Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Doncram/Proposed decision

Main case page (Talk) — Evidence (Talk) — Workshop (Talk) — Proposed decision (Talk)

Case clerks: X! (Talk) & Lord Roem (Talk) Drafting arbitrators: AGK (Talk) & NuclearWarfare (Talk)

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, clerk, or functionary, without further warning, by being banned from further participation in the case, or being blocked altogether. Personal attacks against other users, including arbitrators or the clerks, will be met with sanctions. Behavior during a case may also be considered by the committee in arriving at a final decision.

Arbitrators active on this case

Active:

AGK
Carcharoth
Coren
Courcelles
David Fuchs
Hersfold
Kirill Lokshin
Newyorkbrad
NuclearWarfare
Risker
Roger Davies
SilkTork
Timotheus Canens
Worm That Turned

Inactive:

Salvio giuliano

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

+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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia 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. --do ncr am 23:05, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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? Them From Space 23:11, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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. Them From Space 02:06, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 Wikipedia (for purposes of meditation or the like), then a ban probably makes sense. On the other hand, if there is a desire to keep the person connected to the community, but keep them from editing, a block probably is more reasonable. Unlike the situation with a ban, with a block there should be NO possibility for interactions with other Wikipedians to lead to further sanctions. Regardless, the choice to implement either of these remedies requires a clear idea of the intent and the expected outcome. --Orlady (talk) 04:56, 28 February 2013 (UTC) Inserted word "no" (in caps to highlight that this is a chnage) that was omitted from this comment earlier. --Orlady (talk) 12:28, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't even agree that a ban should be used if the editor needs a vacation from Wikipedia. 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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Yes, to help a brand new user whose contribution to a dab page was likely to be eliminated from Wikipedia, I opened that article about an English church that was expected to be a notable historic building (and was [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Our_Lady_Star_of_the_Sea,_Seaforth&oldid=540147996 confirmed by me later to be a listed building). Discussed, addressed, at User talk:Doncram#Ways to improve Our Lady Star of the Sea, Seaforth. As I said, I have started short articles where I viewed it beneficial for some other reason, as here to support a disambiguation page entry and to support a new contributor. --do ncr am 05:43, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

@SilkTork -- here's an example of Doncram repeatedly moving a page against two editors, one of whom isn't a party here and neither of whom is me. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Confederate_monuments&offset=&limit=500&action=history --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 10:51, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@SilkTork -- I have already resolved that in May, I would resign adminship and file a reconfirmation RFA (two years after the last one) should I still retain the bit after the conclusion of this case. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 02:29, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Doncram comments -- including about Move warring finding

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

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

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

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

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

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

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 ([1] [2] [3]). 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)[reply]

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 [4], [5], and [6]) 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)[reply]

To me the fire looks like it comes from Doncram. Either heat or oxygen or fuel should be removed to prevent a flare-up. Binksternet (talk) 05:00, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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

TDA, I don't believe that you and I ever met before this Arbcom case. It seems that you took it upon yourself to research the histories of the parties, compile evidence that you found interesting, and post your conclusions about it. Unlike you, the parties to this case have lived the history for several years. You weren't around back in March 2009 when Doncram tried to get me topic-banned and to have a banned sockpuppeteer unbanned -- over his objections to my efforts to keep the banned user's dreck out of Wikipedia.[7] You weren't around (in that same timeframe) when Doncram's persistent unsubstantiated accusations against me convinced a number of other users to oppose my RFA with reasoning that can best be summarized as "Where there's smoke, there must be fire, and there's too much smoke here for my taste." He decided, some time in 2008, that I was engaged in a personal campaign against him -- before I even recognized that "Doncram" was someone I had interacted with in multiple content discussions. (I didn't used to pay much attention to the names of the other users I was interacting with, but Doncram changed that for me.) I've seen him drive other editors away, as I know he was trying to drive me away, and I can't sit still for that sort of thing. --Orlady (talk) 18:00, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

I agree an interaction ban should be mutual. Regarding the accusation by TDA that Orlady has called another editor's work a "piece of shit". Do you have a diff for that? I hope you are not referring to this diff from Doncram's evidence where Orlady says: It is unfortunately true that most of the meaningless verbiage you have inserted into article space could be relatively easily cleaned up. Similarly, the dog droppings that are left in in public parks by the pets of thoughtless dog owners could be "relatively easily cleaned up," but the world is not full of people who want to devote themselves to selflessly cleaning up after other people's dogs. Similarly, when meaningless verbiage is added bot-style to hundreds (if not thousands) of pages in article space, there is no army of selfless volunteers waiting around for the opportunity to research the topics and replace that verbiage with worthwhile prose. As that would be a misrepresentation of her words.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:15, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, actually, though I fail to see how the above comment was markedly better. I am referring to the comment in the DRV that I linked to in my evidence.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 03:21, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks for responding and providing a link. For reference purposes I'm providing diff and the actual quote that TDA is referencing in his comment above:

Nyttend shouldn't have deleted this article, but taking it to AfD won't resolve the situation. The deleted article was a P-O-S, containing very little meaningful content (other than the copyvio sentence) and some bad excuses for reference citations (e.g., "another book preview snippet available in Google search results"). Converting it into a halfway-decent policy-compliant stub (using non-copyvio words and citing actual references) should have taken the article creator no more than 5 minutes, but it appears from the article history that he was doing anything but that--Orlady at DRV

-- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:36, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You forgot the part after that:

(in order to spite Nyttend, perhaps?).

Not sure why you ended that quote without the parenthetical remark. Mind you, the copyvio claim was completely bogus and was rejected by several uninvolved admins.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 21:47, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Findings on Orlady

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

Orlady introduced the "sadistic" word to the Workshop talk page, not me. --do ncr am 16:39, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It was first introduced by you on the workshop talk page in this edit.[8] Mathsci (talk) 23:57, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And I introduced it here after you (i.e., Doncram) had used it elsewhere to describe me. To wit, on 3 June 2011 at WP:AN: "It seems to me that she is determined to find any kind of fault, and perhaps to drive me from Wikipedia, and that she engages in sadistic and/or hounding and/or otherwise negative behaviors because she enjoys it or otherwise serves her personal needs in some way." --Orlady (talk) 04:49, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Although Orlady registered an account in 2004, her editing became prolific only in November 2006, mainly with edits connected to places and institutions in Tennessee. Two months later she started to add to the article National Register of Historic Places listings in Tennessee.[9] Mathsci (talk) 23:57, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mathsci, I am entitled to make proposals without my co-drafters consent. We are not consuls. Moreover, you have misunderstood my position. I do not argue that Orlady's editing is problematic; I argue, well, along precisely the same lines as the thinking I set down in finding of fact 2). Your comments give the impression to this user that you do not fully understand the evidence at play, or have chosen to ignore it—though I'm not sure why. Thank you for your comments; my colleagues will take them into account if they so wish. AGK [•] 11:38, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm still puzzled, but it's not any kind of criticism of you. I am sorry if it came across that way. I found the evidence cited unconvincing, just as Hersfold, Coren and other arbitrators have explained. What complicated this case was the sheer number of short sub-stubs, redirects and disambiguation pages involved. I personally did not take unsubstantiated generalisations for granted, so spent a long time systematically going through all of the articles that Doncram and Orlady had jointly edited (over 1.200). I summarised my findings on the workshop talk page, concentrating on stubs created by Doncram. Mostly Orlady would just change a newly created category. Newyorkbrad has indicated that he is preparing alternative findings on Orlady which hopefully will pass. This is a difficult case where all parties involved in their different ways showed dedication to building an encyclopedia. I hope a solution can be found where Doncram is not site-banned. I also believe that for her own well-being and peace of mind, regardless of the findings, Orlady should probably not interact with Doncram; and vice versa. On the other hand it's quite hard to figure out how these two matters could be solved simultaneously. Mathsci (talk) 20:02, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

AGK has insisted on the correctness of his proposed findings, which he asserts are being deliberately ignored. However, the assertion on hounding (citing The Devil's Advocate's evidence) seems to be without foundation. Orlady has a large number of common articles with Doncram, but so too do other editors specialising in NRHP, specifically Edyabe, Nyttend, Elkman, Sanfranman69, Kudzuman, Appraiser, Clariosophic, Pubdog and Dmadeo, (see Mathsci's evidence here). That is to be expected in the case of NRHP stub-stubs, redirects and disambiguation pages (Doncram has created over 8,000). There is no basis for singling out Orlady or suggesting that Orlady has followed Doncram around: the same negative and highly subjective assertion could be made of all these other editors dedicated to NRHP articles. There is on the contrary strong evidence that Doncram's editing standards often fell below those expected for NRHP stubs. Doncram has made severe and highly personalized criticisms of Orlady, particularly claims of being followed around, hounded and bulllied in an "evil" and "sadistic" way. Those claims are unreasonable and not borne out by any systematically produced evidence. Mathsci (talk) 02:01, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mathsci, where did I suggest the validity of the findings of fact I proposed has been deliberately ignored? I suggested below that you did not fully understand the evidence at play, which is quite the different thing. You said in an earlier comment in this thread that you were "sorry it came across" as though you were criticising me personally. Don't misunderstand me: I don't care two jots what people think of me as a person; it's their impression of my work as a Wikipedian that I care about. However, I suggest you sequentially examine your actions in this thread. First, you created this very section, and have transformed it into—substantively—a "slate AGK" thread. You earlier questioned my judgement in making a proposal with which my co-drafter (though not, at that stage, many other arbitrators; only a few other members vetted our arbwiki draft) disagreed. You made a remark about me, in another section, that had to be redacted as a personal attack. Now, you have misrepresented my position; and you have invented an argument (that I am suggesting Doncram's allegations of severe harassment by Orlady) to tear down that, actually, has nothing to do with the finding I proposed; my finding on Orlady, in fact, argues something entirely different. You may wish to reflect on the impression that this gives, the usefulness of your actions to the speedy resolution of this dispute, and the wider effects on the already-unpleasant culture of arbitration that your involvement in this case has had. AGK [•] 12:59, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding is that Newyorkbrad will be crafting alternative findings in the near future. From past experience he will read through all the available commentary very carefully and ignore things or take them into account as he sees fit. All other arbitrators have disagreed with the current proposed findings on Orlady. I also disagree with those findings, not because they were written by a particular arbitrator but because they rely on evidence which does not give an accurate picture of Orlady's editing. For the Noleander case I prepared a summary of a long text in my user space which was linked to the evidence page. I did that to give a comparison with Noleander's own article that was central to that case. It took quite a while. In this case, which involved an enormous number of short articles, three days were required to work through the subset edited by both Doncram and Orlady. You had placed a question about that on the workshop page. The analysis was done in response to that question to assist in the case. The hasty and ill-judged remarks I made on the workshop talk page 2 weeks ago were removed myself (not fast enough[10]) as I did not wish to offend you. I am sorry if I did. Mathsci (talk) 06:39, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's a better explanation of your position. I'll take your comments into account; thank you. I too am waiting on Newyorkbrad's proposals and the votes of several other arbitrators, so let's see what direction the committee goes in once a majority of us have voted on the case. (If anybody else is reading here, I understand that several of my colleagues are busy or away in real life; although they aren't all marked as inactive on this case, it is likely that they will take longer than usual to vote on the proposed decision.) AGK [•] 11:24, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Worm That Turned used Snottywong's intersection tool to produce raw data.[11] I did a check of the article entries to compare them with my alphabetic list on the workshop talk page. I found five extra cases where problems had arisen. As explained there, 23 January 2011 was a day that Doncram made a mass nomination for deletion of articles on churches in Connecticut. Orlady added tags for the AfDs, almost all of which were unsuccessful. It is not clear to me that inferences can be read off immediately from the raw listing: each entry has to be looked at individually. As a very rough comparison, here is the raw data for Nyttend[12] and Polaron[13]. Mathsci (talk) 11:52, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ironically (in view of the focus here on minimal stub articles), the AfD that Mathsci refers to above was started by Doncram to request deletion of a large number of minimal stubs, most of which had been started just a few days earlier. --Orlady (talk) 14:07, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Upholding community expectations of admin behaviour

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

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

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

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

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

I also note a distinct lack of the word "harmony" on WP:ADMIN. Respect and civility when interacting with others, yes. Judgement in the use of the tools, yes. Leading Kumbaya sings -- not so much. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:32, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tim, Sarek has not only edit-warred in respect to disputes with Doncram, but used the tools a few times during said disputes. His conduct elsewhere just indicates that this is a problem beyond one editor or subject. Mind you, there is recent misconduct regarding this particular dispute that I noted in my evidence. I think the Arbs should all look at that DRV and the associated discussions and actions.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 05:17, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I know all that. My point is that nobody presented evidence about "his conduct elsewhere", beyond his actions related to Doncram. For example, nobody mentioned Sarek's actions with respect to WP:AT in the evidence. T. Canens (talk) 12:36, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There always is the feeling that the remit and scope of this case allows for only evidence about SOV's misconduct in relation to doncram.--Guerillero | My Talk 15:08, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Someone submitting evidence concerning SoV but not related to the other participants would risk being accused derailing the scope of the case to persue a personal grudge. That said, several arb's did mention a possible desysop as being in play. It may have been helpful for the arbs to explicitly state that evidence to that end without relation to the others in the case would be welcome or helpful.

I also sympathize with the Kobayashi Maru that comes with it. If they act without evidence on their pages, people will cry they are overstepping their authority. If they fail to act because no evidence was submitted (but presumably exists), people cry that they are hiding behind the rules as a cop-out. They did tell you when you were elected that there is no way you can ever be right, right?204.101.237.139 (talk) 15:33, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@T. Canens; this relates to the case naming controversy. The case was biased against Doncram from the beginning. ArbCom refuses to believe this. Despite learned research into anchoring showing inability of people to avoid it, ArbCom is not susceptible to cognitive bias. Had the case been brought by Doncram and named for Sarek instead of the other way around, the outcome of the case would likely have been very different. In both cases, the judgment would be horribly flawed. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:07, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, "anchoring" again. I don't buy that argument. The fact is that multiple people have had problems with Doncram, not just Sarek. And Doncram had plenty of time to present his evidence -- in fact, he got three more weeks when he requested it. As much as you'd like to see the case thrown out or reopened so more people can provide more evidence, rename the case, get even more people involved, or whatever, it's not going to happen. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 16:32, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't suggesting any course of action. Rather, noting that compiling complete evidence regarding any other party to the case than Doncram was not going to happen. My intent is in the abstract rather than the specific. Over the last four years of cases, every title named party to a case has received a sanction of some kind; 100%. Of the non-title named parties, only 15% have been sanctioned. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:05, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I find the key presupposition that your argument is based on to be heavily flawed but YMMV. --Guerillero | My Talk 18:22, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are of course welcome to your opinion. For my part, I based mine on science. That doesn't make yours wrong of course. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:51, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

- Why does this statistic matter? People can be affected by matters up for arbitration without necessarily exhibiting arbitratible behavior themselves. Every case is different. Of the six people named in the case, Doncram, Orlady, and Sarek are likely to be sanctioned, Nyttend and I aren't up for sanctions, and Sitush has pretty much not participated. Or, Hammersoft, are you secretly hoping that Nyttend and I would be punished as well? You always had the option to propose something against me in the /Workshop phase, if it would have made you feel better. I don't know what precedent ArbCom has used for punishing someone who's been exasperated and who has had a rather nihilistic attitude toward the NRHP project, like I have, but maybe you could propose something. Or, maybe you could have proposed that Doncram could be rewarded with free meals at the Prytaneum. I hear Socrates tried that approach. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 19:15, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. Your points are addressing the specifics of this case. I'm addressing the abstract. I think we're talking in different rooms. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:51, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I submitted the following evidence in regard to Sarek:

SarekOfVulcan (sysop) blocked 5 times since November 2010 for edit warring (3), 3RR (2). [14]

Principle #3 of this case says (bold added by me):

Administrators are trusted members of the community, and are expected to perform their duties to the best of their abilities; to behave in a respectful and civil manner in their interactions with others; to follow Wikipedia policies; to lead by example; and to learn from experience and from justified criticisms of their actions. Occasional mistakes are entirely compatible with adminship; administrators are not expected to be perfect. However, sustained poor judgment, multiple violations of policy—whether in the use of administrator tools or otherwise—or particularly egregious behaviour may result in the removal of administrator status.

FOF #3 says:

SarekOfVulcan has admitted edit-warring with Doncram in order to try to have Doncram blocked for an extended period of time

This is clearly behavior unbecoming of an Admin and is plenty of evidence for a desysop.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:38, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Recent problematic articles -- not necessarily stubs

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

[15] - List of Other Backward Classes as of Doncram's last edit on 28 November 2012; he made no more edits to this page before I nominated it at AfD 10 days later: [16]
List of Methodist churches: [17] is the version that was proposed for deletion by a new-page patroller just one minute after Doncram started it on 19 November 2012; [18] is the way it looked after Doncram's last edit that day; and this is what it looked like two days later when I tagged it for AfD.
List of Congregational churches: [19] is the version that Fram moved to Doncram's user space on 6 December 2012, 3 hours after Doncram had started it. Fram's edit summary said: "Not useful as it stands, bring back once it is somewhat complete and presentable." Doncram made no changes to the page before he moved it back to article space the next day, with the edit summary "restore, continue development. If someone seriously thinks this is not an obviously valid Wikipedia list-article topic, open a proper AFD for discussio..." After some additional editing on 7-8 December 2012, he left it looking like this (better, but still obviously a rough draft) until 17 December. Little additional editing had been done by 4 February 2013, when Mangoe nominated it for deletion.[20]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Doncram did not have my permission as explained above. His copy-pasting misrepresented my point of view, which is fully explained there now: like Fram, I think that a list of lists is the only practical way forward. Mathsci (talk) 09:52, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A prediction

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

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

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

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

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

Conduct of parties other than Doncram

Some of the Arbs are making certain comments about the other parties here that do not accurately reflect the situation. For one, the claim that there is no specific evidence of misconduct by Orlady is mistaken as is the claim about no recent misconduct by the other parties.

Several incidents were noted in the evidence page. The section "Orlady has move-warred with Doncram by userfying articles Doncram created" is one such example. One of the incidents noted involved Orlady using move-protection to keep the article in userspace. Elkman's evidence section "Orlady and Doncram have significant negative interactions" includes an incident of edit-warring over a simple template. In Doncram's evidence there is this example of Orlady denigrating Doncram's contributions. Other examples were not explicit but also pointed to serious misconduct by Orlady. As I noted in a section above my evidence section about following contributions also included three instances with blatant edit-warring at the articles on Anderson County Courthouse (Kansas), Old Town (Franklin, Tennessee), and Bostick Female Academy. Another example of denigrating contributions was in this DRV I mentioned in my evidence where Orlady stated the article Doncram created was a "P-O-S" (piece of shit).

With regards to Sarek it is not simply edit-warring to get blocks on Doncram that is an issue. Per the evidence given by JASSpencer, Sarek blocked Doncram for edits on the Sons of Haiti article on a matter where Sarek was clearly involved. Sarek blocked Doncram a second time for this comment as I noted in my analysis of Doncram's block log. While Sarek was clearly involved when it came to Doncram by then, he was also directly involved with regards to the article in question as he had edit-warred with Doncram over an "under construction" template, and this included the inappropriate use of rollback. One may also note that the revision history of that page again shows Orlady edit-warring and move-warring with Doncram. There is also the most recent block I noted, again concerning the DRV linked in my evidence where Sarek move-warred with Doncram and then move-protected the page to keep it out of articlespace per Nyttend's own suggestion at the DRV that was made in the face of general rejection of his dubious G12 deletion by uninvolved editors. Doncram was blocked over that incident. Per the evidence by Altairisfair there was nothing objectionable about the content being kept out of articlespace. It has since been restored to article space per another DRV that again saw uninvolved editors rejecting the G12 deletion and further seeing no basis for forcing userfication.

All of that, save the recent development at DRV for obvious reasons, could be found from examining the evidence that was already presented. It is clear to me that there has repeatedly been serious misconduct by Orlady that more than justifies an interaction ban. Again, it is clear that Sarek has abused his tools on several occasions in his dispute with Doncram where he was an involved admin, including up to the recent move-war, in addition to his edit-warring to get Doncram blocked. This is leaving out all the deletion nominations by Sarek and Orlady that are also noted in evidence and would constitute a part of their misconduct.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 20:25, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The exact quote from JASpencer's evidence was The first substantial interaction between the two on their talk pages was on October 2010 when Sarek blocked User:Blueboar and User:Doncram for 48 hours.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:37, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are being selective and taking that comment too literally. It would be more accurate to say that the Sons of Haiti incident was the first substantial interaction and it included you nominating the article Doncram created for deletion, disputing it with Doncram, and blocking him.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 20:49, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're continuing to leave out the block reason for both Blueboar and Doncram: Disruptive editing: On Sons of Haiti, Grand Lodge of Idaho, and elsewhere.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:10, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There was no reason given that trumps the fact that you were involved with regards to those editors, Doncram especially.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 21:40, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Doncram especially at that point? I barely knew him. I had been editing collegially with Blueboar for years before that, though. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:53, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You were in the middle of a dispute with him over one of the very articles you cited in your block rationale.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 21:58, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

TDA, it appears that your comments about me bring up items that have been discussed previously on these pages -- sometimes at great length. Your allegation of my "move-warring to keep an article in user space" relates to the Grand Forks Fairgrounds WPA Structures article; I responded to your comments about that one here. Your example of my "denigrating Doncram's contributions" turns out to be the same "dog droppings in parks" item that has been discussed several different places on these pages -- including a comment on this same page by Keithbob less than 24 hours ago. The allusion to dog droppings was not a comment on the pages he created (as you suggest), but rather was a response his oft-repeated suggestion that if I saw problems with his stub creations, I should take it upon myself to edit the articles to fix the problems that I saw (instead of commenting about the problems or trying to get the stub moved out of article space). I did not look further into your latest specific allegations against me -- and I don't intend to do so -- because I don't care to spend any more hours re-rehashing the meanings of talk-page comments that I made last month, last year, or two, three or four years ago. If your comments included references to evidence that I have not examined and responded to previously, please identify those items, and I will look at them. --Orlady (talk) 21:20, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your defense for your move-warring and use of the tools while involved is just as bad as the move-warring itself. Seems your defense for all your conduct is evasive language and typically some iteration of an "ends justify the means" argument. The point of the evidence is all of it together demonstrates a pattern. A pattern of following, edit-warring, move-warring, and denigrating contributions (yes you have done that despite your dubious characterization of one of the incidents I mentioned).--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 21:40, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

TDA, I have a question for you: Why do you even care about this case? Why are you getting yourself so wrapped up in the proposed decision of an arbitration case where you aren't involved, where you haven't been wronged or affected in any way, and where the outcome of the case isn't going to make any impact in your editing? I understand that there's some sort of contingent out there who wants to find Wikipedia admins at fault for pretty much anything that they do wrong, and that you share their opinion, but you really aren't helping the resolution of this case one iota by commenting here. Speaking of helping out, do you actually contribute significant content to articles on the encyclopedia? --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 07:43, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wherever there's a fight, so hungry people can eat, I'll be there. Wherever there's a cop beatin' up a guy, I'll be there. I'll be in the way guys yell when they're mad. I'll be in the way kids laugh when they're hungry and they know supper's ready, and when the people are eatin' the stuff they raise and livin' in the houses they build - I'll be there, too. As to your other question, for the past two months I have mostly been contributing content in bits and pieces here and there. I have made more substantial contributions before that, but not as much recently. Cheers.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 16:16, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you're going to quote Grapes of Wrath, at minimum you should be attributing it, TDA. Risker (talk) 17:45, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Policy makes no difference sometimes; some people thrive on battlegrounds. --Orlady (talk) 16:36, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A battle of wits? To the death? I accept. On a more serious note, it isn't about agendas or conflicts. It's about fairness. Some people think we don't need fairness on Wikipedia because life isn't fair, but I find that true fairness, in the end, is better for all around. I am trying to shine attention on the evidence that has been presented regarding you and Sarek, because it seems this case is being geared towards an unfair result that treats Doncram as the source of all troubles.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 17:12, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Doncram is the main source of these troubles. Others were caught up in the thankless work of reducing the harm Doncram caused. Sarek's use of his tools was wrong, but Orlady's conduct has been good. Your focus on Orlady boomerangs; it just highlights the great disparity between Doncram's behavior and what we must consider beneficial correctional work by Orlady. Doncram is the root cause. Binksternet (talk) 17:28, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that Doncram is the source of the issues. The evidence of this case, his documented problems with other people like Thundersnow and Sitush on other topics, and his record of repeated blocks for edit warring, all demonstrate a sustained, chronic pattern of disruptive editing. Sarek in my opinion should be desysopped as I've indicated in my post on another thread above. As for Orlady, she has not behaved perfectly and has made some mistakes as TDA has pointed out. However, considering the circumstances and sustained pressure and barrage of personal attacks from Doncram over a period of years, I find her mistakes to be few and far between and not worthy of any sanction other than a mutual interaction ban. She has a clean block log and in many instances exercised an admirable degree of self control and restraint in her dealings with Doncram. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:40, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The simple fact is that, the more I have looked into this case, the more obvious it becomes that what you are saying about Orlady's conduct simply isn't true. In addition to those incidents provided in evidence are many more cases of Orlady edit-warring with Doncram. My impression of this is that their interaction was initially civil with occasional confrontation, but after Doncram went a bit overboard in his objections to Orlady's sock-hunting, things declined considerably. That is when it seems Orlady began following Doncram in earnest and this often involved edit-warring. What I see there is not something that can be explained by a simple desire for "beneficial correctional" editing (edit-warring over templates is not beneficial or correctional). Rather, it seems Orlady began applying the same blind and relentless zeal to her faultfinding with Doncram that she has applied to her sock-hunting. Funny thing that she brought up WP:BATTLE, because I was thinking that policy describes her conduct very well.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 18:11, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I find I pretty much agree with TDA, at least about the general unfairness. I wasn't planning to get involved in this, because while I have no direct involvement, I have mixed feeling on the fundamental issue: I dislike the thoughtless creation of very low quality articles by people who can do better, I recognize that WP grows in large part from stub articles that can be improved. AndI think all parties to this case have had very difficult interactions, for which they are all to blame. But in such a situation I share TDA's great concern about unfair application of penalties--all too many arb cases in the past have been contaminated by a feeling of isolating and punishing the guilty party, which all parties have considerable degrees of culpability. There is objective evidence that seems to have been accepted by all parties that the problems with the actual stubs written by doncram have been decreasing, and I do not think either of his two principle opponents actually asked that he be banned altogether. DGG ( talk ) 01:18, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

New subtopic. I don't know what was going through his head when SarekOfVulcan went to 4RR. However, considering the evidence that several of us "parties other than Doncram" have been severely exasperated or upset by Doncram's behavior at various times, but wish for him to be "rehabilitated" in some fashion instead of being banned, I can see Sarek's action as the kind of thing that concerned family members and friends might do to intervene in the life of a person whose behavior has become deleterious to their well-being. Precipitating a crisis (which Sarek did) sometimes succeeds in getting a person's attention -- and ultimately inducing them to make positive changes. --Orlady (talk) 20:52, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've just lost confidence in both ArbCom and the notion of adminship.

So let me get this right: ArbCom has unanimously resolved that "SarekOfVulcan has admitted to edit warring with Doncram in order to try to have Doncram blocked for an extended period of time".

SarekOfVulcan remains an admin, by vote of ArbCom.

~~One arbitrator even objected to the idea of issuing a warning to SarekOfVulcan.~~ Tony (talk) 15:02, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Riiiiight. Tony (talk) 07:54, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The seeming reluctance of some Arbs to even be faintly critical of SarekOfVulcan, given all the evidence here – I mean really, disrupting Wikipedia to frame a debate opponent? WTF? – is very disturbing. While I understand that ArbCom is not in a position to take extraneous reports of unbecoming behavior (e.g. what Tony1's been talking about; see also Sarek's recent failed attempt at AE to have me censored off RfA, which was blatantly frivolous and defended by directly attacking my contributions as "crazy shit"[21]; etc.) and act on them in this case, you don't need to. Quite adequate evidence has already been presented here that SarekOfVulcan abuses admin tools, or simply ignores policy and engages in behavior unbecoming an admin, to get what he wants (and has been blocked for it more times that anyone should have been, much less an admin). He's even haughtily defended his supposed entitlement to behave this way when told he can't: "I stand by that decision, even though it was overturned after community discussion -- I'm convinced that it was the necessary thing to do at that time...".[22] The extraneous evidence, however, is certainly relevant to NW's giving "benefit of the doubt that such a thing will not occur again", Coren's seeing "no evidence that this was part of a pattern of misconduct", and the unanimous "Following another editor's contributions" concerns. PS: The "SarekOfVulcan–Doncram interaction ban" is listed as not having passed, but seems to have passed 7-0-0. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ɖ^⊝כ^⊙þ Contrib. 09:28, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You misunderstand arbcom procedure. 7-0-0 may be unanimous, but does not pass. Any finding requires a majority to pass, otherwise it fails. The majority threshold is posted at the top of the PD page (8). In essesnce, an arbitrator that does not vote is indistinguishable from an oppose vote. The only difference is one is stated and the other is implied. So for the purposes of determining wether the finding is a pass or fail... The tally is more like 7-7-0. 204.101.237.139 (talk) 19:42, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sarek has passed a reconfirmation RfA and will likely pass another even if desysopped by ArbCom. Wikipedia (or at least the RfA crowd) wants, likes, and needs a chief inquisitor. 5.12.84.153 (talk) 10:05, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sarek's reconfirmation passed 166 to 63, that would be about 62%. Hmm, according to this, "As a rule of thumb, most of those above 80% approval pass; most of those below 70% fail". I don't understand why this one passed. —Neotarf (talk) 12:30, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to check your math. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 12:33, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, 166 out of 229 total votes, that makes 72%. So it barely passed, and by bureaucratic discretion. And "with very strong counsel to SarekOfVulcan toward a much more strict interpretation of WP:INVOLVED". That was almost two years ago. Much has happened since. —Neotarf (talk) 14:09, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, much, such as this. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:28, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And this. —Neotarf (talk) 14:45, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Some of the users commenting in this thread were involved in MOS discussions at WP:AE. Presumably they objected to SOV's intervention on WP:AT. Those issues would appear to be beyond the scope of this case, which has been about the editing of NRHP stubs, redirects and disambiguation pages and some list articles on churches and castes. Mathsci (talk) 12:44, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's a bit disingenuous to claim that "One arbitrator even objected to the idea of issuing a warning to SarekOfVulcan" when the reason Courcelles is opposing that remedy is because he thinks a warning insufficient and a desysopping required. T. Canens (talk) 14:18, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Mathsci, the MOS editors object to Sarek personalizing disputes and gaming ArbCom. It was Sarek who originally brought the capitalization case to ArbCom; Sarek is now using the same case to hunt down MOS regulars, like SMcCandlish. Sarek admits here, in a thread that names MOS editors in general, and one MOS editor by name, that he had a personal reason for filing the capitalization case, and "was bitterly disappointed there was so little in the way of remedies..." —Neotarf (talk) 15:52, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Boy, 0 for 2 so far. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:02, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm gone, Noetica's gone, SMcCandlish is targeted. Scorecard, anyone? —Neotarf (talk) 16:43, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Neotarf, arbcom cases are very specific. Importing unrelated disputes from elsewhere is unhelpful. Why even mention "capitalization"? It has nothing to do with the wikiworld of fairground structures (and associated buildings), burnt down opera houses, Tudor Style bungalows or pre-civil war Greek Classical Revival mansions (possibly full of "no-neck monsters"). Mathsci (talk) 19:26, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note the discussion above, Upholding Community Expectations..., where an Arb stated that no one presented evidence of SoV's misbehavior in other venues. I predicted that people did not do so because they would be accused of importing an unrelated dispute. Which has now happened.204.101.237.139 (talk) 20:07, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite block vs. indefinite ban

Since it is still on the table, and is currently the only Doncram-specific remedy with enough votes to pass, I really hope that members of ArbCom will seriously discuss whether they really want to indefinitely ban Doncram or if they want to indefinitely block him. My comments on this matter are written above at #My own concerns with proposed decisions and I can clarify anything if necessary. I understand that ArbCom has traditionally imposed bans rather than blocks; however, that is an invalid reason to impose a ban in this instance. Ryan Vesey 05:44, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A block is a mechanism to prevent someone editing, it can be imposed by any admin at their discretion without a need for discussion. Other than certain functionary blocks, a block can be undone by another admin. A ban is a formal consensus decision, and a ban cannot be undone without an equivalent formal consensus decision. A block may be used to enforce a site-ban, but cannot be used to enforce other types of bans, such as topic or interaction bans. Bans may be issued by the community or the Committee. When there is a formal consensus to block, it is always called a ban so that other admins don't make the mistake of unblocking without getting consensus first. I hope that helps, if not, ping my talkpage, and I'll see if I can explain it more clearly. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 09:03, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I feel this is incorrect, I have left a comment on your talk page. I hope the arbs will continue to discuss this issue. Ryan Vesey 07:10, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification on "Article creation restriction"

This is listed as being appealable after one year -- does that run concurrently or consecutively should a site ban pass? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:03, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If it passes then the way that some Committee members have supported the site-ban, I think the site-ban would not pass; however, if both remedies pass, then it means that Doncram would be able to appeal the site-ban after six months and the article restriction after one year. Both remedies are indefinite. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 09:30, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Courcelles points out that the article restriction could be "gamed" by converting redirects into articles. This loophole could be closed by adding a proviso that "For purposes of this restriction, converting a redirect into a content page is the same as creating a new content page." --Orlady (talk) 21:11, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Finding on Orlady

Since it seems there is some support for the possibility of a mutual interaction ban with one objection being the lack of a suitable finding, I would suggest the following as a finding:

Orlady began following Doncram to articles he created or edited to resolve her concerns about Doncram's content work. On occasion this has resulted in Orlady edit-warring with Doncram, move-warring pages into Doncram's userspace, nominating articles for deletion that were mostly kept, and making heated remarks about Doncram's contributions on noticeboard discussions. Doncram has repeatedly expressed concerns about Orlady's conduct when following his contributions and pages she created regarding him in her userspace. Many of Doncram's instances of incivility towards Orlady occurred in this context.

I think that sums up the issue and makes the need for such a restriction clear enough without casting judgment. The Arbs can feel free to tinker with it, but all of the above can be supported with the evidence that has been provided on the relevant case page as I have noted in the above discussions.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 19:11, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note on my activity

Effective earlier today, I am inactive on all Arbitration Committee matters, with one exception. Should additional proposals be put forward for consideration in this case, or if there is a need to clarify any of my votes on this case, the clerks may contact me via email and I will do my best to respond promptly. Risker (talk) 07:18, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Major change?

Did Remedy 2.3 just pass, invalidating 1, or am I miscounting? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:14, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are counting the same way I am. It looks to me like 2.1 and 2.3 are passing, thus invalidating 1. Of all of the potential remedies that the arbitrators seriously considered for Doncram, I think that the combination of 2.1 and 2.3 probably is the best result. It focuses on preventing future problems rather than dishing out punishment, which I think is the "right" way to do things. --Orlady (talk) 20:31, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How can there not be an interaction ban between Sarek and Doncram

Given that Sarek was potentially going to get desysopped due to his conduct with his interactions with Doncram it makes absolutely zero sense why there would not be an interaction ban between them. Especially since there is obvious support for one between him and Orlady. Now I understand Doncram is to be banned indefinately (which is also stupid but a completely separate issue I won't get into) so its really moot, so then why between him and Oraldy? This is a glaring example of us and them between editors and admins. Its clear Sarek is getting cut some slack because of his adminship whereas Orlady isn't an admin, so there was no tool to take nor admonishment to give. And her interactions certainly didn't warrant a ban. And yes this is the user formerly known as Kumioko before someone cries bloody murder that I am editing. Oh my god the horror of it all! BTW I created this with the semi intent of a clean start at the suggestion of Moxy and several other users, but with the knowledge that no such thing will ever be possible so if you feel the need to block it. Go ahead. ThePhoenixReborn (talk) 00:18, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I"m not going to block, though I will not object to anyone else doing so. I just wanted to point out the remedy that is passing (remedy 5) is between Sarek and Doncram. There is NO Sarek-Orlady interaction ban on the table. Courcelles 00:22, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Also, Orlady is an admin, so I'm not actually sure what your objection actually is... Courcelles 00:26, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry my fault I misread it. I must have mixed up the lines and for some reason I didn't think Orlady was an admin for some reason. ThePhoenixReborn (talk) 01:50, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The ink's not even dry on this case and...

...Here we go again. Doncram has created an article (an ill-conceived article, if you ask me, and an "interesting" action for him to have taken in view of the likely remedies from this case) in reaction to a discussion at the NRHP talk page, Sarek opened an AfD on it, Doncram posted one of his "apologetic" statements in which he backhandedly accuses the AfD nominator of being motivated by personal bias against him (Doncram)... What will happen next?--Orlady (talk) 01:52, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Don't leave out that Orlady is following Doncram's edits closely and commenting directly upon them, e.g. this edit (sarcastic? snide?) directly questioning my action in response to a query at wt:NRHP. Orlady, I thought in this process you came to recognition that your closely following and criticizing everything I do, and other behaviors, came to be regarded by me as sadistic, bullying, harassment, and you commented that you would stop. --do ncr am 01:56, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Doncram, my first participation in that discussion on that NRHP Wikiproject talk page was a comment that I had written before I saw your comment. (You will note that my comment acknowledged an edit conflict with multiple posts.) My statement about the Featured Article status of the article under discussion (the diff you cite above0 was intended to indicate that it is not a brand-new article being developed by the newbie who asked questions, but rather is a mature and well-regarded article. --Orlady (talk) 03:32, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It would seem the entire arbcom case has been less than useful if somehow at the end of it, the three of you find yourselves in another spat. Doncram, it's a poorly written article that should have had some strong editing before it was moved out of userspace. I agree there could/should be an article on this, but this one does the subject a disservice and more importantly is a perfect example of your role in creating this drama. Sarek and Orlady: I'm not sure how you could find this article within 9 hours of its creation without following Doncram, though perhaps I'm just not aware of one. I would hope you have learned that it's best to back away from Doncram and at most, publicly point out what you think are egregious actions on his part so that others can assist. I was happy that Orlady suggested not banning Doncram, but I would ask that they show similar wisdom in how they interact with him going forward. dm (talk) 03:07, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In answer to Dmadeo's comment "Sarek and Orlady: I'm not sure how you could find this article within 9 hours of its creation without following Doncram, though perhaps I'm just not aware of one." I can't speak for Sarek, but I was aware of the NRIS article because Doncram announced that he was creating it in that NRHP Wikiproject discussion that responded to the newish editor's query about Pulaski Skyway. I became aware of the AfD because of a posting by Doncram on the NRHP WikiProject talk page. I do not intend to participate in the AfD. --Orlady (talk) 03:32, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Orlady, thanks for explaining how the public discussion page pointed you at this new article, that's of course a very appropriate answer. I apologize for assuming it might have been based on something else. dm (talk) 05:39, 11 March 2013 (UTC) (I moved this from further down since I'm replying to Orlady)[reply]

I have one question: JUST WHAT THE HELL IS WRONG WITH THIS PROCESS? Apparently, this arbitration case hasn't done a bit of good if the end result is more creation of substandard articles, more negative interaction between Sarek and Doncram, and more negative interaction between Doncram and Orlady. All this needs to really make it a shitfest is for Doncram to accuse me, once again, of not knowing the difference between builders and architects, or not knowing the correct date of when a building was built. (Hey, Doncram, here's your chance to once again accuse me of being a LIAR. Why don't you throw out an accusation that if I had gotten the NRIS citation correct in the infobox generator, the whole question about the Pulaski Skyway would be moot?)

By the way, the discussion came up at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places#Using an Alternate Citation to Allow Users to Search for a Historic Place on the NRHP Site. It's a public project page, which means that many members of the NRHP project are going to read it. Or does common participation in a project mean that a certain editor's edits are not to be read, not to be discovered, and not to even be thought about?

Maybe some of you people could tell me something: Why in the hell am I continuing to edit articles and pretend that my participation in Wikipedia is worth something? Am I really supposed to enjoy participating in a project where people continue to snipe at each other, and where one person talks about being continuously aggrieved, abused, downtrodden, bullied, harassed, and thrown in the mud? (That same person thinks I'm too stupid to know when a house in south Minneapolis was built.) Is it even worth it for me to continue to waste time editing articles like these:

I don't know. It seems that all that people on this stupid website care about is protecting their turf and making sure they get their own desires met, instead of writing a real, actual encyclopedia that has meaningful information to its readers. I can see that this arbitration case has solved NOTHING. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 03:38, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nice-looking articles, Elkman. I took the liberty of adding to one of them... --Orlady (talk) 04:25, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not commenting on the rest of the statement, yes, you definitely should continue wasting your time for such articles, much appreciated.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:36, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and where I said "THIS PROCESS" above, I originally wrote something that could be ruled a personal attack. I'm trying as hard as I can to remain civil. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 03:40, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article creation ban should prevent this from happening; however, it has not come into effect as the case has not closed. --Rs chen 7754 03:41, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to point out that the remedies proposed here have not yet gone into effect; the case is still open. Had the case been closed and the remedies implemented (specifically the ban on Doncram creating articles until someone moves them out of userspace), this situation would have probably been prevented.--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 03:42, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see nothing wrong with that article as of the end of Doncram's initial expansion. [23] When it was initially nominated for deletion, as [24], it did not visibly satisfy the WP:GNG, so nominating it was technically permissible. Still, Sarek surely must have known that the topic could readily have been shown to be notable, as it since has been, and so it would have more been more productive if he'd added references to it. I firmly believe that creating even a one line unreferenced stub is a good thing whenever the topic it concerns is a topic that Wikipedia could have an article about, if someone bothered to look up a few sources for it. The largest single hurdle any Wikipedia reader faces is the initial "WTF is it?". Once he has a notion of what something is, especially a source, especially a link to the thing itself, he can do his own research with more confidence. Wnt (talk) 21:48, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Question on General Editor Probation

SarekOfVulcan certainly won't be able to, but I'm curious as to whether Nyttend and Orlady would be permitted to take action in regards to the General Editor Probation. Ryan Vesey 03:42, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding is that I would NOT be permitted to take action on the General Editor Probation. I assume I could contact others (e.g., via WP:AN) to point out that an issue had arisen, but as an "involved" editor, I most definitely should not take action. --Orlady (talk) 03:50, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed Orlady, that seems largely correct. Nyttend would be able to take action if they consider themselves to be an uninvolved administrator, but it might be best for you and him to bring it up on WP:AE (not AN) if required. NW (Talk) 03:56, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nyttend was the administrator I am most concerned with. He was listed as a party, but was not mentioned after the case request. This is my own fault for not taking the time to pull up evidence. I have asked Nyttend to consider himself involved in all future administrative actions related to Doncram in the past, even if he considers himself having only acted in an administrative capacity. Regardless, I think Nyttend should be explicitly considered involved in regards to administering this case's sanctions. Should the "involved administrators" section of Proposed enforcement pass, this issue would be moot, as Nyttend would not be allowed to enforce sanctions. Without the passing of that, I am not sure that Nyttend is willing to consider himself involved. Ryan Vesey 17:10, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed decision is wrong

I believe that any new editor to Wikipedia whose entire editing history consists of [25] and [26] should be welcomed and told that he is on the right track.

The fact that these articles are still here is evidence that the consensus is that their creation was not a bad thing. The fact that ArbCom is suggesting the community talk about stubs is evidence that there is no policy against it. The fact that there is no policy nor consensus against it is good reason why Doncram should not be punished for it.

Doncram's incivility toward people whom Arbcom says were improperly tracking his edits and tearing down his work and even trying to provoke him into a ban should be good enough reason to pardon his grousing and move on. In general, Wikipedia's crusade against "incivility" is its War On Drugs - the harder Wikipedia tries to stamp it out, the more its editors will attack one another.

The procedural maneuvering that allows ArbCom to vote for an admin to be "desysopped" without it having any effect is too clever for its own good.

The fact that none of these pages mention "ODP" or Open Directory Project is striking. A proper Arbcom inquiry should have sought to determine what parties were associated with it and whether they had any direct COI in preventing Wikipedia from competing with their efforts. (Our article makes some vague mentions of a commercial-like focus at that project, but I have not checked whether that is some editor's sour grapes. The point is, a comprehensive Arbcom proceeding should know)

I think that a jury of Wikipedia editors, chosen randomly from among recent edits, would in all probability have made a better decision. It would not be too late for ArbCom to order such a jury and relegate itself to a more advisory role in this proceeding. Wnt (talk) 16:29, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So, Wnt, what would you say about an editor whose entire editing history might consist of "Fuck you Sarek"? --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 17:12, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would still be customary to warn a new editor before blocking, and to give very short blocks before somewhat longer ones. Wnt (talk) 21:12, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, Doncram was hardly a "new editor" in December 2011 when that "F-- you" comment occurred, nor in February/March 2011 when the cited stubs were created. As of February 2011 he had more than 80,000 edits and by December 2011 he had accumulated well over 90,000. (I'm not sure what point Wnt was trying to make in referring to "a new editor" in his comments, but I figured that the record needs to be set straight.) --Orlady (talk) 19:26, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was answering a hypothetical example above; I recognize he was not a new editor. But if we take his whole contribution history into account, we should also take the other circumstances into account. Bottom line: he should not be losing his cool like this, but there were mitigating circumstances. (I am relieved to realize (I think) that he truly won't be site-banned) Wnt (talk) 21:33, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Wnt for providing a voice of reason in this.

What this arbitration has not addressed, is how a productive editor is supposed to respond when being badgered, bullied, attacked. As Elkman probably recalls somewhat, on December 19, 2011, when I wrote that as an edit summary in my own talk page, it was in the middle of SarekOfVulcan edit warring and contending and opening truly bizarre ANI / 3RR attacks. This diff of mine pointed out some of the bizarreness. The Wikipedia Administrator community stood by and allowed awful behavior by SarekVulcan then. And S obtained a 7 day block for me then. Giving a mild reprimand now for one of S's episodes is hardly enough response now. And, what guidance is there for an editor beset by attacks? None. A simple (perhaps simplistic) read of this arbitration is that the arbitrators are NOT concerned with bullying / mobbing / harassment. Is there any level of bullying type behavior that would be enough to be condemned? --do ncr am 19:24, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think someone has to say this: The problem is that in some ways your work seems to be indistinguishable from that of a bot. You insist that you are a productive editor; so are bot accounts. The problem is that your editing seems to have "a lower level of scrutiny on each edit" than that of other human editors, similar to that of a bot.

Wikipedia can cope with isolated people creating poor stubs here and there. But when someone wants to create a large number of stubs using a bot, they must go through a bot approval process where they have to prove consensus for this action. This is not a mere formality: it often fails, and for some of your series of mass produced sub-stubs it would almost certainly have failed, had you applied for permission to do them with a bot.

Obviously, WP:Bot policy does not apply to you because you are a human. However, your editing causes the same kind of frictions as that of a bot operating without consensus, because of your high productivity. And then, by taking the inevitable negative reactions extremely personally, you have been making the situation even worse.

Your situation now is very similar to that of several bot operators who have been banned or have been forbidden to operate bots after they had conflicts with the community very similar to yours. (I am sure someone else can supply names; I can't remember them at the moment.) The only substantial difference is that you have been doing the edits manually or semimanually. Hans Adler 19:51, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hans Adler, thanks for commenting. Please consider: the two articles linked here created in 2011, and others criticized in 2011 and since, were in fact created under an approved bot. I was explicitly, openly experimenting with a database-generated system, and I did get bot permission for a few batches, including these articles. The bot approval was explicitly for placing the draft articles into a non-mainspace page, but the intention was that i and others could/would paste into mainspace and I think that got missed in this discussion entirely, though I know i explained it at least once. --do ncr am 20:01, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hans, and, that is NOT "the problem". SarekOfVulcan has hassled on architect articles, other new articles unrelated. And there are so many issues brought up, unceasingly, out of bias to find anything wrong. Including in this arbitration there have been new accusations of different kinds of wrongdoing all by me. Seems mostly like a witchhunt. I would participate happily in a reasonable discussion of minimal NRHP articles. However, the disruption to wikipedia is the contention, the ANIs, the 3RRs, the arbitration. --do ncr am 20:05, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Don't get me wrong, as I promised at the beginning i will try to learn from what is said in this arbitration, and, while I may criticize aspects of this arbitration, I will try to accept the arbitrators ruling and live/work with it. It would be a heckuva lot easier to do that, and to try to discuss NRHP articles somewhere, though, if there were some accomodation, some acknowledgement in the arbitration that bullying happens. That some agree some bullying happened here. Incredible uncollegial incivil long-run harrassment has gone on, and the cynical finding is that the target of bullying was "uncollegial". I imagine that some of the previous incidents you allude to, Hans Adler, probably also could be reconsidered with a bullying / mobbing lens, too. --do ncr am 20:20, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, that diff you cited above was not persuasive - yes, it points out that Sarek reported himself for move-warring as a way to win the move war [27]; nonetheless, it just wasn't that clear or important an issue, and you were moving a couple of times more than really appropriate yourself. Of course, this symmetric and relatively minor dispute does not justify a harsh and one-sided penalty. Wnt (talk) 21:44, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy blanking

Please could the pages of this case be courtesy blanked now that the final decision has been posted? Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 19:31, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not normal practice.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:33, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it is, with a link provided to the history before the courtesy blanking. (There are several examples, one being the Fæ case.) The point is that some very negative statements were made which were not supported by a majority of arbitrators. Mathsci (talk) 19:38, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a major reason for it? The pages are not indexed. Ryan Vesey 19:43, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It was done also in the WP:ARBR&I review, in WP:AESH, etc. My reason would be that there were too many negative statements that verged on personal attacks. The pages are readily viewable, eg Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration Enforcement sanction handling/Evidence or Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Fæ/Evidence If it's not done, it's not serious. Mathsci (talk) 19:55, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mathsci, "several examples" out of the hundreds (?) of Arb cases does not "normal practice" make. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:36, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at 2012 and 2011. There were not many arbcom cases each year. If I type Doncram and sadistic into google, I find the workshop page coming up. There's no need for that kind of language to be available on search machines. The solution on the Fæ case seems fine. I cannot see any reason to leave it in this searchable state. Mathsci (talk) 20:44, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed. Despite being in "noindexed pages", this comes up on the first page of that search at [28]. I do not know, however, whether that third party site will respect the blanking any more than they respected the noindex. Still, it would seem to do no harm, since anyone can view the history and the point is, the content is no longer relevant to Wikipedia now that a decision has been made. Wnt (talk) 21:37, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This page comes up in an internal search, but for some reason the page on which Doncram called me "sadistic" in June 2011 does not, although it is preserved in the archives. --Orlady (talk) 00:21, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]