Misplaced Pages

• Administrators
  • Main
  • Incidents
• Bots
• Bureaucrats
• Centralized discussion
• Closure requests
• Education
• Interface admins
• Main Page errors
• Open proxies
• VRT
• Oversight
• User permissions

• Biographies of living persons
• Copyrights
  • Questions on media
  • Problems
• Dispute resolution
• External links
• Fringe theories
• Neutral point of view
• Original research
• Pending changes
• Reliable sources
• Resource requests
• Scalable vector graphics
• Spam
  • Blacklist
  • Whitelist
• Style
• Titleblacklist
• Translation

• History merges
• Mergers
• Splits
• Moves
• Protection
• Importation
• XfD
  • Articles
  • Redirects
  • Categories
  • Templates
  • Files
  • Miscellany
• Undeletion

• Conflict of interest
• Contributor copyright
• Edit warring and 3RR
• Sanctions
  • Personal restrictions
  • General sanctions
  • Contentious topics
• Sockpuppets
• Usernames (Requests for comment)
• Vandalism

• Arbitration
  • Committee noticeboard
  • Requests
  • Enforcement
• Edit filters
  • Requested
  • False positives
• Questions
  • Help desk
  • Teahouse
  • Reference desk
  • New articles
• Requests for comment
• Village pump
  • Policy
  • Technical
  • Proposals
  • Idea lab
  • WMF
  • Miscellaneous
• WikiProject proposals
• Discussions for discussion

• WP:AE
• WP:ARE

Please use this page only to:

• request administrative action against editors violating a remedy (not merely a principle) or an injunction in an Arbitration Committee decision, or a contentious topic restriction imposed by an administrator,
• request contentious topic restrictions against previously alerted editors who engage in misconduct in a topic area designated as a contentious topic,
• request page restrictions (e.g. revert restrictions) on pages that are being disrupted in topic areas designated as contentious topics, or
• appeal arbitration enforcement actions (including contentious topic restrictions) to uninvolved administrators.

For all other problems, including content disagreements or the enforcement of community-imposed sanctions, please use the other fora described in the dispute resolution process. To appeal Arbitration Committee decisions, please use the clarification and amendment noticeboard.

Only autoconfirmed users may file enforcement requests here; requests filed by IPs or accounts less than four days old or with less than 10 edits will be removed. All users are welcome to comment on requests except where doing so would violate an active restriction (such as an extended-confirmed restriction). If you make an enforcement request or comment on a request, your own conduct may be examined as well, and you may be sanctioned for it. Enforcement requests and statements in response to them may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. (Word Count Tool) Statements must be made in separate sections. Non-compliant contributions may be removed or shortened by administrators. Disruptive contributions such as personal attacks, or groundless or vexatious complaints, may result in blocks or other sanctions.

To make an enforcement request, click on the link above this box and supply all required information. Incomplete requests may be ignored. Requests reporting diffs older than one week may be declined as stale. To appeal a contentious topic restriction or other enforcement decision, please create a new section and use the template {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}}.

This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.

Request concerning Hgilbert

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Binksternet (talk) 00:21, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

Hgilbert (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Waldorf education#Conflict of interest, and Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Waldorf education#Hgilbert. With regard to the Waldorf schools topic, Hgilbert was found to have a conflict of interest, to engage in original research, and to use inadequate and inappropriate references. Hgilbert and any other editor with an identified conflict of interest was instructed to follow the guideline at WP:Conflict of interest, which states that COI editors may not perform controversial edits to articles. Binksternet (talk) 00:21, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it

1. 10 March 2013. Removal of "Pseudoscience" category, with the edit summary of "controversial category", which confirms Hgilbert's knowledge of the disputed nature of this change. Two minutes after he made this change, Hgilbert initiated discussion of the issue at Talk:Waldorf education#Categorization, rather than first engaging in discussion and gaining consensus.
2. 10 March 2013. Removal of negative summary text from the lead section, in support of new editor Vittoria Gena (who has contributed only on three articles, all of which touch upon Waldorf, including a book that likens non-Waldorf schools to Nazism.) Discussion of this material was underway on the talk page, at Talk:Waldorf education#Undue material. The negative information was a summary of negative points described in greater detail in the article body, so it was appropriate per WP:LEAD guideline, but open to discussions of undue weight. Hgilbert acted to remove the disputed text but consensus had not been reached.
3. 9 March 2013. Removal of an image of the human heart, with negative text in the caption. No discussion.
4. 5 March 2013. Introduction of inappropriate reference to K12academics.com which includes, in its text, the editorial bracketed note "citation needed". This indicates that K12academics.com is not reliable, that its contributors do not agree on content.
5. 4 March 2013. Removal of Sean Esbjorn-Hargens' ReVision reference as "non-peer reviewed journal". One minute later, Hgilbert opened a discussion about this reference, rather than discussing it first and gaining consensus for change.
6. 1 March 2013. Removal of several article alert templates, including POV and COI. The POV tag was discussed on the talk page between Hgilbert and Jellypear at Talk:Waldorf education#Tags, but nobody agreed, or even discussed with Hgilbert, the removal of the COI tag which applied specifically to himself. Nevertheless, he removed it.
7. 13 February 2013. Removed negative information from cited to professor Edzard Ernst and education expert Richy Thompson of the British Humanist Association. No discussion.
8. 10 February 2013. Added a reference about Waldorf governance. The reference is about the Association of Waldorf Schools of North America (AWSNA), but the text that it purportedly supports pertains to global Waldorf/Steiner practices, not just North America. No discussion.
9. 9 February 2013. Removal of cited text, that makes Steiner look more like a kook. Hgilbert summarizes, "rem. jargon, simplify." No discussion.
10. 9 February 2013. Removal of the word "pseudoscience" from a section header. No discussion.

Correction 10: 9 February 2013. Hgilbert added "Science" to the header of the "Pseudoscience" section. He removed the list of examples found by Jelinek and Sun; ones which reflected very poorly on Waldorf. Binksternet (talk) 02:34, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required)

1. Warned on 11 March 2013 by Binksternet (talk · contribs)

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

After receiving the warning on 11 March, Hgilbert replied that he thought the ArbCom determination of 2006 had been superseded by a new one (a motion passed on 30 January 2013: Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Waldorf_education#Modified_by_motion). As far as I can tell, the conflict-of-interest determination remains in place with regard to editors. The findings about Hgilbert also remain in place. The amendment looks like it replaces only one section of the 2006 ArbCom case, changing "article probation" to "standard discretionary sanctions". I think that Hgilbert is in violation of COI and the 2006 finding naming him specifically, and has been for some weeks now.

After I warned him, Hgilbert did not revert the two edits I pointed out as being in violation. This unwillingness to follow the 2006 finding is typical of his behavior. For instance, on 28 November 2012, Alexbrn warned Hgilbert about COI , which Hgilbert removed from his talk page but answered at the article talk page: . There, Hgilbert argued against the 2006 finding, saying that he was "no more or less conflicted than an employee of the public school system would be in editing an article on public education." Because this has been a long-running problem, I propose that Hgilbert be topic-banned from Waldorf education article space, broadly construed, but not banned from talk pages, which are not the locus of the problem. Binksternet (talk) 00:21, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

• Notification of Hgilbert. Binksternet (talk) 00:26, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Discussion concerning Hgilbert

Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.

Statement by Hgilbert

I'm happy to have this looked at. At Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Continued_conflict_of_interest_at_Waldorf_education the claim was made that I have made massive prejudicial changes since early February, when Alexbrn last edited the article. We could start with this diff of all the changes between Alexbrn's last contribution on Feb. 3rd, and the present state of the article as of March 11th. What massive removals of negative material and additions of positive material have been made over this time frame? (Note that many of the mostly minor changes that have been made were made by other editors.) Also: Note that there was also a review of the original arbitration.

Also: if arbitrators examine Talk:Waldorf education, I think they'll see harmonious discussion on a range of issues, and a readiness to compromise.

In response to the concrete diffs above (from Binksternet):

1. WP:Category clearly states that categories should not be controversial. See the extensive talk page discussion here, which makes it clear that this category is very controversial. Summarizing: There is extensive controversy over WE's relationship to pseudoscience, as documented in the article; many educationalists believe that it is a solid educational approach, and some of those who are cited on the pseudoscience side (e.g. Jelinek) support the education generally, but dispute some curriculum content. The discussion deserves to be presented fairly, but it clearly falls foul of the category criteria. In any case, the category was initially removed by another editor, Vittoria Gena here. I supported this when the change was reverted.
2. I summarized the material in the lead more concisely, trying to preserve the primary discussion themes; see also here where I added more material. The body of the article retains a full discussion of all the topics. The only issue I removed from the lead was the immunization issue, as per a (still undisputed) suggestion of another editor on the talk page.
3. The image of the human heart was not closely related to Waldorf education. It had previously been critiqued for this reason.
4. The citation critiqued here is solely used to support the uncontroversial fact that there were 12 Waldorf schools in North America in 1968. This is not a controversial question; though the article is actually cogent, I would not use the source for other purposes, and would have been happy to have looked for a better source had the choice been questioned at any point after I added this text. (In response to concerns raised here, I have now replaced the citation.)
5. Why would we want to keep material not supported by its own citation? See discussion about this on the article talk page Talk:Waldorf_education#ReVision, where another editor points out that the article text for which this citation was used turned out to be not remotely supported by it, indicative of a larger problem with whoever added this text originally.
6. See the talk page discussion of tagging here. Neither in the week and a half of discussion prior to the removal of the tags, nor in the week and a half that have passed since, have any objections been made indicating that the tags should be kept. Further: the COI issue had been brought to an arbitration proceeding recently; the conclusion of this proceeding is here. The arbitrators consciously emphasized that the focus should not be on COIs, but on the policy on reliable sources as a path toward resolution. This distinction has also been raised by an administrator in the current discussion. After this arbitration proceeding, neither this nor the other tag was under current discussion, which I understand is meant to be a requirement for the tagging.
7. This is the only place of all those cited where I actually removed content critical of WE. I have to confess, the theme seemed adequately covered; two paragraphs of material drawn from a single TES article seems to be a violation of WP:UNDUE, but I am open to discussion of this.
8. This diff shows me adding a single phrase stating that the role of boards of Waldorf schools includes "formulating strategic plans and central policies," with a supportive citation. WP:RS states that organizations are reliable sources for information about their own workings, so long as this is not controversial. If this is highly controversial, feel free to explain why. If you believe it to be particular to North America and want to qualify the sentence to say so, this would be fine. (What's the big deal??)
9. The use of jargon was criticized repeatedly by a wide spectrum of editors: Talk:Waldorf_education/Archive_11. Responding to that, I changed this terminology, the meaning of which was unlikely to be easily accessible to the general reader, to more easily comprehensible terminology. It's a little unfair to request that jargon be removed and then criticize when it is removed!
10. Rather amusing. The diff indicated shows me adding the term pseudoscience to the section header, not removing it. hgilbert (talk) 01:08, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

In response to IRWolfie's diffs:

1. The first diff removed an image which had been contested on the talk page as being unrelated to Waldorf education. This question had been taken to the reliable source noticeboard; the response by an outside editor was that the image was unrelated to the article, and that the source it was drawn from was an unreliable source. The second diff is removing material referenced the same article, critiqued as not a reliable source by outside editors. Incidentally, this material was later reinstated when we accepted -- despite the outside editor's critique -- that the article, though not peer-reviewed, had some claim to reliable source status. Perhaps this should be reviewed again. IRWolfie further criticizes me for trying to ensure that "all sources have to be peer reviewed"; the requirement that in this and related articles, sources for any controversial material be peer-reviewed, stems from the last arbitration proceeding. I find a critique of my following WP guidelines a little odd.
2. This is actually a diff of changes made to a different article. The claim for BD was sourced to an organization named ISIS, which as far as I understood is notable in organic agriculture circles. There was further discussion of this at the time; I believe the material was removed as a result.
3. This diff shows a change that kept all relevant text, including the author of the citation, and only took out the name of the book cited, which is easily found in the reference. This follows standard WP practice; we don't usually mention (inline) the name of the books or journal articles referenced in discussions of this source.
4. These are critiques of my attempting to remove material sourced to a blog, in accordance with clear WP policy. Again IRWolfie critiques me for trying to ensure that sources for controversial material are peer-reviewed, in accordance with the very clear arbitration guidelines laid down for this article. (I am puzzled.) Incidentally, if you read the diff claimed to be calling for "tag teaming", I had made an erroneous reversion (to the wrong version) and was requesting help to sort this out.
5. IRWolfie is right here; the citation contains an extract from a WP article, which I had not noticed, and should be removed. (I will do this.) Done

In response to A13ean:

1. According to WP:RS, sources are not less usable merely because they are "difficult to access academic sources" (!!) Nor does a source's being written in a foreign language have any bearing. Much was made about using only very high quality sources about WE, and some of these will tend to be in German by the nature of the beast.
2. authors with some connection to Waldorf education were not excluded by the original arbitration proceeding, which required that, regardless of the author, works be peer-reviewed, rather than published by Waldorf publishers, but emphasized that this would especially be true for those involved in the movement. Peer review and the general standards for RSs are the point.
3. Steiner's own writings were explicitly excluded by the original arbitration proceedings however, at least when controversial; we were required to use secondary sources evaluating his thinking instead, for reasons that were amply clear at the time.
4. I will not respond to each diff, but as an example of the misrepresentations presented here, the claim that I changed "Biodynamic agriculture has been characterized as pseudoscience by scholars" to "Biodynamic agriculture has been the subject of serious scientific study" is false. I changed a "criticism" section to a "reception" section in line with WP guidelines on WP:Criticism sections, and added additional text without removing the pseudoscience attribution. hgilbert (talk) 20:42, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

More generally: I have been striving to bring a neutral point of view in a situation that has been historically, and continues to be, highly polarized. There are a number of editors who seem primarily interested in bringing negative critiques into the article, and others who primarily interested in positive views. There are virtually no neutral voices. I have been trying to keep to the RS policy as the path forward. As a result, a number of questions have been brought to the RS noticeboard recently; Looking at the talk page, it seems clear that the mood is generally of fruitful discussion. I believe I consistently seek a positive solution and am willing to use consensus and compromise, respecting all points of view. hgilbert (talk) 02:21, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

• Images

The two images (of Lemuria and the human heart) were added by User:Alexbrn, following a persistent pattern of POI-pushing on the critics' side.

• COI tag

In defense of the removal of COI tagging--which I grant is not normally a good idea:

1. since the tagging there had been an arbitration which had found that the COI I was accused of was not relevant to the case (pointing us to RS policy instead)
2. after I proposed removing the two tags, NPOV and COI, there had been a week and a half of discussion in which no one spoke up against this removal (nor has anyone questioned the removal on the talk page since)

Nevertheless, I clearly should have requested others to remove it rather than removing it myself. I apologize. hgilbert (talk) 10:27, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

1. The recent arbitration discussion I refer to is (see second half of page). Though COI issues were raised by editors offering opinions, not one of the arbitrators mentions these issues in either the Arbitrator views and discussion or Motion: Waldorf education discretionary sanctions. They urge us to focus on reliable sources: "the original ruling has long been overtaken by our evolving policies on reliable sourcing".
2. As Nil Einne mentions below, s/he had also explicitly stated at WP:ANI that "the thing to concentrate on why the edits were bad or controversial, not whether or not the editor has a COI. Concentrating on the COI misses the point because someone is not going to be blocked simply because they were editing when they had a COI, even if the edits were controversial and many question whether the COI should even come in to the block (perhaps the length of the block only). As Hgilbert mentioned, this has been reaffirmed in other cases." I assumed from Nil Einne's contribution at ANI that this editor is an administrator and took his/her comments on the case to be clear direction that we should focus on issues such as RS, NPOV, and working on consensus.

Due to the above rulings and comments by admins, and the complete lack of dissent to the removal of the COI tag when I raised this, I understood that the removal was both in line with the current understanding of the article sanctions and undisputed. I'm shocked that users who had a chance to question the suggested removal on the talk page, and did not, are raising this as an issue here. (Having said this, I still recognize that someone else should have been the one to take the tag off.) hgilbert (talk) 13:26, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

• Discretionary sanctions

The text of the discretionary sanctions states: "Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working on a page within the area of conflict (or for whom discretionary sanctions have otherwise been authorized) if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. The sanctions imposed may include blocks of up to one year in length; bans from editing any page or set of pages within the area of conflict; bans on any editing related to a topic within the area of conflict or its closely related topics; restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors; imposition of mandated external review; or any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project."

I believe I have adhered to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, consistently followed consensus processes (look at the talk page for confirmation), and applied the RS policy at a high standard. Again, I ask: examine the diff over the relevant period, and the discussions on the talk page over this time (or before): what in this constitutes any contravention whatsoever of the discretionary sanctions? hgilbert (talk) 10:18, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

• Use of sources

1. Not to drag this on, but as an example of the real issue here, a number of the above diffs relate to removal of material from an article by Jelinek and Sun. See the talk page discussion of the use of this article as a primary source, in which outside editors called in through a RSN appeal stated clearly that this should not be treated as a reliable source for the article. This confusion is exemplary. hgilbert (talk) 12:25, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
2. See Talk:Waldorf_education#ReVision for an ongoing example of various approaches to introducing and sourcing statements. Draw your own conclusions. hgilbert (talk) 17:00, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Statement by IRWolfie-

• On point 4 raised by Binksternet. used here by Hgilbert, is a copy and paste of History of Waldorf schools. That Hgilbert didn't spot that the source he was citing, which was probably his very own words since he wrote the initial Waldort history article, was copied off wikipedia should speak volumes about Hgilbert's use of sourcing, IRWolfie- (talk) 01:43, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

• Hgilbert, if you did make an erroneous revert, why didn't you just revert yourself? Or do you acknowledge that you were bypassing 3RR by asking another editor to do it for you? I am also aware that the diffs don't exclusively cover Waldorf, my point is that you are problematic with edits related to Steiner broadly construed (which should fall under fringe DS). IRWolfie- (talk) 10:37, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

• @Sandstein, he non-Waldorf diffs I've shown here show a pattern of behaviour within fringe science, perhaps Hgilbert could be officially warned about discretionary sanctions within Fringe science and pseudoscience broadly construed (under this case Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Pseudoscience#Discretionary_sanctions)? IRWolfie- (talk) 10:47, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

@Hgilbert, showing a diff over an extended period is meaningless. If I had shown, for example and said that people should spot the problem in the text, it would ignore the fact that someone went 3RR in that same period. A single Diff grouping actions from many editors won't show anything here if the other editors have been dealing with the problems you have caused, we have to look at your edits, IRWolfie- (talk) 15:26, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

@Jellypear, I'm not sure why you were addressing this comment, I didn't comment on the specifics of the case which I will leave to others; I was just why showing a single diff does not mean anything, IRWolfie- (talk) 22:37, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Also, blogs are reliable for the opinions of the author. If they are not used in the wikipedia tone, then they are reliable for the text they cite. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:36, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Alexbrn

More diffs showing long-term POV pushing. Hgilbert's edits are a constant lapping tide, continually eroding the article's neutrality:

• diff removing text that bears on the crucial question of whether Waldorf education is religious (crucial, from a COI perspective, because American state funding relies on it not being). When challenged Hgilbert stated this had been an error and reinstated this text.
• diff inserting into the lead a claim of universal fact, that research has found Waldorf education to "to foster a high degree of social competency", ignoring the express caveats and limitations of the sources (discussion here).
• diff making another claim of fact about the "conclusion" of a research report, ignoring the tentative and caveated nature of the original's (inconclusive) text (discussion here).
• diff removing a {{rs}} tag from a data analysis claim sourced to the Waldorf Today web site on the grounds that it is a "well-established news outlet".
• diff inserting (in 2006!) a claim that UNESCO had praised a Waldorf organization as being "of tremendous consequence in the conquest of apartheid", and sourcing it to a UNESCO document and to a polemical piece in a non-RS publication. The problem: the quotation appears to have been completely fabricated by the non-RS source - it's not in the UNESCO document.
• diff inserting (in 2007!) a claim of fact that Australian Waldorf students have been found to outperform all others at University (Hgilbert also recently re-inserted this content). On investigation it turns out this brave claim is sourced to an interview with a Masters student on an Australian local radio station who "sounded as if was about to publish his thesis".

Alexbrn 05:51, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Nil Einne

This is mostly an aside to the case and I pointed it out at WP:ANI but it seems it's not getting across so I'll mention it again. Our COI policy does not forbid people with a COI from making controversial edits. Rather it strongly discourages people with a COI from making edits (for a number of reasons), particularly those who can be regarded as paid avocates, but says making uncontroversial edits may be okay. This was basically what the arbcom case said as well. When we say 'strongly discourage' we mean it, we strongly discourage it but we don't forbid it. This isn't like a political case where someone says 'strongly discourage/encourage' but what they actual mean is 'do or don't do this or else'. This is an important distinction because as I also remarked in the ANI, the thing to concentrate on why the edits were bad or controversial, not whether or not the editor has a COI. Concentrating on the COI misses the point because someone is not going to be blocked simply because they were editing when they had a COI, even if the edits were controversial and many question whether the COI should even come in to the block (perhaps the length of the block only). As Hgilbert mentioned, this has been reaffirmed in other cases. Nil Einne (talk) 08:27, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Jellypear

I have attempted to condense the following points raised previously as a courtesy to editors and administrators.

In the approximately two months that I have been following the Waldorf education page, Binksternet has been involved in trying to apply sanctions to hgilbert twice already. It seems the preferred method of dealing with hgilbert on the part of some editors is not to deal with his edits in a timely manner but to collect a list of grievances and see what sticks. I view the wide-ranging nature of the discussion here (over an indefinite period of time, a range of issues and over multiple pages) as part of a continued attempt to get hgilbert banned from editing in this area. One would think asking for sanctions is a "last resort" kind of measure and that we would see clear evidence of editors trying to work out specific problems with hgilbert themselves before asking for sanctions. I think part of the issue is that some editors seem to believe that hgilbert is subject to unique COI restrictions. Binksternet and other editors who don’t claim real life participation in PLANS - the other organization specifically named in the Arbcom decision – seem to feel that if they find hgilbert’s edits to be controversial he is violating the Arbcom decision. In other words, the COI only works one way and all disagreements are presumably grounded in him being "tainted" by COI. I agree with Nil Einne’s views on this. COI can exist in many ways and so conversation should concentrate on why edits are bad and not the possible motivations of editors. In the month leading up to the request, there was little discussion in talk, no issues taken out to noticeboards, and only two reverts of hgilbert’s edits. The two reverts were once by me ] and once by Binksternet ]. Hgilbert accepted both of these reversions without discussion or conflict. This stands in contrast to the month prior, wherein multiple n/or and RS issues had to be discussed and referred out and some edit warring occurred. As messy and difficult as that process was, it did work and no editors were referred here for their behavior. Up until the filing here I thought things were working (more or less) smoothly given the lack of discussion and reversions. However, now the same WP:SYNTH, WP:PERTINENCE and WP:RS issues that had to be referred to noticeboards are being brought up again as evidence of hgilbert’s individual bias without that proper context being included. ] ] ]

Unfortunately, these reliable source issues are ongoing. Binksternet feels that the pseudoscience page categorization is warranted by presenting papers self-published by two advocacy organizations and/or by making a synthetic argument in which he even admits that the reliable sources do not make the explicit claim that Waldorf education is pseudoscience. ]. Of course, these are questions that ought to be discussed on the basis of what the reliable sources say rather than being brought here. It is Binksternet who has actually disrupted the project's progress by not letting this work itself out through normal channels.

All in all, the period involving the diffs presented by Binksternet, shows the opposite of someone "repeatedly or seriously to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process." The project was working as designed---at least as measured by the lack of disputes, controversies, reversions, edit warring and major problems in the diffs binksternet provided. All that being said, hgilbert’s removal of his own COI tag was wrong, even if other editors had ample opportunity to object before and after it happened. The lack of commentary was not a sufficient basis for action. There should have been some affirmation that it was time for it to be taken off. Thank you. Jellypear (talk) 08:41, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Statement by a13ean

Hgilbert seems like a pretty nice guy, and over the past eight years and (at the time of writing) exactly 10k edits, has made many positive contributions to wikipedia. However, he has also continually and consistently pushed a POV at pages related to the works of Rudolph Steiner, which he almost exclusively edits.

Not all the complaints brought here have merit; the heart and Lemuria images in particular shouldn't have been in the article (although there's other images in the article with even less context). Similarly not everyone here has clean hands with regard to editing in this area, and anyone is of course welcome to investigate my conduct in this area. However, Hgilbert in particular has continued to inappropriately push a POV despite repeated warnings. I previously laid out my concerns here and include my selection of diffs below for reference. HGilbert's response at that time can be seen here.

Of particular concern to me is misrepresentation and cherry-picking of positive material from sources, especially foreign-language and difficult to access academic sources; compare for example the article in Die Welt linked above to what it was used to source. Removing tags, misleading edit summaries, and canvassing ( ) are also a continued concern as noted above and by others. I am sure he could contribute positively to wikipedia in other areas, but I feel that his edits to these controversial areas have not, in net, helped build a better encyclopedia.

Statement by other editor

Result concerning Hgilbert

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.

I haven't yet made my way through all the evidence, but I might make a couple of initial observations. Firstly, topics concerning pseudoscience are problematic IMO not only because there are advocates on one side of the fence who try to promote their favoured theories, but also because there are sceptics on the other side who actively try to use Misplaced Pages as a vehicle for discrediting the same. Both approaches violate core policy and are potentially sanctionable, and a preliminary look at the evidence suggests a degree of problematic editing on both sides in this particular article, though I am yet to form an opinion as to whether any of it is sufficiently serious to warrant sanctions.

Secondly, while Hgilbert was found to have a COI at the original case, there is a difference between COI and paid advocacy, and no-one has accused Hgilbert of the latter. AFAIK there is no compunction on editors with a mere COI to discuss changes to articles prior to making them, so Binksternet's calls for sanctions based on that criterion alone don't appear to be actionable.

I expect to have more to say about the particular diffs a little later. Gatoclass (talk) 06:44, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Okay, I have finished a preliminary review of the evidence. Some of the diffs are very old and not actionable. A lot of others involve discussions about reliability of sources which would be difficult to resolve here in a timely manner, if at all, and with regard to most of these diffs no evidence of edit warring has been presented. That leaves a relatively small number of diffs to take a closer look at.

Firstly, this diff where Hgilbert removes a COI tag from the Waldorf education article. I can't think of any good reason why a user found by ARBCOM to have a COI in a given topic area should be taking it upon himself to remove such tags from an article in that topic area on which the user in question is or has been active. That alone I would consider to be a sanctionable offence. Secondly, this diff where Hgilbert adds content from a source which labels that very content with a "citation needed" tag. Hgilbert was cited for use of questionable sources in the original case, though that occurred a long time ago, and he needs to ensure that content is properly cited per WP:RS. Since Hgilbert has not previously been blocked or banned for inappropriate editing in the six years since the original case, I think a warning would probably suffice here. For removing the COI tag, I would suggest a one month topic ban for a first offence, with a warning that escalating sanctions may apply for future offences.

One further comment: while some of Hgilbert's edits may indeed be problematic, so too IMO is some of the content he has been removing, for example, an image of a human heart and an image of the "mythical continent of Lemuria". Misuse of images, quoteboxes etc. to highlight prejudicial content as a method of circumventing WP:UNDUE is a typical tactic of POV-pushers, and these images also strike me as violations of WP:SYNTH as their immediate relevance to the article topic is questionable. Some of the other diffs also indicate similar problems. I don't know who added these images or when they were added, but warnings might also be appropriate here. Anyway that pretty much summarizes my initial response to this request; I invite further commentary from my colleagues. Gatoclass (talk) 08:27, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

@Hgilbert: You would have to point me to the case in which "an arbitration" found your COI was not relevant before I could reconsider the above recommendation. Thanks, Gatoclass (talk) 11:15, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

After checking only whether the formal requirements for arbitration enforcement are met, it appears that all edits submitted as evidence were made prior to the warning of 11 March 2013 by Binksternet that is cited in the request. In my view, this rules out imposing sanctions based on these edits. Additionally, the diff of that warning does not meet the requirements of WP:AC/DS#Warnings, because it does not contain a link to the decision authorizing sanctions. (Yes, Hgilbert was a party to the original case, but the wording of WP:AC/DS does not make an exception to the requirement for a warning for such editors.) Accordingly, it seems that, based on the situation as described in the request, the most that we are authorized to do is issue correct warnings to all who may need them. (I also note that the request is 739 words long and needs to be shortened.)  Sandstein  18:58, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

• Regarding the date of any proper warning of the DS to Hgilbert: I would nominate this post by an Arbcom clerk to Hgilbert, notifying him of the motion just passed. This edit happened on 30 January 2013. EdJohnston (talk) 19:13, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

• Well... yes, but that is a "courtesy notice" about a motion imposing discretionary sanctions, not a "warning" as required by WP:AC/DS#Warnings. Sorry if I appear to be splitting procedural hairs here, or in the request concerning Soosim above, but I feel that is important that we are conservative in interpreting the boundaries of the wording of the provisions that authorize us to impose wide-ranging sanctions at our own discretion.  Sandstein  20:17, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

I have always assumed that WP:AC/DS#Warnings was intended to apply to users not party to the original case. This is because the warning in effect formally notifies users that discretionary sanctions apply. For users party to the original case, the warning is not necessary because they obviously already know that discretionary sanctions apply. Gatoclass (talk) 04:59, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

That is a reasonable assumption. (In this case, DS were added later, but Hgilbert was notified of that, as EdJohnston mentioned above.) It's just that I personally prefer to err on the side of caution. I understand that AGK (talk · contribs) is working on motions to clarify that DS require only a notification rather than a warning about the case. I prefer to wait on that clarification, but you are of course free to proceed as you deem appropriate.  Sandstein  05:41, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

• Considering that the request and the statements (notably that by IRWolfie-) are grounds for concern about the neutrality of Hgilbert's editing, I've issued formally correct warnings concerning Waldorf education and pseudoscience at . I noted that this is without prejudice to the definitive disposition of this request, in the event that any of you are of the view that there is a basis for sanctions even prior to these warnings.  Sandstein  18:56, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

• By virtue of being party (thus knowing the Article Probation remedy) to the original case - which caused him to be notified when the Article Probation was superseded by DS - it is reasonable to assume that he understands the remedies. Also, these days findings such as this would probably earn him a remedy or 2 against him directly (instead of article probation across the board - this is just my opinion, though). Thus, I would think this is grounds for sanction as he probably should know better. - Penwhale | 23:36, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

• Perhaps I should clarify at this point that I am still assessing the evidence here and hope to offer some conclusions some time over the next few days. There are a lot of diffs to look at and a number of issues to consider, so it's not the type of request that lends itself to a quick resolution. Gatoclass (talk) 11:26, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Apologies for the delay in getting back to this, I have had a busy week with little time for Misplaced Pages. Tonight I went back through the supplied diffs above alleging misconduct by Hgilbert, and while many of them are old and many others concern what I would probably characterize as legitimate content disputes, I nonetheless found a number of diffs that are of concern. In brief, they are as follows:

• Embellishing source: as discussed here: Summary: Hgilbert adds "research reports have found lower levels of harassment and bullying in Waldorf schools but the source states that in a study of just one Steiner school "Its findings suggest that there may be lower levels of bullying in Steiner schools".
• Embellishing source: Summary: Hgilbert adds "A review of studies of Waldorf education concluded that the education is "successful in its aim to educate human beings ...", but the source says " study, however, does suggest that Steiner education is successful in its aim to educate human beings ...".
• Embellishing source: Summary: Hgilbert adds Waldorf education has been found to foster a high degree of social competency to the lead, but when challenged on the talk page backtracks to the position that the schools seek to foster social responsibility.

• Citing source which turns out to originate from wikipedia (although not identified as wikipedia-based in the source). The original wikipedia text was actually written by Hgilbert himself in 2006, so he was in effect citing to himself, although he or somebody else did eventually add an (offline) source for the original wikipedia text.
• Apparent canvassing, although if Hgilbert can show me evidence he canvassed editors on the other side of the debate these diffs might be considered legitimate.
• Invitation to tag team: (May 2012).

These diffs mostly cover a period of the last three months, and indicate to me a degree of problematic editing in the topic area, at the very least a carelessness in citing sources that is not appropriate for someone previously cited in an Arbcom case for precisely this kind of misconduct. These edits may well result from an excess of enthusiasm for the topic on Hgilbert's part rather than an intention to mislead, but that is why we have a policy on COI. Then there is the apparent canvassing, which is infrequent but does indicate a persistent difficulty in abiding by the relevant policy. The tag teaming invitation is totally inappropriate and cynical (witness the edit summary), but is a rather old diff. Added to the above is the removal of the COI tag I mentioned above.

On the other hand, the original Arbcom case is pretty old now and Hgilbert has avoided sanctions for the last six years. Neither has he had a warning in that time, although a recent AN/I thread might be considered a reminder to exercise caution. Nor, it must be said, has any evidence been presented that Hgilbert has attempted to edit war over the above misstatements. In summary, I'm not sure what to do here. I should add that the conduct of some other editors may also require scrutiny, but I haven't found the time to do that yet and probably won't be able to do so until Tuesday at the earliest. Gatoclass (talk) 13:55, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

The fact that we're talking about enforcing ArbCom sanctions made as long ago (2007) as these is a bit of a concern. I don't know if ArbCom itself has intended to make sanctions of this type really infinite, but that seems to be what is being thought here. The fact that Hgilbert was named specifically in that arbitration would however lead to me to think that some sort of sanction against an editor specifically discussed in that arbitration would not be inappropriate. He's gone without sanctions for years, which is wonderful, but the behavior which seems to have led to the sanctions at least in part seems to be maybe returning again, which isn't. I haven't, and probably won't, review the edits of the others involved, but I can see that there is in my eyes rational grounds of some sort of sanction against Hgilbert, although I would lean to shorter rather than longer sanctions which are, if reasonable, more or less consistent with those leveled against any other editors who have recently engaged in dubious activity here. But, whether ArbCom specifically intended the sanctions to be indefinite or not, the fact that six years later the problems have persisted is to my eyes sufficient grounds to treat them as such. John Carter (talk) 18:49, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment John. This request has been open for quite a while now and I really don't want to spend any more time on it or keep it open any longer than necessary. I took another look through the article history tonight and I think I have probably seen enough at this point to make some recommendations. In addition to the diffs relating to Hgilbert above, I found a number of diffs from Alexbrn that are of concern. I did previously mention his addition of images containing prejudicial content of questionable relevance and in probable violation of WP:UNDUE, here and here; he later edit warred to retain the images in the article in spite of an apparent lack of consensus for the inclusion of at least one of the images on the article talk page. As with the images, the addition of content likely to lead a reader to a prejudicial view of Waldorf education seems to be a hallmark of Alexbrn's approach to this page. Some edits that are of particular concern, however, are a number which added opinions as statements of fact in plain violation of WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV and WP:YESPOV; ; the same edits also look like examples of WP:CHERRY (see original sources: ). Alexbrn is clearly aware of the YESPOV policy because he himself cited it in reverting someone else's edits.

With regard to Binksternet, he has made only a handful of edits to the article, but did support on the article talk page the return of a questionable image added by Alexbrn. Binksternet also repeatedly added some arguably UNDUE content to the lead.

To summarize then: for Alexbrn, given that he has not previously been cited for misconduct in the topic area, I propose a formal warning. For Binksternet, probably nothing more than a reminder to edit according to policy would be necessary at this point. That leaves Hgilbert, and I am still unsure about the best course of action there. While Hgilbert's misstatements of sources are problematic, none of the diffs are all that recent, and the other issues might be described as relatively minor. Regardless, I can't help but feel reluctant to topic ban an editor who has managed to avoid sanctions for six years. Additionally, given that the conduct on the other side of the fence has hardly been exemplary, a topic ban might be seen to be rewarding inappropriate conduct there. For these reasons I am leaning toward a warning for Hgilbert as well. The alternative would probably be a one month topic ban. Some input on this would therefore be welcome. Gatoclass (talk) 20:19, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

If nobody else wants to comment on the above, I will close this request after 24 hours with a warning to both Hgilbert and Alexbrn and a reminder to Binksternet, as indicated. Gatoclass (talk) 06:33, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

The proposals above sound reasonable. While it might be true that Alexbrn's edit history might not be quite as troubling as Hgilbert's, that isn't saying they're good. We probably would be better off without any sanctions to either, although, it additional comments support Hgilbert being sanctioned, then it would probably make sense to sanction Alexbrn as well, if maybe for a shorter time. John Carter (talk) 16:05, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.

Request concerning Doncram

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Nyttend (talk) 15:34, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

Doncram (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Doncram#General editor probation

Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it

1. Entire discussion here as of right now, where he says to an IP user in dispute "to me you seem somewhat like a series of previous editors who have arrived and taken interest in dab pages". One of many allegations without evidence; the same page accuses me of being the same person, although we're nowhere near to each other geographically
2. Yesterday, with edit summary "seriously, do you care about accuracy?"
3. Entire discussion here as of right now, when he's obstructing a process out of misunderstanding something that's easily understood with a few minutes of reading

Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required)

1. Warned on 25 March by me; note that he replied to the thread, so he's obviously aware of it

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

diff

Discussion concerning Doncram

Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.

Statement by Doncram

I've received notice of this discussion of edits on a disambiguation page and see what has been said. I'll just say: I have reason to be a bit "paranoid", if that means thinking that people are following and might be pushing/testing in order to raise contention, such as by opening an Administrative Enforcement proceeding. And, as I said at the linked page, i am honestly puzzled by how to deal with an anonymous editor who started by restoring what I considered a bad edit, and seems to be possibly very experienced in Misplaced Pages. And, that editor was "weirded out" by the odd behavior of other editors there, too, not just by my questions. Seems resolved by the editor being weirded out and dropping the possibility of discussing disambiguation policy and practice more thoroughly, which i offered to do.

I am open to having a big discussion in an RFC, about disambiguation policy and practices regarding place lists that include NRHP-listed places, and I urge participants here to consider if that would be useful. I don't think that revisiting disambiguation page policies is a great use of many editors time, but I would prefer to engage in that rather have a bunch of separate scattered discussions.

My comment is later than, and I have read all comments through, Sandstein's 3rd comment at 10:14, 31 March 2013 and the later comment by The Devil's Advocate at 17:25, and I will consider all that has been said here. Thanks. --doncram 21:17, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Orlady

I'm disappointed to see the talk-page exchange (now grown much longer: ) flagged by Nyttend. Doncram's statements are an example of the kind of behavior toward other contributors that has been problematic in the past. The initial 3 paragraphs of accusations against the IP user and Nyttend are expressions of paranoia (the assumption that anyone who reverts his changes or questions his edits is someone he has identified as having a personal animus against him) and article ownership. In his later post asserting that he is an authority and suggesting that the IP should pursue mediation if he disagrees with Doncram's authority -- and by posting 10 paragraphs (a veritable wall of words -- and all about an inconsequential disambiguation page!) in slightly more than 5 hours, Doncram was (in effect, if not conscious intent) telling the IP to get out of his way and stay away. The parting words of the IP ("..This is getting way too weird. ...I'm not touching this page again") are a fine summation of the effect of Doncram's behavior on the IP -- and why this behavior is a problem. I wish Doncram could be made to understand that people like Nyttend and me aren't conspiring against him. I don't hold out hope of convincing him that we aren't out to get him, but he does need to recognize that this behavior toward other users is intimidation that will not be tolerated. --Orlady (talk) 18:51, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

This pattern of (1) commenting on the contributor rather than the content, (2) asserting his superiority (and implied article ownership), and (3) overwhelming other talk participants with a disproportionately long outpouring of words ("wall of words") is behavior that I have been seeing in Doncram since 2008. He has accused me of bullying and intimidation (but did not provide evidence), but he has been consistently and persistently engaging in behaviors that demonstrably intimidate other users. Furthermore, his request for mediation with another user over an incredibly trivial disagreement is a behavior that I've experienced in the past (and is included in evidence in the Arbcom case) that I believe is intimidating in its effect, if not necessarily its intent. --Orlady (talk) 15:23, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't think Sandstein's suggestion of a topic restriction related to NRHP makes much sense. The issue here is behavior, not content. Almost all of Doncram's edits are related to the NRHP, so it's logical that that's where almost all of his behavioral issues arise. Restricting him from that topic might be a good recipe for making him upset and angry, but it's not a good recipe for addressing his behavior. --Orlady (talk) 20:02, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Gatoclass suggests that an RFC might be appropriate. Considering that discussions that include Doncram tend to balloon way out of proportion to the issue, and in view of my observations of Doncram's disambiguation activities over several years, I don't believe that an RFC is called for. Doncram has undertaken a laudable -- and often thankless (meaning unappreciated) -- long-term project to create disambiguation pages for National Register properties. He has endured a lot of criticism over the years for failing to abide by the clearly documented guidance at WP:Disambiguation, for issues that at various times have included (but are not limited to) (1) listing disambiguation entries that don't contain any bluelinks, (2) in an attempt to resolve issue 1, adding bluelinks that point to pages that don't cover the title supposedly being disambiguated, (3) creating disambiguation pages that list only two items, (4) including two or more bluelinks in a single disambiguation entry (this typically happened when he converted a redlink into a bluelink shortly after creating the disambiguation page), and (5) creating disambiguation pages for items that contain similar words but are incredibly unlikely ever to need disambiguation. To "defend" his disambiguation pages, he got into a habit of creating exceptionally minimal stub-article pages so that there would be a bluelink to display on the page (these stubs were one of the big issues discussed in the Arbcom case). To "defend" listings of redlinks, he got into a habit of adding a link to an NRHP list-article at the end of every entry on his disambiguation pages; this habit has apparently become so thoroughly ingrained that he now often adds the words "NRHP-listed" (or something similar) after every blue-linked entry for an NRHP-listed property, as illustrated at O'Connor House. The "See also" section of that page also is an illustration of the issue I enumerated as "(5)". I think the best resolution of the content-related aspects of the issues that arose at "O'Connor House" would be for an uninvolved administrator who is knowledgeable about the ins and outs of disambiguation pages to advise him on crafting disambiguation pages that conform with both the specific guidance at WP:Disambiguation and the philosophy behind that guideline page. I also think that would be consistent with the "general editor probation" remedy imposed by Arbcom. --Orlady (talk) 16:01, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

@Gatoclass: (It took me some time to decide what I really did mean.) The main issue in this request is behavioral and has essentially nothing to do with WP:Disambiguation. Disambiguation is only a side issue, but larger issues possibly could be avoided in the future if the disambiguation issue was addressed now. I think this could be addressed under authority of the general editor probation sanction. However, there's probably no benefit from having an uninvolved administrator "require" Doncram to conform to WP:Disambiguation unless the requirement is accompanied by specific advice on what he needs to do differently in order to conform. This is because he apparently is convinced that he fully conforms now. An uninvolved administrator could advise him about possible reasons why various other editors persistently perceive problems with his disambiguation pages, and how he should/could edit those pages to avert future criticisms. --Orlady (talk) 00:33, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Elkman

It's too bad the arbitration didn't give Doncram the article-locking capability that he's apparently wanted. By the way, when he says he welcomes constructive input on his articles, he really means it's OK for other people to edit his articles only if they say something he agrees with. That's why I reverted the IP edits to the O'Connor House article, because sometimes an office building or a glassware factory can be confused with a house. --Elkman 20:15, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

By the way, can I get a ruling on whether it was OK for me to add a link to the National Register nomination for Durham School (Durham, Arkansas) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)? It could be argued that I was violating WP:POINT to support a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 March 21#Category:Bungalow/Craftsman architecture in the United States. --Elkman 20:19, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

OK, so Arbcom doesn't want to provide a ruling on the Durham School edit. Could I get a ruling from Doncram himself? --Elkman 03:41, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

TDA: Maybe you can tell me exactly which one of my contributions is a violation of policy, and bring it up here. Then you could get me blocked for a time, or perhaps banned. (I'm sure you and your friends at W-------ocracy would entirely love to see that happen.) To be honest, I don't know what sort of things I might say that might upset Doncram. If I mention that the start date of a building is often after the start date of the organization that built it, do I have to walk on eggshells when saying so, because Doncram might get upset? Is it a matter of arbitration that adding a National Register nomination form link to an article might make Doncram upset? Sometimes I can't figure that sort of stuff out on my own. I was really hoping that Arbcom would provide an exact answer on when it's OK or not OK for me to edit articles that Doncram has ownership of.

Regardless, I think I get your point that I absolutely must not say anything that disturbs Doncram. Meanwhile, I'm assuming it's still perfectly OK with you if Doncram insults my work, implies that I do inaccurate and insufficient work, and asserts that I don't operate with quality and integrity. I can be quite certain that you don't have any qualms about insulting me, personally, judging from this message. --Elkman 04:39, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Nyttend

Adding a second statement, since Sandstein asks for clarification from me. First off, the request is for a block; I didn't know that there were any options here other than "block" or "no sanction". Go with Orlady's and Elkman's diffs and comments, plus note that he accuses me of doing the editing, without basis (and as noted by Orlady, he's driven the IP off), and here characterises an attempt to get a community-approved process put into practise as being "railroaded" through without notification to him — this despite his non-involvement in anything related to the community approval. In the diff that Orlady calls "asserting that he is an authority...", Doncram even says "You probably do not see all of this, you don't see yourself as a rogue editor causing problems, but to me you seem somewhat like a series of previous editors who have arrived and taken interest in dab pages...". In other words, "You don't think of yourself as causing problems, but I know better, and you look like a sock in disguise" — an accusation of sockpuppetry without evidence. Finally, please look at the entirety of Talk:O'Connor House — not to read it, but simply glancing over the comments to see how long they are. Doncram's frequently clogged things up with TLDR statements (and objections when people tell him that they're too long), even doing this at the arbitration request. None of the things mentioned are sanctionable by themselves, just like none of his actions before the case were by themselves sanctionable, but all of them put together are problematic. These actions are some of what the arbitration ruling was supposed to stop; since he's acting the same way as beforehand, we need to use the arbitration ruling. Nyttend (talk) 03:13, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Statement by The Devil's Advocate

I do not believe there is anything of concern here. Nowhere do I see an indication that Doncram's conduct "repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any normal editorial process or any expected standards of behavior and decorum." This is just seizing on trivialities and technicalities to get Doncram sanctioned for no apparently constructive purpose. These editors (Nyttend, Orlady, and Elkman) should just leave Doncram well enough alone. If they don't need to interact with him they shouldn't. I don't think any of them should be able to go to some page Doncram created or edited, make some edit they would have every reason to believe will lead to some amount of tension with Doncram, and then use any resulting tension as cause for getting him sanctioned.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 04:06, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

The simple fact is that nothing happened here that is even worth acknowledging. An IP with clear experience on Misplaced Pages began reverting changes to a dab page after Nyttend had made a similar revert. For Doncram to suggest there was a connection is not obscene as most editors would be suspicious. People can get all bewildered at Doncram reacting defensively over a dab page, but why is anyone insistent on removing a few harmless links from a dab page in the first place? It is not excessive and there is certainly a logical basis for the inclusion of those links. Nyttend and Doncram have negative history, including a recent attempt by Nyttend to have another of Doncram's legitimate dab pages speedily deleted, and Nyttend obviously would be aware that Doncram may not react well to him deleting material from a page Doncram created. He is now using that reaction to push for sanctions. This sort of conduct towards someone in a dispute should not be rewarded with anything, even a warning.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 17:25, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Mathsci

In the edit summary to a disambiguation page, Doncram accused an anonymous IP, whose edits he twice reverted, of being a logged-off editor subject to an interaction ban with him. The only such editor is SarekOfVulcan. On the talk page, however, Doncram suggested in a long paragraph that the IP was Nyttend, who had edited the page a few days beforehand. Even when told this was not the case by Nyttend and the IP, Doncram continued using the talk page for making general allegations concerning Nyttend. This was uncollegial editing and a violation of the remedy of general editor probation.

Of those commenting here, Nyttend, Orlady and Elkman are experienced editors in the NRHP area. Although all three were named parties in the recently closed Doncram case, none of them were mentioned in the final decision of the arbitration committee. In particular, none of these editors is subject to any kind of interaction ban. General editor probabtion applies to all articles Doncram edits. These are almost exclusively short stubs, lists and disambiguation pages. Any edit to this kind of page could be described as trivial. However, the conduct on the talk page, with unjustified bad faith accusations of sockpuppetry, was out of all proportion. The arbcom case contained numerous examples of bad faith accusations of an extreme kind, verging on paranoia. This is no different. Mathsci (talk) 08:59, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

There is no point at all in an RfC. The problems were identified in great detail in the arbcom case. There is no need to repeat that lengthy and painstaking process. Doncram was given the benefit of the doubt in that arbcom case. If he resumes the kind of conduct that was pinpointed there (personalized attacks out of all proportion), some concrete short term measures, such as one week-long blocks, are the way forward. Topic bans serve no purpose as they would effectively be sitebans, given the nature of WP:NRHP and Doncram's specific interests. Doncram certainly has enough self-awareness to know when he is crossing a line. If not ... Mathsci (talk) 16:12, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Keithbob

I agree with the assessment by Gatoclass and Sandstein. Doncram's main offense here is his repeated focus on the editor(s) instead of on the content, as well as a lack of collaborative spirit and ownership. I don't believe the behavioral issues rise to the level yet where strong action is needed and a series of gradual restrictions is a good idea. However, if Doncram keeps going on the current path he/she will eventually be banned from WP and rightly so. However, I am hoping that a series of increasingly severe sanctions will be a wake up call to amend his/her behavior and eliminate the current situation whereby their productive edits are negated or even overshadowed by their misbehavior. Doncram would also be wise to note that not all Admins will be as patient as Sandstein and Gatoclass, especially as the situation progresses and if he/she wants to continue on WP the time to shape up is now. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 14:35, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Pigsonthewing

Hasn't he already been 'advised' to that effect? More than once? Note also his comments at Misplaced Pages:Bots/Requests for approval/RileyBot 9, made after his statement above (1; 2; 3; 4). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:47, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

That is indeed a dispute about Doncoram's concern about content. But as the bot isn't changing the content in question, his comments are inappropriate, and yet despite having this pointed out to him several times he persists, casting aspersions the editors who address him there. Unlike him, I have talked about an editor's actions, not their personality or supposed motivations. As such your thinly-veiled attempt to silence me trough threat is both unwarranted and inappropriate. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:57, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Doncram

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.

Elkman, sorry: because your conduct is not covered by arbitration remedies, its assessment is, I believe, outside the scope of this noticeboard.  Sandstein  21:09, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Diffs are certainly preferable, though I'm not averse to links to full discussion threads where they provide useful context. I agree that Nyttend's evidence is a little vague though. Orlady's diffs and commentary are more helpful IMO. In this diff, for example, doncram proposes to document past behavior and tendencies, to inform a current discussion, if that is you Nyttend. "Document past behaviour and tendencies" of an editor to "inform a current discussion" doesn't sound like a very collegial, or productive, approach to talk page discussion. Doncram's response to an IP also strikes me as excessive and arguably intimidatory, or likely to have an intimidatory effect on a new user (although the IP in question doesn't actually sound like an inexperienced wikipedian).

On the other hand, doncram was cited in the original arbcom case specifically for incivility, and I don't think these diffs reach to that level. The apparent tendency to comment on contributor rather than content, however, is troubling. I'm not sure whether we should be broadening the scope of sanctions based on just a couple of diffs, but I guess one option, if this kind of behaviour persists, would be to prohibit doncram from commenting on contributor (with the usual exceptions), thus encouraging him to keep his comments focussed on content. Gatoclass (talk) 00:16, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

After reviewing the evidence, I tend to agree with Gatoclass. Doncram's editing isn't so problematic as to call for immediate action, but it is troublesome nonetheless. His contributions are confrontative, sometimes address contributors rather than content, tend to assume bad faith on the part of others and seem to reflect a sense of ownership as well as grudges about past conflicts. Gatoclass is right to say that this is not a collegial or productive approach to talk page discussion, and I can well understand why the IP editor left the discussion saying that they were weirded out by this. I suggest warning Doncram that if they continue participating in discussions in this vein, we will ban them from making edits related to the National Register of Historic Places, which seems to be the topical nexus of this problem.  Sandstein  10:14, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

What I'm concerned about here, is that looking at the issues with this editor, we're just papering over the cracks in the dam. We're banning them specific articles where there's a problem, but sooner or later it springs a leak somewhere else. SirFozzie (talk) 08:03, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by that SirFozzie, but if you mean doncram's behavioural issues are not confined to one topic area, you may have a point.

This request reminds me somewhat of the recent SMcCandlish case in that doncram appears to be an editor whose value to the encyclopedia is generally acknowledged (correct me if I'm wrong), but whose approach to discussion tends to alienate other users. I'm always reluctant in such circumstances to go straight to topic bans or blocks, preferring to try other options first. At this point, not much evidence of misconduct has been presented, so I'd prefer to start at the milder end of the scale. My suggestion would be to start with an advisement to doncram to avoid gratuitous comments on contributor, if the problem persists, we can try an outright prohibition on such comments, if that doesn't work we can then start considering blocks and bans. Another possible option might be to require him to abide by consensus; ie, if he is reverting in defiance of consensus, that could be seen as grounds for sanction. I mention this because he appears to have reverted two users over the same issue at this page. Gatoclass (talk) 13:33, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

BTW, if there is a meta-issue here, that potentially affects thousands of pages, as indicated by the talk page discussion, would a content RFC be helpful in reducing tensions? Gatoclass (talk) 14:39, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

We seem to agree that there's a problem, but we don't seem to be certain that it requires immediate action (and if so, what). Without objection, I'll close this with an advisement to Doncram that if the problems identified here continue (e.g., confrontative attitude, ownership, commenting on contributor rather than content, assumptions of bad faith), then he may be made be subject to more or less wide-ranging restrictions.  Sandstein  13:59, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Pigsonthewing: Although I don't understand why exactly Doncram objects to the task proposed at Misplaced Pages:Bots/Requests for approval/RileyBot 9, it seems to me that this (notably the diffs you provide) is primarily reflective of a content dispute (about how certain infobox fields should be formatted) rather than of a conduct problem. That content disagreement is not subject to arbitration enforcement. That is, Doncram may not be sanctioned for his opinions, but only for how he expresses them. But I note that in said discussion, you are also arguing confrontatively and, in part, aimed at the contributor rather than at the content. Please also take the advice given to Doncram here, or we may need to ask ArbCom to extend the remedy to encompass additional editors or the whole topic area.  Sandstein  15:27, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

So done.  Sandstein  07:54, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.

Request concerning Dasixiaoriben

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Nableezy 14:10, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

Dasixiaoriben (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Misplaced Pages:ARBPIA#General 1RR restriction

Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it

1. 14:41, 3 April 2013 Revert of this
2. 19:20, 3 April 2013 Revert of this
3. 08:49, 4 April 2013 Partial revert of this, source misrepresentation

Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required)

1. Warned on 1RR here, prior to last revert listed

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

The user has been claiming that a new edition of the cited source does not contain the material currently cited. That is demonstrably false. In the last edit, the user changes what has come to be known as the Lydda Death March. to The event has come to be known as the 1948 Palestinian exodus from Lydda and Ramle and has also been referred to as the Lydda Death March when the cited source says 'On 12 July, the Arab inhabitants of the Lydda-Ramle area, amounting to come 70,000, were expelled in what became known as the 'Lydda Death March'. The user has edit-warred, misrepresented sources, and lied about other sources. He has also been edit-warring on the talk page of the article, repeatedly blanking or modifying another user's comments (eg , , ). I have a hard time believing that this is not a reincarnation of the past collection of sockpuppets of a banned user that has plagued that page, but even without that being taken into consideration he or she is violating the 1RR and lying about sources.

Sandstein, the source misrepresentation is in the article. nableezy - 16:14, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notified

Discussion concerning Dasixiaoriben

Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.

Statement by Dasixiaoriben

First, my English is not polished. I make many efforts to ensure my edits to articles are grammatically correct. When I put on the talk page I dont make sure as much. But for this to be called me a vandal or disruption is wrong. I have improved the article. I think Nableezy says I violate 1rr by saying that ANY edit of the site is a revert, but this isn't true. I made an edit, it was reverted, so I went to the talk page. When I say what he said (no other user contested the content) I am called a 1rr violater. I am reading about Misplaced Pages policy. I tried to make edits that make concensus. You can see by above, he is making me intot he devil when I am working to make a better encyclopedia. No edit I make to an article is bad grammar, I make hard to ensure the article has good grammar.

Also, I have read many Misplaced Pages policy. I am sure I not know all, but I have the good faith. I think Nableezy's problem is our cultural difference. He is American and I am Chinese. If administrator think I not know enough about scholarship (Western scholarship?) to make edits, than I accept.

But, what I think is Nableezy is politically minded, not for Misplaced Pages.Dasixiaoriben (talk) 18:09, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Sean.hoyland

The editor doesn't have a 'limited command of English'. They are writing in a way that they imagine resembles the way a Chinese person with a limited command of English would write, because it serves their purpose to do so, presumably for stimulation rather than deception given that it is inept and inconsistent. Doing whatever serves their purpose, irrespective of rules and norms, has been this person's prime concern for over 2 years. They'll either be blocked as a Lutrinae sock at some point or like their Luke 19 Verse 27 sock they will be blocked for disruption. Either way, it's inevitable that they will be blocked eventually and more time will have been wasted because of this person inability to control their behavior. Sean.hoyland - talk 19:33, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Result concerning Dasixiaoriben

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.

I've previously offered the opinion that WP:ARBPIA#General 1RR restriction is not enforceable in this kind of situation, because it has not been imposed by Committee vote and is therefore not a binding ArbCom remedy; and if it is considered a discretionary sanction then Dasixiaoriben has not received the specific type of warning required by WP:AC/DS (not even in an edit notice). As such, the most we could do under AE authority would be to issue that warning. But in view of the "cow pie" type of vandalism engaged in by this very new account (which does give some credence to the suspicion of socking), combined with the edit-warring and their apparently limited command of English, I'm not sure whether we shouldn't just indef-block the account under normal administrator authority for disruptive editing and not being a net benefit to Misplaced Pages. – Just a note concerning "source misrepresentation": In my view this should be reserved to mean making false statements about a source's contents in an article, rather than (as here, allegedly) in a discussion.  Sandstein  16:07, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

I've username blocked. That username in pinyin basically translates to "beat Japs to death". T. Canens (talk) 19:39, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks – I'll close this as moot, then.  Sandstein  19:43, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

His problem is actually not the Ukraine-related topics, but a tendency to quickly revert edits by other contributors without talking. No, he does not follow WP:BRD cycle.

I run into this problem while editing articles that are not on Ukrainian subjects, but fell in EE area. He made this and this edits. This is a pretty strong statement (first diff) that "Although the case was officially declared as "completely fabricated" and all victims rehabilitated by Russian authorities in 1992 (ref) , the later research has shown that there was in fact a conspiracy, and Gumilev did take part in it (another ref) . He tells "in fact". How come? This claim simply contradicts most RS. Hence I reverted both changes per WP:BRD and started discussion at talk pages: here and here.

Galassi responded only by telling this in one of the talk pages, and then immediately reverted here (his edit summary: "not what sources say..") and here (edit summary "per recent reliable research"). This is the same problem as with Ukrainian subjects. But more important, as became clear from our later discussions ("POV" here and on his talk page), he did not even read any of the sources he refer to in his reverts.

I did not want to submit this request and therefore talked with Galassi to ask if he understands that reverting others without talking and without even checking the sources is not a good idea, and that editing restrictions must be respected, but without any success.