GoodDay should be raised with his mentors", but it should be worded in a way so it doesn't translate to "Stalk GoodDay's edits unti you find a slip up and then report it to his mentors" but I can't think of the best way to word it in my caffeine-deprived state, so hoping someone else can come up with something. Perhaps an acknowledgment that he will be taking a month-long break from these articles would be advisable, as well. If we can get some agreement here, I'll close the RFC at 00:01, 17 Dec and post the "findings" on top of the RFC as well as at AN. Steven  Zhang  Join the DR army! 21:32, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I had in my original draft this:
 * Editors having concerns with regard to GoodDay's behaviour in future shall present such concerns to DBD and/or Steven Zhang in the first instance.
 * It was suggested this be removed as only participants in this RfC/U would be aware of such, but I'm not against reinstating it. I'll be 'bold' and reinstate it for the sake of moving things along. Endrick   Shellycoat  21:37, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
 * (ec)It's not reasonable for an RFC/U to change the standard wiki practice of raising concerns about edits on the talk page of the editor who made them. If you want to establish and agreement where the mentors have the responsibility of responding to comments on GoodDays' talk page, that would be fine, but I think that's between the mentor(s) and mentee, not part of the RFCU closing. Gerardw (talk) 21:41, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I see where you're coming from also, therefore I've 'tweaked' the statement and inserted a bit about a wiki-break from such articles as per the suggestion by "> Steven . Hope that is acceptable. Endrick   Shellycoat  21:49, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
 * (e/c) @Endrick, Crossposting this to AN and perhaps a note on GoodDay's talk page that he is under mentorship and/or concerns about him should be brought up with us. I think it needs to be worded in a way that discourages wikistalking his edits by others.  Steven   Zhang  Join the DR army! 21:59, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
 * @Gerard, of course, issues should be raised with GoodDay himself first. It's more a "take it to his mentors first as opposed to ANI" or something like that. Steven   Zhang  Join the DR army! 21:59, 14 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I think its fine, but if the behaviour repeats then this RfC can be brought in evidence. Happy for anything new to be raised with the mentors first.-- Snowded  TALK  22:32, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure of the purpose of the beginning of statement #2, "It is recognised that articles concerning nationality and constitutional issues may be under special observation..." Since the second part of the statement is generally true, what difference does it make if the articles being edited are under special observation? (Grammar nitpick: the second part should be a separate sentence, or some conjunction is required between the two clauses.)

I don't agree with resolution #4, as it seems to me it is an internal matter to be managed by the protégé and the mentors, and also seems a bit arbitrary. Now that I have commented strictly regarding procedural details, am I considered a participant to this RFC/U? (In which case, maybe I should take it all back.) Since the mentors will presumably have GoodDay's talk page on their watch lists, is this really necessary? isaacl (talk) 22:40, 14 December 2011 (UTC)


 * It's generally standard practice for concerns regarding users under mentorship to be raised with the user themselves, and then their mentors. It's purpose is more to allow the mentors to work with their protégé to improve their behaviour, as opposed to taking the issues to ANI. That's how I see it, anyways. Steven   Zhang  Join the DR army! 22:44, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
 * But since concerns raised on the protégé's talk page will appear on the mentors' watch lists, of what additional value is it for the concerns to be copied to the mentors' talk pages (or talkback notices be placed)? It will just add duplicate entries to the mentors' watch lists. isaacl (talk) 22:47, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Eh, I personally have a large watchlist so miss quite a bit from time to time. I don't see the real harm in it, tbh. Steven   Zhang  Join the DR army! 22:53, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Then make your watchlist smaller or withdraw from mentorship. It's not reasonable to triple the work of the rest of Wikipedia. Gerardw (talk) 23:23, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm sure something that will catch the majority of issues without too much process wonkery can be devised. I think Steve's remark about his watchlist was a bit tongue in cheek and he'll be a fine mentor. Leaky  Caldron  23:37, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
 * My remark about my watchlist was indeed tongue in cheek. The point from what I said is that we cannot be expected to spot any and every issue, so letting us know if we missed something would be appreciated (my watchlist in fact is much smallr than it used to be, and now scales back a day, and I check it every few hours so I rarely miss anything). Steven   Zhang  Join the DR army! 23:45, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
 * If the intent is to forestall escalation until the mentors can get involved, then I suggest the resolution should just say this. For example: (Be it resolved) A note be placed on the protégé's talk page, stating the following: "This editor is being mentored by X and Y; please give them the opportunity to work through any concerns you may have regarding the editor's behaviour before escalating to other dispute resolution mechanisms." isaacl (talk) 23:00, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Something like that works for me. Steven   Zhang  Join the DR army! 23:13, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
 * So what happens when an editor misses the message and posts an AN/I or BLP notice? Additionally, I'd suggest clearing out the top of the talk page so the notice is more prominent. Gerardw (talk) 23:23, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
 * If it happens, it happens, and just move forward from there (for example, the ANI discussion might go on hold, allowing for the mentors to deal with the concern). isaacl (talk) 23:28, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

The motion-to-close reads like a classic example of pompous wikilawering to me. Ivor Stoughton (talk) 23:51, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Not a useful a comment. Do you have an alternative you'd like to propose? Gerardw (talk) 23:56, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'd dispense entirely with the motion, which as I say seems quite comically pompous and overblown, in favor of a common sense resolution, in which GoodDay simply notes the concerns raised and agrees to take them on board in his future editing. And everyone AGFs and moves on. Ivor Stoughton (talk) 00:06, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Not to question your competence, but have you read the policies and previous RfC/U's? While this motion (in it's multiple forms) is a bit heavy on the courtly language, it's designed to bring the dispute to a close by establishing some findings of fact and how to go forward from this area.  Please consider your language as it reads (at least to me) to be highly inflammatory and not helping the situation. Hasteur (talk) 01:47, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I see Ivor's point - it would be great if we could dispense with formality. But the fact that we are here in the first place suggests that agreement needs to be documented for all sides to sign up to. The sooner we get there the better. Leaky  Caldron  11:11, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd suggest that the fourth therefore be changed to "Participants of this RfC/U having concerns with patterns of GoodDay's behaviour in future are requested to copy such concerns to DBD and/or Steven Zhang in addition to raising these directly with GoodDay." (changes bolded) I don't think it would be constructive to actively encourage reporting of every single post that any user considers in any way objectionable, as soon as it happens (unless it's particularly egregious). If on the other hand there appears to be evidence of persistent behavior, then it would obviously be helpful to drop the mentors a line. —WFC— 17:01, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Support 19:43, 15 December 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nobody Ent (talk • contribs)

In future, if there's any more complaints about my contributions at the British & Irish political articles, I hope they'll be taken to my talkpage. There, I'll confer (of course) with my co-mentors, on how to defuse the situations. GoodDay (talk) 19:23, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Pardon my scepticism, but is that really the upshot of all this effort - that it will be left with GoodDay to effectively continue to "contribute" to British & Irish articles (eg, given what we've all seen for some considerable time, continue to behave in the same ways there as before) and when (inevitably) people protest, GoodDay will choose how to respond, with the assistance of his co-mentors? Are you viewing your mentors as potential assistants in persisting with business as usuual GD? I read your comments on these pages so far as (1) you still think it's everyone else in the wrong (2) you will grudgingly accept mentoring for a while (3) on your terms. Where am I wrong so far? Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 19:34, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * My co-mentors will be my sounding board & guides. If I feel strongly about the accuracy of a British or Irish political article, I'll check with them first, inform them of my concerns & ask their advise on how I should present those concerns. If they advise me to 'not' bring those concerns forward -- then I shant. GoodDay (talk) 19:38, 16 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm in 100% agreement with the post by Jamesinderbyshire above, from following this from the start it seemed to me that the reluctant acceptance of a mentor came after calls for block/ban by editors were made here. GD still thinks what he is doing is correct and everyone else is wrong his continued stance of shove the sensibilities of other editors is IMO amajor part of the problem with GD. Mo ainm  ~Talk  19:42, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Yee a little faith. GoodDay (talk) 19:44, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * So ... do you think you did anything wrong GoodDay? And if so, what - and how do you think that may change? Daicaregos (talk) 20:34, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * My beliefs & personal opinons on those articles-in-question, are irrelevant. My future conduct on those articles-in-question, are certainly relevant. GoodDay (talk) 20:41, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Perhaps I should rephrase the question. Did you do anything to warrant this RfC/u? Daicaregos (talk) 21:07, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Indeed, I made changes to those articles, without reliabe sources to back those changes (not an overly good excuse for being 'bold'). I also had a tendancy to be drawn into conflicts on those articles-in-question, again with a habit of not using reliable sources to back my posts. GoodDay (talk) 21:14, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * That would seem to bring us to an appropriate point whence we can wrap things up. Endrick   Shellycoat  04:56, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Also, I've lifted my ban on my talkpage. Appropiate for this new GD era. GoodDay (talk) 14:41, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Best place to post that is on your talk page. Mo ainm  ~Talk  14:43, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Concluded?
As it is now post 0000Z on 17th December I propose we conclude the matter. Endrick  Shellycoat  04:56, 17 December 2011 (UTC) Whereas

Therefore
 * 1) It is recognised that community consensus may be challenged at reasonable intervals, it remains the responsibility of all editors to respect such Consensus.
 * 2) It is recognised that articles concerning nationality and constititional issues may be under special observation, it remains the responsibility of all editors to Assume Good Faith on the part of contributors to such articles.
 * 3) It is recognised that editors of such articles may have strong opinions and hold opposing views, it remains the responsibility of all editors to ensure article content projects a Neutral Point of View.


 * 1) GoodDay acknowledges the controversial nature of his past editing practices and refrains from editing articles concerning nationality and constititional issues until 17 January, 2012.
 * 2) GoodDay engages with both DBD and Steven Zhang in an adoption/mentorship relationship in order to formulate a rehabilitation plan.
 * 3) Editors having complaints with regard to GoodDay detailed within this RfC/U shall remove compilations of GoodDay's past actions from the project, and shall refrain from raising past behaviors in ongoing or future discussions.
 * 4) Participants of this RfC/U having concerns with patterns of GoodDay's behaviour in future are requested to copy such concerns to DBD and/or Steven Zhang in addition to raising these directly with GoodDay.

Support: Against:
 * 1) Endrick   Shellycoat  04:56, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) —WFC— 15:48, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * 3) -- Snowded TALK  18:28, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * 4)  Mo ainm  ~Talk  20:42, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * 5)  Leaky  Caldron  21:02, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * While I agree with most of this, it is not within this RfC's remit to attempt to impose a topic ban. Any vote on such a resolution (which is what "Therefore 1" amounts to), is entirely improper unless the specifics of it have GoodDay's prior agreement. —WFC— 10:51, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Agree RFC cannot impose topic ban, but an agreement with an editor for a self imposed restriction isn't a topic ban. Nobody Ent (Gerardw) 11:32, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * True, but a vote on something that has yet to be agreed amounts to an attempt to force an agreement. If I'm missing something and GD has agreed to the specifics of a stay-away, I would support the rest of this without hesitation. —WFC— 12:06, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * As the wikibreak was in the previous proposal and GoodDay did not explicitly object, I inferred concurrence with the agreement. If they object then I agree the clause should be stricken. Nobody Ent (Gerardw) 12:26, 17 December 2011 (UTC) GoodDay has explicitly confirmed their assent: Nobody Ent (Gerardw)  14:58, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that. —WFC— 15:48, 17 December 2011 (UTC)


 * 1) The proposed stay away is a bit illogical. Either he will act in line with his mentor's guidance, in which case there will be no problems, or he is disruptive, in which case it will be over to sanctions. Leaky  Caldron  11:06, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) Per Leaky; additionally the copying concerns to mentors triples work for the rest of the community and could result in discussions being split among 2/3 forums -- the mentors should just watch GoodDay's talk page. Nobody Ent (Gerardw)  —Preceding undated comment added 11:30, 17 December 2011 (UTC).
 * It seems to me that editors concerned about GoodDay's behaviour should raise their concerns direct with him first, and if they are then not satisfied with the outcome (or, for example, if GD has "banned" them from his talk page), they should raise their concerns with his mentors - though, hopefully, the mentors should have picked up the concerns themselves by then from monitoring GD's talk page. If that is the process, perhaps it should be made clearer.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:13, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd interpret posting content on GD's talk page as bringing concerns with both GD and their mentors. Nobody Ent (Gerardw) 14:24, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Interesting point GD has 'banned' numerous editors from his talk page. Mo ainm  ~Talk  14:35, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * He'll have to agree to rescind that situation. He has to be fully approachable. Leaky  Caldron  14:39, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

I was looking over this to see if perhaps it could be closed since the main RFC has gotten rather inactive. However, there seem to be unresolved issues here. Normally an uninvolved party makes the final close. You guys have made great progress and are a lot closer to a voluntary agreement that all parties are comfortable with than most user RFCs ever get. So, I suggest you keep discussion open just a bit longer until it is clear that there is broad (doesn't have to be unanimous, just broad) support for the wording of the terms and some clarity on the issue of the "talk page bans." Beeblebrox (talk) 20:39, 17 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Since it looks as though there is a voluntary agreement and discussion has ceased, I have closed the RFC. Thanks to everyone for their participation. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:03, 20 December 2011 (UTC)