Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 06:53, 28 February 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 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)