Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/GoodDay: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 15:47, 13 December 2011

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Was there consensus for your change and did you discuss it beforehand?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:00, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Was it vandalism? GoodDay (talk) 18:01, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody is accusing you of vandalism.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:02, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Jeanne. Here [1] 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)[reply]

Then I'm bewilderd by this Rfc/U. GoodDay (talk) 18:03, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

But I haven't vandalized those articles. A topic ban would be OTT. GoodDay (talk) 08:34, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

I haven't edit-warred (i.e. breach 3rr). GoodDay (talk) 08:40, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Mentor

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I'll accept a mentor, if that's what the participants (here) want. GoodDay (talk) 08:15, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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 Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment#Request_comment_on_users:

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)[reply]

I've been trying for years (literally) will trawl through my talk pages for some examples. --Snowded ^TALK 16:29, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I should've been taken to a Wikiquette, first. GoodDay (talk) 20:50, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

That's wiki-life. GoodDay (talk) 16:56, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

I said all along, I'd accept a mentor. GoodDay (talk) 16:54, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GoodDay, please accept the mentoring. It's the best road to take.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 12:47, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I already agree to accepting mentorship. But so far, I haven't acquired one yet. GoodDay (talk) 16:38, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

PS: Any editor who seeks a perma-band of me (at this stage), won't succeed. GoodDay (talk) 18:13, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

I'm not bragging. GoodDay (talk) 18:37, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

My editing style, over the last 2+ weeks, shows a change. GoodDay (talk) 18:37, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So you say, but I suspect this particular horse had by that time already bolted. Remember this? - User_talk:GoodDay#You need to get out more - seriously! That advice still stands; I humbly suggest that you heed it. Endrick Shellycoat 18:42, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

When I complete the US Governors series of articles, then I'll take a few walks. GoodDay (talk) 19:26, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

mmm. I seems to have touched a few raw nerves. Carson, RFC/U cannot impose involuntary sanctions, blocks, bans, or binding disciplinary measures [2] 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Notified. Daicaregos (talk) 23:12, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 Done, allows an editor who is the subject of an RFC/U to understand the problems, and change or explain their conduct Done, and allow users to share information which might be relevant for later steps in the dispute resolution process, should that become necessary Done. 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

The administrator deleted it as a result of Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Snowded/GoodNight. —WFC— 13:07, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Again, you come back with text but no DIFFS. The specific thread (in addition to WFCforLife's finding) was Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive726#User: Snowded/GoodNight. 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)[reply]

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 [3], in an abbreviated form. Leaky Caldron 13:35, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 obsessional 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)[reply]

@@ Line 114: / Line 114: @@
 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. [[User:Hasteur|Hasteur]] ([[User talk: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? [[User:Leaky_caldron|<span style="color:Black;font:bold 8pt kristen itc">Leaky </span>]][[User talk:Leaky_caldron|<span style="color:Grey;font:bold 8pt kristen itc">Caldron</span>]] 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 [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&limit=500&target=GoodDay user contributions] shows, IMHO, an almost obsessional 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. [[User:Endrick Shellycoat|<font face="american uncial" color="red"><b><i>Endrick</i></b></font>]] [[User talk:Endrick Shellycoat|<font face="american uncial" color="red"><b><i>Shellycoat</i></b></font>]] 15:47, 13 December 2011 (UTC)