Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 03:15, 1 March 2013

Case clerk: TBD Drafting arbitrator: TBD

Misplaced Pages Arbitration
About arbitrationTalk Arbitration policy (CU/OS) Guide to arbitration Noticeboard + Talk Search archived proceedings Ban appealsReport
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 ElectionsTalk History Clerks+ Talk Clerk procedures Conflict of interest reports
Audit Talk StatisticsTalk Reports (pre-2016)
Track related changes
v t e

Behaviour on this page: Arbitration case pages exist to assist the Arbitration Committee in arriving at a fair, well-informed decision. You are required to act with appropriate decorum during this case. While grievances must often be aired during a case, you are expected to air them without being rude or hostile, and to respond calmly to allegations against you. Accusations of misbehaviour posted in this case must be proven with clear evidence (and otherwise not made at all). Editors who conduct themselves inappropriately during a case may be sanctioned by an arbitrator or clerk, without further warning, by being banned from further participation in the case, or being blocked altogether. Personal attacks against other users, including arbitrators or clerks, will be met with sanctions. Behavior during a case may also be considered by the committee in arriving at a final decision.

Forcing AFC?

Ryan Vesey suggested Doncram be forced to submit articles through WP:AFC. Is it possible to remove all user rights from Doncram so that he cannot move articles or create them—the same restrictions as an IP user—even though he continues to keep his username? Binksternet (talk) 23:04, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

There is no technical way of doing this --Guerillero | My Talk 23:25, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Binksternet (talk) 00:54, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Actually you technically can. It would require the creation of a new group that revoked the "createpage" and "move" rights. I think doing that would be silly though. Legoktm (talk) 11:03, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Technically I think the edit filter can also be used to revoke autoconfirmed status. But seriously I can't see what's wrong with just enforcing an article creation ban by block if such a restriction is desired. Jafeluv (talk) 12:36, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Note on triaging the writing of proposed decision

The proposed decision in this case is imminent, so I wish to make it clear in advance that the decision was written by both me and NuclearWarfare. The writing of the decision was triaged as follows: NuclearWarfare chiefly examined the conduct of Doncram; I chiefly examined the conduct of every other party; and the remedies and principles (as well as the findings) reflect that division of labour. If it appears as though NW is only proposing clauses that relate to Doncram and I am only making proposals that relate to other editors than Doncram, it is because that is how we decided to divide the task of writing the decision. AGK 13:34, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Proposed Decision

I'm not one to pester, but we're a few days over the PD due date. Is there an updated ETA for the proposed decision? Hasteur (talk) 13:12, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, I'm one to pester. :-) For those of us whose wiki-future is hanging on this, it would be nice to at least know when to expect it. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:39, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

We're having a last discussion about which remedies to pursue, and when that discussion is concluded the proposed decision will be posted. I imagine we will be voting in a couple of days. AGK 14:03, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

What happened to hammering it out in public on the PD page? Transparency Is Your Friend. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:05, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Given that we have to vote on all case decisions in public, that will still happen. Nothing is being done here that isn't done in every other arbitration case. AGK 14:39, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

+1 to SoV. Hammering out the PD in public (and Arbs giving their thoughts) allowed the community to see where the committee is leaning with their consensus and propose future alternatives to satisfy the community's desires and pass the committee's muster. Hasteur (talk) 15:24, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Considering that most of the participants in this case (myself included) have little or no previous experience with Arbcom and (as can be seen from the Evidence and Workshop pages) didn't have a very good idea how to participate, I certainly have been hoping for some meaningful give-and-take with the arbitrators... --Orlady (talk) 16:06, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

• That doesn't happen very much if at all. The workshop page and especially the talk pages of the case are largely or completely ignored by arbitrators, at least in so far as their participation is concerned. Also, the date for the proposed decision being due isn't a firm date. Proposed decisions are often late. 1/2 of the last 6 case PDs were late. The timeline is governed by this, in which you will note it says "target times may be lengthened or shortened by initiative of the Committee". --Hammersoft (talk) 16:39, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

• Update on PD: Although it will be a few hours over the "couple of days" I promised, I think we will have our draft finalised by tomorrow. The various extensions we afforded during the evidence phase—and the arrival in our docket of two other cases and several other, very important matters—has thrown our punctuality a little, but I think we should still be able to decide this case with minimal deviation from the schedule. Thank you to everybody for your patience. AGK 19:40, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

• I've published the PD and the committee will now vote on the proposals. Thanks again for your patience! AGK 22:20, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Note on 2011 stub articles, contradiction vs. stub policy

In the proposed findings, the suggested "Problems with articles" item is supported by diffs to several NRHP articles created by me in 2011 using a /drafts bot-like system. You can and will vote however you like, and I don't object to your commenting and voting about those 2011 items.

However, I think the selected examples are biased to be unrepresentative, those are ones where less was available, e.g. a full NRHP nomination document was not available to be included by me. You can fairly say that the statement applies to some of my articles, the ones less adequate even in my own view. But please note a) those were discussed much then and since, and consequences were imposed, including several long blocks, and several editors following and imposing other consequences by their following behavior; b) those were created in 2011 using the system I used for several counties during 2011 alone; c) those were created under an approved bot (see Misplaced Pages:Bots/Requests for approval/ThreeBot and User:ThreeBot). I would not now create articles just like those; the feedback has influenced me and my own taste has changed, including from working closely with editor cbl62 during 2012 while I completed out North Dakota NRHP articles and created many hundreds of architect/builder/engineer articles (partly while Orlady and SarekOfVulcan agreed not to follow and contend for a period of time). For example, I have since focused upon creating articles where NRHP nomination documents are available, and much more can be added in the first creation. (Although I have also created stub articles, even very recently, where NRHP nom doc was not available, because for some other reason it seemed useful to create the article, e.g. to resolve a disambiguation page problem.)

However, even in 2011, I beg to differ that the articles were created with "insufficient context": it was stated clearly by me within the first few edits that the topics are places that are historically significant, as evidenced by NRHP-listing. That is generally deemed sufficient to establish wikipedia-notability; far more minimal stubs created by anyone are routinely kept. A further note is that the arbitration is not making a judgment on what content is sufficient for a new NRHP article, which rightly should be a topic of an RFC or something.

About the Lists of churches articles, I think the wikipedia-notability of those lists is established. I myself feel I have been over-extended, but I don't think the community views those lists as being without context; there are clearly notable churches that can be listed in a list-article. And the general encyclopedic contributions are becoming clear: no one outside of Misplaced Pages can ever again create a book about Congregational churches, say, without being influenced significantly by the growing array of examples and the collection of photos and so on, already provided in List of Congregational churches (still a work-in-progress).

Please advise if this kind of comment is helpful or not helpful here. For example, is it okay for me to point out the contradiction between the proposal clarifying that the arbitration committee will not make a content judgement, and the content-judgment based proposal 1.2? I do assume the purpose of this Talk page is not to re-hash the Evidence or to continue arguments from elsewhere. --doncram 23:05, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Principle 3 and Remedy 5

Asking for some clarification from the arbs here, how do these two sections not contradict one another? The first sets minimum standards for stub articles while the second admits that ArbCom cannot rule on the matter (presumably since it is a "content issue"). Is the principle intended to be a reiteration of the stub guideline? ThemFromSpace 23:11, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

I think so. Does the change I made address your concern? T. Canens (talk) 01:14, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for addressing my question. The guideline in question mentions verifiability and notability two times each, with the pertinent sentence being "If a stub has little verifiable information, or if its subject has no apparent notability, it may be deleted or be merged into another relevant article.". This seems a bit less strict than the principle put forth. I agree with the principle, but I don't know if there is a community consensus for it. ThemFromSpace 02:06, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Concerns about proposed remedies

I have a few critiques here regarding the remedies. Should Doncram be put on a restriction and not site-banned, the former being what I would prefer of the two, then any interaction ban should be clearly mutual. The current proposed interaction ban seems one-way. However, my chief concern focuses on how Sarek's conduct is addressed. There seems to be a focus on the edit-warring, but without giving due consideration to the broader context. Sarek previously blocked Doncram in a situation where he was plainly involved, something noted in the evidence. In the recent DRV incident that was also noted in evidence, Sarek edit-warred and move-warred with Doncram before using move-protection, with Doncram being blocked for that incident as well. What aggravates the problem is that Sarek started out interacting with Doncram as an involved editor yet has still used the tools several times to gain the upper-hand in his dispute in addition to edit-warring. Acting as if the concern is simply that he edit-warred a few times is overlooking a considerable amount of context. On top of this, there is an obvious case for also proposing an interaction ban between Sarek and Doncram given the nature of the edit-warring alone yet the current proposal only includes Orlady.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 00:17, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

My own concerns with proposed decisions

I'm unfamiliar with the process, so I apologize if this is a mistake, if there's further proposed decisions coming, there's no issue. I left my own comments about Doncram creating pages through AfC. Orlady produced a valid reason against this, and I wouldn't be upset if that specific action is not taken. The reason I proposed that; however, is because I was trying to find a method that would help solve the problem that didn't involve indefinitely blocking Doncram. If ArbCom chooses to go that route, let them go that route; however, what concerns me is there isn't currently an alternative. If ArbCom chooses not to ban Doncram, there isn't an alternative proposal that will still curb the problem. Yes, a general editor probation is proposed; however, there isn't anything concrete. I'd really like to see a concrete proposal as an alternative to banning. I'm also curious, why is the proposal for an indefinite ban rather than an indefinite block? Ryan Vesey 00:32, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

I considered the suggestions that we could impose instead of a ban on the workshop page, but I didn't think any of them were feasible. I'm personally not sure if I am going to support the ban, I think the general probation would be a good enough sanction to handle problems. AfC is not well enough equipped to handle a situation like this I don't think.

It's a weird community distinction that I personally have never fully understood, but in general bans are what the Arbitration Committee imposes rather than a block. NW (Talk) 02:54, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

If you go there, I think that'd be a terrible idea, even with precedence. Do an indef block if you must. When we ban someone, we literally say they are not a member of the community, and we don't want them to be one. Despite Doncram's disruptive edits, he is very much a part of the community and has done much to improve it. I am vehemently opposed to banning him because the semantic difference here is huge. An indefinite block that cannot be appealed for six months would be much better, since a block is a technical matter used to prevent disruption. I think it would be a good decision, and I would certainly appreciate it, if ArbCom would choose to consider "ban" vs. "block" an important distinction in this and their future decisions. Ryan Vesey 03:09, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

I think Ryan has raised an interesting question. IMO, the relative merit of a ban vs. a block depends on the intent of the remedy. If the goal is to give the person a vacation from Misplaced Pages (for purposes of meditation or the like), then a ban probably makes sense. On the other hand, if there is a desire to keep the person connected to the community, but keep them from editing, a block probably is more reasonable. Unlike the situation with a ban, with a block there should be NO possibility for interactions with other Wikipedians to lead to further sanctions. Regardless, the choice to implement either of these remedies requires a clear idea of the intent and the expected outcome. --Orlady (talk) 04:56, 28 February 2013 (UTC) Inserted word "no" (in caps to highlight that this is a chnage) that was omitted from this comment earlier. --Orlady (talk) 12:28, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

I wouldn't even agree that a ban should be used if the editor needs a vacation from Misplaced Pages. We can always block someone and remove their talk page access if we don't want them interacting with others. The issue with a ban is really what it says, which is officially "you are no longer a member of the editing community". It is not, we think you should take a vacation (even if it is an indefinite one). It is you are not part of this community. That's a big deal, and a big problem. I apologize for bringing other cases into this, and I'll remove it if it looks like it will steer discussion away from this case, but the fact that Rich Farmbrough was banned, rather than blocked, even if they had been for the same amount of time, was a problem. Ryan Vesey 05:04, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

My comment was probably written too late at night... It was related to my observation that neither bans nor long-term blocks have been particularly effective in rehabilitating problematic users, which ought to be the goal of a remedy in the cases of users like Doncram and Rich Farmbrough. Editors returning after short-term blocks often do seem to behave better, but the main effect of bans and long-term blocks seems to be one of engendering frustration and resentment. When I used the word "vacation" in connection with bans, I was thinking about the possibility that a user (I'm speaking generically here on purpose) who is required not to even think about Misplaced Pages for an extended period might come back in a more cooperative frame of mind than one who has the frustrating experience of being allowed to interact with the community in a limited way (i.e., on their user page and off-wiki), but not edit. Obviously, though, a ban cannot ensure that a person doesn't think about Misplaced Pages -- and the possibility of sanctions for interactions with community members makes a ban particularly onerous. I guess the bottom line is that the ideal remedy would be designed to resolve the issue for the maximum benefit to Misplaced Pages, and in the case of a productive and capable user, neither a block nor a ban accomplishes that goal. --Orlady (talk) 13:31, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Regarding the idea of requiring new articles to be submitted through AFC, my concern was that AFC is largely about helping/mentoring newbies (for example, with templates designed to guide them through the process of creating a new article) and would not be a good fit for a user with Doncram's experience (not to mention his expressed attitude regarding the quality of his work). On the Workshop page I did endorse a variant of that remedy: Doncram may not create new pages in article space, wherein he could create pages at AFC, in user space, or in WikiProject space (with the permission of other Project members). This more flexible variant of the AFC proposal, which was intended to accomplish the same objectives, could be a component of the "Editor probation" remedies proposed as part of the Proposed decision. --Orlady (talk) 12:24, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Sarek comments and discussion

I'm not sure an interaction ban between me and Doncram is necessary -- we have managed to work together civilly on occasion (for example, I asked him to start the article on The Grand (Ellsworth, Maine), because I felt too close to the subject to do a good job). But if the committee feels it is best, I have no particular issue with it.

I am concerned, though, that it is proposed that Orlady be interaction banned from Doncram, but not that Doncram be banned from interacting with Orlady. Considering the number of times he's called her bullying, evil, etc., this seems to me to be a serious omission.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:02, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Also, the behavior mentioned in the "Problems with articles" section isn't limited to 2011. Please see this article, created three days ago. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:13, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, to help a brand new user whose contribution to a dab page was likely to be eliminated from Misplaced Pages, I opened that article about an English church that was expected to be a notable historic building (and was

Re: Roger Davies' question about move warring diffs: see also http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Girls'_Domestic_Science_and_Arts_Building&action=history and http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Architects_of_the_United_States_Forest_Service&action=history. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 06:53, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Doncram comments -- including about Move warring finding

I don't want to quibble, but I find it hard to fathom a proposed finding that I engage in move warring rather than using the Requested Move service, which I do value and use. What you have with the Charles E. Bell article history example in 2011, is SarekOfVulcan following me to a new valid article, and contending, and abruptly making a move that seemed unjustified, and not explaining upon request. I.e. moving an article whose sources supported it being at C.E. Bell, to a different name where there were no sources yet supporting that. SarekOfVulcan refused to use the Talk pages Talk:C.E. Bell and Talk:Charles E. Bell to explain self, and actually went to 4RR. See discussion at 3RRArchive175 that SarekOfVulcan opened. This is an example more strongly of SarekOfVulcan contending unnecessarily, and it seems unfair to suggest that I was move warring without noting that SarekOfVulcan was baiting/provoking and move-warring one more step further. It seems unfair to suggest that I should have just taken the confrontation, and myself opened a RM to bring the article back to where I had just started it (which was and is a valid name for the article).

And the only other example given is my opening an even-more-prominent discussion at wp:AN. It was explained by me and meant as going over the top of the wp:RM service, to call attention at a higher level to SarekOfVulcan initiating a series of confrontations. And I did that once. And it didn't particularly work, so I did not ever try to escalate a RM to AN again. To generalize that I did not use wp:RM when I should, because one time I tried to escalate the discussion to a higher level, does not make sense. On the one hand some arbitrator comments are suggesting that I am at fault for not escalating things to higher levels of dispute resolution, and here when I did I am being slammed for doing so?

I get that arbitrators may be impatient, but to vote for this finding based on these two items seems wrong. And I think this finding is entirely off-base as a generalization about me, that it would not be an accurate characterization if the whole record was collected and presented. I do use the wp:RM service frequently, and I happen to think I am pretty scrupulous about that, with qualification that I responded to SarekOfVulcan's actions here. You can say I move-warred, in response to SarekOfVulcan move-warring in the C.E. Bell case and perhaps others where SarekOfVulcan followed and initiated similarly, yes, but not that I did so outside of that context of SarekOfVulcan following and initiating the move-warring. I was really at a loss of how to deal with the edit-warring initiated again and again by SarekOfVulcan. For a long time I tried to open Talk page discussions, but SarekOfVulcan would not participate meaningfully, and I gradually got more terse and more frustrated. Again to find me at fault for move-warring and not to see these examples as SarekOfVulcan being equally or more so at fault, seems wrong to me. --doncram 05:35, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

I repeat that the finding, now with 4 links, seems wrong. The finding suggests that I have been arriving at articles and moving them, when in fact I was creating articles and encountering contention that is reasonably called harassment. There are 3 examples there of me starting an article at an acceptable name, and SarekOfVulcan arriving and contending, with no or little explanation at any Talk, such as simply stating "CIR" insult. At the latest added, see 3RR notice board item, where SarekOfVulcan went to 4RR and self-reported. At Architects of the United States Forest Service, and to add one more, Charles L. Thompson and associates I had also created the articles at acceptable titles, but soon became embattled with Orlady (at both) and SarekOfVulcan (at least at the second) contending about the subject of the article. And with discussion going on, I made bold moves to clarify and settle at permanently acceptable titles, which have both survived. The latter survived a Requested Move subsequently opened by Orlady. (In which, Orlady reiterates personal dislike: "What I have told you is (in a nutshell) that I am not particularly interested in most of the topics about which you create crappy articles, so I am not inclined to devote myself to cleaning up after you -- but I have sought to expunge Misplaced Pages of these pages because I am offended by poor quality work. As for my opinion of you, what I have told you is (in nutshell form) that you were successful in your assiduous efforts to cause me to dislike you." I don't think it is helpful for Misplaced Pages for this to be going on and on.)

These examples are cases of my responding to contention. Again I believe I am pretty scrupulous about using Requested Move whenever there is a reasonable chance of disagreement about a given move, besides in these cases where SarekOfVulcan or another are following and contending about an article that I just created at a reasonable name. I don't think the Misplaced Pages is improved by their following and contending in any of these cases. It is the Arbcom's prerogative to criticize me for how I handled the following and contending, but it seems wrong to suggest a generalization that i engage in resistance to the use of Requested Move in normal circumstances. --doncram 13:44, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

I am willing to be flexible on some points here, and don't want the committee to perceive me to be "stonewalling" as has been suggested. In particular I do agree that my commenting at new AFDs opened by Orlady or other new contention opened by Orlady, to the effect that I saw the new contention as following in a long pattern of bullying and harassment, as unpleasant and inappropriate in general. But, the committee has not squarely addressed the pattern of following and contention that is reasonably termed harassment and/or bullying, that I and at least some others see here. I think it may be a mistake for the committee not to come to a clear finding about harassment and bullying having occured in the history covered here, and to take a stand against that being accepted in Misplaced Pages. If the committee would do so, then I also would be willing, in fact eager, to be flexible and to see how I could have acted differently, in the face of SarekOfVulcan and Orlady's long-running contention. Is it suggested that I should disengage? From their following me and contending, how? What specifically does the committee think I should have done? If the committee does not acknowledge the long-term patterns of following and confrontation as problematic, but rather chooses to pick on several individual actions by me in the face of all that contention, I find it difficult to see how this helps Misplaced Pages. --doncram 13:44, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Orlady interactions

It seems some of the Arbs do not see what the evidence I presented shows. Of the articles I explicitly mentioned in my evidence, three saw blatant edit-warring between Orlady and Doncram ( ). There was also an incident of edit-warring between Orlady and Doncram noted in Elkman's evidence. Additionally, I noted two incidents where Orlady move-warred with Doncram. This is all in the context of a pattern of obsessive following. Mind you, I am only counting incidents where there was clear edit-warring. This is on top of the deletion nominations noted in Doncram's evidence, among them three nominations in late 2012 and the user pages that have occasionally been cited by Orlady during heated disputes with Doncram. If some of the Arbs really can't see a conduct issue with someone repeatedly following another editor around and sparking confrontations with them then that is deeply disconcerting.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 05:56, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Orlady's thoughts and discussion

Concern about Proposed finding.

I'm bothered by the proposed finding that my behavior has been "unprofessional and hostile". In no small part, what bothers me is that this proposed finding is primarily based on Doncram's "evidence", which consisted mostly of evidence of his past accusations against me, not evidence of what I did to cause him to reach his conclusions. I've spent a lot of time recently trying to find a basis for his allegations, and I've not succeeded (other than realizing that, once he had formed an irrational conspiracy theory, my subsequent efforts to "make nice" backfired because he apparently interpreted them as part of a calculated scheme to harm him). At the beginning of the evidence that AGK cites, Doncram says I "spat out accusation of 'intellectual sloppiness'". Tracing back from the September 2008 diff he cites, which is a diff of him complaining about me, I find a discussion in which I was interacting with several NRHP WikiProject regulars (not just Doncram, and not even primarily Doncram), and in which I said that the project's apparent invention and subsequent use of the proper noun "Registered Historic Places" seemed to be "intellectual sloppiness". It seems to me that Doncram's perception of my statements in that discussion (and in other related discussions in the same period, such as , , and ) as being personally focused on him (not to mention being motivated by some sort of animus toward him) says more about his egocentrism (or something like that -- I'm no psychologist) than it does about my behavior. It's a truism that "where there's smoke, there must be fire", but the presence of smoke doesn't prove the existence of fire. I see Doncram's numerous allegations against me as "smoke" that certainly implied, but did not prove, the existence of "fire". I will be severely disappointed if Arbcom decides to treat Doncram's unsupported accusations as proof. --Orlady (talk) 06:02, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Any interaction ban needs to be mutual

As I've said before, this Arbcom case has caused me to recognize that Doncram actually believes the bizarre things he has been saying about me (my previous perception that he said the things he said about me to protect his article ownership wasn't correct), so it is best if I stay away from him. I intend to do that. An interaction ban could be appropriate, but I believe that any interaction ban must be mutual. I've tried not to demonstrate my reactions by engaging in public disruption, but I seethe inside when Doncram posts attacks against me on seemingly every Wikiproject page, XfD, noticeboard, and article talk page where we intersect (not to mention my user talk page), and I'm horrified by the idea that he might be allowed to continue that sort of behavior while I was banned from reacting to him. --Orlady (talk) 06:02, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

That your reasons for saying you will stay away from him are basically laying it all at his feet because you say you have done nothing wrong is the biggest problem I am seeing with your actions. No one has forced you to interact with Doncram at all, let alone in such a pervasive and relentless fashion. Yet you take every opportunity to bring him low and say how he is at fault for everything stemming from your pursuit of him. You claimed that you felt "tormented", but I have to say nothing you have said can lead me to believe there is even a sliver of sincerity in that statement. Were I to feel as if I were being tormented, there have been more than a few times that I actually have felt that way in my life, then my response would be to try to get away from the situation if I could. All I see is you needlessly seeking out more and more conflict with the one who is supposedly tormenting you and any act that supposedly would be a cause of torment is just cause for you to seek out more needless confrontation.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 07:06, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Maybe some day someone will explain to me why it is that a number of people at Misplaced Pages seem to deem my critiques and criticisms of his work -- essentially an effort to induce him to be a better editor -- to have been a Terrible Thing for which I should be punished, while his repeatedly calling me (a person, not my work, but me) "evil", "hatefully motivated", "nasty", "sadistic", etc., ought to be overlooked as normal behavior. If labeling another user with those kinds of terms isn't an intolerable personal attack, what is? --Orlady (talk) 16:39, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Calling another editor's work a "piece of shit" is hardly what I would consider a "critique" and you have done more than critique him. You have edit-warred and move-warred with him and nominated many of the articles he creates for deletion. People have called me far worse than simply "evil" and when it really upset me do you know what I did? I tried to avoid that person. You have instead pursued Doncram on all of these matters, holding these comments over his head in subsequent disputes such as at the Clausen article. Again, no one forced you to interact with him so you choose to follow around and confront this person who has insulted you repeatedly. Do you really not see how your persistence in confronting Doncram on practically every little thing he does could actually be causing him to react with more hostility towards you than others?--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 17:00, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

TDA, I don't believe that you and I ever met before this Arbcom case. It seems that you took it upon yourself to research the histories of the parties, compile evidence that you found interesting, and post your conclusions about it. Unlike you, the parties to this case have lived the history for several years. You weren't around back in March 2009 when Doncram tried to get me topic-banned and to have a banned sockpuppeteer unbanned -- over his objections to my efforts to keep the banned user's dreck out of Misplaced Pages. You weren't around (in that same timeframe) when Doncram's persistent unsubstantiated accusations against me convinced a number of other users to oppose my RFA with reasoning that can best be summarized as "Where there's smoke, there must be fire, and there's too much smoke here for my taste." He decided, some time in 2008, that I was engaged in a personal campaign against him -- before I even recognized that "Doncram" was someone I had interacted with in multiple content discussions. (I didn't used to pay much attention to the names of the other users I was interacting with, but Doncram changed that for me.) I've seen him drive other editors away, as I know he was trying to drive me away, and I can't sit still for that sort of thing. --Orlady (talk) 18:00, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Your description seems selective and appears to fudge the truth. What is clear is that this dispute emerged soon after you joined the NRHP Wikiproject and involved you following Doncram to other articles from the start. Looking over that RfA, the notion that somehow Doncram was a major cause of the opposition seems baseless. What I see is that a large number of unconnected people expressed similar concerns about your temperament due to similar experiences, and the cumulative effect of those concerns led to increased opposition. There were also concerns about your sock-hunting practices from multiple editors. The stuff about the sock is interesting, in that, it seems this is what prompted the more pervasive following. Right after that case your level of interaction with Doncram exploded.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 22:30, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Findings on Orlady

AGK's proposed findings are not supported by any reliable evidence. Why he proposed findings with which his co-drafter disagreed is puzzling. Doncram's evidence has been a series of unsubstantiated personal attacks (ending with his labelling of Orlady's edits as "sadistic" on the workshop talk page). During the case hundreds of articles were examined (some by me)and no evidence was found of misconduct by Orlady. The Devil's Advocate selected a tiny number of articles and provided a seriously flawed misreading of Orlady's edits. Bearing in mind the vast number of articles, sub-stubs or disambiguation pages involved here, a tiny unrepresentative sample could be used to prove any assertion. In this case it was used to put forward a disparaging and wholly negative view of Orlady's editing history, which, as several arbitrators have commented, is wholly inaccurate. If one word had to be chosen to describe what happened in interactions with Doncram involving multiple editors (Orlady, Nyttend, Elkman, etc), it would probably be "exasperation". Taking into account the vast number of NRHP articles/stubs and the standard wikignoming process of modifying categories, there is no evidence that Orlady followed Doncram to articles, although that might be his perception. On the contrary, Doncram's edits to Oak Ridge gatehouses and on articles related to the Natchez Trace seem to have been needlessly provocative, given Orlady's interest in and first hand knowledge of historic sites in Tennessee. Mathsci (talk) 12:08, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Orlady introduced the "sadistic" word to the Workshop talk page, not me. --doncram 16:39, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

It was first introduced by you on the workshop talk page in this edit. Mathsci (talk) 23:57, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

• Note: Although Orlady registered an account in 2004, her editing became prolific only in November 2006, mainly with edits connected to places and institutions in Tennessee. Two months later she started to add to the article National Register of Historic Places listings in Tennessee. Mathsci (talk) 23:57, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Upholding community expectations of admin behaviour

I see an expression of willingness to "give Sarek the benefit of the doubt", and a declaration that the motion to desysop him is "out of proportion".

Yet Sarek has a recent history of edit-warring, and strident, even aggressive behaviour when he doesn't get his way. He has not lived up to the promises he made to the community at his RFA. It's extremely disappointing. We want admins who promote harmony, and to whom we can look to as examples of civic-minded behaviour—not people who use their status to throw their weight around. Here's just one example.

A rest from admin duties would be appropriate, so that he can reground himself in the nice things about normal editing. I'm sure he'd be quite welcome to apply for adminship in the future. Tony (talk) 12:16, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Yet nobody presented evidence about anything beyond Sarek's interactions with Doncram, and the committee gets justifiably criticized when we sanction someone based on actions that are well beyond the dispute presented to us. T. Canens (talk) 02:43, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

And I stand by that decision, even though it was overturned after community discussion -- I'm convinced that it was the necessary thing to do at that time to protect the integrity of the policy page.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:15, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Recent problematic articles -- not necessarily stubs

Concern has been expressed that Doncram's problematic stubs mostly date from 2011 and earlier. More recent examples do exist of what I call "rough-draft articles" created in article space, but they aren't necessarily short stubs:

• - List of Other Backward Classes as of Doncram's last edit on 28 November 2012; he made no more edits to this page before I nominated it at AfD 10 days later:
• List of Methodist churches: is the version that was proposed for deletion by a new-page patroller just one minute after Doncram started it on 19 November 2012; is the way it looked after Doncram's last edit that day; and this is what it looked like two days later when I tagged it for AfD.
• List of Congregational churches: is the version that Fram moved to Doncram's user space on 6 December 2012, 3 hours after Doncram had started it. Fram's edit summary said: "Not useful as it stands, bring back once it is somewhat complete and presentable." Doncram made no changes to the page before he moved it back to article space the next day, with the edit summary "restore, continue development. If someone seriously thinks this is not an obviously valid Misplaced Pages list-article topic, open a proper AFD for discussio..." After some additional editing on 7-8 December 2012, he left it looking like this (better, but still obviously a rough draft) until 17 December. Little additional editing had been done by 4 February 2013, when Mangoe nominated it for deletion.

All of these are examples of pages that were in vestigial form (not ready for publication) when they were created in article space -- and for which there was no indication of an intent to bring them up to a higher standard in a short time after their creation. --Orlady (talk) 14:03, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

That's your view, not consistent with any Deletion Criteria, in my opinion. They are obviously valid Misplaced Pages list-article topics, are they not? And they are developing, by me and by other editors, notably Farragutful recently adding to the U.S. Catholic churches one. --doncram 16:36, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

There was also List of Anglican churches. I commented in the AfD. I just discovered that Doncram, without telling me or asking my permission, copy-pasted my comments to Talk:List of Anglican churches. On the same talk page, he had already objected to Fram's completely reasonable suggestions about the impracticality of such a list, unless it was broken up into a list of lists. This is a further illustration that Doncram's creation of articles is still problematic and that he is unresponsive to comments from others. Mathsci (talk) 14:37, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Mathsci, I informed you at the AFD that I was copying your comments, and you commented, indentedm, right after my statement, both comments showing in this diff at the AFD. --doncram 16:36, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

I had no idea that you had copied the comments elsewhere or were intending to do so: that's why I replied that they were specific to the AfD. Could you please now remove your posting of my comments on the article talk page as you do not have my permission to reproduce them outside the context where they were originally made. Thanks in advance, Mathsci (talk) 16:50, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Looking back, it looks as if Doncram was disrupting the AfD by forcing a relevant discussion to move elsewhere. Mathsci (talk) 16:55, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Copying another user's comments to another page without notifying them is a behavior that is apt to cause that other user to get into the habit of watching one's contributions. Posting comments about other users without notifying them is another behavior that is likely to have the same effect. --Orlady (talk) 14:50, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

I think you are over-eager to find fault with me. Here you are wrong in suggesting i copied comments without informing the person. Throw out a zillion complaints, some percentage will be accepted by some other editors. --doncram 16:36, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

OK, I accepted Mathsci's assertion as true without first spending a few hours delving into your contributions history to see if there might be a diff somewhere in which you notified him of your action. Meanwhile, you have accused me for years of a diverse variety of crimes and misdemeanors without ever citing diffs or similar evidence, and (in spite of spending countless hours trying to figure out what caused you to form this horrifying picture of me) I have been unsuccessful in finding a basis for your accusations. --Orlady (talk) 16:47, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

A prediction

There are a couple less-harsh remedies proposed for Doncram's behavior. I predict that if one of those less-harsh alternatives is chosen, and if Doncram is subject to an arbitration enforcement action, we will see long walls of text and drawn-out arguments at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration enforcement, WP:AN/I, or User talk:Doncram. Similarly, if Doncram encounters edits by any editor that he deems to be an incursion on his turf, no matter how minor, he'll be running to those same noticeboards and complaining.

I'm already afraid to fix two redlinks in List of Catholic churches in the United States#Minnesota for this reason, even though I know we have articles about those churches. --Elkman 15:54, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

I have similar concerns. However, if Doncram is given one of those "less-harsh remedies" and doesn't abide by it, the fact that the remedy emanated from Arbcom is more likely to lead to strong sanctions than when he merely flouted the consensus of a protracted WP:AN discussion.

Regarding fear of fixing problems with his content creations, I'm similarly frustrated that I can't touch problems I see on some of his pages. Example: There's a former Evangelical and Reformed church on the List of Congregational churches that he added to that list and related category because it's now a member of the United Church of Christ denomination. Since it never was a Congregational church, I removed it from the category, but if I'm going to avoid interacting with him, I can't touch his list. --Orlady (talk) 16:29, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Elkman could and should make the connections of redlinks to already-existing articles. Elkman or someone else could recategorize a given article or add or subtract a given list-item. The church list-articles are new and have not yet been carefully compared to contents of corresponding categories; many additions would follow from a development drive, if a collegial atmosphere would permit a development drive to be started. The idea with an interaction ban is to avoid following and would not be hard to follow in practice. --doncram 16:48, 28 February 2013 (UTC)