Wikipedia Arbitration
About arbitration Talk Arbitration policy (CU/OS) Guide to arbitration Noticeboard + Talk Search archived proceedings Ban appeals Report
Open proceedings All open requests Case requests Clarification and Amendment requests Arbitrator motion requests Enforcement requests
Active sanctions Contentious topics (Log) General sanctions Editor sanctions
Arbitration Committee Discuss + Contact Members Procedures Elections Talk History Clerks + Talk Clerk procedures
Audit Talk Statistics Talk Reports (pre-2016)
Track related changes
v t e

The purpose of the workshop is for the parties to the case, other interested members of the community, and members of the Arbitration Committee to post proposed components of the final decisions for review and comment. Proposals may include proposed general principles, findings of fact, remedies, and enforcement provisions, which are the four types of proposals that can be included in the final decision. The workshop also includes a section (at the page-bottom) for analysis of the /Evidence, and for general discussion of the case.

Any user may edit this workshop page. Please sign all suggestions and comments. Arbitrators will place proposed items they believe should be part of the final decision on the /Proposed decision page, which only Arbitrators and clerks may edit, for voting, clarification as well as implementation purposes.

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

3)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Hammersoft

Template

2)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Questions from Newyorkbrad

It would be helpful if the parties could briefly address, in this section (with links to evidence or anything else as appropriate), the following questions:

1. Do Doncram's practices regarding stub creation differ significantly from those typically used by other editors interested in importing content from another source?
2. Do the stubs or substubs created by Doncram typically evolve into mature articles, or remain as substubs, or get deleted, or what? Relatedly, to what extent does Doncram himself participate in expanding the stubs after creating them? Do the stubs provide a useful platform from which to build articles, or do they interfere with doing so?
3. Is there an ongoing controversy concerning Doncram's participation in Indian caste articles, or is that dispute resolved?

Thank you, Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:19, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Response from Sarek

Elkman mentions Sherman House (Batesville, Indiana). Doncram's ES on creation was starter article to settle entry by another editor at Sherman House disambiguation. seems notable, this is a stub. He hasn't edited it since. He created Harmony, Arkansas with little besides its county and the statement that it was the location of an NRHP property, along with the statement It is a populated place, and hasn't edited it since. As far as providing a useful platform, it depends on the article. Most of them can be built up, but then there are cases like John W. Ross (see the AfD linked in my evidence). I haven't seen anything that horrific lately, but I've been making a point of generally not looking.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:55, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Response from Elkman

I don't know if Doncram's practices on stub creation are similar to, or different from, other people's practices in importing articles. He was previously in the practice of putting placeholder text into articles, such as, "National Register of Historic Places nomination form dated __ __, 19__" or something like that. See Elbridge Village Historic District (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), whose citation still reads " __, __ (__, 19__). 'National Register of Historic Places Registration: Elbridge Village Historic District'. New York State Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation. Retrieved 2010-10-15. and Accompanying __ photos, exterior and interior, from 19__". And, at George Caleb Bingham House (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), in June 2008, he added a National Register nomination form link whose citation read, "___WEBSITE NOT worKING____ (___, 19__), National Register of Historic Places Inventory-Nomination: ___ PDF (32 KB), National Park Service and Accompanying ___ photos, exterior and interior, from 19__" (I just fixed the link, because pdfhost.focus.nps.gov is now worKING.) St. Mark's Episcopal Church (Jim Thorpe, Pennsylvania) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), at its creation in June 2008, had a citation saying, " ___WEBSITE DOWN ADD LATER____ (__, 19__), National Register of Historic Places Inventory-Nomination: _________ PDF (32 KB), National Park Service and Accompanying ___ photos, exterior and interior, from 19__ PDF (32 KB)" Someone removed the "WEBSITE DOWN ADD LATER" part, but you have to wonder: If the web site was down, did the author really check the web site to add material from the article?

I'm looking at articles at National Register of Historic Places listings in North Dakota, where he was active last summer. Cedar Creek Bridge (Haynes, North Dakota) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) was created last July, and as of today, it has two sentences of original text, a paragraph copied verbatim from the NRHP nomination document, and the infobox text and references. He hasn't come back to edit the article since then. At least the link to the NRHP nomination form is in the article, so someone else could edit the article later and expand it (and maybe even phrase the article without copying text verbatim). West Park Bridge (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) has two citation references hanging around with no material used from those references.

With regard to whether other people later expand Doncram's stubs: Sometimes, they do, but I get the feeling that if someone is trying to complete a list and there's already a blue link for an article, they won't bother expanding it.

Oh, by the way, stubs in themselves aren't just limited to Doncram. Some of the articles in St. Paul, just across the river from me, are kind of short: Arlington Hills Library (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is three sentences, Church of St. Bernard (Saint Paul, Minnesota) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is four sentences, First National Bank of White Bear (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is two sentences, and Olaf Lee House (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is one run-on sentence. While there's no Wikipedia policy against stubs and no policy that dictates how long a stub should be, we've had plenty of discussions with Doncram about why his stubs are incomplete to the point that they don't provide any context to the reader. He has strenuously resisted any suggestions that he could make his articles any longer or more relevant before he creates them.

I think the situation with the Indian caste articles has been resolved, mainly because someone reminded him that the articles are under a general sanction decided upon at WP:AN. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 00:40, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Response from Colonel Warden

I have looked at some of the examples cited above such as Cedar Creek Bridge (Haynes, North Dakota) and can't understand what the fuss is about. As stubs, these seem ample to provide context and structure for further expansion. Presumably, if they did lack context then they could and would be speedily deleted per ((db-a1)) (no context) or ((db-a3)) (no content). For comparison, I click random article and immediately get RAF Towyn which is a 1-line stub. Doncram's work seems significantly better than this. I click a few times more and get Dobrydział which seems typical of the village stubs which are created in large numbers from other geographical databases. Warden (talk) 01:07, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Response from Orlady

1. A number of participants in the NRHP Wikiproject are in the habit of creating short stubs about properties in the NRIS database. Typically, these stubs consist of an infobox generated from the database and text along the general lines of "Jones House is an historic house in Anytown, Wisconsin. It was built in 1876 and listed on the National Register of Historic Places in 1993." These have been criticized at various times, but they are generally agreed to be acceptable. Concern over Doncram's subs and "sub-stubs" is related to Doncram's good-faith attempts to expand beyond this even when the database output is the only source for an article. Specific patterns that have been controversial include:

• Publishing articles with fill-in blanks and similar placeholders, as noted by Elkman
• Creating text based solely on inference from and interpretation of cryptic entries in the database -- and making it deliberately vague because of uncertainty regarding the meaning of the database information, such as "is or was a house", "was built or has other significance in c.1852, 1867, and 1902", "designed and/or built", "It includes Late 19th and 20th Century Revivals, Collegiate Gothic, and other architecture" (wherein "other" indicates that the NRIS database field didn't have space for all of the architectural styles)
• Inserting one-sentence paragraphs of the form "The listing is described in its NRHP nomination document.^[1]" as vehicles for including reference citations to sources that have not actually been consulted by the Wikipedia contributor
• Occasional direct references to the NRIS database, such as "Its listing status is DR, which means DATE RECEIVED/PENDING NOMINATION."
• Citing as references URLs that have no content, where a document might theoretically be posted someday.

This page (the current version looks much the same) exemplifies several of these problems.

There have been related concerns about creation of articles -- or revision of existing articles -- that contained very erroneous information that was based on overly confident interpretation of cryptic information in the NRIS database. One such was an article about John W. Ross, the architect of important late 19th-century buildings in two midwestern cities -- until talk page discussion and an AFD led to a consensus determination that there were two different architects (John W. Ross (Iowa architect) and John W. Ross (North Dakota architect)) with the same name active at the same time. In another such case, a decimal-point error in a third-party copy of the NRIS database led Doncram to insist (contrary to what those of us who live in the local area said) that the Norris, Tennessee historic district was many times larger than the town of Norris (see talk-page discussion). These were innocent errors made in good faith (errors that we ought to be able to laugh together about once the error is discovered) that became the focus of acrimonious debate largely because Doncram was intent on publishing content in article space based on the slender evidence of output from the database. --Orlady (talk) 05:50, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Another issue with Doncram's stubs has related to the question of whether every entity that is separately listed on the National Register merits a separate Wikipedia article, even when that article is a minimal stub. In this regard, Doncram's position is similar to those of a number of other users, but there are differences of opinion in the community -- including within the clubby NRHP Wikiproject -- on the point. My sense is that Doncram is among those most strongly inclined toward advocating individual articles for every listed entity (for example, his advocacy of separate articles for rural cemeteries that contain one or more grave markers of a particular style), but on occasion he has accepted or supported the use of one article to cover multiple related entities (for example, in Oak Ridge gatehouses, which I created and he later edited). --Orlady (talk) 17:42, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Philosophical reflection segueing from Elkman's comments: Elkman refers often to stub articles that lack needed context. Determining the amount of context that is "needed" is inherently subjective, but I share the view that a lack of context has been an issue with many of Doncram's stubs. Today I looked at John M. Winstead Houses, a stub that was discussed in the April 2011 AN (when it looked like this -- note the hyperlinked reference to a page that says "record not yet digitized"), subsequently cleaned up by Elkman and Doncram, but that I had redirected to the county NRHP list when it looked like this -- and I judged that the list would provide appropriate context for the limited information in the article. Doncram had restored the article in October 2012 (with a snarky edit summary) and added content so that it looked somewhat respectable, although still vague and heavily based on inference from the NRIS database. I did some online research about the houses and ended up with an article that tells a very different story from the version that I found. I don't pretend to have the full story of these houses, but I can't help but think that people in the local area, who apparently know one of these houses as a mansion (and popular wedding venue) located on an exclusive golf course, would have found the previous version to be almost totally meaningless. When a contributor has no information about a building (or multiple buildings, as in this case) other than a database entry and a sketchy description in a 24-year-old report, I think that it is better for Wikipedia to present a bare-bones entry in a list article than to create a page that resembles an article but lacks the context that would make the article meaningful to people with personal knowledge or direct interest in the subject. This is not intended as a negative comment on anyone's behavior, but is merely a philosophical comment related to the issues that these stubs can create. --Orlady (talk) 19:33, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2. Occasionally Doncram or other users expand his stubs and sub-stubs, but that is not common. For example, all 14 of the Doncram-created stubs included in the July 2012 AFD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/St. Boniface Cemetery, Wrought-Iron Cross Site look the way they did at the conclusion of the AFD -- and all of the individual stubs are pretty nearly alike.

I reviewed the list of ~140–150 problematic articles (not all were stubs) at User:Orlady/List to identify those that were substantially improved (not just cleaned up, but expanded) since I made the list in 2011. Of those created by Doncram in late 2010 or 2011 (a few articles on the list were not originally created by him), most have not been substantively edited since they were placed on the list. I found noticeable improvement in 22 articles, mostly by users (including parties to this Case) who worked on the cleanup list. Doncram significantly expanded and developed one article and made more modest expansions to a few others; I count 5 articles as having been improved by other users who were not working the cleanup list. Here are the 22 articles I found to have been noticeably improved in their content:

• Boyd Mill Ruins was improved by Elkman (diff)
• Bigelow Rosenwald School was noticeably improved by Ntsimp, but is still a stub
• Grand Forks Woolen Mills was significantly expanded by Sitush
• Old Town Hall (Chester, Connecticut) was noticeably expanded by Polaron (it's still pretty much a stub)
• Three articles (Rapallo Viaduct, Red River Bridge (Arkansas), and Doane's Sawmill/Deep River Manufacturing Company) were significantly expanded by Choess
• Washington School (Grand Forks, North Dakota) received one new sentence of substantive content, due to combined efforts of Doncram and SarekOfVulcan
• John F. Cance House was substantially improved by TheCatalyst31
• William S. Campbell House was modestly expanded by Doncram and Lvklock
• Emmanuel Church (Newport, Rhode Island) was noticeably improved by SarekOfVulcan
• Glen Echo (Franklin, Tennessee) was noticeably improved by Doncram
• Doncram added a bit of content, in the form of a verbatim quotation, to James Hazelton House
• Ambrose Whittlesey House was expanded by Elkman
• Ned Ashton House was expanded a bit by Orlady and more substantially by User:Douglas W. Jones
• Massillon Bridge Company was improved by a couple of small edits and a photo, apparently unrelated to its presence on the cleanup list
• Niantic River Bridge was expanded by several users, apparently unrelated to its presence on the cleanup list
• White House of the Chickasaws was expanded mostly by Kiddo27, apparently unrelated to its presence on the cleanup list
• Other users added images to Quaker Hill Historic District (Waterford, Connecticut), but the text was not enhanced
• George A. Berlinghof received a modest expansion by Orlady
• Jules Leffland was significantly expanded by Doncram
• Charles L. Thompson, worked on by Doncram, Sarek, and me; Doncram is responsible for most of the current content (which contains too much verbatim quotation for my taste, but that's arguable)

Also, Caldwell Odd Fellow Home for the Aged had an unsourced sentence added to it by an IP user. --Orlady (talk) 04:17, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

3. Since Doncram is now on a topic ban for Indian caste articles, his involvement there is not a current concern. There likely will be issues to resolve regarding the development/management of the list articles he started, but those issues are best handled outside the scope of this Case. However, it's useful to note that his involvement with Indian caste issues was another demonstration of the same kind of confident interpretation of database output that has been contentious in regard to the National Register of Historic Places -- and that led to conflating two architects and to drawing a grossly erroneous conclusion about the size of the Norris historic district. A major difference is that Indian caste is inherently a lot more contentious than the National Register topics. --Orlady (talk) 06:00, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Additional response from Orlady: Looking through discussion archives, I found an interesting NRHP talk page discussion from 2008 on the subject of "Minimum standards for new stub NRHP articles". Doncram started the discussion in reaction to then-ongoing criticism of (and AFDs for) some of the very short (typically one-sentence) stubs that a couple of users were creating. Doncram called for more content in the stubs. It appears that he was trying to identify additional details that could be found in the NRIS database output and incorporated into stub articles.

Seeing this discussion, I think it's likely the Doncram's desire to expand extremely short stubs is what inspired him to over-interpret NRIS output in order to create the appearance of a longer article -- a practice that is one of the main sources of contention in this case. The discussion was brief, with only a few participants. I wonder if Doncram remembers it -- and if he recollects how he interpreted the reaction (and lack of reaction) it received. --Orlady (talk) 03:57, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Response by Ryan Vesey

The creation of NRHP articles with limited information is not a problem as Colonel Warden states; however, the quality of articles added to the mainspace by Doncram is. Consider Cedar Creek Bridge (Haynes, North Dakota) which Doncram added direct quotes to the effect that the majority of the text was not his own [1]. The content at creation, and where it stands now, is appropriate. Consider Bigelow Rosenwald School at Doncram's only substantive edit where the article reads "Bigelow Rosenwald School, also known as Rosenwald Community Center, is or was a Rosenwald School located in Toad Suck, Arkansas. It was listed on the National Register of Historic Places in 2004". (emphasis added) This is unacceptable. Consider Boyd Mill Ruins at Doncram's last substantive edit. It contains sentences such as "The property is or was also known as WM-990". Is it or was it? It's not acceptable to create poor sentences that don't offer information like this one. Another is "It was built or has other significance in c.1840 and c.1900". I hope the problem with these types of articles is obvious. He has a serious problem of moving articles to the mainspace at unacceptable times. List of Anglican churches was moved to the mainspace with no churches. His last edit for the day left it unready. There is a huge difference between a list that is incomplete, and a list that is blatantly unfinished. It was moved to his userspace for him to improve, but Doncram didn't care, because the topic was notable. These issues are exactly why Doncram should be forced to be submitted through AFC. His articles as they stand would never make it through the process. Ryan Vesey 18:00, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Response from Doncram

1.) About NRHP articles, respected NRHP editor Smallbones put it this way: Smallbones’ reluctant evaluation amidst 1991 big NRHP stubs ANI, and then I smoothed the writing in new articles since that evaluation. IMHO, my new NRHP articles are systematically "better" than about 1500 Florida NRHPs by Ebyabe (which he will agree with), than hundreds or thousands of church articles by Clariosophic and Swampyank and others so interested, than a couple thousand Massachusetts and Rhode Island articles by Swampyank, than 100 or so Masonic building articles by Avicennasis (e.g. this, than many other. Better in my interpretation and use of NRIS database informatoin (including more wikilinking of architectural terms); attention to possibility of NRIS database errors (and informed by previous reports or adding reports for those at wp:NRIS info issues, which can lead to later further corrections); regular use and inclusion of national or state-supplied NRHP nomination documents where available (requiring use of specialized knowledge that is also developed and shared by Doncram within wp:NRHPhelp system). My new articles are usually "lesser" than the thousands of MD, NY, PA articles by Pubdog, always less than the finely polished DYK articles by Daniel Case, perhaps/probably less than NYC articles by Dmadeo. They're far better than new articles by newbies, often in ways that can't easily be observed.

Relative to other editors using content from other sources, I expect it is just different. For example DANFS used in ship articles is public domain and has routinely been copy-pasted in full into wp:SHIPS' United States military ship articles. NRHP nomination documents are generally not public domain, so full text or long passages cannot be copied (though they have been wrongfully copied/incorporated into many articles by a few editors).

2) Stubs created by me evolve into mature articles by the same random pattern that applies to short stubs by any other NRHP editor. They certainly evolve faster than NRHP redlinks where not even a starter short stub is provided. Once created, they attract photos and categories and other small modifications, and IMO have greatly enhanced chances of attracting more substantial editing by local history society or local educators or others who become interested in something local or unusual-sounding or otherwise. I invite state Wikiproject editors and various others to review and improve blocks of articles that I have started. In the past I've regularly notified Elkman and Nyttend of new articles in their areas, so that they would improve them.

I am very actively involved in expanding NRHP stubs (created by me or others)--more active than anyone else I think. I have gone on long campaigns to add NRHP nomination document references to articles when those have become available in another state. I started most, and developed almost all, of 669 articles in Category:NRHP architects, 120 articles in Category:NRHP builders, of 26 articles in Category:NRHP engineers, for explicit reason that doing so would enable me to correct and/or expand information in NRHP stubs. The 800 or so architects etc. have probably 8,000 links to NRHP articles, from my work, and the linked NRHP articles have been improved. [Pubdog's evaluation]: "noticed the excellent architect articles and appreciate your having created them!". My development of extensive List of Elks buildings and dozens of other topical lists, has enabled me to improve quality hundreds of others, where my topical focus allowed me to discern common problems and opportunities.

The stubs I create are wholly useful as platforms for further development, and there is no interference with new articles creation. I have encountered just a few cases where someone had an article in draft form in userspace who was disappointed at being beaten, timing-wise, but there is no editing time lost in any way by that.

3) There is no ongoing controversy about my participation in Indian caste articles, because I was topic-banned from participating and have obeyed that ban. I recognize that the negative following of me did bring controversy to the Indic articles I touched (e.g. leading Orlady to open deletion nominations and to suggest there could be problems, encouraging sensitive parties to get all riled up), so in a circular way the topic ban was partly justified. But I don't think the topic-ban is fair, as, contrary to sometimes wild speculation, no specific content added by me to Indic articles has actually really been controversial, though it would take some review to convince alarmed people of that. There is absolutely no way that my edits were POV-pushing or added unsourced- or poorly-sourced material. I do want for that ban to be lifted. --doncram 10:38, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Outside response from Mangoe

We have a similar situation in the lighthouses WikiProject w.r.t. US lighthouses. There is a set of USCG pages on each state which has been used, for the most part, as the touchstone for notability for these lights, and along the way these were collected into list of lighthouses in the United States, which is the simplest possible list of lights by state. Every light was listed, redlinked or not, but usually other info was omitted. Theoretically a series of stub articles could have been generated from the USCG pages, though in practice the results would have been pretty bad, as the format of the entries is inconsistent, the location information highly variable as to scale, and the entries reasonably error-prone (the pages were written by a set of volunteers, not professional historians). What we did instead was write individual articles as we got to them, using the master list article to keep track of what needs to be written. I also started writing state list articles, but these again I've held off to one side until ready because of the same issues with quality of data.

NHRP has lots of similar list articles, and the ones I looked at could generally be populated, for the most part, with NRIS data at least until good articles could be written. From the perspective of encouraging others, lots of flabby stubs tends to interfere with the DYK process, due to the five times expansion criterion. It's useful to have some indication that the article needs to be written, but I personally find a red link a greater incentive. Mangoe (talk) 17:01, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from AGK

1. To Orlady: How do you defend yourself against the suggestion that you have followed Doncram around the project (thereby worsening relations between you two, rather than diffusing tension)? This is something I have noticed in my own review of the background to this case, but such a suggestion has recently been made on the evidence page. AGK [•] 21:11, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

   A: First off, I have to say that before the last couple of days, I had not realized just how profoundly irrational Doncram gets in response to my statements and actions. I have arrived at this realization through the process of studying and compiling individual diffs in order to assemble evidence for this case. I believe that some other users -- notably Cbl62 -- have recognized this for some time, and they may have assumed that I also recognized it. However, four years of being a target of persistent personal attacks (what has often felt to me like a campaign of character assassination) from Doncram prevented me from perceiving the situation the way an impartial observer might have done. I persisted in hoping that Doncram could and would pay attention to reason, and that sooner or later he would recognize -- or could be convinced -- that he was seriously misjudging my behavior and my intentions. On occasion I commented sarcastically about something, such as his propensity to interpret everything I said as a lie, and I am only now beginning to discern why he reacted with rage to comments like that. I am still trying to come to grips with this disturbing new realization -- and its possible implications. If I had formed this perception earlier, I would have behaved differently around Doncram, but I'm not sure what the "right" behavior would be.

   As for following Doncram around: Doncram and I have bumped into each other frequently, mainly because we both have a content focus and we have overlapping interests. The "stalker" tool indicates that he and I have intersected (i.e., both edited) on over 1800 Wikipedia pages; I know of only one content-focused editor with whom I have intersected on more Wikipedia pages than I have with Doncram, and that's Nyttend. In many cases, the fact that Doncram and I both edited the same page was purely coincidence -- and the edits may have been widely separated in time. Some of the pages that we interacted on were actively edited in connection with an ongoing talk-page discussion (for example, this was the case with a large number of articles about villages and historic districts in Connecticut, Vermont, and Rhode Island). In other instances, one or the other of us followed up on some activity we saw on a watchlisted page, a Wikiproject discussion page, a noticeboard. When I have time to do so, I often look at the recent edit history of users whose names pop up on my watchlist or a discussion page I follow; because Doncram is a very prolific contributor, his name appears on my watchlist and project discussion boards a lot more frequently than the names of more typical contributors. There have been many occasions when I saw an edit of his and looked at the rest of his recent edit history to see what else he was working on. Thus, he is definitely correct in saying that I "followed him", but I don't see that behavior as being different from what I would do with any other long-term contributor whose name shows up on pages I watch. Often, when I have looked at Doncram's recent edits, it was only a look -- most of Doncram's work is good quality and on topics not particularly interesting to me. Occasionally, I've become interested in one of his new stubs and I ended up working on the page. (A recent example: I looked at the newly created stub Charcoal Kilns (Leadore, Idaho) because the name seemed odd, and I ended up expanding it -- and giving it a different name. I took the expanded page to DYK, giving Doncram credit as the initial creator, but he removed his name from the DYK nomination saying "association with dyk nominating editor not wanted for reason of a long history of hateful editing". I honestly saw my expansion of one of Doncram's stubs as a collaborative interaction that he ought to appreciate. I received his comment as a gratuitous insult, but I am now beginning to see that he may truly have perceived my work on that article as an instance of "hateful editing".) There definitely have been occasions when I had a concern with something that I saw in Doncram's edit history -- sometimes a concern with a series of edits done according to the same pattern -- and I either edited the page(s), contacted him about it, or posted on the article talk page. I assume that these last "following" interactions are the ones that Doncram finds particularly upsetting. I definitely have had more such interactions with Doncram than with any other good-faith contributor; my defense for that is that (1) he is exceptionally prolific and (2) he has a propensity to continually generate and unilaterally implement creative new approaches for article development, and not all of those creative new approaches immediately impress me (nor, often, other users) as good ideas.

   There have been times when I had the impression that Doncram might be following me around. The first such occasion that I recall was in early October 2008, when he started editing an article about a topic local to me, resulting in some semi-contentious editing in the article and a "lecture" by Doncram on the article talk page. I also recall an occasion in November 2010 when he made a number of edits to a new article I had created and its talk page less than one hour after I had moved the article from my user space to article space. ([2], [3], [4]) There are other instances that could be perceived as his following me, but (with a couple of exceptions) I don't believe that Doncram was actually following me around; I believe that he looked at these articles in connection with his tracking of lists of National Register properties.

   Recently, particularly over the last six months or so, I've generally tried to avoid noticing Doncram's work. (I've been trying not to follow him.) That charcoal kilns article was one exception. The "list of round barns" situation cited by The Devil's Advocate on the Evidence page was another exception, but T.D.A. misconstrues the history of that page. Doncram created it in article space, not in his user space. Nyttend noticed the page, apparently because he had contributed photos of several barns on the list, and moved it to Doncram's user space as a "draft article full of place-holders" (note that this was consistent with consensus of the June 2011 WP:AN discussion). Doncram moved it back the next morning, but this part of the page move history is confusing because a recent change in page-move behavior caught him unawares. Somewhere around this time, Nyttend had contacted me about his concerns about the round barns list and articles. I made an independent review of the situation and moved the page back to user space, but Doncram reverted that move 4 minutes later. There were more moves and reverts; suffice it to say that neither Nyttend nor I was following Doncram when we first got involved. Other interactions I recall from the last several months include those related to: Doncram's lists of churches, which I noticed because of intersections with my activity in creating and populating categories such as Category:Methodism in the United States by state; the Indian caste lists, which I noticed because Sitush is another editor on my watchlist; my CFD proposal for the "NRHP architects" category and related categories (these been hidden categories, which they are once again after discussion; I noticed the public category in connection with vandalism on an article in one of these categories); and a few others that are discussed on the Evidence page. --Orlady (talk) 05:51, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

   You are sugar-coating things. In many instances, some of which are in evidence, your arrival at an article Doncram has edited have involved actions that one could reasonably construe as confrontational. Move-warring, edit-warring, heavy criticism, and deletion nominations. Not only have I seen far fewer instances of Doncram showing up at an article you edited when reviewing the evidence, even fewer where it seemed to actually be from looking at your contributions, it rarely seemed to get heated. Following another editor's contributions on its own can be terribly innocent, even helpful towards improving relationships, but when following contributions regularly involves confrontation is when there is a problem.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 23:24, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

   I think I can explain the differences you note, T.D.A., by pointing out that I create far fewer articles than Doncram does, most of the articles I create (or otherwise work on) do not interest Doncram because they are not about National Register properties, and I aim for content that is reasonably solid before it gets into article space. --Orlady (talk) 22:35, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

   Orlady, I noticed in my review of the history of this dispute that you have edited (by my count) 250 or so of the same pages as Doncram. The figure of 250 excludes pages on which you both edited coincidentally and without interaction. To disprove that this statistic demonstrates a preoccupation with Doncram on your part, please provide the committee with a list of attempts you have made at taking your concerns with Doncram's edits to the wider community for their review. Thank you. AGK [•] 00:04, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2. :::I spent a lot of time compiling a list of discussions, but then the computer ate my edits. I don't know when I'll get time to start over. --Orlady (talk) 04:18, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

   In response, I have to say that I have not been much inclined to open broad noticeboard discussions to seek "wider community" involvement in addressing editing-related issues between Doncram and me, largely because I perceived the vast majority of the issues to be unbelievably trivial -- and thus neither a good use of the community's time nor a good opportunity to resolve much of anything, and because many of these issues managed to receive extensive discussion attention on topically focused talk pages. Doncram and I, as well as the other parties, have participated in numerous discussions of the content that has been identified here as contentious, most of which were lengthy and involved more than a few parties. I'm starting a new subsection here to house a list of such; I'll try to make the list roughly chronological, but I'm not working at compiling the list in chronological order. -- Orlady (talk) 17:56, 29 January 2013

List of significant content discussions involving Orlady and Doncram

• NRHP Wikiproject talk: Use correct terminology - July-August 2008
• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Disambiguation/Archive 13 - September 2008
• NRHP Wikiproject talk: Category dot-dot-dot, Naming discussion - September-October 2008
• Talk:William Aiken House and Associated Railroad Structures - October 2008
• Talk:The Hermitage (Nashville, Tennessee) - October 2008
• User talk:Orlady/Archive 4#hey, truce please - October 2008
• Talk:First Presbyterian Church and Lewis Pintard House - October 2008 to April 2009
• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places/Archive 22#Nomenclature changes needed - January 2009
• Talk:List of New Rochelle neighborhoods - April 2009
• Talk:Georgetown Historic District (Georgetown, Connecticut)/Archive 1 and Talk:Georgetown Historic District (Georgetown, Connecticut) - May 2009 and January 2010
• Talk:National Register of Historic Places listings in Connecticut/Archive 1, Archive 2, Archive 3; also this long RFD discussion - June–September 2009 and Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2009 July 12
• Talk:Stafford Hollow, Connecticut - June 2009 to February 2010
• Talk:Glastonbury – Rocky Hill Ferry Historic District - June 2009 to January 2010
• Talk:Norris, Tennessee and Archive 1 - July–August 2009
• Talk:National Register of Historic Places listings in Anderson County, Tennessee - July 2009
• Talk:Hartford (village), Vermont - July 2009
• Talk:Wauregan, Connecticut - July 2009 to September 2010
• Talk:Silvermine, Connecticut - July 2009 to January 2010
• At Talk:NRHP WikiProject, July–August 2009: [5], [6], [7], [8]
• Talk:National Register of Historic Places listings in Vermont - July 2009
• Talk:Wyoming, Rhode Island, Talk:National Register of Historic Places listings in Rhode Island, and Talk:Peace Dale, Rhode Island - July–September 2009
• Talk:Madison Street Historic District (Clarksville, Tennessee) - July 2009
• Talk:Bethel, Missouri - July 2009
• User talk:Acroterion: Mediation, copied 3RR thread Need a volunteer to explain Poquetanuck, repeated violation (partly copied from User talk:EdJohnston/Archive16#repeated violation of editing restriction), Another idea for admin action on NRHP - August 2009 to February 2010
• Talk:Old Wethersfield - August 2009
• Talk:Quaker Hill, Connecticut - September 2009
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Downtown Hartford, Talk:Downtown Hartford, Talk:National Register of Historic Places listings in Hartford, Connecticut - September–October 2009
• Talk:Poquetanuck, Connecticut/Archive 1 and Talk:Poquetanuck, Connecticut - September–October 2009
• Talk:Norwichtown and Talk:Norwichtown Historic District and RFD discussion and Talk:Taftville, Connecticut - September 2009 to January 2010; also Talk:Neighborhoods of Norwich, Connecticut and Talk:Norwich (disambiguation) - December 2009
• NRHP Wikiproject: [discussion of colors in tables - October 2009
• User talk:Acroterion/NRHP HD issues list - October 2009 to March 2010
• Talk:Hallville Mill Historic District - October 2009
• Talk:Baltic, Connecticut - November 2009
• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Protected areas/Archive 4#Are U.S. National Monuments "protected areas"? and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Protected areas/Archive 3#botanical parks are protected areas? - November-December 2009. (I recall coming across this discussion after seeing a spate of puzzling categorization changes to articles about US National Monuments.)
• Talk:National Register of Historic Places#Sufficient for Notability and Talk:Cox-Craddock House - December 2009
• Talk:Falls Village, Connecticut - December 2009 to January 2010
• Talk:Preston City, Connecticut - December 2009 to June 2011 (although I built the article, created the talk page, and was named in the discussion there fairly early on, I apparently didn't notice the discussion until 2011)
• Talk:Glenville Historic District - January 2010
• Talk:Danielson, Connecticut - January 2010
• Talk:Fenwick, Connecticut - January 2010
• Talk:Riverview Terrace Historic District - February 2010
• Talk:Prospect Hill (New Haven) - February 2010 (also Talk:Hillhouse Avenue and Talk:Neighborhoods of New Haven, Connecticut, March 2010)
• Talk:Hazardville, Connecticut - February–August 2010
• Talk:Natchez Trace, Talk:Old Natchez Trace (disambiguation), Talk:Old Natchez Trace segments listed on the National Register of Historic Places - March–April 2010
• Talk:Marion, Connecticut and Talk:Marion Historic District (Cheshire and Southington, Connecticut) - January 2010 to January 2011
• Talk:Beaver Hills Historic District - April 2010
• Talk:Confederate Park - April 2010
• Talk:Old Town (Franklin, Tennessee)/Archive 1 - April 2010 to April 2011 and Talk:Old Town (Franklin, Tennessee)/disambiguation (January 2011)
• Talk:Mill River (Connecticut) - June 2010
• Talk:Davenport House (New Rochelle, New York) - June 2010
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Masonic Temple - June 2010 (Doncram participated in the next AfD, but Orlady did not)
• Talk:List of Masonic buildings/Archive 2, Archive 3, Archive 4, Archive 5, Archive 6 - July–October 2010; these discussions addressed (and led participants to visit) a number of other individual articles
• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places/Archive 43#NRIS database now "officially" offline - July 2010
• Talk:Masonic Temple (Lahore) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Masonic Temple (Lahore) - August–September 2010
• Talk:Marsh Hall (Yale University) - September 2010
• Talk:New Preston, Connecticut - September 2010
• Talk:Polly Rosenbaum Building - October–November 2010
• Talk:Oak Ridge gatehouses - November 2010
• At WikiProject Connecticut talk page: December 2010
• Talk:Hattertown, Connecticut - December 2010 – January 2011
• Talk:Blue Hills, Connecticut and Talk:Lime Rock, Connecticut - January 2011
• User talk:Doncram/Archive 17#Content-free articles sourced to online sources that don't exist - January 2011
• Tennessee Century Farm, importance ratings for historic sites - January-April 2011
• Jonesboro vs. Jonesborough and Talk:Jonesborough Historic District - February–April 2011
• Talk:Dinnie Apartments and Talk:Oxford House (Grand Forks, North Dakota) - April 2011
• Talk:Eau Claire Masonic Center - May 2011
• Talk:List of Baptist churches in Alabama - May 2011
• Talk:Charles L. Thompson and associates - July-December 2011
• Talk:City Market (Charleston, South Carolina) - July–August 2012
• Talk:List of Congregational churches - December 2012

Questions from NuclearWarfare

1. To those who feel that sanctions would be appropriate for Doncram, what non-topic or site ban sanctions would you suggest that the Committee implement? NW (Talk) 19:49, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Responses

As suggested at RFAR, I believe mentorship, a one revert rule, and a requirement that all new articles must be submitted through WP:AFC. Ryan Vesey 20:04, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The one-revert rule has merit. However, due to the tremendous volume of content that Doncram creates, I don't think that the other measures would be practically feasible for more than a short time. As Cbl62's experience circa July 2012 demonstrates, Doncram's productivity exceeds what any volunteer mentor can pay attention to for more than a fairly short period of time. Similarly, the volume of content would be tax the AFC process. A further concern I have with requiring AFC is that the review process there is much better suited to mentoring of newbie users than it is to counseling a very experienced user on the unique issues that may be associated with his content. --Orlady (talk) 15:01, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Placing some sort of throttle on Doncram's rate of production (for example, no more than x new article-space pages per day and no more than y total edits per day outside of his personal user spaces) might help to address the content issues. --Orlady (talk) 15:01, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I'm not as convinced as you that AFC isn't designed for handling articles like Doncram's. That's not necessarily it's purpose, but I feel like it could handle them well. The difficulty is the constant backlog. Perhaps a throttle and AFC could be a solution. I can't, having seen the quality of a decent number of Doncram's articles that he deems appropriate for article space, agree with any solution that allows Doncram to add articles to the mainspace himself. Ryan Vesey02:40, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My suggestions would be an interaction ban and a requirement that Doncram create his articles through a channel that would only allow others to publish them after review. Also, the major issue that I see which is getting very little attention is Doncram's chronic, unsubstantiated, accusations and personal attacks as well as his propensity for ownership of articles and inability to collaborate with others. That will require mentorship and strict, ongoing enforcement. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:52, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed final decision

Proposed principles

A long-term block on Doncram is not a good or desirable solution

1) A long-term block on Doncram is not a good or desirable solution. Because Doncram is a committed and capable contributor, Wikipedia would suffer from the loss of his potential contributions. Moreover, the six-month block that occurred last year did not result in long-term benefits, as it did not improve either his editing behaviors or his personal interactions upon his return. --Orlady (talk) 19:57, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Of course, if we conclude from our review of the evidence that the serious problems are not with Doncram's editing, then this proposal is moot. However, if we conclude that Doncram's editing is problematic in one or more respects, to the extent of warranting a remedy, the relevant question would be what remedy or remedies is best suited toward resolving the negative aspects of his editing without (if possible) depriving us of the positive aspects. In any case, the effect of any remedy or remedies, or the absence of remedies, on other editors must also be considered. So while I appreciate this proposal, ultimately we will need a more concrete proposal to work with—although of course it's in order to hold off on posting that until the evidence is in. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:14, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Without passing comment on any matter of fact, I will observe that this finding seems to make a persuasive case in favour of indefinitely excluding Doncram from the project. The tone of this finding suggests Orlady did not intend to make such a case, so he may wish to revise this submission. AGK [•] 22:50, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Agreed. His reliance on questionable references/database dumps and his battleground behaviors are issues -- his work when he's done the research properly isn't.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:14, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have the impression that Doncram has been concerned that some parties to this case want to get him blocked. If other parties to the case share my view on the subject, I think it's worthwhile to enunciate that view as a principle -- so that Doncram is not distracted by that particular worry. --Orlady (talk) 05:32, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure why you are so surprised that Doncram would think that. IF you know anything about how cases have been historically adjudicated, when the case was brought here, that became a very real possibility. Its unlikely that Doncram will not end up with some kind of block. Its also very likely that some of the other parties involved will be affected as well so you should be prepared for that when it happens in about a month. Kumioko (talk) 11:13, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@AGK: It definitely was not my intent to suggest that Doncram should be banned. My intent was to suggest that, if it is determined that measures are needed to resolve disruptions attributed to this user, that measures should be found to accomplish this without preventing the user from participating in the project. --Orlady (talk) 22:49, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

I am glad to see Orlady is looking for a solution here that encourages Doncram to change his battleground behavior without saying "we give up, just go away". I don't know what that solution will look like, but it will be welcomed. dm (talk) 19:30, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A good point and commendable coming from Orladay but I'm not sure it's appropriate as a principle.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:17, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template

2) {text of Proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

Pre-emptive disambiguation has been one cause for disruptive edits

Doncram has tormented Orlady with unsubstantiated personal accusations and personal attacks for more than 4 years

2) Beginning in the latter part of 2008, when Doncram accused me of being engaged in some sort of campaign against him (beginning before I was even aware that we had interacted multiple times) and continuing over the years with increasingly vitriolic personal attacks, Doncram has engaged in a campaign of character assassination and personal attacks against me. His attacks were very upsetting to me, but instead of either responding in kind or seeking sanctions against him for his behavior, I worked on self-control -- and hoped that if kept my cool and limited our interactions to communications over content, sooner or later he (being the reasonable and mature person I assumed him to be) would accept peaceful coexistence. My hope was misplaced, as he became increasingly negative (and downright nasty) toward me over time. As a result of discussions and analysis of evidence in this arbcom case, I now perceive that he received my behavior not as an effort to make peace (what I intended), but rather as the diametric opposite of peacemaking. I surmise that he judged my continuing efforts to coexist as coldly calculating and sadistic.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

"obscene"? "no evidence"? Have you actually read this case, TDA? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:41, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I had some concern about wording this item. I didn't want to suggest that Doncram had the intention of tormenting me or assassinating my character. Rather, I have experienced his repeated attacks as torment, I perceive many of his statements about me as character assassination, and the repetition of his negative remarks has the overall pattern of a campaign. --Orlady (talk) 02:35, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

I have not researched the precise timing, but what Orlady says here is consistent with my impression over the years. I am not interested in rural America at all, but occasionally the situation reached a noticeboard. The general pattern as I remember it was that the conflict was about minor technicalities, Orlady stayed cool throughout, and Doncram accused Orlady of being evil and out to get him.

I note that during (and at) her RfA, Orlady was in a conflict with User:DoxTxob, who attacked her for dealing with the Jvolkblum problem. It appears that she managed to steer that into constructive cooperation. See the discussions between DoxTxob and me at User talk:doxTxob/Archive 3, in which Orlady and Doncram were also involved, and the more recent discussions involving Orlady on User talk:DoxTxob. Presumably she tried the same with Doncram. Hans Adler 10:13, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Like Hans Adler, I, too, find myself more in agreement with Orlady's statement, based on the interaction I've seen from Doncram. Binksternet (talk) 06:05, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is an absurd thing to put on the Workshop as a proposed finding of fact. Accusing someone of "tormenting" you for four years without provocation is obscene and not backed by any evidence.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 18:51, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Sarek, I have and that is how I know this is pure hyperbole. For Orlady to accuse Doncram of tormenting her for four years is extremely inappropriate. Orlady has chosen every engagement that prompts Doncram's reactions, has edit-warred and move-warred with Doncram, has denigrated his contributions, given veiled threats, and yet claims to have been tormented for years because Doncram has sometimes lashed out during these negative interactions that Orlady is initiating. The Arbs are not going to endorse any "finding of fact" that Doncram has "tormented" Orlady.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 20:15, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In general Orlady's editing on NRHP stubs has been normal editing, often just adding categories, but occasionally suggesting that sub-stubs be userfied or extensive direct quotes be removed. Doncram has created more than 8,000 stubs or sub-stubs by a semi-automated process using Elkman's NRHP template generator. Doncram's talk page responses, partly detailed in the evidence of Elkman, Orlady and SarekOfVulcan, seem to have been over-reactions, with a hyperbolic choice of wording (hatred, evil, etc, to be found in Orlady's list) that would seem threatening or upsetting to the recipient. A brief scan through Doncram's postings[11] on User talk:Orlady gives further examples. (Here for comparison are Orlady's postings on User talk:Doncram [12].) Mathsci (talk) 20:03, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Although Doncram appears to have violated WP:CIVILITY and WP:NPA on numerous occasions over time I think this could be worded in a much more precise and dispassionate manner. The word "torment" is particularly objectionable.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:21, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Parties have differing views on how much of the encyclopedia-development process is appropriate for public display

3) The parties to this case differ in their views regarding the appropriateness of including evidence in article space of the process of developing the encyclopedia -- a form of self-referential content. Many (not all) of the content disputes between the parties are outgrowths of these differing views. In particular, Doncram has frequently expressed the view that an important function of stub articles and lists is to encourage new contributors; thus, he apparently has considered it appropriate for articles to include explicit blanks waiting to be filled in, explicit indications that information may exist that has not yet been obtained, and other material (such as Category:NRHP architects and others that he temporarily unhid a couple of months ago) that liberally references article-development processes. The other parties to this case have consistently objected to many of the types of content that Doncram aims to include.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Wikipedia discourages self-references in article space, but some forms of self-referential content are generally accepted in order to indicate needed improvements or invite participation in article development. In particular, a number of maintenance templates are generally accepted for inclusion in article space, including inline templates such as "citation needed" and larger banner-style templates. There is, however, no bright-line boundary between acceptable and unacceptable self-references, as exemplified by past community discussions about the inclusion of "no free image" and similar placeholders.

One long-ago dispute that I perceive as having been related to different perceptions regarding self-referential content was the AFD for NRHP "featured properties". Although this closed as "keep" in October 2008, I still have been unable to find any source other than Wikipedia that has ever published coverage about the designation of "featured properties" or about the featured properties as a group. I perceived (and continue to perceive) this list as an item that is not an encyclopedic topic, but is useful and interesting within the NRHP Wikiproject. --Orlady (talk) 16:21, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Doncram's long posts on talk pages have been a detriment to productive interaction

3) Doncram often writes unusually long posts on talk pages (also on the Evidence page for this case). These sometimes have been referred to as "walls of words". These can be detriments to effective communication/collaboration when (1) other users don't participate in the discussion because the posts are too long to read, (2) don't invest enough time to read the posts completely, (3) misinterpret a post's length as indicating that the subject is more important/contentious than Doncram may have intended, (4) respond at comparable length, or (5) make partial responses that address only some of the points in a post. Reactions 1, 2, and 5 have led to misunderstandings because (for example) when failure to respond (in full or in part) is misinterpreted to indicate that the respondent was deliberately ignoring a comment or that the potential respondent agreed with the comment. Reactions 3 and 4 have led to unnecessary inflation/expansion of a discussion or an erroneous perception of acrimony. Several parties to this case have complained about the length of Doncram's talk page posts.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Doncram's attitude of article ownership

4) Doncram too frequently behaves as if he owns the stubs, list-articles, and disambiguation pages he creates or works on. This attitude of ownership, which is contrary to Wikipedia policy, has been exhibited by his frequent use of "under construction" templates with the apparent intent of warning other editors away from editing the pages, his assertions that XfD discussions of his creations are "about him", and his contention on this page that "interrupting amidst active editing can be rude".

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Additionally, Doncram has asserted that Wikiprojects own the content within their scope, as in this discussion at WikiProject Protected areas, in which he objected to the use of third-party sources to define the term "protected area", making statements such as: "The basic fact that needs to be understood is that the term 'protected areas' as used in WikiProject Protected areas, the article protected areas, and related categories is the environmental / natural areas designated by the World Commission on Protected Areas plus others like them." --Orlady (talk) 00:29, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense. You reference a 2009(?) discussion at Wikiproject Protected areas, where i did indeed advocate that the Wikiproject itself define that its interest should lie in covering "protected areas" defined as the World Commission on Protected Areas define them, rather than on "protected areas" defined in some wp:OR way. Your participation there and in related pages was an example of you following me to a brand new area and engaging in confrontation that was extremely unhelpful to that Wikiproject in my view. I realized that my editing there attracted you, and brought controversy, and for sake of the Wikiproject I stopped participating, and then so did you. But whatever, that was 3 years ago.

About the many NRHP articles I have created, I do welcome development. Creation of the articles, especially where they include links to the great NRHP nomination documents when those are available, directly serves readers and makes it feasible for local persons to get involved and to add more. I myself return to articles in big campaigns to add links to newly created architect articles and to improve them in other ways, and I welcome others doing that. On the other hand I don't appreciate another editor following closely and confronting seemingly for the sake of confronting, within seconds or minutes while I myself am obviously adding more to an article. Use of an "under construction" tag is appropriate and courteous, indicating to other editors that indeed work is in progress, and accurately suggesting minor flaws in formatting etc. will likely be corrected very soon. The "under construction" tag explicitly states "You are welcome to assist in its construction by editing it as well. If this article or section has not been edited in several days, please remove this template." That properly suggests constructive, collaborative edits are welcome immediately, but it's probably better to wait a bit, and/or use the Talk page, if you disagree about the direction an article is developing in, and if you want to make wholesale deletions of material. You're not prohibited from disagreeing, but it can be unnecessarily confrontation to follow another editor and deliberately interrupt and interfere in work going on. It seems disruptive for editors to do this repeatedly, opening ANI incidents complaining about some minor formatting problem which often has already been fixed before the ANI incident was opened. Take a breath, please. It's simply less confrontational to open a Talk page discussion, or to wait to raise issues at some noticeboard until after obvious minor faults are fixed. Try to lessen the scope of disagreement, don't always try to increase the scope of disagreement.

WP:OWN seems instead to be an issue about Ohio and Indiana articles, where editor Nyttend seems to wish to impose some personal, non-policy standard for NRHP articles (and this personal standard is different than is apparent in many already existing articles in Ohio and Indiana that Nyttend has previously edited). --doncram 05:04, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

It does appear that WP:OWN is an issue here. I say that because there are many instances where Doncram is able to work well with others. However, there are also many instances when there is disagreement, and Doncram becomes rigid and defensive, obstructing progress and behaving "as if" he owns or controls the article or topic area. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:33, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template

5) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Length of Doncram's comments is restricted

1) Doncram is subject to a temporary restriction (length of time TBD) in the length of his posts (maximum length of posts TBD) on community discussion pages, including article talk pages, Wikiproject talk pages, XfDs, and noticeboards.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

This would have the primary purpose of helping Doncram develop a new self-discipline that should make his future interactions more effective and less frustrating. It should apply to text postings only, not including images, tables, other templates, or bulleted lists that Doncram might want to include in a post. --Orlady (talk) 02:34, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? To reply to Keithbob, i have often taken the time to explain policies and practices and reasonings to new editors, showing them the ropes in areas where i have experience and knowledge. Often explaining things out to new arrivals is necessary and helpful. --doncram 05:10, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Though I agree that long rambling posts on talk pages are unproductive and could even be seen as a means of passive-aggressive disruption, I see this as a band aid approach to a larger issue which is how Doncram behaves when he/she doesn't agree with other editors.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:49, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Doncram may not create new pages in article space

2) Doncram is restricted from creating new pages, except for redirects, in article space. If he wishes to create new content pages, he may do so in his user space, at Articles for Creation, in a sandbox area within a WikiProject's area, or in similar areas outside of article space. He may not move such pages to article space, but his pages may be moved to article space by other users after review.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

This is related to a recommendation by Ryan Vesey earlier on this page, in response to an arbitrator's question. I see this remedy as one means to eliminate much of the Doncram edits that are deemed to be disruptive, while allowing him to continue to contribute. --Orlady (talk) 15:55, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

This could potentially solve many of the problems identified in this arbcom case. Mathsci (talk) 19:32, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see evidence that his recent generation of stubs has actually been problematic. The evidence page seems to be chewing over much older issues.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 22:53, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's a chronic problem over an extended period of time. Best to deal with it now. This is one approach.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:56, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed principles

Administrator's responsibility to really communicate, especially when questioned

1) Communication is important, and when an administrator using tools is questioned he or she should be willing to explain, and in good practice administrators should often be willing to reverse their use of tools if their reasoning is challenged (or they should not be using tools at all). If you are seriously being questioned as to what the hell you mean, you must respond meaningfully.

Comment by Arbitrators:

I would agree with something like "... should be willing to reverse when consensus opposes the administrator's action or where a mistake has been made...." The word "often" here is an overstatement. While we all know administrators aren't infallible, hopefully they are right more often than they are wrong! Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:21, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural request to Doncram: Please consider putting descriptive headings on these sections to ease navigation. This should only take you a couple of minutes. Thanks. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:21, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Disagree. A challenge to an admin's reasoning isn't necessarily valid, so "often willing to reverse" doesn't apply. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:11, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I suggested this based on good comments from some administrators saying essentially this at AFDs. If you think some fix is obviously needed and is not controversial, you might use admin tools to fix it. But if you are questioned, and the questions are reasonable, and grounds for controversy are now apparent, then you should stop and perhaps undo the admin tool use. If you can't explain your reasoning, it's probably appropriate for you to stop using tools that way, you are probably doing something wrong. It's rude, and should not be acceptable, for an administrator to simply refuse to explain their reasoning. To Guerillero, this is not about prohibiting deletions or blocks, it is about being willing to explain your actions. This is a matter of communication and decency in human interactions. --doncram 05:19, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

I agree with SOV. Admins have to make hard decisions. Sometimes deletions and blocks have to be made even if there are objections --Guerillero | My Talk 23:31, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Interrupting amidst active editing can be rude

2) It is basically rude and unnecessarily confrontational, to follow an editor and interrupt their creating a new article with edit conflicts and big changes or moves, while it is being actively worked on. What I mean is arriving within minutes or in the first day or two, and interrupting, possibly with edit conflicts, in ways that change the main direction of a new article being created. When less confrontational options such as discussing at Talk, creating your own similar article on a parallel topic the way you prefer, etc., are available.

Comment by Arbitrators:

This is something I have no small amount of familiarity with, since I operated a bot that usually made the second edit to an article it detected as a plausible copyright violation – often within the first minute after its creation – and regularly edit-conflicted with its creator.

The problem with a "delay" as a principle is foundational: the moment an article is placed in the main namespace, it becomes communal property; there is no "owner" to consult before changes, nor is anyone authorized to veto changes to it – even substantial changes. Use of templates such as ((underconstruction)) are a request to wait a little bit because someone is currently actively editing the article with a series of related edit; they are heeded as a courtesy and do not insulate the article from bold editing – especially if there are substantial problems with it.

If an article is in such an incomplete state that it should not be edited until after it reaches a certain point, then that point is when the article should have been placed in mainspace and no earlier. — Coren ^(talk) 20:00, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Does this mean that ((underconstruction)) needs to become a hard lock by one editor, like a database lock? I have a lot of problems with this proposed principle, because it undermines the collaborative nature of a wiki. It also goes against your endorsement of bold-revert-discuss below. The first edit to someone else's work appears to count as hounding in one case, or being bold in another. Which one is it? If you developed an article in your sandbox, instead of immediately putting it in mainspace, it would be one way to prevent other editors from modifying the work, but you've rejected that solution before. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 20:49, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, I've pointed out to Doncram before that Template:Under construction/doc specifically states In general, this template should not be used for new articles with little content. Instead, the sandbox should be used to develop the article so that it has reasonable content when it is copied into namespace. Hasn't stopped him from continuing to tag new articles, though.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:24, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree. In essence, this is an assertion that users own their content for a period of time after they have contributed it, and that's contrary to all manner of policies and conventions here (not to mention the notice we see every time we submit an edit). User space exists for those of us who feel the need to save our work (for example, to avoid losing it to an errant keystroke) before it's in good enough shape to invite other people to work on it. I learned a long time ago that it's best to work on a new page in my user space until I've resolved basic issues with content and sourcing. --Orlady (talk) 15:37, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Rlendog -- wherever that point is, I'm pretty sure this is not questionable. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:06, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As long as we are talking about rudeness, it seems to me that this edit summary (responding to that edit) meets most definitions of the word "rude". --Orlady (talk) 18:19, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Coren that "Use of templates such as ((underconstruction)) are a request to wait a little bit because someone is currently actively editing the article with a series of related edit; they are heeded as a courtesy and do not insulate the article from bold editing – especially if there are substantial problems with it." Use of such polite requests is itself a courtesy to other editors, informing them that minor problems are likely to be cleared up in short order. If you believe there to be major problems that are not going to be cleared up, probably a Talk page comment is less confrontational than committing yourself to engage in an edit war. It is unnecessarily confusing. If you simply delete everything, is that because you find fault with the minor problems that were going to be cleared up? A constructing editor would naturally restore and continue to fix the minor problems. Why not communicate more clearly at a talk page, explaining your objection is more fundamental, if that is the case. I do believe that prompt communication and statement of objection is usually more courteous, but confronting within the article itself usually is less effective communication, and it is often disrepectful of other editors. Including third parties who could be called in, for whom having a clear discussion of issues at the Talk page is far more useful. --doncram 05:29, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Disagree. This proposal appears to be tailored to aid the person who does not adequately prepare an article in userspace. Such a person should not be protected by a shield of invulnerability; it is quite likely that the article being put together 'live' in mainspace is in conflict with various guidelines and in need of additional editor involvement. Binksternet (talk) 02:38, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The suggestion of starting "your own article on a parallel topic the way you prefer" is particularly disruptive; a violation of WP:POVFORK. This suggestion should be thrown out because it is against guidelines. Binksternet (talk) 03:17, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. Interrupting amidst active editing CAN be rude. Big changes or moves, while an article is being actively worked on can be perceived as baiting the creating editor. Another editor moving an stub minutes after it's created, or immediately cutting chunks out of it, while the creating editor is still working on it would be extremely frustrating to the creating editor and would reasonably be perceived as rude and confrontational. Mathsci said elsewhere in this workshop that "any stub carries an invitation to others to improve it." This is, of course, true. The key word in that statement is IMPROVE, which implies constructive collaberation. Userfying or chopping up an article that is being developed by another seems not CONstructive, but DEstructive, and it can reasonably argued that it is not an IMPROVEment. Lvklock (talk) 06:05, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am sympathetic to this, although the recommendation is overbroad. This is a collaborative project, and so once an article is created in mainspace, everyone has a right to edit it. Developing in user space is available if the creator does not want to subject the article to potential immediate edits. That said, there is a point at which it can be disruptive to bombard a new article with edits from multiple editor creating multiple edit conflicts. But I am not sure how to articulate where that point is. Rlendog (talk) 15:52, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bold-Revert-Discuss etiquette for followers

3) Bold-Revert-Discuss (wp:BRD) is a key guideline to follow, which would avoid many of the escalations of confrontation between the involved parties. It is crucial, politeness-wise (and probably should be explicitly written into the guideline), that in a new article under active construction, that any change made by a following editor should be deemed the first "Bold" move. It is crucial that participants understand that Discuss means Discuss, for real, waiting for other editors and allowing significant time for discussion to happen. A following/"Bold" editor must not be simply making one Talk page comment or one edit summary and then repeating their bold edit. BRD during new article creation has to involve deferring, to a healthy extent, to the creating/developing editor.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Disagree that BRD requires deferring to the "creating editor" -- especially when policies are involved, since BRD is merely a guideline. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:29, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If we have "years and years" to come back and make changes, then how long am I supposed to wait until I get my grubby little mitts on someone else's article? If I see that, for example, Stewart Memorial Presbyterian Church got left off a newly created article on Prairie School churches, how long do I have to wait for the original editor to include it before I interfere with the newly created article? I'd probably write myself a Post-It note, wait for the creating editor's lock to expire, and then forget that I wrote myself a Post-It note. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 04:23, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly disagree. As I read it, the real focus of WP:BRD (which is an essay, not even a guideline) is communication. In contrast, the principle proposed here is essentially a recipe for edit-warring, as its focus seems to be on defining rules for territorial claims (i.e., WP:OWN) and revert-warring, rather than on encouraging effective communication to occur. --Orlady (talk) 22:26, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

SarekOfVulcan has repeatedly disregarded and/or misunderstood BRD, which is indeed about encouraging good communication. BRD as written is about initiating a change at a long-stalled article that has problems. There's no recipe for edit-warring here; this is a proposal that would facilitate SarekOfVulcan seeing his/her way to stop with edit-warring type behavior at new articles. It is a way to define what seems to be harrassing-type edits, i.e. involving following and contending unnecessarily. --doncram 05:35, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Disagree, because it is fundamentally disruptive to the article creation process to implicitly allow ownership of an article by deferral to the creator's wishes (especially when an issue raised in this case is lack of active expansion of stubs by the creator). BRD is a guideline to foster discussion over a contentious change at any point, and is not limited to article creation only. MSJapan (talk) 23:06, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have years and years to come back and make your Bold or other changes. Lay off with introducing contention for a little while, okay? wp:BRD does not actually address situation of brand new articles. If you simply disagree with validity of a brand new article, you have AFD process available. --doncram 02:05, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly disagree. There is no deferring to the article creator, unless we throw away WP:OWN. I see this proposal as self-serving. Binksternet (talk) 02:42, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I also Disagree. This implies article ownership and the whole point of a Wiki type process is that one user will create the article and others, hopefully as well as the author that created it, will continue to develop it. Kumioko (talk) 03:48, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Self-control for self-appointed followers and enforcers, when can appear compromised

4) No editor is irreplaceable, including administrators involved in critical editing / enforcement of policies. If you are personally compromised, or if it is reasonable for others to believe that you are personally compromised, you can jolly well back off and not take on enforcement-type aggressive actions on a given topic and/or against a given editor. If you know or have reason to believe that your views will be perceived as illegitimate and confrontational, or that your meanings will be misunderstood, based on past misunderstandings or from a history of past errors you have made, you should lessen the forcefulness of your disagreeing (e.g. post a question or suggestion at Talk, or calling for other help, rather than edit-warring). This is not to say that any editor or topic is above criticism or exempt from others' editing undoing their work. This is not to say that any editor gets to select their critics. However, your negative history can limit your effectiveness (just as positive history can enhance your effectiveness), and often it may be best to leave a topic or editor alone, or simply to call for other editorial oversight to be arranged.

Comment by Arbitrators:

There are aspects of this I agree with and aspects I do not agree with. The phrases "personally compromised" and "jolly well back off" should not be used. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:23, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Use RFCs and other general processes, rather than following and contending one editor who complies with existing policies and principles

5) If you don't agree with core policies and guidelines, you need to take that up in RFCs or other means to lead to change, and you should not attempt to change them by forcing your way with editors who disagree.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

It's not clear what point Doncram is trying to make with this statement. I'm guessing that this is related to the assertions elsewhere in this case that requests for Doncram to work on rough-draft articles outside of article space were not based on policies and guidelines. If so, I beg to disagree. Not every conclusion that is grounded in policies and guidelines can be specifically articulated in a formal policy/guideline statement; that is the case here. Multiple discussions on Administrator noticeboards (cited in the case request and on the evidence page) have indicated that some of Doncram's article creations have been disruptive (within the meaning of the Wikipedia guideline Wikipedia:Disruptive editing). In particular, the June 2011 WP:AN discussion found consensus that some article creations were disruptive, along with weak consensus that:

Users encountering Doncram-created content that is defined in this discussion as unacceptable may delete that content from the article or move it to the talk page for discussion. If simple excision of the problematic content cannot be done in a fashion that results in a coherent article or stub, then the entire article may be moved to the user's space. Content should not be restored to article space until the issues are resolved. Content removal consistent with this directive will not be considered to be edit warring.

That consensus was developed in accordance with Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Moreover, it is consistent with the content guideline Wikipedia:User pages with respect to the use of user space to work on draft articles. --Orlady (talk) 00:13, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Now that this has a title referring to "one editor who complies with existing policies and principles", it is still not clear what the intent is. The title suggests that Doncram is saying that he has complied with all existing Wikipedia policies and principles, that he has been "followed and contended [with]" by other editors who want to do things that are not required by policies, and that he thinks that those other editors should have opened formal RFCs rather than interacting with him and his edits. --Orlady (talk) 16:00, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

My reading of this is that it proposes to require a formal RFC if there is one editor who is editing in a manner that is not explicitly prohibited by policy, and there are one or more other editors who consider that this manner of editing is problematic. If this is correct then I disagree with the proposal because while an RfC may be appropriate in some cases it is never the right first step. The first step is always discussion on article and/or user talk pages. However, if that doesn't work, then it is not correct to just repeat the same arguments ad infinitum - follow the dispute resolution procedure and get outside input. Thryduulf (talk) 18:27, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This one seems like it would quickly boomerang on Doncram. My take on it is that he thinks he is always in the right, and that others are not, and that these others should be made to jump through RfC hoops. As Orlady has shown, Doncram is not always in the right; thus he would be forced into RfC to change the guidelines in order continue in the same practices. Binksternet (talk) 02:55, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed findings of fact

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Template

2) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed principles

Purpose of Wikipedia

1) The purpose of Wikipedia is to create a high-quality, free-content encyclopedia in an atmosphere of camaraderie and mutual respect among contributors. Contributors whose actions are detrimental to that goal may be asked to refrain from them, even when these actions are undertaken in good faith; and good faith actions, where disruptive, may still be sanctioned.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

From Civility enforcement and Fae --Guerillero | My Talk 19:52, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ownership of articles

2) Users do not own the articles that they edit and do not have veto powers over the content of an article.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

This is an important principle to enunciate here, as it appears that one user's implicit presumption/expectation of article ownership has been a factor in many of the contentious incidents cited. This attitude of ownership relates not only to an expectation of control over article content, but also to a too-close personal identification with the articles, such that edits or criticisms of content are sometimes received (misperceived) as personal attacks. --Orlady (talk) 22:12, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

JASpencer -- care to provide diffs showing an ownership problem within the past 5 years, or are you going to keep up with the unsubstantiated allegations? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 23:50, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The essay Wikipedia:Beef up that first revision is somewhat relevant here, in that it points out that weak new articles are apt to be proposed for deletion. That's not been a frequent issue with Doncram's contributions because of the notion that properties on the National Register can be presumed to be notable, but the essay underlines the expectation that once content published in article space, it is available for editing by others. --Orlady (talk) 17:19, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A corollary (or perhaps an additional codicil) to this principle is that groups of users, such as the participants in a particular WikiProject, do not collectively own the articles they edit. The notion that a WikiProject owns its content is one that I have often perceived to be present at the NRHP Wikiproject, but it is highlighted for me by this discussion at WikiProject Protected areas, wherein it was suggested that the meaning of the term "protected area" and the content of the article protected area should be determined by the predominant interests of the WikiProject participants. --Orlady (talk) 04:07, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Over ownership is also a problem on the other side with Sarek and the Freemasonry topics. It seems widely accepted that Sarek's substantive interaction with Doncram started in late 2010 and followed the interaction of Doncram with users Blueboar and MSJapan (who like Sarek also belong to the Freemasonry project - and are even more territorial than Sarek). JASpencer (talk) 22:17, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A good principle though perhaps the wording could be improved to be more in line with the language of the policy. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:54, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on the edits, not the editor

3) Editors are expected to comment on the substance of other's edits, and not attempt to use editors' affiliations or any other characteristic in an ad hominem method to attempt to discredit their views. Attempts to do so may be considered a Personal Attack.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I support this principle. However, because many of the interpersonal issues in this case are related solely to personal identity or personality and not also to editors' affiliations or other characteristics, I suggest splitting out two principles:

3A- Editors are expected to comment on the substance of others' edits, not on the personal qualities of other editors. Comments on the personal qualities of other editors may be considered a Personal Attack.

3B- Editors are expected to comment on the substance of other's edits, and not attempt to use editors' affiliations or any other characteristic in an ad hominem method to attempt to discredit their views. Attempts to do so may be considered a Personal Attack.

Although some allegations (cited on the Evidence page or included in diffs or discussions that are cited) allude to non-Wikipedia affiliations (particularly a few users' affiliations with Masonic organizations), WikiProject memberships (mainly in the NRHP Wikiproject) or lack thereof, geographic associations (e.g., Ohio, Indiana, Tennessee, New York, Great Britain), gender, and political views, I perceive only the allegations related to Masonic affiliation as potentially being significant in the case (and I'm not convinced that they are significant). --Orlady (talk) 23:29, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

modified from fae --Guerillero | My Talk 19:52, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A good principle that is relevant to this case.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:57, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disruption by administrators

4) Sustained disruption of Wikipedia is incompatible with the status of administrator. Administrators who repeatedly and aggressively engage in inappropriate activity may be faced with sanctions by the Arbitration Committee, including, but not limited to, the removal of administrator status. Administrators are also expected to learn from experience and from justified criticisms of their actions.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

...which is why I never should be an administrator, again, ever and ever. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 00:29, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is important to note that this principle refers to sustained disruption, not isolated incidents. Human beings make mistakes, and if Wikipedia is going to allow humans to function as administrators (a necessary role that is often thankless), Wikipedia needs to be willing to tolerate mistakes on occasion. --Orlady (talk) 17:30, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are only so many times someone can make a "mistake" before it becomes an obvious problem in need of resolution.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 18:10, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Modified from fae --Guerillero | My Talk 19:52, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A good principle but not sure of its relevance in this case. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:59, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Perceived harassment

4) Any user conduct or comments that another editor could reasonably perceive as harassing (as defined in Wikipedia:Harassment) should be avoided. On occasion, an action or comment may cause someone to feel harassed, with justification, even if the action or comment was not intended as harassing. In such situations, the user's discontinuing the objected-to behavior, promising not to repeat the behavior, or apologizing is often sufficient to resolve the concern, especially where there is an isolated comment rather than a pattern of them.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Caution is needed to avoid over-applying this principle, so that crying "Harassment!" doesn't become a weapon to be used to avoid being subject to the normal rules of behavior at Wikipedia. (I've certainly seen COI-burdened WP:SPA editors make these kinds of claims against anyone who dares to attempt to hold them to policy.) In particular, Wikipedia:HA#NOT needs to be applied. As stated there, merely editing the same page as another user is not harassment; nor is it harassment to warn another user against disruption or incivility if the claims are presented civilly, in good faith and in an attempt to resolve a dispute instead of escalating one. Furthermore, as stated there, "tracking a user's contributions for policy violations [is not harassment]; the contribution logs exist for editorial and behavioral oversight". --Orlady (talk) 00:56, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@The Devil's Advocate: I have been troubled and personally offended by indications that some editors feel that my repeated interactions with -- and criticisms of -- Doncram's content work have somehow made it perfectly acceptable for him to repeatedly call me "evil", "hatefully motivated," "bully", "liar", "malicious", etc.; say that I am guilty of "vast, poisonous negativity", "outright lying", etc., and that I engage "in sadistic and/or hounding and/or otherwise negative behaviors because she enjoys it or otherwise serves her personal needs in some way"; and to preface his remarks in XfDs and other discussions with personal attacks like "I feel it is necessary and appropriate to note that editor Orlady has followed my edits for years and long-expressed hatred. It is a pattern of long-term harassment and bullying. ... This deletion is not in good faith....". --Orlady (talk) 20:46, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

From Racepacet --Guerillero | My Talk 19:52, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is tricky. The key word here is "reasonably". I am under the impression that it is not reasonable for Doncram to feel harrassed by Orlady, but he clearly thinks otherwise. Conversely, I am under the impression that is reasonable for Orlady to feel harrassed by Doncram, but he clearly thinks otherwise. These are just impressions, and observers appear to be split on the matter, though perhaps not evenly. There is often a danger that principles and findings of fact are interpreted by parties in unintended ways and consequently contribute to the problem rather than to the solution. I think it would be unwise to adopt this principle unless Arbcom can agree on findings of fact as to how it applies to all individual parties. Maybe the principle can be made more precise, though I can't think of a substantial improvement right now. Hans Adler 13:54, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It flips the term harassment on its head to suggest that the person following another person is the one being harassed, rather than the person being followed. Just by looking at the evidence it is clear that, far more than anyone else, Orlady has frequently gone to areas where Doncram was editing to then "correct" and "critique" him in ways that include edit-warring and move-warring, absurd accusations of misconduct, WP:INVOLVED use of the tools, and general denigration of Doncram's contributions. Yes, Orlady has avoided naughty words and name-calling, but if you think harassment can only involve blatant hostility than you have no clue what you are talking about.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 17:01, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's not my problem with the evidence. My problem is that I can see no proof of systematic following. Significant interaction, yes. But I can see no indication that there is significantly more of that than I have had myself with Trovatore (another mathematician active in my special field) or Krenakarore (another editor interested in card games), if overall activity is factored out. When two content-oriented editors are interested in the same content, they will interact again and again. Here one is a serial stub creator and the other concentrates on fixing problems. That determines the direction of the interaction. Hans Adler 17:30, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I feel like this principle attempts to spin the policy rather present it neutrally. The policy says: Harassment is defined as a pattern of repeated offensive behavior. The important words here are "pattern" and "repeated" and are noticeably absent from this proposed principle. Furthermore I would echo Hans Adler's statement that, so far, in my examination of the evidence, I don't see the relevance or need for this principle.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:13, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Accusations of harassment

5) Accusing others of harassment without diffs, or other proof, is a form of personal attacks and can be seen as a harassment in and of itself.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

You can't just accuse people of breaking policy --Guerillero | My Talk 20:09, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The logic is a bit circular IMHO. I think it would suffice to say: Repeatedly accusing others of wrong behavior without providing diffs, or other objective proof, is a form of personal attacks. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:54, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Battlefield editing

6) Wikipedia is a reference work, not a battlefield. Each and every user is expected to interact with others civilly, calmly, and in a spirit of cooperation. Use of the site to pursue personal feuds and quarrels is extremely disruptive, flies directly in the face of our key policies and goals, and is prohibited. Editors who are unable to resolve their personal or ideological differences are expected to keep mutual contact to a minimum. If battling editors fail to disengage, they may be compelled to do so through the use of blocks and bans.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

from climate change--Guerillero | My Talk 20:28, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to clarify here that this should be directed at multiple parties and not just at Doncram. Kumioko (talk) 03:55, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Principals are almost always general and not targeted at one person. --Guerillero | My Talk 17:38, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would take out the word "extremely" but otherwise a good principle and relevant to the case.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:56, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed findings of fact

Locus of the dispute

1) Doncram (talk · contribs · logs) has created articles in a semi-automated fashion directly from the National Park Service database. The community see this as disruptive.[13] Several editors, including Orlady (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) and SarekOfVulcan (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), have attempted to rectify this to varying degrees.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Just as a copy edit, I think you meant "National Park Service". Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 20:32, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Um, no, Kumioko. It's not the stub creation I have a problem with, it's stub creation he isn't willing to stand behind. "is or was a building", "built or has other significance" -- in other words, he has no idea what this data means and he can't be bothered to find out, but he's tossing it out there anyway. That said, his current stubs don't have that problem. Last time I reviewed his new stubs, they all seemed to have at least one other ref besides the NRIS backing up the data.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:42, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Hersfold, I really don't think this is the "main point of contention" -- the battlefield behavior (e.g. calling Orlady evil for years) is the main point of contention. If he weren't assuming that various editors were out to get him, we wouldn't be here. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:52, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Mathsci - it's the National Register Information System. http://nrhp.focus.nps.gov/natreg/docs/All_Data.html --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 12:06, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Some members of the community see this as a problem, but everyone doesn't. Some people like him making stubs for them and others to expand. There are quite a few people speaking up and opposing a ban on Doncram making stubs in the thread on AN linked to in the FoF. I'm reluctant for the people who are put off by Domcram to speak for the whole community on this point. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 02:22, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nonetheless, this does appear to be the main point of contention in this case. Perhaps the "The community see this as disruptive" sentence could be removed or rephrased as "Some members of the community have viewed this, or Doncram's perceived behavior regarding these concerns, as disruptive." Based on some of the ANI discussions mentioned in evidence, I think that may be more accurate. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 20:35, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the link you gave it shows a divided community (there were a large number of opposes). I think that it is better to say "This has in the past led to the following sanctions, x and y." rather than the "The community see this as disruptive". JASpencer (talk) 14:11, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I also agree with Flonight. Part of the problem is Doncram's not checking his work but part of the problem is also Orlady and Sarek not liking Doncram's creating stubs and over time the interactions became less and less civil from all parties. Kumioko (talk) 04:00, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well if his edits are better now and this isn't about his creation of stubs then why are we all here? Hopefully not for 2 year old articles that you say are not the locus of the dispute! Kumioko (talk) 21:38, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A core problem in many editing disputes is that editors think that they are upholding the view of "the community" when in reality most of "the community" is indifferent to the issue at hand. So, I think it is good to remind the people in this dispute to not over reach and substitute their view for that of "the community". I would stay away from wording that enhances the view that "the community" supports one side in this dispute. I think this is true in particular in this dispute because creating stubs or sub-stubs from another database is something that might re-occur in other instances with full support of another part of the community, even if the output is less than perfect and needs re-formating. IMO, opinions in "the community" are not fully formed on this topic. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 13:28, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:42, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This finding is essentially correct (although the database should probably be the NRHP's National Register Information System). In addition the dispute concerns Doncram's creation of lists some of which do not necessarily concern the NRHP. Some of these are discussed on talk pages of this case or on the administrative noticeboards prior to this case. Often these lists concern items outside the US such as lists of castes in India, where he came into conflict with Sitush, and lists of denominational churches, not necessarily in the US. Although Sitush was belatedly included as a party, there has been little discussion of the caste lists. The lists of churches are mentioned on various pages and there is an ongoing AfD, mentioned by Mangoe on the workshop talk page. The two extra weeks granted for parties to add evidence have not seen any significant additions to the evidence page by Doncram: some outspoken statements concerning other editors, which could be viewed as personal attacks, have still not been substantiated by significant numbers of diffs. Mathsci (talk) 03:33, 7 February 2013 (UTC)Name of database corrected by SOV[reply]

Doncram (1)

2) Doncram has engaged in move warring and edit warring [14] [15] [16] (Elkman's evidence)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Doncram (2)

3) Doncram has engaged in battlefield-like conduct and personal attacks. [17] [18][19] [20]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Doncram (3)

4) Doncram refuses to see any issues with his article creations. [21] [22]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Doncram (4)

5) Objections to Doncram's editing are not restricted to the topic area of historic places. [23] [24]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Another example, a one-off incident back in 2010, was Doncram's creation of Natchez trace (band), apparently in order to help justify its inclusion in Natchez Trace (disambiguation) or Old Natchez Trace (disambiguation), by assembling unrelated tidbits of information from a variety of sources. --Orlady (talk) 17:51, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Doncram (5)

6) Doncram objects to any editor, that he does not perceive to be on his side, cleaning up a set of articles created by him as harassment or hounding. [25] [26]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

SarekOfVulcan

7) SarekOfVulcan has engaged in move warring and edit warring [27][28] [29] [30] (Elkman's evidence)

Comment by Arbitrators:

What is particularly concerning for me with respect to this point is Sarek's motivations for doing so. In his opening statement to this case, Sarek stated "I became so frustrated at Doncram's repeatedly adding material from a database dump that contained material that blatantly didn't belong in the article, with talk page comments not addressing the issues, that I intentionally broke 3RR in the hopes that Doncram would be blocked for edit warring as well" (Emphasis mine). This brings the edit/move warring from an occasional stupid mistake to something done with deliberate and vindictive intent. It may be important to note that intent in such a finding. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 20:40, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Machiavellian explanations aren't going to make this look better, Sarek. By your own admission, you, an administrator, willingly violated policies you are meant to enforce rather than seeking a less disruptive and more appropriate means of resolving the problem at hand. It may not be an abuse of administrative rights (you didn't make an INVOLVED block), but the end result is more-or-less the same; you breached community expectations in order to get him blocked. Hersfold non-admin^(t/a/c) 19:30, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

@Hersfold: deliberate yes, vindictive no. I maintain now, as then, that this was the only way I could see to protect the encyclopedia, as discussion had repeatedly failed. The timeline on that edit war was as follows:

I see that I was also edit warring on Marion M. Steen at this point, which I can't defend. I did start a discussion at WT:NRHP, which I read as agreeing with my position, but as the bulk of the discussion occurred after the edit war, I can't claim that I was implementing consensus at that point.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:54, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Hersfold - yes, I broke community expectations, and accepted the community's penalty for it. Twice. And the second time, I didn't think the block was long enough, so I asked for it to be extended. Bear in mind that this was after the Archive223 discussion, and most of the way through Archive224. No amount of community discussion was having any impact whatsoever.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:05, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@24.* - while I see the point you're making, I think it would set an absolutely horrendous precedent to actually act on that. "He did an involved block, but not really, but sanction him anyway"? Where do you draw the line then?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 23:52, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

I think what SoV did here is equivalent to placing an INVOLVED block. He was well aware that he was not permitted to directly block Doncram as doing so would be a direct INVOLVED violation. Rather than seeking uninvolved assistance, he deliberately took a different impermissible action with the intent of getting Doncram blocked. That the impermissible action in question was an edit war as opposed to a press of the block button seems to me to be irrelevant. I submit to the Committee that the action to consider here is tantamount to an INVOLVED block, and it should be treated as such. (And before anyone asks, I am just an infrequent IP editor who has an interest in the inner workings of the Wiki and often watches ArbCom proceedings. I am not an editor who is logged out or any such nonsense.) 24.154.70.132 (talk) 20:27, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion it's a precedent that should be set. Your argument basically boils down to the ends justifying the means. You decided that Doncram needed to be blocked. While it may well have been necessary, the community has decided (and codified) that as an involved administrator, you're not able to make that determination. Where I draw the line is exactly what Hersfold said above - you knowingly violated a policy in order to get a block placed that you couldn't place on your own. Would the block have been placed anyway had you sought out a more appropriate avenue? Possibly, but we'll never know. The fact remains that the decision was not yours to make, and you attempted to make it anyway by violating a different policy and making an end-run around INVOLVED. As a (sort of) member of the very community that granted you the use of the mop, that to me demonstrates a pretty alarming lapse in judgment. 24.154.70.132 (talk) 16:26, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Orlady

8) Orlady has been calm and civil in tense situations. [32] [33] [34]

Comment by Arbitrators:

While reviewing the evidence, I did note that while Doncram has repeatedly made attacks towards Orlady, I've seen barely any provocation from Orlady to prompt those attacks. Orlady's "list" subpage appears to be a genuine attempt to improve articles created or expanded by Doncram, as was upheld at MFD; the "words" subpage is perhaps problematic, as it cannot be a truly objective or complete selection of their interactions and does quote everything out of context. However, that's not justification for all of the attacks Orlady has been subjected to, particularly in an apparent absence of incivility from her. However, I note that at this time Doncram has a number of blank sections which will apparently pertain to Orlady, so we'll see what comes up. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 20:47, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Orlady and SarekOfVulcan

9) Both Orlady and SarekOfVulcan have nominated articles started by Doncram for deletion. [35] [36] Doncram has stated that he feels that this is harassment.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Doncram banned

1) Doncram (talk · contribs) is banned from Wikipedia for a period of six months.

Comment by Arbitrators:

No comment on whether a ban is necessary at this point, but why this particular length? It looks as though Doncram was blocked for six months about a year ago for "Serial edit warring", and for three months just before that. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 20:50, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Due to the issues seen above this seems reasonable --Guerillero | My Talk 21:42, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree he needs to take a break but I think 1 month would be plenty. Most of the problems are old and have been dealt with so this case is mostly about solidifying and putting some teeth on what already exists. Kumioko (talk) 20:36, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Due to the above issues, a six month ban seems quite reasonable to me. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 20:13, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is just kicking the can down the street in my opinion won't resolve anything. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:09, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. A six-month ban is a cop-out, putting the problem off until later. The proposed decision, whatever it is, should be a lasting solution. Binksternet (talk) 19:22, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Doncram topic banned

2) Doncram is indefinitely banned from creating articles via script, bot, or by porting a database.

Comment by Arbitrators:

In addition to Elkman's comment, it seems as though part of the concern is also that he's not checking on the reliability of the database or filling in missing data appropriately. It might be possible to fine-tune this in such a way that it addresses the primary concerns, although I confess I'm not sure how that could be done just now. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 20:52, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

I don't have any objections to him using a database to generate infoboxes or supporting information for an article. But, I do have an objection for using a database as the only source of an article. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 18:48, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Elkman that use of the database and scripts is not the problem. The problem has been excessive reliance on -- and over-interpretation of -- information extracted from a database. -- Orlady

I have often used the NRIS database, and generally use it with intelligence and care that is not seen by those who do not use it. I routinely correct erroneous information suggested by Elkman's NRHP infobox generator tool, such as often erroneous assertions supplied in the past (not present in Elkman's current output) that a person is an architect when the NRIS information is that the person is an architect, builder, or engineer. I have improved that tool by suggestions that have been adopted, but there are remaining errors that it routinely suggests. Such as its sometimes erroneous assertions that a place was built on a given date, when in fact the date should be qualified by "circa" as is truly given in the NRIS database but that qualification is ignored by Elkman's generator. Or when the date should be be corrected to reflect a date range. I routinely add links to, and read and use full NRHP nomination documents when those are available. The database is generally reliable, though imperfect. I use it and work to correct its information, also, by use of the wp:NRIS info issues system. This is highly constructive, not disruptive. --doncram 05:52, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, you have sidestepped the real issue and asserted that I'm too incompetent to know when a building was built and that I'm too incompetent to know the difference between an architect, a builder, and an engineer. I'm getting sick and tired of you raising this objection. From the proposal, it looks like the issue at hand is whether you should be relying strictly on a database, not whether my infobox generator is accurate. If you want to keep slagging my infobox generator, then create your own proposal on this page: "Elkman's infobox generator is broken and should no longer be relied upon for anything." Oh, and remind me again about when you think the Floyd B. Olson House (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) was built. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 14:38, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is NOT the kernel of the kerfluffle. The kernel is predictable, biased, relentless prosecution by self-appointed prosecutors on many topics, anything they can find a way to manufacture into an issue. Within this arbitration note attempts to manufacture issues about disambiguation pages (Orlady), about "self-referencing" (Orlady), other theories. I appreciate that people want to make sense of the mass of information here, the mass of accumulated conflict. This simplification is not it.

Note the contradiction of views between Elkman above stating that use of NRIS is okay if only other sources are also used, vs. Orlady comment elsewhere in this arbitration that NRIS alone is okay as long as it is brief and indisputable "such-and-such house was listed on the National Register" (rather than including any possibly imperfect draft link to an NRHP document, avoiding any blanks to fill in). And vs. SarekOfVulcan's assertion in this arbitration and also leading off the big 2011 NRHP stubs ANI that SarekOfVulcan opened, that what S wishes to prosecute is stubs that include anything incomplete or unproven, as was generated by a bot-system that I programmed and used in 2011. Moderate WikiProject NRHP editors and moderate WikiProject Oregon editors accept the creation of short NRHP stub articles, and do not seek to ban their production by me or many others who have created them.

I do "check my work". Elkman and others' wish that articles should be more developed at once is addressed by my usual incorporation of the NRHP nomination document when/where that is available, in the first edit or soon-following edits. Wherever possible, I use the NRHP nom docs to verify and correct any incorrect information from NRIS alone (which Elkman's system suggests). I developed about 800 architect, engineer, and builder articles in order to inform my NRHP articles and to make corrections of errors in NRHP articles created by others (that were wrong on this point about 10% of the time, in some hundreds of articles in total). If there seems to be a specific need for a stub, say to stabilize a disambiguation page where an arriving new editor (incorrectly) believes that red-links are invalid, I have often created a stub using NRIS alone, because the NRHP nom document is not available. As have many others. And some very small percentage of the time, the built date suggested by Elkman may be incorrect, but my error rate on that is relatively tiny.

What I do is better than the average in all NRHP articles, better than the common use of Elkman's system alone by many editors in the past and continuing now. SarekOfVulcan and Orlady have gone on and on about how horrible it is to state something accurately vague about the built date. It is apparently their preference that a positive, possibly false assertion about a built date be put into the article instead. Since 2011 that is what I have usually done (when not possible to check the actual NRHP nom document), as a result of the pressure. So my (tiny) error rate is higher because of their pressure, that is indeed what I am saying. What should best be done in such cases could be discussed in an objective RFC, but my judgement is reasonable and defensible. Browse in the NRHP-listed churches in the church lists, to see many worse stubs. The selective, predictable confrontation against me alone is unfair, and reflects the bias of the prosecuting editors.

I used the bot-system experimentally to generate and place into mainspace stubs for one county in North Dakota, Grand Forks County, and for one county in Tennessee, and for a couple counties in Connecticut. In following edits I filled out NRHP nomination document links and otherwise fixed the incomplete draft pages. That is not a bot that is running; it would require Bot approval to run; given learning I would program it differently (e.g. to correctly show dates as "circa 1920" unlike what Elkman's NRHP generator shows, e.g. not to include "author=_____" in a reference but rather include "author=" so no "_____" ever shows. The experiment itself was a terrible experience. Not one person commented at the Talk page of the Grand Forks list, where I had invited feedback and constructive discussion. SarekOfVulcan led off an ANI instead, and the ANI created scattered, often-contradictory concern but clear view of moderate NRHP editors (notably Smallbones) that stub articles are valid and are created by many editors. The 2nd ANI was worse, and inflated hysteria. As I recall moderate NRHP editors did not participate. Orlady expanded the topics to manufacture concern over plagiarism which was totally unfounded and unfair, and which I totally resent. Orlady pushed a general, inappropriate condemnation to the effect that if anyone dislikes anything associated with Doncram, they may destroy it, which the closer adopted. That was a "local consensus" achieved in a general circus atmosphere that was vague and inappropriate, and I experienced it as mean-spirited. At best it could be viewed as satisfying a lynch-mob, settling its hysteria that had been whipped up.

The creation of about 200 stub articles in 2011 using a bot-system that was in trial mode is not the unifying issue here. The unifying issue is the manufacture and prosecution of many many issues by self-appointed enforcers. --doncram 15:47, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So, you're again accusing me of providing "probably false assertions". Why don't you just get to the point and go ahead and call me a liar, and that I'm helping other people lie as well? Just get to the point and say it directly. You're perfectly capable of calling someone a liar directly. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 16:20, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

The community sees this as disruptive --Guerillero | My Talk 21:42, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see no evidence that "the community" does see mass creation as disruptive per se (for example this is not banned, but controlled by guidelines and policy). Mass editing of articles can create problems but mass creation of articles is usually seen as covering topics that should be there. JASpencer (talk) 23:00, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest rewording this and clarifying that some members of the community have a problem. The community is rarely unanimous on anything. Besides there are several of us, myself included that don't have a problem with using a database as long as he checks his work. Kumioko (talk) 20:38, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support, if the porting of database info is allowed only as a third reliable source. This is the kernel of the kerfuffle! Doncram should create articles by hand, more slowly, using several reliable sources. Never should he create articles automatically, or with only one source. Binksternet (talk) 03:04, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Interaction ban

3) Doncram is banned from commenting on or unnecessary interactions with Orlady (talk · contribs) and SarekOfVulcan (talk · contribs) and vice versa.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

A two-way interaction ban between Doncram and me is appropriate. As I state elsewhere on this page, I have recently come to the horrifying realization that my efforts to stay cool and content-focused in the face of Doncram's repeatedly calling me "evil", "hatefully motivated", "liar", etc., were apparently misperceived by Doncram as coldly calculating and sadistic. If he so profoundly misinterprets my actions and intentions, it's best that we not interact. However, because we would inevitably cross paths, I think we would need to establish a clear understanding from the outset regarding the meaning of WP:Interaction ban in this context. That is, for example, we would still be able to edit the same pages and participate in the same discussions, but we could not edit on the other user's talk page or nominate the other user's recently created pages at XfD, and we would avoid "talking" to one another within a discussion. --Orlady (talk) 23:34, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Kumioko: Remedies in Wikipedia are not, and should not be interpreted as, punishment for wrongdoing. Their purpose is to prevent future problems -- and foster the smooth development of the encyclopedia by preventing future problems. --Orlady (talk) 23:37, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Due to the issues seen above this seems reasonable --Guerillero | My Talk 21:42, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think this needs to be reworded to clarify that the interaction ban is between and affects all three. I don't think Doncram is innocent but I think that Orlady and Sarak also did some things wrong and this shouldn't be targetted specifically at Doncram. That is one of the reasons I had a problem with the naming of the case. Its too Doncram centric when Doncram was only one of the editors with a problem. Kumioko (talk) 20:40, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would definitely agree that it is best for Doncram not to interact with either Sarek or Orlady, as there is just too much negative history between himself and those two editors. A two-way interaction ban would help to a) avoid giving the appearance of condescention (especially considering how he is not the only one at fault here), and b) acknowledge the fact that the other two listed would be under significantly less stress if they also abstained from anything pertaining to Doncram (granted, I do think they realize that their involvement would unfortunately only serve to inflame this already precarious situation). Kurtis ^(talk) 07:01, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think an interaction ban would be useful and yes, it should be reworded to name all parties in a neutral way. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:12, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

SarekOfVulcan desysopped

4)For gross edit waring, SarekOfVulcan is desysopped and may regain the tools via a request for adminship.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Regarding "indefinitely," we don't really do temporary desysops anymore (where the tools are automatically restored after X time), and I'd categorically oppose any temporary desysops regardless of the situation. As far as this particular case goes, per my comments on the proposed Finding above, I think that this may be necessary. While the edit/move warring incidents are from some time ago, it's really the motivation behind them that makes me believe this is an appropriate course of action. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 20:56, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

After Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/SarekOfVulcan 2, I'd have to assume that this remedy would actually be a permanent desysop, whether intended or not. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 01:12, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Guillero: you state "indefinite" below. I'm just pointing out that indefinite typically means "not forever", but the effect of this remedy would be permanent.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 02:30, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@JASpencer -- so, MSJapan used to be my friend, but isn't anymore? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 23:52, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Mutual blockdom" is definitely not a disruption I will be engaging in in the future.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:56, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that the evidence in the case supports de-sysopping. He took ill-advised action, but the evidence indicates isolated incidents, not sustained disruption. (And, having myself found Doncram's actions infuriating at various times, I can sympathize with the mental state that led Sarek to over-react.) --Orlady (talk) 18:04, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

All 5 of the cited logs/diffs of edit waring in the FoF above are after your reconfirmation RFA. My proposal to the arbs is to desysop you indefinitely. If the drafting arbs pick up my proposal and then the whole committee vote to approve it, you could go for an RfA at anytime after the case ended. --Guerillero | My Talk 01:43, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't recusal from admin roles and discipline\policy decisions in an agreed range of topics be a better solution? It seems that Sarek got far too deeply involved and emotional due to his interest in Masonic buildings and to some associated editors asking him for help. If he had not been involving himself in an area where he has a Conflict of Interest strong Point of View then the situation would be less likely to have escalated. Sarek's unofficial avoidance of some areas around Catholicism and Freemasonry works quite well. If this could be made wider, official and backed by sanctions I think this would mean the project could keep a valuable admin. JASpencer (talk) 14:22, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

JASpencer edits heavily in both of those areas (which is why a topic ban in those areas works "very well" for him. JASpencer is often at odds with SOV and other editors in those topic areas. I therefore believe that the comment here by JASpencer is just a little too self-serving to be a beneficial solution. I also am unaware of abuse of admin tools in either of those areas on SOV's part, which means that desysop or not, there shouldn't be an issue in those areas in any case. MSJapan (talk) 02:11, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I never called for Sarek to be topic banned, just to limit the use of tools in certain areas as I think it would take him away from the abuse that he's admitted to (eg deliberately breaking the 3RR rule). And I've rarely had editing clashes with Sarek since he became an Admin. I actually argued against Sarek being desysopped - a very real possibility given the admissions from Sarek and other evidence brought up in this process. As one of the group of people who were partially responsible for drawing Sarek in to this morass (although Blueboar has more responsibility in this case) I think you should be helping your erstwhile friend rather than sabotaging attempts to save his admin career, no matter how much you may dislike the advocate. JASpencer (talk) 23:10, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"An unofficial avoidance of some areas around Catholicism and Freemasonry" which is then "made wider and backed by sanctions." So you want to take a scope wider than an article to impose editing restrictions, and those restrictions, rather than being self-enforced, are community enforced through sanctions? That is the definition of a topic ban; see WP:TBAN. If that's not what you want, strike the statement. MSJapan (talk) 22:19, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As the first line of Topic Ban states "The purpose of a topic ban is to forbid an editor from making edits related to a certain topic area where their contributions have been disruptive, but to allow them to edit the rest of Wikipedia." and I said that "Wouldn't recusal from admin roles and discipline\policy decisions in an agreed range of topics be a better solution" then I'm not calling for a topic ban. I'd also point out that Catholicism and Freemasonry is a whole set of articles and not a single article. Sarek has shown a considerable amount of self-control around admin functions in these articles, even though he has edited artciles in this area, which he has not exercised with Doncram or the Masonic buildings. It shows that he is capable of this self control, although I note that he shows no interest in this idea. JASpencer (talk) 22:32, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to go ahead and oppose desysopping SarekOfVulcan. Yes, he has edit warred, and repeatedly at that (as cited in the proposed FoF above); however, most of the incidents listed occurred during 2011, over a year ago. The most recent case mentioned, from just a few weeks ago, barely even constitutes edit warring on Sarek's part and is well within the bounds of appropriate action when considering the context of improperly re-opening a closed DR repeatedly.[37] However, I do think an interaction ban between SarekOfVulcan and Doncram would be beneficial for both parties, and for Wikipedia as a whole. I also hope that Sarek has learned from this experience, and specifically realizes that saying he "intentionally violated the three-revert rule" to get another editor blocked doesn't reflect very well on him. Kurtis ^(talk) 06:05, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Have to seriously disagree. That DRV was a complete travesty, as was the subsequent move-warring over Nyttend's attempt to implement his "compromise" proposal that essentially reinforced everything that was being contested about the original deletion. Both Nyttend and Sarek seem heavily involved regarding Doncram and have repeatedly made bad decisions when it comes to the use of their tools. See my recent addition to the evidence page regarding Nyttend's G12 deletion and Doncram's recent block. I definitely think Sarek needs to lose the tools and Nyttend should probably be severely admonished for his use of the tools in this dispute.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 18:42, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kurtis - when you say "I also hope that Sarek has learned from this experience" what evidence of contrition from Sarek do you have? JASpencer (talk) 19:25, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Contrition? Well, he acknowledges just above that were he to be desysopped, it would likely be for good; his tone did not come across as self-pitying, and in fact gave me the impression that he values the community's opinion above his own. Generally speaking, the only cases where I would support a desysop barring any actual misuse of the tools (outside of maybe one or two mistakes) would be for particularly egregious cases of gross misconduct (Sade,[38][39][40] Henrygb,[41] Will Beback,[42] Cirt,[43][44] Fæ,[45][46] Runcorn,[47] just as examples). SarekOfVulcan's made some bad decisions, but nothing that would convince me his status as an administrator is a negative for Wikipedia. I do agree with Devil's Advocate in principle w.r.t. the recent DR, and I don't think those two admins should have been doing anything about it, but it's the first lapse of its kind since 2011, and I do feel confident that Sarek is the sort to learn from his mistakes. Kurtis ^(talk) 05:40, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think the desysopping is major overkill. Even though Sarek has edit warred, most of the incidents occurred in 2011 and the most recent case mentioned does not constituted edit warring in the slightest on Sarek's part. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 20:12, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is too much punishment for such old violations. There is no indication that the wiki needs to be protected right now or in the future from Sarek abusing the tools. Binksternet (talk) 03:10, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Except there was a more recent instance from earlier this month that is likely what prompted Doncram's attempt at filing an arbitration request prior to the request by Sarek. In that case, not only did Sarek edit-war and move-war with Doncram in that case earlier this month to the point that Doncram was blocked, but Sarek used his tools to cement his position in the move-war. The article in question was perfectly suitable as a stub for mainspace. None of the issues talked about here existed in that version, so there was no rational basis for the resistance shown by Sarek or Nyttend to it being moved to article-space other than a stubborn refusal to let Doncram have his way. Given that Sarek's reconfirmation RFA back in May of 2011 was dominated by the issue of his use of the tools when involved and his position now is as obstinate and unrepentant as it was then, this should definitely not be dismissed.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 04:00, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If Doncram's behavior since 2010 is examined then Sarek's behavior from the same time period should also be examined. --Guerillero | My Talk 04:44, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Of some interest to this question, there have been concerns expressed regarding one of Sarek's recent uses of his administrative authority outside of this dispute. Here is the relevant discussion.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 19:00, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agree on the motion to desysop. In addition to the incident highlighted by Hersfold above, Sarek has been blocked 5 times in the past 2 1/2 years for edit warring and 3RR. This is clearly conduct unbecoming of an Admin. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:18, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed enforcement

Standard Enforcement

0) Should any user subject to a restriction in this case violate that restriction, that user may be blocked, initially for up to one month, and then with blocks increasing in duration to a maximum of one year. Appeals of blocks may be made to the imposing administrator, and thereafter to arbitration enforcement, or to the Arbitration Committee. All blocks shall be logged in the appropriate section of the main case page.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed principles

Editing Wikipedia isn't supposed to be fun or enjoyable

1) Wikipedia articles have the potential to cause serious damage. Wikipedia:Enjoy yourself is just an essay. If you want to have fun, get a real hobby that doesn't involve arguing with others.

Comment by Arbitrators:

It sounds to me like Elkman is going through a period of frustration or the like in connection with his editing, which happens to all of us from time to time. If that is the case, I can sympathize, but I don't think these proposals are going to help us resolve the case. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:15, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah... not sure what the point of this is? Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 20:57, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

@Newyorkbrad: Elkman has made comments like this in several venues since he resigned as an admin. I don't remember where, or how long ago it was, or why it was, but this "period of frustration" has lasted for years. I don't think it's disruptive or anything though. --Rschen7754 02:30, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I do not agree with this. Wikipedia is a hobby, it can be fun or at least enjoyable and we are all volunteers. That doesn't mean that we can do harm, vandalize or general maliciousness but it shouldn't be the soap opera that it is either. If your not having fun editing then you probably aren't doing it right. Or at least need a break. Kumioko (talk) 20:44, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking only for myself, I find editing to be addictively fun. Kurtis ^(talk) 21:42, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Creating Wikipedia articles isn't all that altruistic

2) Creating and editing Wikipedia articles isn't some sort of great volunteer effort. Nobody in society really benefits from articles about some obscure church or some old flour mill.

Comment by Arbitrators:

See comment above. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:16, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

I disagree. --Guerillero | My Talk 02:12, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly disagree with this. Documenting cultural heritage is just as important as documenting contemporary world leaders and 20th Century wars (two topics picked at random). It is not possible to predict what information will be regarded as useful or important by subsequent generations, or even which small Norwegian islands will become the centre of global news. Thryduulf (talk) 14:41, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I also disagree and this also illustrates my general problem with our notability guidelines here. What is notable to me may be irrelevant to you and vice versa. For example, there are many many articles in Wikipedia about international football (soccer) players and I wouldn't lose a moments sleep if they all started disappearing one night. Likewise I have created hundreds of articles for Medal of Honor recipients and some feel that many of these do not meet notability. So in the end, the benefit is subjective. Many people like reading about these old buildings and sites the NRHP has. Kumioko (talk) 15:00, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree. Not only is cultural heritage important, but you don't know the readers and what they want to know - now or in seventy years time. JASpencer (talk) 23:13, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I also do not agree with this matter. Cultural heritage is important. However, you do not know what the readers want to know. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 20:10, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly disagree. If a topic meets WP:GNG it should be described on Wikipedia. Binksternet (talk) 03:13, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You'd be surprised the sorts of things people are interested in. Most every article here has its niche appeal. Kurtis ^(talk) 06:52, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Articles with placeholder text and raw data dumps aren't ready for mainspace

3) Ambiguous wording and placeholder text such as "It was built or has other significance", "is or was a property", "It was designed and/or built by", or "Nomination for ____, dated ___, 19__", gives the impression that the editor didn't complete his/her research. Likewise, raw data dumps within articles give the impression that the article isn't ready for public consumption.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

From Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive223#Topic ban proposal re NRHP stubs. I think this is what distinguishes Doncram's stubs from other editors' stubs, and why his editing has become so contentious. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 19:03, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Doncram is correct that it's problematic to report information that's known to represent one of several things as one of those things, but the correct course is to find out which of those things it is, not add contorted wording that says i-couldn't-be-bothered-to-find-out-what-this-actually-means.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:59, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is a good statement of one of the key issues with Doncram's stubs. Short stubs that are limited to the information that can be unambiguously extracted from the NRIS database (e.g., "Jones House is a building in Anytown, USA, that was listed on the National Register of Historic Places in 1974") are not wonderful, but they are acceptable content in article space. The problem is with using deliberately vague text and placeholders to extend beyond that level without having a basis to do so. I agree with the comments by Elkman and Sarek. --Orlady (talk) 22:01, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Mathsci: The Weller House article (version as created by Doncram) is actually in decent condition. I wouldn't call it a "sub-stub" or a "rough draft". Here are a few pages that are more characteristic of the issues: [48], [49], [50], [51]. --Orlady (talk) 16:32, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• This proposal and comments are rubbish. Orlady is bringing up 1 article created as a one-liner by Polaron in 2008, which my edits later improved, and 3 articles created by me in Dec 2010 and January 2011, more than two years ago, when experimenting with an article-draft-bot system. Orlady points to a version with a blank field for author and for date of the NRHP nomination document that a) was included from the get-go, which is great, and b) was going to be filled out shortly in the article-creation drives by myself or another participating editor. If I were creating articles from an article-draft-bot system now, they would be better anyhow, from the experience in the drive for Connecticut articles and from the drive for Grand Forks County, North Dakota article, much discussed in 2011. For example, in the bot-generated text, i would leave the author= and date= fields entirely blank, rather than show "______" in those fields until i manually filled those out a few minutes later. Big whup. For any bot drive, I would have to obtain bot-approval. Content approval / bot approval is not a matter for arbitration.

I am pretty sure there would be no coverage at all in Wikipedia of these topics if I hadn't started those 3, and they are fine as they were and are, subsequently improved. The disruption associated with any is the multiple ANIs and so on, frankly. There is no issue for an RFC, for ANI, for arbitration, no issue at all. The Weller House (Fort Bragg, California) is a fine starter article from 2012. So what. --doncram 05:45, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Rubbish", huh? Do you care to tell me what other edits I've done are rubbish? Maybe my edits to Harbor Lane-Eden Street Historic District (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) are complete rubbish. Maybe my recent edits to a bunch of outstate Minnesota churches are rubbish. Maybe a couple of my favorite articles, Peavey–Haglin Experimental Concrete Grain Elevator and Seventh Street Improvement Arches are absolute rubbish. And maybe History of Minnesota is an article full of complete garbage that has no business on Wikipedia, because it's only one article and not thousands. Why don't you tell me exactly what I'm doing that's complete rubbish? And maybe you can tell me that my edits, in general, are a "big whup". --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 14:03, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

A general guideline page about placeholders in articles would probably be a good thing to come out of this case. We have WP:PLACEHOLDERS, but that is about the long-deprecated image placeholders. Thryduulf (talk) 15:28, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to be correct. I looked over some of the 8,462 articles (including disambiguation pages and redirects) created by Doncram. Significant details, available in the sources and justifying notability, were often omitted in Doncram's sub-stub version. That applied for example to the Ambrose Whittlesey House and more recently Weller House (Fort Bragg, California). Elkman himself upgraded the first article after a dispute between Doncram and Orlady. The second article is still a sub-stub but the third source there gives copious details indicating notability, including the biography of Weller, the use of rare redwoods in the interior of the house, surviving exterior structures (such as a well) and the use of rooms for worship. All of this could easily be paraphrased to improve the article. This seems to be what Elkman has stated in his evidence. Similarly inserting additional contextual content using lengthy direct quotes from the sources is not an alternative to paraphrasing, as in the first version of the Andrew Crockett House. Mathsci (talk) 22:13, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If we had the people to patrol new articles we'd do better with some sort of sandbox before articles go "live". JASpencer (talk) 23:16, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Over in the lighthouse wikiproject for the US lighthouses we built up a list of everything listed on the USCG site at List of lighthouses in the United States, which still has a lot of red links. More recently I have made state lists in a tabular format, but these I've held in my user space until they were complete. I notice that the NHRP project likewise has list articles which break down to the county or even lower level depending on the locale. It seems to me to more reasonable to dump the NRIS data into these and then leave the individual sites redlinked until someone can write a real article. It wouldn't surprise me to find that people are less likely to work on these articles given that it's harder to meet the five times expansion criterion (and thus get a DYK for writing the real article) with a lot of boilerplate verbiage in article space. Mangoe (talk) 14:26, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is a collaborative editing environment

4) Wikipedia:Editing policy states: Wikipedia is the product of thousands of editors' contributions, each one bringing something different to the table, whether it be: researching skills, technical expertise, writing prowess or tidbits of information, but most importantly a willingness to help. Wikipedia's editing model implies that encyclopedia articles are improved the most when editors work together harmoniously. Article ownership, deep-seated personal disputes between editors, and inflexible attitudes are detrimental to a collaborative environment.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

You can even buy a business book about the Wikipedia model: Wikinomics: How Mass Collaboration Changes Everything, written way back in 2006. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 05:17, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

The time and words spent on edit warring would be better used on articles

5) The parties involved in this case have spent a lot of time arguing over the addition and removal of tags, moving articles to user space and back again, inserting and removing weasel words, and so on. Huge walls of text have appeared on Wikipedia project spaces and talk pages. In many instances, if someone had taken the effort to look up a source or to do more research, the content issue could have been resolved by expanding the article.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

This is my biggest gripe about the participants in this case, and not just limited to Doncram. I've been rereading many of the discussions involved in this case between Doncram and other participants, and it's amazed me that people are willing to spend so much time arguing over issues that could be fixed by reading and using an existing NRHP nomination form. Sometimes I feel like I've been the only person in this case who's willing to read a nomination form and fill in the missing information. And, given that Orlady has expressed her lack of interest in NRHP buildings and sites, and given that Doncram appears to be only interested in quantity of articles created, maybe I'm wasting my time in trying to make encyclopedia pages that are informative and interesting to the reader. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 23:19, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem with filling in information when it's available. When all we have accessible is the database entry, it's a bit harder. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 23:26, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I, too, have on occasion found relevant information and added it to Doncram stub articles, and at one time I worked on cleanup of several of Doncram's disambiguation pages that lacked bluelinks. However, when another user creates a large number of problematic pages on subjects about which I have no interest, and I find systematic problems with those pages, I don't feel that I have a personal obligation to rearrange my life in order to selflessly devote myself to fixing the problems I found. If the article creator couldn't be bothered to create minimally acceptable articles, why should I take it upon myself to do so? --Orlady (talk) 20:26, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Elkman's desysopping is confirmed

Striking this, as it has been found irrelevant to the case. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 07:11, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

1) Elkman's removal of admin privileges, as requested on January 15, 2009, is confirmed and endorsed by the Arbitration Committee. He may not request or re-apply for adminship unless given permission by the Arbitration Committee.

Doncram is no longer welcome to use Elkman's database tools

2) Doncram is no longer welcome to use the infobox generator or any other database query tools provided by Elkman's off-Wikipedia web server. Enforcement of this may be performed by social or technical measures.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I know that Wikipedia's governance can't make rules as to what happens on off-Wikipedia sites. This may be a highly irrelevant arbitration remedy that I'm proposing. But, given that Doncram has used my infobox generator to write substandard articles, and given that he has accused me of several errors and willful distortions of the truth (for example, that I don't know the difference between architects and builders, or that I don't know what year a structure was built), Doncram is no longer welcome to generate any NRHP articles using my tools. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 04:01, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Disambiguation

1) Doncram is directed not to create disambiguation pages before the pages they disambiguate. He may also not create pages in order to create a need for a disambiguation page.

Comment by Arbitrators:

While there was some evidence indicating that Doncram will create pages to back up his arguments in a discussion, there was no evidence pertaining to disambiguation. This will be necessary before any findings or remedies can be considered along those lines. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 21:03, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Sarek and Orlady: Thanks for that. Orlady, it would be best to move your stuff into the Evidence page, so it's easier for arbitrators to find it when they review the case. If you're unable to trim existing stuff in your section down to fit that, let me know or email the Committee to request an extension. (Also, the bot is programmed to allow a 50-word tolerance before yelling at you about length, so if you go a little over I doubt anyone will raise a huge fuss.)

In any event, I think this remedy could use a fair bit of wordsmithing if it is to be used, as the way it's currently worded it essentially forbids Doncram from creating any article if there already exists another by a similar title. I'm also still not wholly convinced that this is really one of the key problems. Hersfold non-admin^(t/a/c) 19:40, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

I didn't present evidence on this because I felt other issues were more pressing and/or recent, but it's a long-term pattern that may be considered problematic by others as well.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 02:28, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sarek is onto something here. I agree that Doncram's preemptive disambiguation campaigns have been a significant impetus toward his creation of pages that have been contentious. After seeing this proposal, I used my "Proposed findings of fact" section to discuss several relevant examples from the Evidence page. This proposed remedy could be a good way to address an underlying cause of the contention that led to this case. However, if this restriction was in place, how would the community be able to determine that a particular article creation was or wasn't done for purposes of preemptive disambiguation? --Orlady (talk) 04:58, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Likewise, we shouldn't assume that pages were created to "defend" other pages. If it's good enough that we have to ask the question (instead of knowing the answer), there's no issue to be resolved.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:22, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I took the word "defend" from the edit summaries that Doncram left when he created some of the pages cited. --Orlady (talk) 15:03, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The proposed restriction on creating pages shouldn't be limited to page creations "in order to create a need for a disambiguation page". The evidence I collected includes some instances where he created pages in order to "defend" red-link items on a pre-existing disambiguation page, including redlinks he had just added. Thus, there should be a restriction on creating article pages in order to defend the inclusion of a link on an existing disambiguation page. --Orlady (talk) 05:09, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Hersfold: In my "proposed findings of fact" section (above), I identify and discuss several items that are posted on the Evidence page that are clearly identifiable as instances of articles being created expressly for the purpose of supporting or defending a disambiguation page. If that analysis needs to be on the Evidence page, I would move it there, but doing so would cause me to exceed the 1000-word limit. --Orlady (talk) 22:35, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've moved the subject material to my section on the Evidence page, having been allotted a quota increase. (Thanks!). --Orlady (talk) 21:54, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Hersfold: I've added information about two recent disambiguation pages to my evidence. I think I have one more, if I can remember what it was... --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 00:43, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, right, that was it...--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 01:25, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@TheCatalyst31 -- I've since changed that evidence section so that the page you refer to as "the first" is no longer there. Anyone who's curious, please refer to the page history.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:54, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I long ago created all disambiguation pages (most of more than 3,000 in total) needed to disambiguate among NRHP places having the same name. There's no need and no purpose to the proposal. I should get a medal for having done all the work I did in disambiguation. There is no disruption at all.

Some commenters here seem ignorant of the value and policies associated with disambiguation pages. Comment by one below complaining about some disambiguation pages linking only to red-links is unaware, obviously, that all-redlink-pages are acceptable by wp:MOSDAB policy (as long as each redlink item includes a properly formatted supporting bluelink such as those I included to NRHP list-articles showing the same redlink in context). I joined WikiProject Disambiguation and hashed this all out properly, several times, with disambiguation-focussed editors. It's a common opinion though that all-redlinks are "bad", that an arriving editor occasionally focuses upon, and the simplest resolution is usually just to create some of the articles (as editor Catalyst31 has just done in response to MathSci's complaint below). It has seemed useful sometimes/usually create a few new stub articles, to avoid that cycle.

Make up your minds people, do you want to crucify someone for working on a disambiguation page or a list-article that has redlinks, or do you want to crucify someone for turning those redlinks blue, or do you just want to crucify no matter what. --doncram 06:07, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

MathSci, in further comments below, still indicates misunderstanding of disambiguation policy. See this March 2010 disambiguation policy discussion: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Disambiguation/Archive 21#feedback requested on NRHP dab pages, spurred mostly by the arrival of another editor, ShadowJams, who believed similarly. In the discussion ShadowJams was updated and changed their views. Expert JHunterJ and others agreed that "all-redlinks" disambiguation pages (as long as each individual "redlink entry" complies with wp:MOSDABRL by having a proper supporting bluelink) are fine. During that 2010 discussion I announced completion of massive campaign to "pro-actively" create all the needed NRHP disambiguation pages (then >3,000). User:Doncram/NRHP disambiguation is my workpage describing the scope and nature of the campaign. In the 2010 discussion, editor HornColumbia and others noted this was exactly what was needed, that it was very good to do.

ANI and arbitration are not the right forums to bring up content/policy issues. Here there is misunderstanding by MathSci and perhaps others about disambiguation policy, stirred up by SarekOfVulcan's and Orlady's accusations of wrong-doing by me, but there is no actual policy or content problem according to any "experts". An RFC at WikiProject Disambiguation focused on the content/policy would re-affirm the position I and JHunterJ and others expressed in 2010 and since. A harassing-type ANI incident, or a section in an arbitration, however, will tend to attract editors interested in confrontation (or concerned about confrontation) who will likely jump to wrong conclusions about the content/policy. This has happened again and again and again. The problem is the harassment that suggests an issue again and again and again at scattered articles and at ANI incidents and now in arbitration sections, out of appropriate context and away from calm expertise. --doncram 13:52, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

I don't see the problem here. In the first example Sarek gives on the evidence page, IvoShandor had disambiguated the article in 2007, so Doncram was hardly the only one who felt this was necessary (and I can't really blame him since Shell ran lots of service stations, even if the vast majority aren't notable). After he created the disambiguation page, he started the other article after five minutes, which is a short enough amount of time that the order shouldn't make a difference. In the second example, he started Allee House (Dutch Neck Crossroads, Delaware) four minutes after starting Allee House, which is once again too short of a time for the order to matter. By the time the page got tagged for G6, there was already a bluelinked entry, so it didn't "disambiguate no extant Wikipedia pages". The other redlinks on that page was still valid per WP:MOSDABRL, since the state/county NRHP lists linked to them (though he should have added blue links to the entries).

The idea of starting articles just so they aren't redlinked from a disambiguation page isn't bad in and of itself either, so long as they're valid articles. I mostly started Jesse J. and Mary F. Allee House to settle the whole mess in the second example, and nobody's complaining about that article. Granted, it's a problem in something like Orlady's Majestic Hotel example if Doncram doesn't make sure an entry's notable before writing the article, but since he's been accused of doing that elsewhere too I wouldn't focus on disambiguation pages as a problem. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 05:22, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Random examples of disambiguation pages created by Doncram for which all the entries are still redlinks are Simeon Smith House, Gate School and John Allen House. Mathsci (talk) 03:06, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• The above examples were all redlinks when added on 26 January. Subsequently—presumably after reading my comment—TheCatalyst31 created the first article[52] previously redlinked in Simeon Smith House on 26 January 2013; he created both articles[53][54] previously redlinked in Gate School on 27 January 2013. As I write this on February 4, the John Allen House, a disambiguation page created 2 1/2 years ago (27 July 2010), still has three redlinks. It's not very helpful to arbitrators doing this kind of WP:POINTy editing while the case is on, since other examples can be given and this skews the evidence during the case. Mathsci (talk) 07:03, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Interaction ban: Elkman/Doncram

2) Doncram and Elkman are banned from commenting to or about each other, in accordance with typical interaction bans. In addition, Doncram is not allowed to use (or comment on) Elkman's infobox generator, or any other tools he has or might code.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I'm getting a bit tired of just about every Elkman comment on Doncram containing "stop calling me a liar" or "stop using my tools and blaming me for the results". This should take care of that. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:35, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, OK. Doncram gets to say that my tools are inaccurate and that I'm contributing to lies, but I don't get to say anything about it. Yeah, that makes sense. I'll tell you what: Since you're an administrator right now and you don't like what I'm saying, just block me and then you won't have to hear me say anything. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 19:52, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

*points up to the "each other" wording that was in there when you responded* --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:57, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You forgot to press the block button. I'm not blocked yet. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 19:58, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I would, but I'm WP:INVOLVED. Do you realize how many people would jump on me for that? :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:07, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Mathsci: Yes, there is relevant evidence. Doncram has repeatedly blamed some of the issues with his stubs on problems with Elkman's web tools, most recently in this edit on this page a few hours ago. Elkman has, in turn, repeatedly complained about Doncram's negative comments about the tools. Elkman can restrict Doncram's use of his offsite tools, which are outside of Arbcom's jurisdiction. However, a mutual ban (on Doncram commenting on Elkman and his tools, and on Elkman commenting on Doncram) would be within Arbcom's jurisdiction. Such a ban would address one of the ongoing sources of disruption associated with this case -- albeit one of the less significant sources of disruption. --Orlady (talk) 21:03, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Unhelpful and hyperbolic suggestion not supported by any evidence. It is clear that Elkman's web tools are a major benefit for WP:NRHP. Mathsci (talk) 20:46, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Orlady, I do not believe that interaction bans of this kind will solve any problems at all. Mathsci (talk) 21:16, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template

3) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed principles

Completeness of articles

1) Although editors are expected to work for a minimal level of completeness when creating an article, this should not be taken as demanding that an article be finished or nearly finished soon after its creation.

Comment by Arbitrators:

No article is ever complete, no; however, I don't think that's really the main point of the dispute here. It seems as though a number of parties feel as though a portion of Doncram's article creations fail to meet that minimum standard, with blatant placeholder text and broken formatting and links. Nonetheless, since it is the main focus of the dispute, a principle along these lines could be helpful. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 21:06, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

I have sometimes characterized the problematic contributions as "rough drafts". The issue, as I see it, is not their length nor their lack of comprehensiveness, but rather their roughness. --Orlady (talk) 19:56, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

What is most perplexing to me is that a large part of this dispute appears to about about an article or list not being complete. However, it is a recognized standard that articles are rarely, if ever, "finished", even when they attain Featured status. That Doncram creates articles that could still be expanded or that may need some minor cleanup is not evidence of a serious problem, in my opinion.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 05:30, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Articles in general, need little more than to establish notability. That would be, in my wording, a short but "finished" article. Doncram creates articles with placeholder text, or lists with completely empty rows and many empty columns. Those would be short and "unfinished" articles. I don't mean finished in the sense of "this is perfect and nothing should be changed" but more in the sense that a reader shouldn't come upon it and feel like they're reading an unfinished article. I wish the wording was better. I'd really like to see a principle taken in this case that there is a difference between adequate stubs and "unfinished stubs" (again, any change in the wording would be beneficial). Ryan Vesey 21:13, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the issue is that something which has a totality of "X is in Y and was built in Z" coupled with "I'm never going to actually edit this material ever again" is the problem. Short articles are OK, but I think this is pointing at the quality of the encyclopedia. We are not a mirror of any DB, and more importantly, article creation is a choice. We are supposed to have useful articles about a topic, and when we have 8000+ things (the stub count, IIRC) that aren't expandable at all, there's a real sense that they should not have been put into the encyclopedia in the first place. Add on top of that the fact that the editor who created them openly indicates on his user page that his creation count makes him an important contributor, and yet displays an "I made it, now you expand it, because I'm not touching it again" attitude, and it becomes easy to see the issue. I think what would be better is "Don may not create stubs. He must show the article-worthiness of a creation by having exercised due diligence in locating references acceptable to show it meets guidelines" Maybe a better solution would be Don must have all material he wishes to create reviewed. Simple due diligence shows that many of his stubs weren't expandable because of a dearth of information in the first place MSJapan (talk) 22:36, 26 January 2013 (UTC).[reply]

I agree with others that this doesn't address the main issue which is that articles shouldn't be created for their own sake based on a single database list with cryptic information. There is nothing wrong with a stub if a topic is notable and has the potential to be expanded through the mining of additional sources.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:43, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Civility

2) Editors are expected to engage each other in a civil and collegial manner. This not only means avoiding personal attacks, but any inappropriate conduct that undermines a collegial and civil discourage such as persistent hounding of another editor.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

It is important to understand that avoiding naughty words and name-calling does not mean an individual is being civil. An editor can be incredibly polite in verbiage, but horrifically uncivil in deed.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 23:55, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Yes, TDA, you may be right, but your statement reeks of an elementary school vocabulary. My long-dead ancestors are at present capable of generating far better prose than what you have written" is a good (if untrue) illustration of TDA's point. Semantics is not the answer here, and that's what this principle comes across as; the focus should be on WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and "comment on the edit, not the editor" as the underlying items causing the lack of collegiality, and it's sometimes more one-sided than it might appear. Ignoring the editor/consensus/question/concern is a big part of the issue in this case. MSJapan (talk) 22:45, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The principle is essentially that hounding is also uncivil, even if one engages in all of the usual niceties. While focusing on the naughty words and name-calling may be more sexy and get people's emotions going more effectively, hounding is often more severe in its impact on civil discourse than the occasional outburst of emotion. Civil hounding prompts defensive reactions that are then used to portray the victim of the hounding as the wrongful party. It is effective because hounding cannot be readily proven with a single diff and usually has to be explained.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 00:06, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest an improved, more neutral wording such as: Editors are expected to engage each other in a civil and collegial manner and to refrain from hounding, harassment and personal attacks.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:50, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators

3) Administrators are expected to demonstrate a high standard of behavior on Wikipedia and to avoid using the tools in personal disputes.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Some of the issues concern administrative misconduct so something to this effect is probably necessary.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 23:55, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Following contributions

4) While following another editor's contributions can be constructive when done in a collegial and constructive manner, editors should generally avoid actions that would be seen as confrontational when doing so as this may rise to the level of hounding.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Noting that following can be constructive, but that certain actions can lead to it being disruptive is important to this case.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 23:32, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I get the sentiment, but the phrasing is too soft and squishy. In many cases, one bad edit (especially for a vandal account) usually indicates more. Furthermore, I could go revert one edit of yours elsewhere right now, having never interacted with you for any length of time other than right here, and you could then call it "hounding" because you thought it was. Where's the line between "constructive" and "confrontational", and how can one be cognizant of it when one can pass it without knowing it? MSJapan (talk) 01:11, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Edit-warring and move-warring without discussion is rarely constructive. Making absurd charges of plagiarism and copyright violations over legitimate use of quotes is rarely constructive.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 00:09, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Archive224 discussion, closed by an uninvolved admin, ruled that Doncram's extensive use of verbatim quotes to pad out articles was _not_ legitimate. And NRHP nomination documents are not works of the federal government, and are therefore not automatically public domain. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 00:14, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If any discussion ruled that he has never made legitimate use of quotations, then I say we just discount the results of that discussion. You may make the argument that quotations are used excessively at times, but several instances I have mentioned were cases where the use of quotations was appropriate.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 00:21, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Vague and ineffective IMHO. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:51, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed findings of fact

Doncram's article creation

1) Doncram has created thousands of short articles and lists. These articles have occasionally been controversial for being incomplete, sometimes including obvious formatting errors.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Disagree. The issues with Doncram's stubs and lists are neither their length, nor their formatting, nor their "incompleteness". Short stubs are OK; format issues can be corrected; and anyway, Doncram is more adept at formatting than most of the rest of us. The concerns relate to publishing content that is based only on unsupportable inferences from often-cryptic database entries (this could be considered original research, although that label involves a judgement call), publishing pages in article space that include deliberately vague statements (e.g., "is or was") and placeholders (including, but not limited to, explicit blanks to be filled in), publishing content in article space that is more about building an encyclopedia than it is encyclopedic content, and publishing long verbatim quotations of presumed-copyright text instead of restating the information to original wording. --Orlady (talk) 19:50, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Disagree as well. Don has created stubs which: a) he takes public credit for as "created articles"; b) he refuses to ever work on again; and c) probably should not have been created in the first place. The stubs are poor quality and will remain so because of a lack of sources, not bad formatting. Due diligence in research would have shown that these stubs are not expandable because of the inability to locate acceptable sources. MSJapan (talk) 22:50, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree. The sub-stubs were created semi-automatically without due dilligence often from inadequate sources. The result was articles made up of a series of disjointed, ambiguous phrases, often with large chunks of text copy-pasted verbatim without paraphrase. There appears to have been no intention of improving the sub-stubs at a later stage using better sources. Mathsci (talk) 00:04, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Orlady's and Doncram interactions

2) Orlady's focus on Doncram's conduct and the mutual nature of their interactions have been a source of disruption to the project.

Comment by Arbitrators:

As I mentioned above, I've not seen anything in evidence to support the notion that Orlady is being actively incivil, certainly not to the degree Doncram has been towards her. Do you have evidence to this effect? Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 21:09, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. Let's see what Orlady says in response to AGK's question above. Hersfold non-admin^(t/a/c) 19:47, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Mutually uncivil and combative behavior is being demonstrated in the evidence page and I may add more evidence on the matter.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 05:30, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Hersfold I am going to add some more evidence imminently, singling out one incident in particular that I think exemplifies the problem, but the very nature of Orlady's hounding is uncivil. Doncram's outbursts are, in my estimation, a response to that persistent hounding of several years going and any decision has to consider the effect such prolonged mistreatment would have on his behavior towards Orlady.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 21:29, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:52, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Orlady hounding

3) Orlady has persistently followed Doncram's contributions for years, edit-warring and move-warring with him in many instances. In one instance Orlady used sysop tools to end a move-war with Doncram. Orlady has created pages that have been described as serving to criticize or impugn Doncram and cited these during arguments with Doncram, once in a manner that could be construed as a threat.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Per my most recent bit of evidence regarding the Clausen discussion and some of the other evidence provided.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 22:57, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• No convincing evidence has so far been produced for this finding (Orlady tactfully opined that the Clausen article should be about the architect; her meticulously explained timeline of edits to that article and its talk page sre here). Any stub carries an invitation to others to improve it. It is possible to produce stubs on buildings on the NRHP which are adequate and can stand as wikipedia articles without further editing (cf the stubs created by Swampyank), but many of Doncram's sub-stubs are inadequate with partial or ambiguous information, useless for the reader. Statements about hounding, edit-warring and move-warring should be backed up by substantial amounts of convincing evidence with carefully argued diffs, if they exist. Mathsci (talk) 04:55, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Provocation and Doncram's incivility

4) Doncram's incivility towards Orlady has often been a response to hounding by Orlady.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

This is actually going off Orlady's own evidence to an extent, with my own evidence and some of the other evidence being used as well. Interestingly, Orlady's reference to one incident stating "Doncram's first comment on an AfD I opened in November 2012 is a gratuitous attack" completely ignores that Orlady was nominating an article created by Doncram a mere two days before. Persistent hounding often leads to the types of outbursts Doncram has had and the Clausen incident is an example. One could say that such hounding is intended to bring about such outbursts as it can help realize the desired end of the hounding.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 22:57, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If Doncram has been incivil its his own responsibility and no one else's.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:02, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nyttend's deletion

5) Nyttend has inappropriately deleted content created by Doncram.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Per the evidence given here and here.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 21:25, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Interaction ban

1) Orlady and Doncram are subject to an interaction ban.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

@Kumioko: Hmm, bad blood you say? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:21, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

A lot of the incivility seen on both sides is due to these two not being able to leave each other alone, from what I can tell. This would be intended to resolve that problem.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 05:30, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The interaction ban should also include SarakofVulcan as well. There is a lot of bad blood and incivility between he and Doncram as well. Kumioko (talk) 03:58, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not between you and I, between you and Doncram. Trying to discredit my opinion by posting a 2+ year old block is a pretty weak argument. Kumioko (talk) 04:29, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nyttend admonished

2) Nyttend is admonished for using the tools to improperly delete content.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

I think the second DRV is especially troubling as the claim of unambiguous copyright violation was already seen as dubious by another admin and faced stern opposition from uninvolved editors at DRV, yet Nyttend then put forward a "compromise" that effectively did nothing to acknowledge the actual problem with the G12 deletion.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 21:25, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed principles

Responses to hounding

1) When hounding of an editor results in that editor engaging in incivility or other policy violations, any remedy must address the hounding as well as that editor's response to the hounding.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Incivility sometimes is the result of deliberate provocation, and it is unfair when the editor being provoked is the only one sanctioned. Sanctioning only the provoked editor also encourages more wikihounding, as it makes this an effective way to drive away an opponent. Doncram should not be the only editor sanctioned in this case, nor should such an imbalance of remedies exist in future cases. --Mors Martell (talk) 07:13, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the principle as a general statement. I haven't reviewed enough of the evidence to know whether Doncram has been hounded, but if he has then certainly those doing the hounding need to be sanctioned at least as strictly for their behaviour. The way to deal with bullying is not to punish only the victim. Thryduulf (talk) 15:21, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The victim should never be punished. In this case, Doncram is certainly not a victim of hounding, only a target of concern because he creates poor quality articles. Following him around to clean up the mess is a praiseworthy effort. Binksternet (talk) 19:17, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm very concerned that some folks are buying into the "all my bad behavior is because of someone else" routine. We've all been subjected to the bad behavior of other editors, sometimes continuous bad behavior over months. There are options: ask for help, go to a community forum, go to ANI or just walk away and find somethnig else to do. We cannot go around justifying our own bad behavior because we feel we have been mistreated. That's childish. We have to take responsibility for what we've done regardless of the circumstances.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:12, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing childish about it at all. It is called a mitigating circumstance. Given that courts of law view certain circumstances as making an offense less severe, Wikipedia should consider it even more important as we aren't even about rules after all.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 06:17, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are a lot of gangs in the crime-ridden sections of Near North, Minneapolis that use that excuse as well. A member of a gang disses a member of a rival gang, and then the second gang does a drive-by shooting at the first gang, and then the first gang does another drive-by shooting, and so on, until some innocent victim gets killed. Whether you're in north Minneapolis or on Wikipedia, we're all responsible for our individual actions. And mitigating circumstances don't make the offense less severe -- they make the punishment less severe. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 14:07, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sanctions aren't supposed to be punitive either as our concern is with what causes disruption and in that case the context of an uncivil remark matters a great deal. If someone is doing something inappropriate or uncivil to provoke those uncivil remarks, then we should be more concerned about the conduct of the former individual than that of the latter individual. Remarks here make it seem as if Wikipedia is about rules and punishment when it is not supposed to be about either.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 18:59, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

By that logic, I suppose a person would have to conclude that George Zimmerman should get off scot-free in the fatal shooting of Trayvon Martin because Martin was the one who provoked the shooting by "cutting in-between houses...walking very leisurely for the [rainy] weather" and "looking at all the houses". --Orlady (talk) 19:08, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If Martin had been following Zimmerman then I believe the charges would be for lesser offenses without question, if he were charged at all. That Wikipedia is not about rules and sanctions not about punishment suggests that mitigating circumstances are even more important in determining the outcome.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 22:21, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed principles

Fair criticism

2) Editors are encouraged to engage in frank discussion of matters affecting the project, and are encouraged to share even those facts and opinions which demonstrate the shortcomings of the project, its policies, its decision making structure, and its leaders. Such discourse is limited by policies such as no personal attacks, no legal threats, and the expectation that even difficult situations will be resolved in a dignified fashion. Editors who have genuine grievances against others are expected to avail themselves of the dispute resolution mechanism rather than engage in unbridled criticism across all available forums.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Regarding the first sentence, I see "Editors are encouraged to engage in frank discussion of matters affecting the project" as a valid principle that is potentially relevant here, but I'm not sure that the part about "encouraged to share even those facts and opinions which demonstrate the shortcomings of the project, its policies, its decision making structure, and its leaders" has application to this case. The issues in this case do not relate to the overall project, its policies, its decision making structure, or its leaders. Regarding the rest of this principle, it's my perception that Wikipedia's dispute resolution mechanisms are not well-suited to resolving the kinds of minor issues (such as whether Old Town (Franklin, Tennessee) should be one article or three, or what links to include in the "See also" section of an article) that have arisen repeatedly in the history behind this case. --Orlady (talk) 15:50, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed, from Durova. Please see my comment below [55] for more information, but I feel that this principle will be necessary to address the conduct of the editors who have most assiduously attempted to correct Doncram's editing. Archaeo (talk) 18:52, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, Orlady. I've struck that clause, because you're right, inasmuch as the present dispute doesn't really involve criticism of the project. I disagree that the dispute resolution process can't handle minor issues; WP:CONTENTDISPUTE offers several venues, for example. The problem is when those minor issues snowball into a larger dispute, as is the case here, and parties to the dispute begin hounding one another across the entire 'pedia in order to address the initial minor problems. I don't think it's unreasonable to see this case through that lens: disagreements about stub creation were exacerbated by increasingly hostile tactics on both sides, which occasionally reached the level of policy violation, notably Sarek's intentional 3RR violation and some of the more uncivil comments made by several parties to the case. I don't think that the "Fair criticism" principle was upheld throughout this dispute, and I believe ArbCom should address this in some fashion; the Durova example was just the first that came to mind. Archaeo (talk) 21:19, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think its a good general principle and relevant to this case.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:15, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed principles

Minimal article creation standards

1) Although there are no formally defined minimal article creation standards established editors creating a new article should have enough context to establish notability and should avoid copyrignht violation.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

That would be "must avoid", not "should avoid". --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:00, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Adapted from WP:IDEALSTUB. The dispute about the minimal standards for article creation seems to be a root of the problem. JASpencer (talk) 21:29, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A minimal article creation standard for established editors would be a fine thing for the wiki, and it would stop Doncram's most disruptive practices. I think such a minimum standard should be decided upon and codified wiki-wide rather than applied only to this case. Binksternet (talk) 03:37, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's why I'm trying to draw out the currently established conditions here. I think that the discussion could either fall into the trap of (1) there are no minimal standards (even for experienced editors) or (2) there is a good way to set up an article that I use and this editor falls below them. JASpencer (talk) 08:42, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template

2) {text of Proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

NRHP articles are rarely deleted

1) An article that is about an NRHP listed building is in almost every case going to survives an Article for Deletion debate.

Comment by Arbitrators:

There is a conceptual problem at play here, in that notability isn't a criteria for inclusion in the first place. Verifiability is, and clear notability is simply a probability that reliable sources can be found; that NRHP listed buildings are granted a presumption of notability does not confer a cloak of invulnerability upon every article describing them. — Coren ^(talk) 19:42, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

It might be a principle, but there hasn't been evidence presented that would allow this to be a finding of fact.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 08:23, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if it's a matter of arbitration to state that an NRHP article is going to survive an AFD debate. I think the consensus at WP:NRHP and in deletion debates has been that since the National Park Service has standards of notability and requirements for documentation of National Register properties, buildings and structures on the National Register should pass the notability standards for Wikipedia articles. That said, it's still possible to craft a poorly-written Wikipedia article about an NRHP property, and if the article is too poorly written, it has the potential to be deleted or remanded back to the creating user until it meets Wikpedia standards. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 03:31, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

There is room here for debate; the inability to expand a stub on a de facto "notable" item calls into question its notability; in many cases, unexpandable material is merged into a larger article where individual notability is not a criterion, and it can be broken out again if material comes to light (an actor in a future films being a common example of this - the redlink film is often included in a filmography prior to release if the film is in process, and is expanded after actual release. BIO1E is another place where this occurs frequently). GNG is hard to apply for a building, but there should be enough material there to go beyond existence = notability (which is contrary to policy). So, if only existence alone can be shown, should the building's presence on a NRHP list someplace make it immune to deletion as an standalone article even when it impacts the overall quality of the encyclopedia? MSJapan (talk) 06:05, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is a proposed finding of fact which is not saying that NRHP buildings should survive AfD in almost every case, but that they do. I don't see any counter-examples in MSJapan's comment. JASpencer (talk) 08:06, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This would be a content ruling and Arbcom won't do that. If you changed the tense to say that they did pass, that could be a simple statement of fact. Saying here that they "do" or are "going to" implies that Arbcom endorses a keep on all deletion discussions for future articles of this type. 204.101.237.139 (talk) 19:32, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. Changed tense. JASpencer (talk) 23:12, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Three principal complaints

2) The complaints in this arbitration can be summarised in the following three allegations, (a) that Doncram is creating a large number of substandard articles, (b) that Sarek and Orlady are aggresively tracking Doncram's edits and (c) that all major parties have been uncivil to the point of treating Wikipedia as a battleground.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Disagree on all three counts.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 08:25, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is an unbelievably minor nitpick, but can we please start spelling "principal" and "principle" correctly on these pages? In the case of the header for this conversation, the correct spelling is "principal", for the word that means "main" or "primary". It's unbelievably easy to mess up in typing (see my edit history for evidence of that!) and to get these words mixed up; I'm commenting because I keep seeing this heading and thinking it refers to "three principles". --Orlady (talk) 01:50, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

@Sarek - What's your contention, you seem to be disagreeing with the allegations rather than the fact that the allegations have been made. JASpencer (talk) 09:56, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Orlady. Edited. Not a minor point at all. JASpencer (talk) 23:13, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are no longer issues with the sourcing of NRHP article created by Doncram

3) Doncram's recent creation of arcicles are now recognised as being adequately sourced. There are no longer issues with Doncram's article sourcing, although this was an historic complaint. JASpencer (talk) 22:50, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Just because I didn't spot problems doesn't mean that Arbcom can declare there aren't any. And the caste lists are probably a counterexample, anyway. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 08:32, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

From Sarek's line above "Last time I reviewed his new stubs, they all seemed to have at least one other ref besides the NRIS backing up the data." JASpencer (talk) 22:50, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If this is only about NRHP articles then I don't have an opinion. However, the arbitration appears to me to be about Doncram's article creation practices, and they still indicate problems, as discussed here on Doncram's talk page. When he created the article First Parish Unitarian Universalist Church of Scituate, he copied and pasted text from a list article, the text having been added earlier by another editor. This text was a copyright violation, as any experienced editor who was interested in the topic would have quickly found out by looking for sources about the church. Instead, Doncram ignorantly pasted the text to create a new article, and he provided the church's main page URL which did not even support the text (let alone reveal it to be copyvio.) In other words, "Doncram's recent creation of articles" continues to be problematic. They are decidedly not "recognised as being adequately sourced" in all cases. Binksternet (talk) 03:48, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That is a pretty weak argument. All manner of editors assume good faith when creating a new article using existing material and don't check for those kinds of issues. Should he have checked? Well, sure, but that is hardly relevant to the matter here and is not really something to go after him on. You should reserve your disapproval for the person who actually added the copyvio.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 17:06, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Sarek. Of course arbcom may find counterexamples within NRHP, but this is a proposal. On the caste system this is dealt with through a topic ban, evidence has not been taken on this, it was not the main area of the request, so it really should be treated as irrelevant. JASpencer (talk) 09:59, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sarek's involvement in this series dated from a dispute around Masonic buildings and was a violation of WP:INVOLVE

4) Sarek of Vulcan started interacting with Doncram in an extensive way due to a dispute around Masonic buildings which Doncram was creating and various editors associated with Project Freemasonry (and who were themselves Freemasons) regarded as either unworthy of inclusion or improperly categorised as Masonic. Sarek was asked to get involved as an admin. Sarek as a Freemason would have found it difficult to have used the admin tools to his usual high standards and should have recused himself under WP:INVOLVE.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

@The Devil's Advocate: It's a severe stretch to find Sarek's AFD nomination of this version of Sons of Haiti to be a violation of WP:INVOLVED. Starting an AFD is not an administrative action. Furthermore, that article was pathetic, and it was pathetic because users had thus far been unsuccessful in finding reliable information about the topic suitable for an article; Sarek said as much in his nomination. A person doesn't need to be a Freemason to see a problem there. Moreover, I note that most of the AFD participants on the "Keep" side also apparently are Freemasons, so it's not obvious that being a Freemason caused him to have a bias against that article. If anything, it would appear that being a Freemason is a basis for caring enough about the subject to pay attention to articles about it. --Orlady (talk) 12:52, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Trying to summarise Sarek's involvement to see if he, and other editors agree. This is to get some sort of concensus around the issue. JASpencer (talk) 10:21, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree. JASpencer is assuming and overstating the scope of interest. He is also misrepresenting the policy-based nature of the dispute in favor of claiming it was entirely personal opinion. Being X in country Y does not mean that one has an automatic strong POV and involvement in X in any other area Z. If that was the case, than I have several hundred instances of inappropriate edit behavior from JASpencer. That statement has never been part of Wikipedia policy. JASpencer further assumes that Sarek "would have found it difficult, etc." which is entirely an opinion-based statement; there is no way JASpencer has any basis to claim to know what Sarek would or would not have trouble with. The issues regarding the building have already been brought up - one line about a building no one could get any other information on (or for which the information was wrong) did not strike anyone as being appropriate article material based on RS. Other parties have a much better overall picture of the matter than JASpencer's summation does. MSJapan (talk) 01:01, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying that most of Sarek's interaction is of the same standard. That sounds like an argument for desysopping. I disagree and think that any criticism that Sarek will get should be limited to the subject areas rather than as a general condemnation of his whole administration style. JASpencer (talk) 23:17, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See my comment regarding the suggestion for desysopping. There has been a recent dispute over WP:TITLE at AE that suggests Sarek misuses his position outside these disputes.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 00:21, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am looking for the evidence that SoV misused his tools on Freemasonry articles. WP:INVOLVED does not automatically prohibit a Freemason from acting with respect to Freemasonry-related articles, any more than it prevents an admin who lives in the United Stetes from acting with respect to United States-related articles. Rlendog (talk) 21:56, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Him being a Freemason doesn't adequately define the WP:INVOLVED problem. Sarek nominated an article for deletion, edit-warred with Doncram and another editor, and then blocked both of them for edits on that article (see evidence presented: here). That he is a Freemason just aggravates the WP:INVOLVED problem. Again, this seems to be a recurring problem with Sarek given his reconfirmation RFA nearly two years ago and has been recently raised as a concern in other topic areas as well as I found out at the AE case I mentioned above.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 05:45, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But the remedy proposed specifically addresses Freemasonry. As far as I can tell from regarding the Sons of Haiti incident, SoV nominated the article for deletion shortly after it was created. But this was an editing action, not an administrative action. A few days later, SoV blocked both parties in an editing dispute over the Sons of Haiti article and Grand Lodge of Idaho - blocking both Doncram and the other party (who happened to be Blueboar). There seems to be some disagreement over whether Blueboar actually violated 3RR and whether his block at least was appropriate ([56] and [57] versus Rd232's and WhatamIdoing's comments in this thread.) Rd232 also raises the WP:INVOLVED issue, i.e., "Sarek, you've very recently edited Sons of Haiti on one of the issues Blueboar was discussing, to a degree which may not rise to WP:INVOLVED but is still less than ideal," although not in the context of SoV being a Freemason but due to SoV's recent edits on the article (and concludes that it "may not rise to WP:INVOLVED.") Possibly mitigating any inappropriate action here, SoV did block both parties evenhandedly, and did raise the issue at WP:AN. And since the issue of SoV's reconfirmation was raised, it is only fair to note that any inappropriate admin actions on SoV's part in this dispute occured before that reconfirmation. So I see nothing here that would support a ban from Freemasonry articles, either as an admin or an editor. Of course, if SoV has been using his tools inappropriately more broadly, that may warrant action, although that probably is beyond the scope of this RfAr. Rlendog (talk) 16:22, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A ban from Freemasonry articles is not really necessary, but the finding above concerns his use of the tools while involved and that has been a persistent issue. See the evidence I provided regarding the recent move-war. I have also kept mentioning a situation at WP:TITLE and Sarek's use of the discretionary sanctions that has also raised concerns about WP:INVOLVED misuse of the tools. A sanction he recently imposed in that area was overturned as problematic and several admins agreed that Sarek was involved in the dispute when he issued the sanction. So the problem isn't just with this case. His conduct, past and present, warrants desysopping in my opinion and that is not beyond the scope of this case as his interactions with Doncram include his use of the tools in those interactions. An interaction ban with Doncram would therefore also be a good idea.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 17:10, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement

Recusal of Sarek from Historic Buildings and Freemasonry

1) Sarek agrees to a recusal from admin roles and discipline\policy decisions in the Historic Buildings and Freemasonry areas. All Admin actions that he believes are necesary will be requested through the Administrators Noticeboard. This will be backed by sanctions that could include desysopping and\or topic bans if Sarek does not abide to this.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

No need for this. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:52, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have not studied Sarek's edit history related to the topics of Freemasonry, Masonic buildings, and other historic buildings. It is, however, my recollection that Sarek was an informed voice of reason in the altercations regarding List of Masonic buildings and related articles, where the main disputants were Doncram and Blueboar. --Orlady (talk) 01:59, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

It seems that Sarek got far too deeply involved and emotional due to his interest in Masonic buildings and to some associated editors asking him for help. If he had not been involving himself in an area where he has a strong Point of View then the situation would be less likely to have escalated. Sarek's unofficial avoidance of some areas around Catholicism and Freemasonry works quite well. If this could be made wider, official and backed by sanctions I think this would mean the project could keep a valuable admin (and contributor in these areas) which desysopping and a topic ban would lose. It does rely on Sarek's acceptance of his problem with WP:INVOLVE, which I have not seen a clear cut acceptance, which is why I will also propose a topic ban as a less preferred solution. JASpencer (talk) 10:06, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Sarek - what do you mean "no need for this". Do you see no problem with your behaviour in this area or do you think that there is another remedy that you could offer. I think resigning as an admin - although this would certainly make this redundant would be a retrograde step. JASpencer (talk) 17:26, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. I'm not aware of admin tools being used by SOV in the Freemasonry area in the first place (and have not in fact seen an evidentiary diff related to such). To show that, one would have to show that this was not in fact limited to doncram (which it seems to be), but showed abuse of tools on a wide range of articles. That has been neither claimed nor shown. I note here also that automated rollbacks and reverts are not "admin tools." MSJapan (talk) 00:39, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your memory seems to be failing. Sarek blocked Doncram and Blueboar for 48 hours in October 2010. Blueboar asked for a similar measure last month, so it seems to be an expectation. JASpencer (talk) 23:22, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any evidence that SoV acted inappropriately using his admin tools in issues regarding Freemasonry, including any violation of WP:INVOLVED. Just because SoV is interested in Freemasonry doesn't automatically make any action regarding Freemason articles a violation. And the only diff provided is a request by another editor, with no indication that SoV responded iinappropriately. Rlendog (talk) 21:48, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that SoV's interaction with Doncram apparently began over a Freemasonry issue, but that in itself is no reason for a topic ban or recrusal. The initial interaction could have been over any topic. Rlendog (talk) 21:52, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sarek is Topic Banned from Historic Buildings and Freemasonry

2) Sarek of Vulcan is Topic Banned from the Historic Buildings and Freemasonry areas.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

No evidence presented that this is necessary. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:52, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, JASpencer, I think that you are trying to use sanctions on me to win your own content dispute, and you jumped into this case in the furtherance of that, so I am not interested in defending myself against your unsubstantiated charges.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 23:01, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any evidence that Sarek has had problems working with editors other than Doncram in the area of historic buildings? From what I can tell, he hasn't had any major disagreements to the point of disruption in those areas. If you have any evidence that he's biased about other historic buildings, then let's see it. I haven't followed any of his contributions to Freemasonry, so I can't comment on that area. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 18:37, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@JASpencer: If it's not established in this arbcom that there are problems with Sarek's involvement in these areas, why should he be restricted? --Orlady (talk) 01:52, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

I'd prefer a recusal from Admin roles in this area, but this would involve a voluntary agreement from Sarek. If there is no voluntary agreement then I think that this is a more appropriate way of dealing with the involved and emotional nature of his editing due to his interest in Masonic buildings and to some associated editors asking him for help. JASpencer (talk) 10:10, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Sarek - do you really think that WP:INVOLVE does not apply to yourself and Freemasonry related articles? Or is it that your interaction with other Masonic editors was not problematic, or seen to be problematic? Or that you did not become involved when other editors started to object to Doncram's treatment of articles about Masonic buildings? JASpencer (talk) 17:31, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree. By JASpencer's usage, WP:INVOLVED would also recuse JASpencer from Catholicism articles broadly due to religious affiliation, and I don't think that's his intent. INVOLVED has to do with admin use of tools with respect to disputes with users and topics, not an outright banning of activity in areas. As mentioned elsewhere, I have seen no use of tools in the topic area in question that I can reliably recall, nor have I seen a diff to the contrary. I concur with SOV's appraisal of this item above as an attempt to sanction a user to win a content dispute. I'm active on most of the main Freemasonry articles, and I think I'd actually be hard-pressed to find a substantive edit in quite some time from SOV. I would also note that elsewhere in these proceedings, JASpencer claimed he didn't want a topic ban, so I'm not sure why there's a sudden change. MSJapan (talk) 00:50, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Neither you nor I would be recused MSJapan as we are not admins. However this is about a topic ban. If Sarek doesn't accept he has a problem, and the arbitrators think he does then this will be the least harsh sanction they would have available. JASpencer (talk) 23:24, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As with the recrusal proposal, I don't see any evidence of SoV acting inappropriately on Freemasonry articles that would justify this sanction. Admins are editors; they have as much right to edit Catholicism or Freemasonry articles, even if they subscribe to those beliefs, as non-admins do. Rlendog (talk) 21:50, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's not editing, it's admining. JASpencer (talk) 22:21, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This sanction seems to cover editing as well as admining. I don't think arbitrators would be precluded from banning SoV from using tools in Freemasonry-related articles if they felt that was appropriate, although, as per my comment above, personally I am not seeing evidence to that effect. Rlendog (talk) 22:51, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's true and Sarek's got no problems with editing in these areas. However if he's not prepared to recuse himself in these areas (and he doesn't accept that he has a problem with his use of admin tools) then the arbitrators will have to make a choice if they feel his admin pattern is problematic in a limited range of areas partly due to his bias? Do they ignore it and hope nothing happens, do they desysopp him and lose an otherwise good admin or do they topic ban him. All have their downsides, this one seems to have the least. Recusing would be better, but it needs Sarek to accept that there is a problem here. JASpencer (talk) 23:25, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• This is not necessary as SoV's non-admin involvement with those topics has been appropriate. Binksternet (talk) 03:42, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed principles

Responsibility for edits

1) The human editor remains responsible for their edits, even when using automated tools, scripts or bots. If there are problems with an editor's edits, it is reasonable to ask the editor behind them to rectify the problems. This applies equally if the edits were made using an automated tool. If an editor regularly makes problematic edits, particularly if they are not willing to work to rectify the issues, they may be asked to stop making this kind of edit.

Comment by Arbitrators:

As a bot operator, and someone who has been involved in automated editing almost since I first started editing here, I agree with this wholeheartedly. Your tool's edits are your edits, and if your code or your data sources are incorrect then it is your responsibility to clean up after them. — Coren ^(talk) 19:46, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Strongly agree. I've said this, in several different forms, in many different discussions. It remains to the individual editor to verify that the content presented by the infobox generator is correct. Also, the NRHP database is somewhat more prone to data entry error or other human errors than other databases. (As an example, the database thinks the Queen Avenue Bridge is spelled as "Queene", but it isn't.) --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 03:38, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Someone has raised above that perhaps more guidelines about script generated stubs are needed. I think there is a principal that needs to be stated more clearly first. This isn't the only time that this kind of problem has arisen. It isn't anyone's fault that the NRIS database is compiled from paper records with the information in the wrong boxes, unreadable, or expanded to three paragraphs on the back of the form. However, if an editor runs a script to pull data from that database, and it returns horseburgers because the underlying data is entered badly, they are still his edits, not the script fairy's.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:02, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. Binksternet (talk) 19:14, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A good foundation principle that may be helpful in clarifying the evidence presented.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:54, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template

2) {text of Proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

Doncram's editing

1) Doncram has created in a semi-automated way a large number of stubs, disambiguation pages and lists which he has often left in a rudimentary state. Sometimes incompleteness and—in the case of some lists—impracticality of completion result in some of these articles being unhelpful or misleading for wikipedia readers. His contributions to wikipedia are clearly well meaning and in good faith, but his methods and aims mean that in many cases quantity is given precedence over quality.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Summary from evidence produced on case pages. The principles put forward by Guerillero seem to be comprehensive and well chosen. Mathsci (talk) 11:25, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well said and a good FOF.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:56, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is a drastic improvement from my Nexus of the Dispute fof --Guerillero | My Talk 05:19, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Doncram's reactions to others

2) Many of Doncram's stubs are routinely improved by other editors, many of whom are directly involved in WP:NRHP. Where problems have arisen with stubs, disambiguation pages or lists, Doncram has often unduly personalized issues. Sometimes this has been taken to the the extent of demonizing those criticizing the articles, with expressions of bad faith and unprovoked personal attacks. Doncram's reactions have often hampered discussions about how to move forward, for example in renaming articles or lists or deciding on their possible scope.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Attempt to summarize the conduct problems. Mathsci (talk) 11:25, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have a problem with a few of the adjectives, but a good overveiw. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:58, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Doncram's evidence

3) Despite a request for extra time, Doncram did not provide much extra evidence within the extra two weeks provided. What little he added was not produced in a timely fashion and several statements of a serious nature about other users were left without supporting diffs.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Perhaps something worded around a general perceived lack in responsiveness or willingness to support allegation would be better; this seems to be the core issue rather than its specific instance during the case. — Coren ^(talk) 19:48, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

@Coren: I guess you are suggesting that the finding could be something like "Doncram makes broad accusations against other editors without supplying evidence to support his assertions." His statements on the Evidence page of this Case would constitute one example. Here's another diff of accusations that weren't supported by diffs or other evidence: [58]. And here's a series of four diffs, starting with a long and broadly accusatory comment by Doncram (contained in two separate diffs), followed by my plea that he provide some evidence to support his accusations against me, and his response: [59] and [60], [61], [62]. --Orlady (talk) 22:25, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are also some significant unsubstantiated accusations in some of the 11 posts he made at my RfA in 2009. I hasten to point out that he did provide evidence for some specific accusations, but those accusations were accompanied by some very broad accusations that weren't substantiated. Here are some diffs: [63], [64], [65], [66] --Orlady (talk) 22:53, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Summary of evidence-gathering stage. Mathsci (talk) 11:25, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good observations but not sure it's an appropriate FOF. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:59, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Summary of dispute by AGK

The following is a general summary of the dispute, as I perceive it to stand. Comments on this summary are welcome on the Workshop talk page.

Once again, comments on this summary are welcome on the talk page. AGK [•] 15:01, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss this

Proposed principles

Template

1) {text of Proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of Proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed principles

Template

1) {text of Proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of Proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Template