Behaviour on this page: Arbitration case pages exist to assist the Arbitration Committee in arriving at a fair, well-informed decision. You are required to act with appropriate decorum during this case. While grievances must often be aired during a case, you are expected to air them without being rude or hostile, and to respond calmly to allegations against you. Accusations of misbehaviour posted in this case must be proven with clear evidence (and otherwise not made at all). Editors who conduct themselves inappropriately during a case may be sanctioned by an arbitrator or clerk, without further warning, by being banned from further participation in the case, or being blocked altogether. Personal attacks against other users, including arbitrators or clerks, will be met with sanctions. Behavior during a case may also be considered by the committee in arriving at a final decision.
I hope it will be taken into account, that most of my detractors at this Arbcom Case, are in favour of diacritics usage & have already been in disputes with me. Therefore they're biased in this case. GoodDay (talk) 17:40, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot do much with generalisations. Please list every editor who has submitted evidence but has been in dispute with you in the past, and link to threads or diffs of such disputes. Thanks, AGK[•]14:36, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Surely those arbitrators, if any, who have been involved in discussions on diacritics and in the course of that had interactions with GoodDay would be aware of that and should withdraw themselves from this case to avoid any possible appearance of bias. --Wolbo (talk) 15:04, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
DJSasso and GoodDay have traditionally held opposing views on this issue. I formerly sided with GoodDay's POV, but now oppose it. For disclosure, the MfD on Wikiproject English that I referenced in my evidence was launched by myself, while GoodDay was on the keep side of the fence. My concern, as I hope I have adequately addressed, is not that GoodDay opposes the use of diacritics, but that he obsesses on them in a rather unhealthy fashion. Resolute16:28, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Unhelpful and distracting.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I agree with Resolute's statement, my issue is not that he does not like diacritics. Far from it, many people remove them and add them and I couldn't care about that as everyone is more than allowed to have their own opinions. What I am concerned about is his behaviour surrounding them. His statements that users only support using them because of mother tongue pride etc. My mother tongue is English and I can't speak another language other than the minor few words of French I can remember from school 20 years ago so his comments are patently false. Its derogatory comments about people like this that I have issue with, they lead to a hostile environment to work in and serve to make the issue a bigger problem than it needs to be. That combined with his obsession and inability to just walk away from the situation when consensus doesn't agree with him, makes for a situation that is very unhealthy for both himself and other editors. -DJSasso (talk) 16:39, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There is a difference between preferring to use them and caring if they are edited. Yes I will defend their usage from extremists such as yourself so that I can protect the wiki from extreme POVs but as I have said in numerous places. I prefer the ENGVAR approach, if you see them leave them if you don't see them don't add them. In a previous diacritics debate someone brought up something along the lines of accusing "pro-diacritics" editors of going roughshod over articles moving them to use diacritics. But the funny thing was, when my moves were all tallied up I had done somewhere in the vicinity of a whopping 35 moves that could be remotely tied to diacritics out of 100,000+ edits. And pretty much all of them were reverting others moves or fixing copy paste moves. So no, frankly GoodDay compared to you I don't care about diacritics. I never edit them. But I do defend the wiki from people in the extremes of any POV. I would also debate against people who were the opposite extreme from yourself and wanted to add them to words where they don't belong. -DJSasso (talk) 11:52, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am one of those "detractors", and I think it would be rather odd if I could not have my say here. Who else would enter anything? Who else would even know about the dispute, and GoodDay's behaviour, than those that have witnessed it? It took several days, and virtually nothing happened with the case after it had been accepted. If no-one had entered anything, I guess the case would have died down. So I threw in my two cents. HandsomeFella (talk) 18:47, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW: 1) I haven't been in edit-wars at the hockey articles. 2) I don't use foul language in the related discussions and 3) I haven't added diacritics to the Non-North American hockey articles, despite the unfairness of the Quebec leagues exemption & the NHL team roster Templates birthplace section, on the North American hockey articles. GoodDay (talk) 21:08, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You have been in edit wars on hockey articles, you were in some just a couple months ago which led to your voluntary stepping away from diacritics for a short period. And the compromise itself was created because of the edit wars you were having with other editors. Mainly IPs if I remember correctly but I know there were a few people with named accounts that you got into it with as well. -DJSasso (talk) 11:52, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As usual, Djsasso exaggerates & he continues to ignore the voluntary interaction ban between us. As for edit-spats? It was Djsasso who 'edit-spat' with me at Portland Winterhawks article & years ago, over the NHL roster 'birthplace' Templates. GoodDay (talk) 13:58, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
