Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Doncram

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

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

Case Opened on 18:00, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Case Closed on 05:27, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Case amended by motion on 13:03, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Case amended by motion on 16:57, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Case amended by motion on 23:17, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Watchlist all case pages: 1, 2, 3, 4

Please do not edit this page unless you are an Arbitrator or Clerk, or are making yourself a party to this case. Statements on this page are copies of the statements submitted in the original request to arbitrate this dispute, and serve as verbatim copies; as such, they should never be changed. (In the case of lengthy statements, an excerpt only may be given here, in which case the full copy will be added to the talk page—where any statements by uninvolved editors during the Requests phase will also be saved.) Any evidence you wish to provide to the Arbitrators should be added to the /Evidence subpage.

Arbitrators, the parties, and other editors may suggest proposed principles, findings, and remedies at /Workshop. That page may also be used for general comments on the evidence. Arbitrators will then vote on a final decision in the case at /Proposed decision.

Once the case is closed, editors may add to the #Log of blocks, bans, and restrictions as needed, but the other content of this page should not be edited. Please raise any questions about this decision at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment, any general questions at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee, and report violations of remedies to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement.

Case information

Involved parties

• SarekOfVulcan (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), filing party
• Doncram (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Orlady (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Nyttend (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Elkman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Sitush (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Requests for comment

• Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Doncram
• Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Doncram 2

Preliminary statements

Statement by SarekOfVulcan

Doncram is a long-standing editor in Wikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places. He has created large swathes of content, but has frequently run up against other editors relating to both the content and how he reacts when the content is challenged. For example, Elen of the Roads comments in November 2011 that she had blocked him for three months to stop him transferring the content of another database into Wikipedia without any check being made on the quality of what was being imported (there were a lot of problems with the other database). All the time. Without stopping. And endlessly abusing both the guy who wrote the script that he used, and anyone who tried to clean up the mess. He has particular issues with Orlady, whom he accuses of running a "hate list", presumably User:Orlady/List. When Orlady quoted the consensus determination from an uninvolved admin, Doncram's response was "I disagree with Orlady's characterization of consensus in those previous discussions."

In June 2011, during the Archive224 discussion linked above, I became so frustrated at Doncram's repeatedly adding material from a database dump that contained material that blatantly didn't belong in the article, with talk page comments not addressing the issues, that I intentionally broke 3RR in the hopes that Doncram would be blocked for edit warring as well. In December, we got into another edit war on Charles Coker Wilson, where Doncram was changing a citation that I had added in a way that introduced incorrect information. His only contribution on the talkpage was An editor has exceeded wp:3RR in disputing a reference in this article. I expect it will be discussed at an administrator noticeboard, will return to editing here later. This got me a 1 week block, but Doncram got 6 months.

He has a habit of responding to articles that have been moved off his preferred title by reverting the move and then demanding that the other editor use the RM process, as seen in the history of Charles E. Bell.

Earlier today, Doncram began the process of opening an arbitration case, but failed to actually say what he was opening the case regarding. When Elkman commented that he wish[ed] you would have started your request for arbitration in your own user space, or that you would have posted something fully-formed there, instead of starting a skeleton case with a timestamp and then just walking away Doncram responded I think that statement amounts to a personal attack, it is meant in an uncivil mean way to denigrate me and to complain. This pretty much sums up why this has come to arbitration: Doncram overpersonalizes disputes, and he leaves unfinished things in the encyclopedia for other people to clean up. The community, despite imposing edit warring, disruptive editing, and personal attack blocks, has essentially failed to deal with the situation. Therefore, it's up to you.

Response to Roger Davies

See Architects of the National Park Service for his continuing to create lists with insufficient evidence for inclusion. Note Cbl62's edit summaries of it's been 3 months since sourcing discussion began and still nothing to support these entries. Note particularly their exchange on Jan 4, where Doncram and Cbl62 disagree on a source.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 12:08, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Also note this AfD, where he declares If this was userfied to my space, I would be inclined to return it to mainspace immediately, as it is an obviously valid, completely sourced article.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:03, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Elkman

Background: As part of my efforts at Wikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places, I downloaded a database of National Register properties from the National Park Service. I then wrote a PHP script on my Web server that would generate the infobox, {{Infobox NRHP}}, and some categories to be used as the start of an article. I've voiced my opinion over and over that this information does not make for a full article, and that an editor bears the responsibility for doing additional research, verifying that the National Register database is correct, and for adding more information to an article to make it a reasonably good stub. I've had several arguments with Doncram over these issues, and he's countered by suggesting that I have inaccuracies in my use of the database, that my tools don't get the year of construction correct, or that my tools don't know the difference between a builder and an architect. I've also frequently voiced the opinion that a newly created NRHP article should be at a decent stub level and should point out to a reader why a particular building, structure, or site is notable.

My own interactions with Doncram haven't quite pushed me to file a request for arbitration on my own. However, Doncram has had several ongoing disputes and a long history of edit warring with other editors, such as Orlady and Nyttend, as well as others. At Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places/Archive 53#My resignation letter, Dudemanfellabra (talk · contribs) announced that he was quitting the NRHP project in frustration. And, actually, I was largely inactive for several months in 2012 because of my own frustration. Doncram's behavior has come up in numerous discussions at WP:ANI, so even though the RFCs have been unproductive, his behavior has been discussed at great length, with huge walls of text. And, his block log speaks for itself. He first got blocked for edit warring with Polaron (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) over the article Devon Bridge (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), a disambiguation page with three entries. He's also had a long-running dispute with Orlady (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), which got him a week-long block for personal attacks for this edit.

With specific reference to the short stub articles he's created, there has been a lot of long but unproductive discussion. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive223#Topic ban proposal re NRHP stubs and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive224#Doncram NHRP stubs are two of the first major big walls of text. My problem with the stubs, which I think a lot of other editors shared, was that they didn't provide much context for the reader or much evidence for notability. The discussion in Archive223 ran for a week and eleven sub-sections, but in the end, I don't think anything really changed.

On the other hand, Doncram has higher standards for other editors -- much higher. In the discussion at Archive224, when I tried to explain the date listing in the NRHP database, I mentioned how the dates of the Floyd B. Olson House (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) were listed in the database. Doncram asserted, "That Olson was created by Elkman in 2008. From what you say here, plus informed understanding of how the NRIS database works, it appears the "built=1922" assertion in the article is incorrect. Rather, the house was likely built earlier but is significant for its association during 1922-1936 with notable person Floyd B. Olson. If i were Elkman, I would rant on and on about how terrible it is that an erroneous assertion has been out there in Wikipedia since 2008." I had to point out that I had read the Minneapolis Historic Preservation Commission site, as well as a book of architectural sites in Minneapolis-St. Paul and another book of National Register listings in Minnesota, and they all corroborated the 1922 construction date.

Although those discussions are rather old, Doncram still uses that style of communicating: long walls of text, drawn-out arguments, double standards, and contention just for the sake of contention. A current example is at Wikipedia:Bot requests/Archive 51#Mark a lot of pages for microformatting, where Nyttend asked for the {{Start date}} template to be added to a large number of NRHP pages so the construction date would show up in a microformat. One would think that a request like that would be non-controversial, but Doncram is objecting at length to the idea that we'd automatically list a microformat. In the midst of that discussion, he asserted that Pigsonthewing (talk · contribs) doesn't know about all the date discrepancies that he knows about, and he asserted that my infobox generator is faulty because I never noticed that the query was returning a list of architectural styles like "Greek Revival, Other, Federal". Another current example of his argumentative style is at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2013 January 4 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), where he wanted a deletion review of Old Union School (Chesterville, Ohio) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore). The closing admin, Nyttend, restored the article to User:Doncram/Old Union School (Chesterville, Ohio). Doncram didn't like that closure, though, and edit-warred over the closure.

My belief is that if Doncram took the time that he spends arguing, and instead spent it on developing articles, he could put out articles with a lot higher quality, more substantial length, and more encyclopedic value for the casual reader. And, my concern is that if this case isn't accepted for arbitration, then Doncram will take that as an endorsement of his argumentative behavior, and things will continue in the same unproductive path as before. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 04:49, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

---

Regarding the naming and scope of the case: NRHP is the main area where Doncram has been having disagreements with other editors, but it's not the only one. ArbCom can decide what scope they want to investigate. The important part is that the disruptions need to be stopped and the behavior problems need to be addressed. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 19:30, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Nyttend

Unfortunately, I believe arbitration necessary; Doncram has been involved in numerous disputes with many users on completely unrelated subjects. Besides the numerous NRHP issues that Sarek links, the churches that Ryan links, and the interpersonal issues mentioned in Elkman's last paragraph (note that these issues prompted me to predict a future arbitration case in August 2011), we have numerous disputes on Indian castes (most recent), and the walls of text Elkman mentions are present in the top section of the current revision of Wikipedia:Bot requests as well as being the subject of an insightful comment from Uncle G — who, like others, points out that Doncram's made a "blatantly wrong" factual error, in response to which Doncram replies "So what". Are we to believe that Dennis Brown, Dudemanfellabra, Elkman, Orlady, Pigsonthewing, Sarek, Sitush, Uncle G, and I are all attempting to gang up on him on a combination of issues, or is Beyond my Ken correct to imply that Doncram is causing problems in multiple places? Dealing with some of these issues together was attempted in the "Doncram on Indic communities" section that Ryan links, but because commentators concentrated on one issue and started arguing with each other, Doncram's actions became a side issue, and Dennis Brown's proposed resolution for the combination of issues got derailed by the commentators who had been arguing with each other (Mathsci: "It seems that there are too many editors commenting with vested interests and agendas for any realistic outcome to occur here."), leaving no consensus at all what to do. Between the issues I've detailed, Doncram's repeated blocks by multiple administrators, and the sheer number of AN/ANI/AN3 discussions about his behavior, I believe that we have evidence that the community has been unable to resolve the issues. Finally, as far as the timeframe of filing — Doncram's creation of an empty request (and angry response to someone questioning an empty request) demonstrates that he had an opportunity.

I marvel that my head's being requested, seven months after a bureaucrat told me that there was no controversy surrounding my admin actions in general and six months after my admin rights were restored without difficulty. I've been watching this dispute mostly from the sidelines, and by far the biggest chunks of my involvement have been requesting action at noticeboards. If this were a situation in which I had lost all objectivity and in which Doncram should be invited to document the ways that I've been abusing the tools, I wouldn't have twice self-reverted my own deletion of the Old Union School page. Ryan's proposed interaction ban would effectively equate longstanding disruption with good-faith attempts to resolve the problem, and if it were extended to Sarek's recent moving of the page back into Doncram's userspace, it would bless the existence of pages created in violation of Elen's 2011 comments that Sarek links. People shouldn't effectively be made the subjects of a case unless they've gone through a lot of dispute resolution steps; this isn't at all the case for me, as I've not seen dispute-resolution discussions about it, and Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Nyttend is thoroughly based on a completely unrelated issue. Nyttend (talk) 15:09, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

And to respond to Ryan's latest comment — I don't remember noticing you in any of these discussions until the last couple of months, and this issue has been simmering since long before you registered; it wasn't new when the RFCU was filed in early 2010. I'm not complaining about some sort of intentional bias on your part: rather, I fear you've accidentally gotten into recentism. Go back and look at the old discussions (including the circumstances for my block log) and you'll see that I've only rarely taken part. Nyttend (talk) 15:47, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Orlady

I suppose this is long overdue, as we've not been successful in other efforts to achieve peaceful coexistence. The longstanding issues that I see with Doncram include an attitude of article ownership, converting what should have been minor disagreements into epic battles, an attitude that Wikipedia policies and guidelines don't apply to his work, and a pattern of personalizing interactions with others, including engaging in blisteringly vitriolic personal attacks against me.
Topics of the disputes I have had with Doncram, or that I have watched Doncram tangle with other editors over, are generally very trivial. If these disputes had affected just one article or if the user creating the perceived problem had been a newbie, the parties likely would not have pursued the matters. However, because Doncram is a very prolific contributor, things like one-sentence stubs that don't say anything, wording that says "was built or has other significance in 1853", or adding redlinks to a "See also" section typically have involved dozens of articles (if not hundreds). When a minor issue is repeated many times, concerned users are not inclined to walk away.
Notable attempts at resolution of various issues include:

• Circa 2009, User:Acroterion attempted to oversee a multi-month discussion/mediation process, involving Doncram, User:Polaron (a user who eventually quit, largely due to Doncram), and to a lesser extent me, over the scope and naming of articles about New England villages and associated historic districts. The record of that discussion is at Poquetanuck1, Poquetanucktalk, NRHP CT Archives 1, 2, and 3, and other pages, I think including some pages in Acroterion's talk space.
• One of the longer noticeboard discussions in 2011 led to a consensus about keeping "sub-stubs" out of article space. Some time thereafter, Doncram ended up with some extended blocks, the longest of which was for 6 months. The block temporarily prevented conflict, but it didn't solve anything.
• In July 2012, this ANI discussion concluded with Cbl62 offering to work with Doncram for a 30-day period to ensure the quality of his contributions, while SarekOfVulcan and I agreed to disengage from Doncram and contact Cbl62 if we had concerns about Doncram's work. That effort was fairly successful, both in preventing altercations and in ensuring the quality of Doncram's contributions, but Cbl62 couldn't continue it forever. --Orlady (talk) 05:15, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

@The Devil's Advocate: You say this page violates WP:POLEMIC. Once Arbcom has considered this case, that page can be taken down. In several posts during the June 2011 WP:AN discussion, Doncram reiterated many of his oft-stated accusations against me. I wondered if my behavior in that discussion was as bad as he claimed. So I could examine the evidence, on that page I compiled the words we had used about each other (and each other's work) in that AN discussion. The page has been waiting for a community discussion of Doncram-related behavior. --Orlady (talk) 01:20, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

@Jehochman: Responding on your talk page under "Music lessons", as this "issue" is way too trivial for this page. --Orlady (talk) 15:07, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

@Kumioko and others: Attention to that redlinked RFC reminds me that this mediation case in 2010 was another community effort to resolve some of the issues. --Orlady (talk) 17:24, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Doncram

Apology in advance that this statement is longer than 500 words, and that I do not now provide diffs. Please read.

Request I reluctantly come to request the arbitration committee's attention to address a long-running problem in the Wikipedia community, that of a long-term pattern of deeply incivil behavior on the part of editor Orlady with respect to me, and the associated behavior of some others. The behavior amounts to bullying and harassment in the general English language meanings of those terms, and also in the corresponding but different wikipedia terms of Wikipedia:WikiBullying and Wikipedia:Harassment. It has contributed greatly to a pretty horrible atmosphere in WikiProject NRHP and in other editing areas.

Naming of ARBCOM case SarekOfVulcan jumped in to preempt my request here and to choose a name targetting me. SarekOfVulcan has opened many ANI proceedings with inflammatory titles targeting me that have had a bad effect on my reputation just from that alone, no matter the contents. I request that this proceeding be named nonjudgmentally as "Longterm behavior problems", leaving it open whose behavior is the problem. If it was up to me, I would title this "Longterm bullying and harassment" as I think that is the crux of this.

Scope The contention has run for about five years, and has spanned dozens of ANI reports, and dozens of unnecessary-in-my-view AFDs, and other unpleasantness. Orlady maintains two hate pages against me and--in my view--has led the attack, and has contributed most to the battleground atmosphere. I name and blame Orlady as the primary instigator of the pattern of bullying, and I also name SarekOfVulcan as a willing similar participant. There are others who have been involved similarly, who will either leap to join in here or who will have to be named to complete out the scope of an arbitration if that is accepted by the committee. But the two situations between Orlady and myself, and between SarekOfVulcan and myself, are the two worst in my view--involving the longest term, the greatest persistence, and the least potential for any discussion or other remedy outside of arbitration--that ought to be addressed, and I suspect these two cannot be separated, while the others could be addressed as lesser issues, could be addressed by mediation or other steps less than arbitration. Several editors including Polaron, SarekOfVulcan, Nyttend, Sitush, have played roles like lieutenant bullies, supported by and egged on by Orlady. In one extraordinary occasion, Orlady literally propped up and dusted off Polaron to continue in battle, when that editor was found to be sock-puppeting in violation of a temporary block. These editors are responsible for their own actions I do not believe or assert that they were controlled by Orlady, but their association needs to be seen in the bigger context with Orlady's supporting involvement. To "break the back" of long-running contention, arbcom must consider the repeated largescale instances of Orlady interacting with others interacting with me.

Context and other comments Others will assert that I am at fault, and that I have been mildly or deeply uncivil, and that I should be banned/blocked from Wikipedia. The sheer number of ANI incidents, and AFDs, and other negative incidents in which I have been named will give credence to this view. Numerous parties may seek to discredit my contributions of content, and to discredit my contributions to the community, to the collegiality, and to the fundamentally well-performing democratic nature of the Wikipedia editing community. However the multiple incidents are consistent also with the view that Orlady and others have been deeply incivil, and are abusing the tools and mechanisms available to belittle, to dehumanize, to drag down another editor, in this case me. Whether their motivation is sport or sadism or if they can come up with some indirect argument that they are helping wikipedia by this, it does not matter. Reasonable adults reviewing this fully will conclude, I believe, that their behaviour is indistinguishable from bullying, is unacceptable, and should be stopped.

Recent comments by me vis-a-vis Nyttend are taken out of context, where Nyttend's behavior was dehumanizing/dismissing of me, and I lashed out with some of those terms back--asking Nyttend to be a person and to see me as a person, but with frustration because Nyttend usually does not respond to requests to Talk and seems effectively unreachable--and some are now understanding those words as me being dehumanizing of others. I am sorry for contributing to that confusion.

Some editors key off the number of incidents, or the number of somewhat negative opinions expressed whether justified or not, and assume that I must be at fault. I think that it is easy to blame the victim. Throughout these years I have been repeatedly thinking of rape victims being blamed for persisting with a complaint against multiple parties. Other editors, concerned about the well-being of WikiProject NRHP or even Wikipedia as a larger community, also may wish that I would go away, may believe that if I were subtracted the community would no longer have the conflict. I have sympathy for that view, and I have considered disappearing. I have disappeared, in some areas and ways, already. However I believe it is more important on a bigger level for Wikipedia to choose not to allow a gang to form and to achieve such an end. I have noticed editor Hans Adler speaking a few times of "mobbing" in Wikipedia, think that may be another way of describing this. In real-life bullying, often the temporary resolution is that a bullied student will leave a school, and everyone may be relieved. The bullying just gets directed on to another suitable victim, who can then likewise be dehumanized, criminalized, become the focus of the bullying. I think it is important for ARBCOM to take on this case to establish that Wikipedia will not tolerate this kind of behavior in general, and that the pattern on the record here is a clear instance of that.

As an editor, I am perhaps a good target for bullying behavior because I am a prolific editor involved in many different areas, and because I have not been unduly concerned with negative things said about me. Some can suggest that I have sometimes effectively ignored the views of others at times (I think in cases where policy and guidelines and reason support doing so, and there is no practical alternative, IMO, but they will not agree). I am aware that some have been really enraged by not being able to exert control that they wish to exert. I regret contributing to some editors' emotional reactions, but I am not responsible for them. At various ANIs, there have been parties making different complaints that fall apart when evidence is considered, and that sometimes contradict one another, even in the same ANI. Others, without fully considering, might not see the contradictions. While I have explained myself plenty in appropriate Talk pages, I have been unable to explain myself fully in ANI proceedings, which can devolve into truly insane circusses. Only ARBCOM can run a discussion that rules out various unproductive tangents. I ask that ARBCOM take on a pretty huge task to look at this completely enough to get to some rough kind of justice here.

Everyone who I speak to outside of Wikipedia, however, questions my continued involvement. I have been depressed at times considering the negativity and how on earth I could get the others to stop with their behavior. I have consulted with others about what is the meaning of Christian dictum to turn the other cheek (it is NOT a matter of just turning away and letting bad behavior continue). I observe others subjected to much less abuse have been driven away. Many editors have been driven away by the bullying and contention. I am somewhat stubborn, as are some of those who follow and oppose me.

Some effects of this long-running contention have been that I have effectively been blocked from advancing some useful productive initiatives with outside parties, which would have improved Wikipedia's content and would have improved Wikipedia's position with respect to some larger, important, outside communities. It damages Wikipedia in other ways, and it hurts people here, involved parties and bystanders.

I believe that throughout this I have been consistently less contentious, more polite, more seeking of alternatives, trying harder to discuss content, trying harder to stop the contention, seeking of any way to end it. I see no way to end it but for ARBCOM to consider the whole scope of the contention, and to put a stop to the contention.

I recognize that by requesting this ARBCOM I will be helping to put motion steps that could lead to my own dismissal from Wikipedia, which I would greatly regret, and which I think would be a greater loss to Wikipedia, both from what that would mean about a failure of Wikipedia processes, as well as what it would mean from the loss of my future contributions.

Specifically, I seek for Orlady to be banned from following and contending with me, permanently, and for two attack pages maintained by Orlady to be deleted. About SarekOfVulcan, I seek for some similar remedy but perhaps less ban. Polaron has not been involved recently, but the long phase of contention there needs to be considered, as Orlady has repeatedly brought up and ridiculed what I think was a pretty creative and good resolution of conflict there. I think it is actually central to this arbcom for her vs. my views of what happened there to be considered. SarekOfVulcan, Nyttend, and recently Sitush are responsible for the bullying nature of their behavior and for having larger effects that they should be held accountable for in some way. SarekOfVulcan and Nyttend's behaviors are longrunning and must be considered involved parties. Sitush's association is primarily recent, but the violent nature of Sitush's interaction with me and the prominence it achieved, leading to me being banned from Indic articles (he "won"?), is a good part of the bigger problem now, and is salient and is why some parties are concerned. Several parties have asserted that I am at fault for bringing the "same" behavior to Indic articles; I see my participation there as constructive. To break the back of the larger dispute, the different views of that recent episode need also be considered.

Please do accept this case, under name "Longterm problems" or other non-prejudging name. --doncram 12:31, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

@Bwilkins: I find Bwilkins comment to be cutting, suggesting that I will not take responsibility for my actions, and asserting that a "whole community" is against me. I do and I will take responsibility. I will listen and try to learn from this proceeding, and am open to what others will say. I am indeed concerned that editors that I respect and have worked with extensively have mixed views or have criticized me at times, and that their previously expressed concerns are not resolved. It is not simple to talk it all out with any one even in a trusting, non-adversarial way, in part as the scope of this is so large. Any of several editors that I respect and would really like to listen to, however, is not going to have seen the extent and nature of Orlady's persistent following and contention, for example. Or they have concern for feelings of Elkman, say, and are wishing for conflict to be stopped, but are probably not looking at a big enough picture, perhaps. I have sometimes requested some others to overcome their distaste for ANIs and contention to come speak up in ANIs previously, and they have, but often/mostly I have not. I have most times just taken getting bashed on my own. I don't like to participate in ANIs and nor do many editors. The "whole community" that Bwilkins refers to, is not the whole community, it excludes the many shortterm and longterm editors happy about working with me, and some/many editors now inactive who have been driven away by contention. I also do value the opinion of new editors and those of editors not involved, who see just a small part of the interactions. I sincerely hope that the community which matters in Wikipedia is not just an in-group of editors who like participating at ANI.

Specifically, I do see it as problematic for the community, for me to be repeatedly naming and calling Orlady's behaviors as I see them in new AFDs and other actions that Orlady has opened against me, and then going on to address content issues, which I have done in several interactions in 2012. This could be "solved" by coming up with some other suggestions for what I am supposed to do, when harassed and bullied, or that I should re-interpret and experience bullying as love instead, or whatever. I will honestly take feedback on that. But it would be best IMO to stop the behavior that appears, to the reasonable interpretation of me and others, to be bullying and harassing.

@Arbcom committeepersons, could you please address whether this can be named neutrally, either with a non-judgmental topic name or listing all involved parties? Also, I am not sure whether Elkman should be dropped or whether Sitush should be added as Involved parties. I tend to think they both be included, now. I am not sure, process-wise, how their involvement is to be discussed and decided. --doncram 16:23, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

@AGK, thank you but your response is not satisfying. See this comment affirming that naming of this case does matter, with statistics suggesting naming matters a lot. "Poisoning the pond", suggested there, is apt. Poisoning the pond has been used successfully, many times over, by involved parties here. Obviously a case labelled "Orlady" or "Bullying" or "Admin tool abuse" would be more likely to attract comments of editors who have past experiences and/or extreme opinions either way about that editor or those issues, and your views certainly should and will be influenced by the (self-)selection of who chooses to participate here. And whether you personally believe you can overcome bias in the naming, there is vast literature establishing that decisions of everyone, including professionals conscious of potential biases and trained to overcome them, are strongly influenced by anchoring and related psychological biases. If brevity is a major concern, then I suggest "DENOS" as an acronym of already-listed-as-involved parties. A descriptive name that could be descriptive is "Bullying or helpful editing, and responses thereto". Or take BOHEARH as an acronym of that, or take any nonsense string, say ASDFGHJKL from the 2nd row of our keyboards. --doncram 17:02, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Preliminary decision

Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Can all parties please try to limit their statements to under 500 words and all clarifications or discussions to the absolute minimum length that they need to be, under 100 words is preferable. --Guerillero | My Talk 22:03, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

User:Doncram: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <12/0/0/0>

Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse/other)

• Awaiting statements. T. Canens (talk) 05:59, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Accept. T. Canens (talk) 12:30, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
• Also awaiting further statements. The ones posted so far are fine in terms of length, but please ensure subsequent statements don't get any longer than those posted already. Also, please keep the statements focused on why a case is needed or not. Carcharoth (talk) 07:21, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Still awaiting statements from Doncram (and now Orlady). Regarding what Elkman said here: "I may come up with more specific examples as this case progresses". Please remember that this is not a case, it is a case request. Details should be left for any case (if accepted). The focus here should be on providing short and concise reasons why a case is needed. i.e. Less (preferably none) of the responses to what others are saying (things become swiftly unmanageable if everyone responds to everyone), and more focus on individual statements as to why a case is or isn't needed. Suggest that those who have posted overly long statements already, work on making them more concise rather than lengthening them by responding to what others have said. Carcharoth (talk) 01:14, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Accept, though the inability of several of the parties to present a request for acceptance in a concise fashion does not augur well. Much of what has been stated above could have been left for the case itself, though even within a case there are limits on the amount of evidence that is accepted unless special dispensation is sought. The parties should be aware that they will need to be much more concise and selective about what they choose to present during the case. I note here that Doncram has added another editor (Sitush) as a party to the case. That matter should normally be addressed before the case opens, as by adding a party you then have to face the question of whether to wait for them to present a statement or not. However, in this case, Sitush is aware and doesn't intend to make a statement, as seen here. Not sure yet about the case name. Carcharoth (talk) 21:38, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
• Comment: could the parties please provide details of a (recent) arbitratable issue that the community has failed to resolve? If you have evidence of this, I'm all ears but Doncram failing to complete a request for arbitration isn't really sufficient.  Roger Davies ^talk 10:06, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the additional/fleshed out statements. Accept,  Roger Davies ^talk 05:12, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
• I'm still waiting for doncram's statement, but, at first glance, I believe that there may be issues worth examining; I have not made up my mind yet, but I'm inclined to think that we should accept. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 13:54, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Accept. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 17:05, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
    • @NYB No prejudgment of the outcome of the case is in any way intended., while I entirely agree with this and would never let my final decision regarding a case depend on the name of the case, I believe there can be the risk that, while no prejudgement is intended, the naming of a case may unintentionally influence its outcome, which is why I'd be amenable to calling this case National Register of Historic Places, knowing that we are not necessarily bound by it as far as the scope of the case is concerned (after all, even if the case were named Doncram, we could review the conduct of others)... Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 13:02, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
      • Since Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Doncram 2 has been mentioned as confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried, I have just undeleted the page (and blanked it), so that also non-admins can review it. Please note that this is just a temporary measure and the RfC will be deleted again as soon as it's no longer useful. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 16:10, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
• Would like to hear from doncram before deciding whether or not to accept. Worm^TT(talk) 15:13, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

  I'm happy that this needs a case. Accept Worm^TT(talk) 13:20, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

• Accept; the community has already tried and failed several times to resolve the issues. Ideally, I would prefer to see a statement from Doncram, but I shall take his previous attempt to file a case as indicative that he doesn't object to a case being opened (and, indeed, that he seeks one himself). — Coren ^(talk) 15:50, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
• Leaning toward acceptance based on the ANI thread and the overall history, but awaiting Doncram's statement before voting. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:58, 8 January 2013 (UTC) Accept; a case is clearly in order. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:23, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
  • I join in emphasizing that casenames are picked simply for convenience in identifying the subject-matter of the case. No prejudgment of the outcome of the case is in any way intended. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:43, 9 January 2013 (UTC) Update: To The Devil's Advocate's point: It is not always possible to tell exactly what the scope of the case will be at this stage. For example, we don't yet know if Doncram accepts a topic-ban from Indian caste articles or whether he will be contesting it. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:01, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
• Accept. This does look like something that needs attention by the Committee as the community have not been able to stop problems from occurring, and - as people are suggesting - we should be looking at the conduct of a number of users, so a case would be appropriate. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 10:48, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
• Accept. Risker (talk) 12:29, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
• All parties: please shorten your statements to less than 500 words, or a clerk may remove your statement until you do. NW (Talk) 12:43, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Accept. NW (Talk) 12:01, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
• As with GoodDay, only with excessive time and attentinon could the community resolve the complex set of issues that surround Doncram. Accept. AGK [•] 12:46, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

• Doncram, it is likely the case will simply be named "Doncram". Although other editors may be involved in the set of issues that we will have to examine, it is those editors' interaction with you that makes them involved. You link all the issues, and for that reason alone the case would be named after you. The name of the case has no bearing on our decision, and we try to make them as short as possible so that later reference is not cumbersome. Please do not give much thought to how we name the case, because we do not, nor does the community. I hope this answers your question. AGK [•] 16:30, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

• Accept. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 12:59, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Final decision

All tallies are based the votes at /Proposed decision, where comments and discussion from the voting phase is also available.

Principles

Purpose of Wikipedia

1) The purpose of Wikipedia is to create a high-quality, free-content online encyclopedia. This is best achieved in an atmosphere of collegiality, camaraderie, and mutual respect among contributors.

Passed 13 to 0, 05:25, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

No expectation of perfection

2) While editors are expected to follow Wikipedia policies and practices to the best of their abilities, they are not expected to be perfect. However, they are expected to listen to feedback from others and, where appropriate, learn from it. Repeated and serious editing errors can be disruptive as they create unnecessary work for others.

Passed 13 to 0, 05:25, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Minimum standard for stub articles

3) Community expectations for the creation of stub articles are outlined in the applicable guideline, which requires a stub article to contain, as a minimum, sufficient information to provide verifiable context and establish the subject matter's notability.

Passed 13 to 0, 05:25, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Fresh eyes

4) Wikipedia contributors are expected to pursue dispute resolution if local discussion alone does not yield consensus on a matter of content. This is particularly so when a dispute becomes protracted or the subject of extensive or heated discussion. Insulating a content dispute from the views of uninvolved contributors for long periods can lead to the disputants' positions become entrenched. Therefore, unresolved questions of content should be referred at the first opportunity to the community at large—through a Request for Comment, Third Opinion, or other suitable mechanism for inviting comment from a new perspective.

Passed 14 to 0, 05:25, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Editor interactions

5) Wikipedia editors are expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other editors; to approach even difficult situations in a dignified fashion and with a constructive and collaborative outlook; and to avoid acting in a manner that brings the project into disrepute. Unseemly conduct, such as personal attacks, incivility, assumptions of bad faith, harassment, disruptive point-making, and gaming the system, is prohibited.

Passed 13 to 0, 05:25, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Administrators

6) 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.

Passed 14 to 0, 05:25, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Repeated types of edits and community concerns

7) Editors whose contributions reflect repetition of a particular type of edit, such as creating placeholder stubs based on a database, should be sensitive to community input regarding whether their contributions are useful, whether the contributions contain repeated errors or are otherwise problematic, and how the contributions could be improved. A concern that would be mild and easily addressed if it affects one new article, may create substantial issues if it affects dozens or hundreds of articles. By being especially responsive to the views of other editors about the quality of such mass contributions, an editor maximizes the value of the substantial time he or she expends on these edits and helps to ensure their usefulness in creating the encyclopedia.

Passed 14 to 0, 05:25, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Following another editor's contributions

8) It is important to distinguish between an editor's reviewing and as appropriate correcting or commenting on the edits of a fellow editor whose contributions are problematic, which is acceptable and in some cases necessary, and the practice referred to as "wikihounding" or "wikistalking," which constitutes a form of harassment and is prohibited. See Wikipedia:Harassment#Wikihounding, an important policy that addresses these issues. While the line separating proper from improper behavior in this area may not always be sharply defined, relevant factors include whether the subject editor's contributions are actually viewed as problematic by multiple users or the community; whether the concerned editor raises concerns appropriately on talkpages or noticeboards and explains why the edits are problematic; and ultimately, whether the concerns raised reasonably appear to be motivated by good-faith, substantiated concerns about the quality of the encyclopedia, rather than personal animus against a particular editor.

Passed 13 to 0, 05:25, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Problematic editing

9) Contributors whose actions over a period of time are detrimental to the goal of creating a high-quality encyclopedia may be asked to refrain from those actions, when other efforts to address the issue have failed, even when their actions are undertaken in good faith.

Passed 14 to 0, 05:25, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Findings of fact

Doncram

Uncollegial behavior

1.1) Doncram (talk · contribs) has on many occasions been uncivil. He has repeatedly made accusations of harassment or misbehavior on the part of other editors without attempting to seek proper dispute resolution or disengage from interaction with those editors. He has also continued to make such statements after dispute resolution fora have concluded otherwise. ([1], [2], [3], [4], [5])

Passed 13 to 0, 05:25, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Problems with articles

1.2) Doncram (talk · contribs) has a history of repeatedly creating articles with placeholder text and stubs with insufficient context for an outside observer to easily understand why the topic is considered significant. ([6], [7], [8]; Elkman and MSJapan's evidence)

Passed 11 to 2, 05:25, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Move warring

1.3) Doncram (talk · contribs) has repeatedly attempted to impose his point of view as to the proper title of an article without first seeking consensus in the usual manner.([9], [10], [11], [12])

Passed 11 to 0, 05:25, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

SarekOfVulcan

3) SarekOfVulcan (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) has admitted to edit warring with Doncram in order to try to have Doncram blocked for an extended period of time (Guerillero's evidence, SarekOfVulcan's statement).

Passed 14 to 0, 05:25, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Remedies

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

Doncram

General editor probation

2.1) Doncram (talk · contribs) is placed under a general probation indefinitely. Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions if, despite being warned, Doncram repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any normal editorial process or any expected standards of behavior and decorum. These sanctions may include blocks, page or topic bans, instructions to refrain from a particular behavior, or any other sanction that the administrator deems appropriate. Sanctions imposed under this remedy may be appealed as if they were discretionary sanctions.

Doncram may not appeal this restriction for one year and is limited to an appeal once every six months thereafter.

Passed 9 to 5, 05:25, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Superseded by motion at 13:11, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Article creation restriction

2.3) Doncram (talk · contribs) is indefinitely restricted from creating new pages, except for redirects, in article space. He may create new content pages in his user space, at Articles for Creation, in a sandbox area within a WikiProject's area, or in similar areas outside of article space. Such pages may only be moved to article space by other users after review. This restriction may be appealed to the Committee after one year.

Passed 12 to 1, 05:25, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Superseded by motion at 13:11, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

SarekOfVulcan admonished

4.1) For edit warring with Doncram, SarekOfVulcan (talk · contribs) is strongly admonished to behave with the level of professionalism expected of an administrator.

Passed 11 to 3, 05:25, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

SarekOfVulcan–Doncram interaction ban

Superseded by motion at 23:17, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
5) SarekOfVulcan (talk · contribs) and Doncram (talk · contribs) are indefinitely prohibited from interacting with each other (subject to the ordinary exceptions). Passed 14 to 0, 05:25, 12 March 2013 (UTC) Superseded by motion at 23:17, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Stub content debate remanded to community

6) The question of how substantive the content of a stub must be before it can legitimately be introduced to the mainspace as a stand-alone article cannot be decided by the Arbitration Committee. If the project is to avoid the stub guideline becoming a recurring problem in the future, we suggest to the community that this question may need to be decided through a deliberate attempt at conducting focussed, structured discussions in the usual way.

Passed 8 to 3, with 2 abstentions 05:25, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Enforcement

Enforcement of restrictions

0) Should any user subject to a restriction in this case violate that restriction, that user may be blocked, initially for up to one month, and then with blocks increasing in duration to a maximum of one year.

In accordance with the procedure for the standard enforcement provision adopted 3 May 2014, this provision did not require a vote.

Appeals and modifications

0) Appeals and modifications

This procedure applies to appeals related to, and modifications of, actions taken by administrators to enforce the Committee's remedies. It does not apply to appeals related to the remedies directly enacted by the Committee. Appeals by sanctioned editors Appeals may be made only by the editor under sanction and only for a currently active sanction. Requests for modification of page restrictions may be made by any editor. The process has three possible stages (see "Important notes" below). The editor may: ask the enforcing administrator to reconsider their original decision; request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators’ noticeboard ("AN"); and submit a request for amendment at "ARCA". If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email through Special:EmailUser/Arbitration Committee (or, if email access is revoked, to arbcom-enwikimedia.org). Modifications by administrators No administrator may modify or remove a sanction placed by another administrator without: the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" below). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped. Nothing in this section prevents an administrator from replacing an existing sanction issued by another administrator with a new sanction if fresh misconduct has taken place after the existing sanction was applied. Administrators are free to modify sanctions placed by former administrators – that is, editors who do not have the administrator permission enabled (due to a temporary or permanent relinquishment or desysop) – without regard to the requirements of this section. If an administrator modifies a sanction placed by a former administrator, the administrator who made the modification becomes the "enforcing administrator". If a former administrator regains the tools, the provisions of this section again apply to their unmodified enforcement actions. Important notes: For a request to succeed, either (i) the clear and substantial consensus of (a) uninvolved administrators at AE or (b) uninvolved editors at AN or (ii) a passing motion of arbitrators at ARCA is required. If consensus at AE or AN is unclear, the status quo prevails. While asking the enforcing administrator and seeking reviews at AN or AE are not mandatory prior to seeking a decision from the committee, once the committee has reviewed a request, further substantive review at any forum is barred. The sole exception is editors under an active sanction who may still request an easing or removal of the sanction on the grounds that said sanction is no longer needed, but such requests may only be made once every six months, or whatever longer period the committee may specify. These provisions apply only to contentious topics placed by administrators and to blocks placed by administrators to enforce arbitration case decisions. They do not apply to sanctions directly authorised by the committee, and enacted either by arbitrators or by arbitration clerks, or to special functionary blocks of whatever nature. All actions designated as arbitration enforcement actions, including those alleged to be out of process or against existing policy, must first be appealed following arbitration enforcement procedures to establish if such enforcement is inappropriate before the action may be reversed or formally discussed at another venue.

In accordance with the procedure for the standard appeals and modifications provision adopted 3 May 2014, this provision did not require a vote.

Amendments

May 2016

The Doncram arbitration case is amended as follows:

• Remedy 2.1 - General editor probation is rescinded.
• Remedy 2.3 - Article creation restriction is rescinded
• The topic ban imposed by Seraphimblade is rescinded. For clarity, this means that Doncram is permitted to edit existing articles but not create new articles that are related to the National Register of Historic Places, broadly construed.

* The following remedy is added to the case: Doncram (talk · contribs) is indefinitely restricted from creating new pages, except for redirects, in article space which are related to the National Register of Historic Places, broadly construed.

Passed 10 to 0 by motion at 13:11, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Superseded by motion at 16:57, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

November 2016

Point 4 (Doncram restricted) of the the motion in May 2016 is suspended for a period of six months. During the period of suspension, this restriction may be reinstated by any uninvolved administrator as an arbitration enforcement action should Doncram fail to adhere to Wikipedia editing standards in the National Register of Historic Places topic area, broadly construed. Appeal of such a reinstatement would follow the normal arbitration enforcement appeals process. After six months from the date this motion is enacted, if the restriction has not been reinstated or any reinstatements have been successfully appealed, the restriction will automatically lapse.

Passed 11 to 2 by motion at 16:57, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Doncram: Motion (January 2018)

Remedy 5 (SarekOfVulcan–Doncram interaction ban) of the Doncram arbitration case is suspended for a period of six months. During the period of suspension, this restriction may be reinstated by any uninvolved administrator as an arbitration enforcement action should either SarekOfVulcan or Doncram fail to adhere to Wikipedia editing standards in their interactions with each other. Appeal of such a reinstatement would follow the normal arbitration enforcement appeals process. After six months from the date this motion is enacted, if the restriction has not been reinstated or any reinstatements have been successfully appealed, the restriction will automatically lapse.

Passed 13 to 1 with 1 abstentions by motion at 23:17, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Log of blocks, bans, and restrictions

Any block, restriction, ban, or sanction performed under the authorisation of a remedy for this case must be logged in this section. Please specify the administrator, date and time, nature of sanction, and basis or context. Unless otherwise specified, the standardised enforcement provision applies to this case.

Notifications

• Doncram warned per AE request.  Sandstein  07:59, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
• doncram (talk · contribs) reminded per AE request. Gatoclass (talk) 10:53, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Sanctions

• Doncram (talk · contribs) is indefinitely topic-banned from areas related to the National Register of Historic Places: [13]. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 17:04, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
• Doncram (talk · contribs) topic ban clarified and a warning given for violations of the topic ban. [14] Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:03, 17 November 2013 (UTC)