Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Doncram/Workshop

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:

1. AGK
2. Carcharoth
3. Coren
4. Courcelles
5. David Fuchs
6. Hersfold
7. Kirill Lokshin
8. Newyorkbrad
9. NuclearWarfare
10. Risker
11. Roger Davies
12. SilkTork
13. Timotheus Canens
14. Worm That Turned

Inactive:

1. Salvio giuliano

Failure to replace the default heading "Template" is an annoyance when editing the Workshop page

One of the parties has elected not to create topical headings for statements made on the Workshop page. As a result, there are several subsections that have content, but still have the default heading "Template". As a result, the headings are not useful in page navigation, which is an annoyance for users attempting to comment on those items. I'd like to ask that topical headings be created on those subsections as a courtesy to all participants. --Orlady (talk) 00:20, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Which party? I see no workshop proposals that are not named. People tend to leave templates they do not wish to fill with a proposal, which is fine, but I gather you mean that somebody has filled in a template section but not a template header. AGK [•] 12:48, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Bit slow off the mark, AGK... --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:01, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Oops. As you can probably see, I skipped my morning caffeine… Thanks for the diff, AGK [•] 13:03, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Ah, right, caffeine, that's what I was forgetting... *scurries off to kitchen* --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:31, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

As noted, this omission has been rectified. --Orlady (talk) 14:36, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Intersection statistics

I have chosen administrators (or former administrators) on the membership list of WikiProject NRHP and checked on how many articles they have intersected with Doncram, who has created in excess of 8,000 articles. Apologies for omitted administrators (eg on Commons).

1. Acroterion 886 [1]
2. Berean Hunter 102 [2]
3. BigrTex 41 [3]
4. Cbl62 480 [4]
5. Daniel Case 852 [5]
6. Elkman 1642 [6]
7. FloNight 28 [7]
8. Howcheng 275 [8]
9. Infrogmation 206 [9]
10. Jauerback 68 [10]
11. Jonathunder 105 [11]
12. Juliancolton 602 [12]
13. MONGO 125 [13]
14. Mr.Z-man 20 [14]
15. Nyttend 3113 [15]
16. Orlady 1269 [16]
17. PumpkinSky 18 [17]
18. Rlevse 66 [18]
19. Rklawton 63 [19]
20. Ruhrfisch 120 [20]
21. SarahStierch 277 [21]
22. TheCatalyst31 276 [22]
23. Toddst1 79 [23]
24. UpstateNYer 124 [24]

Mathsci (talk) 03:46, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Here are further intersection statistics with Doncram for some other declared members of WikiProject NRHP. A more relevant analysis might be (a) the number of inadequate sub-stubs created by Doncram (b) the number still in unusable state (c) the number improved by others including the parties to this case (d) the number o f sub-stubs Doncram himself promoted to stub-class or article-class.

AgnosticPreachersKid 242 AlabamaGuy2007 13 AlbertHerring 81 Alexiskferia 6 Altairisfar 392 An apple and orange 0 Ammodramus 139 Another Believer 84 Appraiser 2628 [25] Araucana 2 Arlo Barnes 0 Aude 101 Averette 68 Avicennasis 118 Bernstein2291 6 BFDhD 0 Billwhittaker 54 BillyJack193 2 Bobak 158 BrainTrustInc 2 Brettstout 12 Broooooooce 10 Bwsmith84 0 Caponer 469 Carsonmc 5 Caveman1949 17 Cdtew 8 Cg-realms 25 Check-Six 5 Chevsapher 7 Chrisgiddings 0 Chrissypan 17 CircuitChild 0 Clariosophic 1355 [26] Cognate247 2 Contributingfactor 5 CPacker 23 Crazypaco 60 Denverjeffrey 57 Dfwcre8tive 17 Dhartung 61 Dincher 0 Dmadeo 1210 [27] Dogears 343 Droll 288 Dsmdgold 50 Dudemanfellabra 891 Dzahsh 0 E.Zajdel 0 Ebyabe 4193 [28] Einbierbitte 932 Eli.pousson 12 Epolk 205 EraserGirl 23 Eredien 3 Fl295 27 Freechild 219 G LeTourneau 11 GamblinMonkey 6 Glorioussandwich 34 Gmatsuda 21 Geologyguy 34 Greg5030 48 Gtwfan52 25 Halmueller 14 Hell in a Bucket 5 Historic Perspective 0 Hjal 13 HornColumbia 37 Hurricanefan25 1 Hurrmic 3 Huwmanbeing 18 Ipoellet 332 IvoShandor 265 Jameslwoodward 282 James Russiello 263 Jay8g 11 Jfknrh 189 Jim.henderson 307 JonRidinger 10 Justin Herbert 3 Kestenbaum 12 Kepper66 51 KF5LLG 1 Kiddo27 16 Kjmoran 5 Ktr101 227 KudzuVine 1940 [29] LaTeeDa 2 Leepaxton 51 LeheckaG 26 Ljmajer 5 Loopygrumpkins 3 Lordkinbote 66 LurkingInChicago 117 Lvklock 994 Malepheasant 65 Marcbela 232 Mcmillin24 8 Mfwills 27 Morgan Riley 89 Motorrad-67 74 MPHamilton 0 Multichill 319 Myselfalso 0 Niagara 644 Noles1984 11 Notorious4life 58 Ntsimp 207 Nv8200p 183 OHWiki 9 Paulmcdonald 26 Paultyng 53 PhantomPlugger 4 Presidentman 44 Pro Fotographer 1 Pubdog 2633 [30] Renelibrary 28 Reywas92 234 RevelationDirect 334 Royalbroil 142 Rhvanwinkle 278 Salmar 16 Sanfranman59 1502 [31] Schlitzer90 4 SCPS70458 3 Smallbones 622 Smileyface_12_91 0 Smithers7 11 Star Mississippi 109 Stepshep 134 Swampyank 1038 [32] Sweet_kate 12 Tarnation 2 Teemu08 180 Theking17825 28 Thepoodlechef 0 TheSilentJay 0 Thomas_Paine1776 115 Tillman 201 Tomticker5 50 TonyTheTiger 252 Traveler100 38 TwistOfCain 15W Nowicki 80 Whyaduck 65 Wicoulte 1 Wikipelli 170 Wistungsten 5 Wkaardal 1 Wrightchr 41 Xtgyal 0 25or6to4 538

Mathsci (talk) 12:31, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

This doesnt surprise me for my own intersection with Doncram. He was the lead proponent for the drive to get every NHL listed for all 50 states. As such, we tag teamed on articles, I did the parts I liked to do, he did the parts he liked etc. Based on the number of people who had similar numbers, I'd suggest that highlights how many interactions with Doncram were probably positive and productive. On the other hand, when an interaction went negative with another editor as determined as he is, as it has done several times, Doncram appears to be as driven and focused, which in my humble opinion is what leads to the battleground mentality and ownership issues he has demonstrated and others have exacerbated. In short, this is fascinating work, comparing interactions, but Orlady and I have similar numbers of interactions with probably reversed proportions of positive and negative. That's the heart of the issue. dm (talk) 12:21, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

does it make sense to notify the editors with bold intersection numbers of this case? dm (talk) 12:27, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for commenting. I took a cut off at 1,000 but there are several editors with over 800 or 900 which would probably count as more significant intersections. (Ebyabe has the highest number of intersections.) Might the conduct problems arise only when other users are administrators? Nobody on this non-admin list has so far been mentioned by Doncram in connection with a dispute. Mathsci (talk) 12:37, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

I've also added those with more than 500 articles in common with Doncram as evidence (following AGK's suggestion below). Possibly somebody on WP NRHP might want to leave a message about that evidence on the talk page of the WikiProject. (I don't intend to do so.) Mathsci (talk) 13:34, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

• Thank you for this data, Mathsci. You may wish to submit it into evidence, particularly the statistics concerning WikiProject members (rather than Wikipedia administrators). AGK [•] 12:46, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

There are other users who are not currently members of this Wikiproject and who have had extensive intersection with Doncram on NRHP-related articles. Some of these are former Wikiproject members; others have interests regarding some of the same topics, but are not interested in the NRHP WikiProject. I checked the intersections for several such users that I recall and found the following to have had particularly extensive interactions:

• Markvs88 786 364
• Polaron 1168 852
• Station1 757 557
• TonyTheTiger 589 252

Other users whose names I checked were Binksternet, Blueboar, Bms4880, Camelbinky, Orygun, PumpkinSky, Sphilbrick. --Orlady (talk) 15:01, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Note: I counted only the articles, so just the initial segment before article talk pages are listed. That's how TonyTheTiger comes out at 252 not 589. Mathsci (talk) 15:21, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Got it! Thanks for thinking more clearly than I was managing to do. I've edited my list to show only the article-space contributions. Also, I remembered Parkwells, who has 362 article-space intersections with Doncram.

Thinking about your list, I notice that some of the most prolific intersectors from the NRHP WikiProject are users whose specialties in that WikiProject are in categorization (e.g., Appraiser) or maintenance of list articles (e.g., Sanfranman59), or who have themselves been prolific creators of stubs (e.g., Swampyank). Those folks are unlikely to have histories of content work on Doncram's stubs or "stub-stubs" nearly as extensive as their intersection counts might suggest. A categorization specialist outside the NRHP WikiProject who has a huge intersection with Doncram is Hmains: 5023. --Orlady (talk) 18:54, 24 January 2013 (UTC) Another categorization specialist with a big intersection count is Vegaswikian: 4867 --Orlady (talk) 20:06, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Mathsci said, "Nobody on this non-admin list has so far been mentioned by Doncram in connection with a dispute" up there somewhere. I, a non-admin, showed up as having 891 intersects with Doncram (although for some reason I'm not included here), and I've been mentioned at least once on the evidence page. I basically decided to quit Wikipedia out of frustration with Doncram, but I've been loosely keeping up with this case in the hopes that the situation is fixed and I don't have to worry about conflicts with him anymore. In short, the problem is not limited to admins; the scope is wider than that. I just haven't taken the time to compile evidence because I feel like everyone else has done a good enough job to get the point across.--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 21:54, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, Dudemanfellabra has had extensive interactions with Doncram. It seems to me that Dudemanfellabra, Polaron, Station1, Hmains, and Vegaswikian could be added to that list on the evidence page (or to somebody else's new section) before the clock runs out. Polaron also is mentioned in Doncram's newest Evidence-page content. (Dudemanfellabra, you could add that one item if you wanted to.) --Orlady (talk) 22:39, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Fixed and sorry about the slip. Mathsci (talk) 22:44, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Message on my talk: "As you don't appear to have been notified of this case, you should be informed that your interaction with Doncram is being scrutinised here [link to this page]. If the suggestion is that you have hounded Doncram, you may wish to say something defending yourself." The large number of interactions between him and me is largely (1) talk pages or (2) lists, e.g. National Register of Historic Places listings in Owen County, Indiana. Doncram is quite fond of editing these lists, as am I. Meanwhile, he's edited tons of articles for National Register-listed places in Indiana and Ohio, both of which I pay attention to. It doesn't look like anyone here is suggesting wikihounding, but lest that come to mind, I hope this can dispel that idea. It's quite different from Doncram, who's admitted following me around to unrelated articles. Nyttend (talk) 17:22, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

The exchange in Mathsci's user talk suggests a suspicion of wikihounding, but I agree that's without any basis. --192.81.249.23 (talk) 21:13, 28 January 2013 (UTC) blocked tor node: almost undoubtedly this is trolling by Echigo mole.Mathsci (talk) 22:54, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

I wouldn't say that in a huge area like NRHP with thousands upon thousands of articles, editors like Nyttend or Orlady can be accused of following others to new stub pages. More recently Doncram has left article talk page messages about his semi-automated method of creating stubs. He has invited others to improve and/or expand them. Nyttend and Orlady are involved in the normal kind of wikignoming and general housekeeping which goes with the area. Mathsci (talk) 21:45, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Problematic articles jointly edited by Doncram and Orlady

I am slowly going through the articles provided by the intersect-contribs tool to see on which ones there were problems between Doncram and other editors. This will take some time.

A–D

1. Ambrose_Whittlesey_House [33] ew w Orlady
2. Anderson_County_Courthouse_(Kansas) [34] ew w Orlady
3. Ann_Street_Historic_District [35] ew w Orlady
4. Architects_of_the_United_States_Forest_Service [36] dispute with AfD proposed by Orlady Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United States Forest Service Architecture Group
5. Arctic_Point_Fire_Lookout [37] minor dispute with Orlady and SOV
6. Bank_of_Nolensville [38] ew w SOV and Orlady
7. Bostick_Female_Academy Talk:Bostick Female Academy [39], ew over tags added by Orlady for garbled unreadable text
8. Burnett's Corner, Connecticut[40] ew w Polaron and Orlady
9. Charles_Coker_Wilson [41] ew w SOV
10. Charles_Daniels_House [42] dispute oevr Orlady's removal of long quotes
11. Charles_L._Thompson_and_associates [43] ew w SOV andOrlady over list
12. Clifford_Annex [44] incomplete article userfied by Orlady
13. Confederate monuments [45] mw & ew w Orlady
14. Downtown_Hartford [46] dispute aout historical district, with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Downtown Hartford
15. Downtown Norwich [47] dispute with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Downtown Norwich

E–H

1. Fairlawn-Nettleton_Historic_District [48] ew w Polaron
2. Fargo_City_Detention_Hospital [49] ew w Orlady and SOV about use of direct quote
3. Frederick_G._Clausen [50] discussed elsewhere
4. George_A._Berlinghof [51] ew w Orlady
5. Georgetown_Historic_District_(Georgetown,_Connecticut)[52] ew w Polaron over merge
6. Glenville_Historic_District [53] ew over userfication by Orlady
7. Grand_Forks_County_Courthouse [54] rv trimming by Orlady
8. Grand_Forks_County_Courthouse [55] rv trimming by Orlady
9. Grand_Forks_County_Fairgrounds_WPA_Structures [56] mw over userfication with Orlady, mv protected by Orlady
10. Grand_Forks_Woolen_Mills [57] dispute w Sitush and Orlady
11. Hallville_Mill_Historic_District [58] dispute with Polaron and Orlady
12. Hartford_Village_Historic_District[59] ew w Polaron over redirect
13. High_Street_Historic_District_(Hartford,_Connecticut) [60] ew w Orlady
14. High_Street_Historic_District_(Hartford,_Connecticut) [61] ew w Polaron over redirect
15. Hope_Valley_Historic_District_(Hopkinton,_Rhode_Island) [62] ew w Polaron over redirect
16. Hugh_Cain_Fulling_Mill_and_Elias_Glover_Woolen_Mill_Archeological_Site[63] ew w Polaron

I–L

1. Jedidiah_Dudley_House [64] ew w Orlady
2. John_George_Moroni_Barnes_House [65] ew w Orlady and SOV about verbatim quotations
3. John_M._Winstead_Houses [66] dispute over sourcing
4. John_W._Ross_(Iowa_architect) [67] articles started with insufficient identification of subject, userfied by SOV, taken to AfD where 2 subjects were identified
5. Jonesborough_Historic_District [68] mw over spelling of Jonesborough. See also [69]
6. Jordan_Village,_Connecticut [70] ew w Orlady
7. Jules_Leffland [71] problems w 3 lengthy quotes
8. List_of_American_Legion_buildings [72] dispute with Orlady and SOV about missing data
9. List of Baptist churches in Alabama[73] Talk:List of Baptist churches in Alabama dispute over balance. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Baptist Churches in Alabama
10. List_of_George_Franklin_Barber_works [74][75] Doncram using article space instead of userspace for personal notes about editing, ew w SOV
11. List of Masonic buildings numerous problems described elsewhere, including ew w Blueboar
12. List of Methodist churches[76] numerous problems described elsewhere, Orlady proposes AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of local Methodist churches
13. List of Other Backward Classes numerous problems described elsewhere
14. List of Scheduled Castes numerous problems described elsewhere
15. List_of_Woodmen_of_the_World_buildings [77][78] mw w Orlady, userfied because of missing data
16. List_of_round_barns [79] mv war over incomplete data w Nyttend and Orlady
17. Long_Meadow_(Surgoinsville,_Tennessee) [80] recreation by Doncram of deleted sub-stub
18. Luten_arch [81] ew w SOV
19. Lyons_Garage_(Grand_Forks,_North_Dakota) [82] ew w Orlady

M–N

1. Madison_Street_Historic_District_(Clarksville,_Tennessee)[83] ew w Orlady over Methodist Church
2. Neighborhoods_of_New_Haven,_Connecticut[84] mw w Orlady
3. Neighborhoods_of_Norwich,_Connecticut [85] ew w Orlady
4. Newbury_Village_Historic_District [86] dispute about redirect, ew w Polaron
5. Newfane_Village_Historic_District [87]dispute about redirect, ew w Polaron
6. Norris_District [88] dispute about HD
7. North_Bennington_Historic_District [89], dispute about redirect, ew w Polaron
8. Norwichtown_Historic_District [90] dispute over merge

O–R

1. Oak_Ridge_gatehouses [91] Talk:Oak_Ridge_gatehouses, Doncram follows Orlady to an article she created
2. Old_Natchez_Trace_(310-2A) [92] ew w Polaron over redirect
3. Old_Natchez_Trace_segments_listed_on_the_National_Register_of_Historic_Places [93] Doncram moves article created by Orlady and Polaron, dispute on talk page between Doncram and several other users
4. Old_Town_(Franklin,_Tennessee) [94] ew and move war w Orlady, dispute in talk page archive [95]
5. Old_Town_Bridge_(Franklin,_Tennessee)[96] ew linked to dispute above
6. Oxford_House_(Grand_Forks,_North_Dakota) [97] ew w Orlady
7. Park_Region_Luther_College [98], Doncram imports content created by Orlady for Hillcrest Lutheran Academy to a redirect she created
8. Peace_Dale,_Rhode_Island [99] ew w Orlady and Polaron on article they created, dispute on Talk:Peace Dale, Rhode Island
9. Peace_Dale_Historic_District [100], ew over redirect w Polaron
10. Polly_Rosenbaum_Building [101] ew w multiple users, 9 Nov 2010
11. Poquetanuck_Village_Historic_District [102] ew w Ploaron over redirsct
12. Poquetanuck,_Connecticut[103] ew w Polaron
13. Preston_City[104], RfD on Polaron's redirect
14. Preston_City,_Connecticut [105] ew w Polaron and Orlady
15. Preston_City_Historic_District[106] ew w Polaron over Orlady's redirect
16. Prospect_Hill_(New_Haven) [107] ew w Polaron on article created by Polaron
17. Prospect_Hill_Historic_District_(New_Haven,_Connecticut)[108] dispute w Polaron over extent of HD
18. Quaker_Hill_Historic_District_(Waterford,_Connecticut) [109] ew w Polaron
19. Ripley_Historic_District_(Ripley,_Mississippi)[110][111] ew w Orlady, "something built in 1837"
20. Riverview_Terrace_Historic_District [112], ew w Orlady
21. Rockrimmon_Rockshelter [113] ew w Polaron
22. Rockville_Historic_District_(Vernon,_Connecticut) [114] general dispute over Polaron's redirect

S–V

1. Multiple AfDs started by Doncram on 23 January 2011 for numerous churches in Connecticut mostly created 3 days previously by Lukascb Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/St._Mark_Church_(Stratford,_Connecticut)
2. Silver_City,_Idaho [115] ew w Polaron
3. Silvermine_Center_Historic_District [116] ew over redirect w Polaron
4. Sons of Haiti[117] nominated for AfD by SOV, discussed elsewhere
5. South Woodstock, Vermont, AfD nomination By Doncram Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/South Woodstock, Vermont
6. Southport_Historic_District_(Fairfield,_Connecticut) [118] ew w Polaron and Orlady
7. St._John_Parish_(Connecticut)[119] redirect war w Orlady and Polaron
8. Stafford_Hollow,_Connecticut [120] dispute with Polaron and Orlady
9. Stony_Creek-Thimble_Islands_Historic_District [121] ew w Polaron
10. Temple_Israel_(Tulsa,_Oklahoma) [122] ew w jayjg over subject of article
11. The Cathcart Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The_Cathcart, stub nominated for deletion by Glenfarclas, Orlady added other Indianapolis buildings of same era
12. Thomas_L._Critz_House [123] lengthy block quote commented out by Orlady
13. Trace_State_Park[124] Doncram follows Orlady, disputes name of park
14. USDA_Forest_Svce._Architecture_Group [125] ew with Orlady over where to redirect
15. University_of_North_Dakota_Historic_District [126] ew over tags and refs w Orlady
16. Veterans_Administration_Hospital[127] dispute w Orlady over lead sentence

W–Z

1. Wakefield_Historic_District [128] ew over redirect w Polaron
2. Washington_Street_Historic_District_(Middletown,_Connecticut) [129] rv Orlady tag
3. Wauregan_Historic_District [130] mw w Polaron and Orlady
4. Weathersfield_Center_Historic_District [131] ew over redirect w Polaron
5. Westville_(New_Haven) [132] ew w Polaron
6. White_River_Junction_Historic_District [133] ew w Polaron
7. Whitney Avenue Historic District [134] ew
8. Wilder, Vermont [135] ew with several users
9. Wilder Village Historic District [136] ew over redirect with Polaron
10. William H. Allen (architect) [137] ew SOV
11. William W. Johnson House [138]
12. William Waters (architect) [139] mw SOV
13. Wilton Center Historic District [140] (ew with Polaron)
14. Winchester Repeating Arms Company Historic District [141]
15. Wyoming, Rhode Island [142] (created by Swampyank)
16. Wyoming Village Historic District [143]

Short and tentative commentary

• From 1,273 common articles, there were just over 100 articles where problems arose. These were between Doncram and one or more of the editors Polaron, SarekOfVulcan and Orlady.
• In general when editing stubs created by Doncram, Orlady just added a category and would occasionally comment out quotations from NRHP-related documents that were overly long compared to the length of the stub.
• Other problems occurred with articles put into mainpspace in rough and unfinished form. Occasionally these would be userfied; once Orlady used her administrative tools in userfying.
• Doncram would occasionally expand his stubs himself when they were put up for deletion.
• There were also problems when it was unclear whether to have a separate article on a historical district or to incorporate the material in the article on a section of a town (sometimes called a "village").
• Orlady comes from Oak Ridge, Tennessee. It was impossible to tell whether it was coincidence that Doncram and she intersected on so many articles related to historical sites in Tennessee.
• On 23 January 2011, Doncram simultaneously nominated a large number of articles on churches in Connecticut for deletion, which caused some disruption.

Mathsci (talk) 14:16, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Many of these pages were the subjects of talk page discussions -- often of extensive discussion. I started to compile a list of discussions the other day in response to a question on this page from AGK, but the computer "ate" my last and I haven't gone back to recreate it. It appears to me that a "directory of discussions" is needed in connection with this case.

In looking over some of these articles, I'm reminded of another item that was the subject of a few problematic interactions: terminology for various types of geographic places that do not have a formal legal existence. This was contention involving (at various times and places) Nyttend, Doncram, Hmains, Polaron and me. Examples of pages at which it was an issue include Wilder, Vermont in 2007 and 2009 ([144], [145], [146], [147], [148], [149], [150], [151], [152], [153], [154], [155], [156], [157]), Burnett's Corner, Connecticut in 2009 ([158], [159], [160], [161], [162], [163]), Wauregan, Connecticut in 2009 ([164], [165], [166], [167], [168], [169], [170], [171]), Hazardville, Connecticut in 2010 ([172], [173], [174], [175], [176]), and Bostick Female Academy in 2011 ([177], [178], [179], [180], [181]; along the way, I expanded the Triune, Tennessee article in an attempt to keep myself from blowing up at Doncram over his Bostick Female Academy stub). I mention this mainly to identify it as a bone of contention that is not directly related to the NRHP and wasn't always a dispute between Doncram and everyone else. The underlying issue here was that the different U.S. states and regions differ in their terminology for types of places -- both formal legal terminology and informal usage differ -- and some users have sought to apply the nomenclature from the areas they are familiar with to other U.S. places. To give a couple of examples: "hamlets" are a legally defined type of local unit in Doncram's home state of New York, but the term "hamlet" isn't often encountered in most other parts of the country; Vermont has some "villages" that are legally incorporated and others that are unincorporated, while most or all of the other New England states don't legally recognize "villages" (see Village (Vermont)). Having lived as an adult in several different states in distinctly different parts of the country and having had professional responsibilities that required me to deal with the nomenclature of local places in those and other states, I'm very aware of the regional variability, although I don't necessarily know the local usage. --Orlady (talk) 20:05, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Comments on Mathsci's problematic article list

Yikes! After more than three years, Ripley Historic District (Ripley, Mississippi) still says "includes something built in 1837". --Orlady (talk) 04:16, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

And, actually now that I checked the nomination form, it turns out that there wasn't "something" built in 1837. The town was founded in 1837, but only three homes in the district date back to before the Civil War. Union troops burned a number of buildings in the... wait, nobody really cares about this, right? --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 05:19, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

nrhp stub to settle Ripley Historic District disambig page -- this is the sort of thing that made me think the "don't do the disambiguation before the articles exist" proposal was a good idea, though I hadn't seen this example before. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 05:30, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

[EC with Sarek] I bet folks in Ripley care. It's their local history. The article about Ripley doesn't even mention the historic district, nor link to the HD article. The HD article was created so that the page could be linked from the disambiguation page Ripley Historic District, not so the town article could link to it. Now that the HD article has content, maybe it's time to link to it.

I don't particularly care about Ripley or its historic district, though. Apparently, I didn't care enough back in 2009 to do something about the fact that Doncram reverted my edit. If I truly cared about all of these places, maybe I would follow Doncram around (what he claims I do) and beef up the stubs he creates.... --Orlady (talk) 05:37, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

The utility of having an NRHP disambiguation page, and the utility of creating an article for at least one of the items covered, has elsewhere in this arbitration been adequately clarified, I hoped. The NRHP nom document was not available online in 2009; the Mississippi NRHP nom documents became available relatively recently. If I started the Ripley Mississippi article recently, I would have included the NRHP nom document and would have resolved the ambiguities.

I totally support broad article development drives to add NRHP nomination documents, where now available, to existing articles, as well as to fill in missing articles. That's what I do. E.g. as I did during Fall, 2012, for National Register of Historic Places listings in Utah County, Utah, the biggest county in Utah so far mostly covered, adding newly available NRHP nom docs to many already-created articles, and creating all the missing ones. I am pretty sure that I have done more such improvements, i.e. added more NRHP nomination documents to articles started by others, than anyone else has. There is no reason that NRHP article improvement drives should be personalized, i.e. should be formed focussing on just me, or just on Swampfox who created many one-line stub NRHP articles, or just on any one other editor. The NRHP wikiproject has hosted multiple article development drives, many led by me, on geographic areas or on NHL subset of NRHPs and on other topics; drives should not be personalized and should not be driven by hatred or whatever is going on here.

I totally don't want to endure Orlady following just me, all the time, always to make the point that Orlady could do something differently. I am sick of this, and that is what this arbitration is about. --doncram 12:39, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Possible impending involvement

I've found it necessary to nominate two of doncram's list articles for deletion: see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Congregational churches. Mangoe (talk) 17:36, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

OK, you can count me as involved now. When he asks, "Why pick on Congregational religion, by the way?" [182] he has stepped over another behavioral line. Mangoe (talk) 11:07, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

I commented Keep at the list-article AFD. At the CFD, I asked that as a conversational question. I don't understand how you take offense at that; do you mean to suggest that you or I have some particular antipathy for, or association with Congregationalism? I simply don't understand what is the behavioral line you refer to, sorry. But indeed, in the CFD, why propose deletions of categories for one denomination of churches, where there are parallel sets of categories for other denominations. It happens you are picking one of the less-developed denominations' list-article and corresponding categories, and you are revisiting ground covered recently in Orlady-nominated Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of local Methodist churches, which was properly closed Keep. --doncram 12:57, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

In point of fact I simply picked the Congregationalist categories more or less at random. I don't follow AFD assiduously and missed the Methodist nomination, but if I had known about it I would have supported it, on the same basis I'm pressing the Anglican equivalent now. All that is beside the point. I started this section because I knew I was treading into territory which this case has covered. Lo and behold, your first response finishes off with some question-begging about my motivations. I can perhaps keep my Vulcan facade up better than Sarek does, but it is at least irritating to be subjected to an accusatory condescension so quickly in a discussion. And if you don't interpret your words that way, then perhaps it is time to take the advice of others about how your words lend themselves to be interpreted. Mangoe (talk) 13:44, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Doncram's response is a perfect example of why he is viewed as being so disruptive and contentious. Rather than addressing the merits of the article under review, he personalizes the issue by passively-aggresively baiting an editor by asking why he's a religious bigot, much as a troll would do, but perceives it as simply a "conversational question", if we are to believe him, with no idea how other editors could possibly perceive "Why pick on Congregational religion?" as anything else. The fact the he does not understand how an editor could take offense at the question makes one pity him, but makes him no less disruptive. When called on the question, he does not simply apologize for a misunderstanding, but becomes defensive and compounds the problem by asking "do you mean to suggest that you ... have some particular antipathy for, or association with Congregationalism?" when in fact it was Doncram who suggested just that. This is not an isolated case and needs to be stopped. 69.95.203.38 (talk) 19:44, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

I addressed the merits of the article under review, at the AFD and at the CFD. I didn't suggest anyone is a religious bigot, or certainly didn't mean to; to suggest that is to project something that was not there. To be clear, I have no antipathy toward Congregationalism, nor do I believe that Mangoe does, and I seriously asked whether Mangoe believed that I had antipathy or that I believed Mangoe did. I assume -- and really believe -- that no one present has any axe to grind with respect to Congregationalism. There is no insult, no victim, no nothing here, AFAIC. Obviously Mangoe and the non-logged-in user interpret some problem and take offense. I am sorry for whatever I said that caused you to take offense. I expect further discussion won't be helpful--there's probably no repairing of bridges possible in this atmosphere--so I probably won't reply further. --doncram 23:09, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Mors Martell

I'm not sure if any of the clerks are aware that this editor was indef blocked by ArbCom recently, I believe because their "clean start" claims did not compute. Perhaps their contribution to the workshop page should be deleted? Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:01, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

In a previous case (MickMacNee) there were similar problems with Chester Markel (also arbcom blocked by Risker). The workshop proposals were archived to the workshop talk page by X! in that case. Mathsci (talk) 06:12, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

DRV regarding 8-9 inappropriate admin actions by Nyttend and SarekOfVulcan

I find it necessary to open a deletion review Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2013 February 9 about two articles repeatedly deleted by Nyttend (with about 5-6 inappropriate administrative actions) and SarekOfVulcan (with at least 2 inappropriate admin actions). The items are NRHP-listed places. They are valid Wikipedia topics and no Speedy Deletion criteria is met. In the Old Union School (Chesterville, Ohio) case, the deletion was already reviewed in a DRV with consensus leaning to correct action of restoration in full, and then Nyttend plus SarekOfVulcan subverted the consensus and enforced an unsupportable deletion, instead.

I tend to think that Nyttend and SarekOfVulcan and others have felt emboldened to take on a role of enforcing anything they want against Doncram, wherever they find something they don't like. No need to comply with policy. All the better if it seems to add to a general drumbeat of disdain and disrespect. Because more is consistent with past drumbeat of ANIs and other continual harassment, where a simplistic message gets across, with Orlady's continual support. --doncram 13:02, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, but the disdain and disrespect is all on your side, Doncram. I note you didn't actually link to the first DRV you reference, Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2013 January 4, where it's clear that four out of the seven participants explicitly endorsed "restore without verbatim quote and move to userspace", and I would have been the fifth if Nyttend hadn't closed the DRV and restored the article before I got a chance. I also note that you have not edited it to improve it once in the month since Nyttend restored it. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:51, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

And, um, btw, how do you do a DRV on a page that was never deleted in the first place? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:07, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Elsewhere, Doncram has stated rather emphatically (see [183] and [184]) that he considers userfication to be the same thing as deletion. (As I see it, userfication is not the same thing as deletion because the page content and history is still retained and accessible, but that's not Doncram's view.) --Orlady (talk) 18:22, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

SarekOfVulcan is proving the point that SarekOfVulcan doesn't understand the role of DRV, and should not be intervening with administrative tools against me. DRV is entirely appropriate for reversing the inappropriate use of Speedy Deletion and other deletions by moving.

Suggesting something nefarious in my not linking to the previous DRV here is silly. The new DRV links immediately, clearly to the previous DRV.

I don't see 4 votes for upholding the deletion in the previous DRV. I see Nyttend and SarekOfVulcan voting to uphold, and Orlady commenting ambiguously (essentially that the deletion was wrong but that Orlady wants it upheld anyhow?). The uninvolved parties, cbl62 and Mercy11 at Nyttend's talk page in discussion linked from the previous DRV, and RyanVesey and AutomaticStrikeout in the previous DRV are clearly for restoration. S Marshall ends up with "partially restore", but clearly meaning restoration to mainspace, not continued enforcement of deletion. And Hobit now in the new DRV, also clearly sees restoration is needed.

Wikipedia editorship does not deserve continual, repeated harassment by SarekOfVulcan (generally encouraged by Orlady) on points that are quite settled. The common thread is that SarekOfVulcan and some others feel infinitely entitled to harass, and to ignore policy, on the simplistic basis that if Doncram was involved it must be wrong. Nonsense. Life is too short. Stop it...arbitration should rule that it must be stopped. --doncram 14:20, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Per WP:DRVPURPOSE -- Deletion Review should not be used....to attack other editors, cast aspersions, or make accusations of bias (such requests may be speedily closed). --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:13, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Please note that at the DRV in question, Orlady restated her objection at the previous DRV by again calling doncram's work "a piece of s**t. It seems to me to be blatant disrespect unbecoming an admin, especially one whose incivility to this same editor is being discussed in this arbitration! Lvklock (talk) 02:04, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Lvklock, I do not think you need to continue this discussion. We have more than enough evidence to be getting on with. AGK [•] 02:18, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Slightly involved onlooker comment

The two articles are reasonably good examples of the kinds of NHRP stubs that have been the source of contention here. As I said in the current DRV, I (and I think a lot of people) have been editing on the assumption that NHRP listing is sufficient notability. Personally I think that if this overturned there is going to be chaos, because listing is objective and any other standard likely won't be. Be that as it may, the timing of this is problematic. One of the articles in question was A3 deleted at the end of September and then was G12 deleted again at the end of October (in my view, a doubtful act). The other was moved (apparently without discussion) into userspace, also at the end of October. Nobody will be surprised to learn that two of Doncram's administrator opponents did all this, some of it in my view rather POINTedly and in abuse of admin tools. I may or may not have objected to these articles, but I could not have deleted and moved them around on my own without the consent/aid of others. That said, bringing this all up now strikes me as an inflammatory act. There's no reason why this second DRV couldn't have waited for the conclusion of this case. Mangoe (talk) 15:01, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Involved arbitration party comment

Since when is a deletion review relevant to this arbitration at all? The evidence phase has closed (or at least it SHOULD be considered closed, despite a trickle of continuing edits). The workshop phase is here to come up with a proposed solution. I don't know of anything in the arbitration process that says that arbitration talk pages are present for the purposes of creating yet more drama and large walls of text. There's one point of discussion for the deletion review, which is at the deletion review page. Also, I have no doubt that if Doncram didn't have this particular forum, he'd be running to WP:AN and complaining about admin actions there. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 16:15, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

I believe one of the traditional functions of arbitration talk pages, even though not an official purpose, is to give the parties a chance to demonstrate their behaviour live and in a context in which arbitrators can follow them easily and so form an opinion. Hans Adler 16:28, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

SBHB agrees with you --Guerillero | My Talk 04:13, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Comments on summary of dispute by AGK

Original summary

It's "NRHP" (National Register of Historic Places), not "NRPP". Just to be pedantic -- or just in case anyone wants to be legalistic. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 16:00, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree with the basic premise that the core of the dispute is rooted in behavior and not in the inadequacies of the creation of stubs guidelines. I also agree with the desysop for Sarek. However, I feel that equating Orlady's behavior with Doncram's and proposing site bans for both of them to be an over-reaction to the evidence presented and out of step with the solutions suggested by the community on the Workshop pages.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:22, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Regarding the suggestion that I be desysopped over my edit wars with Doncram -- a year ago, I probably would have agreed with that as a remedy. Since it's been over a year since I made those mistakes, I would hope that the remedy be something more like "if you're ever that stupid again, it will be grounds for emergency desysop by motion". --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:36, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

removed comment goes here

They're not expected to, they have already demonstrated it by electing him. Restrict your comments to the proposals, and not the proposer.

That said, I am of the opinion that AGK's appreciation of the situation is disproportionate, and would not support sanctions (let alone sanctions that severe). While it's clear to me that Orlady may well have overly personalized the dispute by now and may benefit from taking a step back, I cannot see any intent to "hound" beyond a desire to clean up after what she has perceived as unsuitable edits from an editor who was unable or unwilling to change their methods. In the absence of evidence of malice or animosity, the only question that remains is whether it reasonable for Orlady to believe that there was it was useful and necessary to do that clean up. — Coren ^(talk) 19:28, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

In the matter of discretionary sanctions against WP:NRHP, I think the Committee would need to consider whether other editors' creation of thin stubs has been a matter of disruption and contention. I don't know of any other editors who have created stubs that have been as contentious as the ones created by Doncram. Swampyank (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has been creating some pretty thin stubs, for example, but I don't remember seeing any significant argument about his stubs. (I've been filling some of them in lately, like Immanuel Lutheran Church, Nora Free Christian Church, First Baptist Church in Garden City, and Church of the Sacred Heart in Freeport.) I think a better resolution would be to enact a guideline saying that articles in mainspace shouldn't have placeholder text (like "this document was written in 19__") or raw unformatted data dumps. I think it would also be useful to give the NRHP project some additional guidance, such as saying that a stub article should have at least one source other than the NRHP database.

By the way, I don't think that many other participants at WP:NRHP are aware of this arbitration. Do we want to make a note there?

As far as SarekOfVulcan is concerned: Sorry, but once you've made a mistake, it stays on your record. That's been my experience, anyway. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 19:36, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Sarek, I have to agree with AGK with respect to you; you edit warred with Doncram on multiple occasions, and at least once did so (by your own admission) to get him blocked, since you knew to do so yourself would be seen as an "involved" action. You therefore in effect breached two polices (WP:EW and INVOLVED) and a guideline (WP:GAME) all in one fell swoop. When I first read about that, I was rather shocked that the Committee hadn't heard about it sooner.

As to Orlady, I'm more in agreement with Coren. From what I can see, her actions were clearly meant in good faith, but may have gone a bit too far when Doncram began to indicate that he was feeling hounded. A reminder to step back and bring in opinions from others may be in order, but I don't believe anything further than that is necessary or justifiable. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 19:44, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

• I appreciate aspects of AGK's proposed solution, specifically that AGK finds fault with the long-term behavior. It is consistent with a view that the behavior involved constituted bullying and harassment, as in workplace bullying as defined at WBI (http://www.workplacebullying.org/tag/workplace-bullying-definition/)]. Wikipedia has problems that occur in other settings, and is not immune from workplace-type bullying (as well as other workplace hazards that would cause real liabilities in real workplaces for the lack of proper human resources-based policies to counter these, akin to there being a lack of HR policy to deal with sexual harassment). WBI suggests a definition of bullying, specifically that bullying:
  • "Is driven by perpetrators' need to control the targeted individual(s)."
  • "Is initiated by bullies who choose their targets, timing, location, and methods."
  • "Requires consequences for the targeted individual" (such as damage to reputation)
  • "Escalates to involve others who side with the bully, either voluntarily or through coercion."
  • "Undermines legitimate business interests when bullies' personal agendas take precedence over work itself."
  • "Is akin to domestic violence at work, where the abuser is on the payroll."
• IMO all of the above factors occured in this case, although I grant many will believe that all above factors are not properly "proven" within this arbitration. Other sources add indicators of bullying/harassment to include similar factors, interestingly including one that suggests that an indicator of bullying is that the bully him/herself claims bullying/harassement (as occurred here). There needs to be a workplace-bullying HR type policy statement in Wikipedia, including recognition that any self-appointed "prosecutor" who seems to have a conflict of interest should be removed from the "prosecution". Evidence of COI includes if the person has, based on history, shown bias or otherwise acquired a need to prove that their past prosecutorial-type actions are justified.

• I accept that some think I personally should have behaved differently. I am open to suggestions, and AGK's proposal suggests that arbcom member NuclearWarfare is to address that topic with me in some way (I have not yet received any email or other overture, but welcome that). However, it is not obvious to me how on earth I should have behaved differently, when Orlady followed me to new areas. I asked Orlady to participate in mediation several times, and Orlady declined or did not ever respond. I tried to disengage. I asked Orlady to stop posting to my Talk page numerous times documented in a list of diffs in the 2011 big ANI proceeding, and Orlady disrespected that continuously including into 2012. Uninvolved editors at some new location (e.g. a new or old church list article up for AFD, or an Indic articles AFD) actually do have a legitimate right to know that contention suggested by an editor seems to be of a biased, harassing-type nature. I eventually evolved that I would make a brief statement pointing out that the AFD-nominating party was biased/involved and had shown hateful-type behavior, so I believed the person's views should be discounted accordingly. And then respond to the suggested claims of fault in some topic. I honestly do accept that such statements made by me are disturbing to the community. However, what is one to do when a harassing, following editor is doing what they do? Keep in mind that my ability to appeal to ANI or AN for intervention is severely compromised by a long campaign of SarekOfVulcan and others seemingly to "take me down", with most of the past ANI proceedings expanded significantly by Orlady's suggestions/theories of new faults to criticize me upon. Honestly I do welcome a constructive discussion on what to do differently if one is a target of long-running harassment. However, to site-ban me is to blame the victim. --doncram 20:03, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

  I find it interesting that Doncram thinks that the past 5 years worth of disputes have been an attempt to control him. That would certainly explain why he's reacted so badly whenever challenged. Less clear, though, is why he thinks it's about control, instead of about improving the encyclopedia.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 23:15, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

I have comments on several points:

• I was surprised by AGK's suggestion that I possibly should be site-banned. That probably would be beneficial to me in helping me break my Wikipedia habit, but I don't see how it would benefit Wikipedia. I hold to the view that remedies should be designed to prevent problems, not to punish. Consistent with that view, I believe that a mutual interaction ban between Doncram and me would fully serve the presumed intended purpose of curtailing the behavior that is being identified as problematic.
• Similarly, I'm not sure that desysopping Sarek would achieve any positive results at this point, since he hasn't engaged in edit warring lately. However, a mutual interaction ban between Sarek and Doncram probably would be beneficial -- and it would be appropriate to establish that Sarek will be desysopped if he repeats the kind of behavior that was cited here.
• As for remedies specific to Doncram, because I know him to be a capable and dedicated contributor with the best of intentions, I am dismayed to think that he would be barred from this site, and I continue to hope for a remedy that would allow him to continue to contribute. However, his continued insistence (above) that my interactions with him were premeditated and deliberate malevolence, while his behavior was totally defensible, does not give me much hope for that kind of positive outcome.
• It would be a very good idea -- and would help allow Doncram to continue to contribute without engendering new disruption -- for the NRHP Wikiproject to work with other members of the community to establish some new (clearer) guidelines for NRHP article creation. IMO, there is a need to revisit both (1) the criteria for a minimum stub and (2) the notion that every property with a separate National Register database entry has sufficient independent notability to merit and require its own separate article. (The latter notion, which it must be noted is neither universally held nor universally applied, was a principal contributor to the issues that arose over the 14 articles about wrought-iron grave markers in North Dakota.) --Orlady (talk) 23:14, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

• I subscribe to AGK's belief that editorial behavior is the core problem in this case, but, in general, I would say that AGK's suggested sanctions are more severe than is warranted. A reasonable set of solutions would be on the order of: Doncram topic-banned from stub-creation, Orlady admonished, Sarek strongly admonished, and no discretionary sanctions in the NRHP area. I would also disagree and suggest that it would be beneficial to the project to have ArbCom suggest to the community that it better codify what is and isn't beneficial in stub creation. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:45, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

• I haven't finished reviewing the evidence yet, but I'm largely of the view that harsh remedies are not warranted here, unless something extremely obvious has been flagged up in the evidence. This has festered for a long time, but rather than infer motives from that, I would prefer to do a round of relatively minor sanctions (if the evidence warrants that) and reserve the harsher remedies for if the conduct recurs. I do think that something needs to be done to encourage effective dispute resolution, rather than what happened here, where no-one seemed to be willing to actually engage and resolve matters, or step back and ask others to help if things were not being resolved. Carcharoth (talk) 01:58, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

• I agree with the notion that there shouldn't be any site-bans. Interactions bans with Doncram on one side and Sarek and Orlady on the other seems an appropriate remedy with regards to their actions. The evidence suggests the personal attacks that are of most pressing concern occur mostly in the context of interactions between Doncram and Orlady, with the interactions between Sarek and Doncram being problematic in terms of edit-warring. I do think an admonishment for Nyttend's deletions should be considered, though nothing more than that. While I don't think Doncram's content creation is a current problem, I think that restriction would be a much better resolution than a site-ban.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 01:05, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Workplace bullying allegation

Doncram alleges that he's been the victim of abuse that could be considered workplace bullying, if Wikipedia were a workplace. To use a workplace metaphor, I think the situation would be more like this:

Imagine a department has an employee who thinks he's highly productive, and does what he thinks is a lot of work, but other people have to come along afterward and fix his mistakes or his incomplete work. For example, the employee writes up responses to requests for proposals that have items missing, or that don't have some areas fully filled out, or that don't look like they've been thoroughly researched. Pretty soon, his coworkers start complaining that the guy is doing incomplete work and making mistakes. In response, the first employee starts insisting that his work methods are all right, that he's highly productive, and that someone else can come along and fix his work later on. And, the first employee goes around and points out everyone else's mistakes, like the time that guy got the numbers wrong on the Olson account. The weekly staff meetings get longer and longer, and more frustrating, as real work gets drowned out by constant arguments. The manager doesn't do much because he's a "hands-off" manager who doesn't like to get involved in conflict. Since nothing is being resolved, the arguing gets worse. People from other departments talk with their friends and start taking sides. Some people transfer out of the department or leave the company entirely out of frustration. A few of the most frustrated employees start following the first employee around and scrutinizing it constantly, and there are even a couple allegations of sabotage. Pretty soon, the manager has to take action in order to keep things from getting totally out of hand.

Now, in a real company, the manager wouldn't wait four years before finally stepping in and breaking up the argument. Since Wikipedia is a volunteer project and doesn't have deadlines, there aren't any "managers" around who need to make sure that products keep flowing out the door. But, a dysfunctional workplace isn't a fun place to work at. Now, it's possible that in a workplace bullying situation, bullying might be caused or exacerbated by perceived shortcomings by the bullied employee, or it might be purely malicious intent by a group of individuals. It takes a trained manager to sift out such situations, though, and in a real for-profit company, managers would not wait for four years before finally intervening in the situation.

I actually worked with a guy like that once at a software company. His code had memory leaks that would bring down a production system. His response was that maybe a junior employee could work for him and clean up his code. In reality, he got fired. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 23:22, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

The Wikipedia environment lends itself to longterm bullying more than many real-life workplaces because:

• its watchlist and contributions-list tools enable stalking
• persons who have been bullies in real life may be attracted and stay; persons who have a bullying-type edge find that part of themselves enabled; persons who probably have not been bullies in real life can find their way to this behavior. The sadistic side is sadly part of human nature, as documented by the Stanford prison experiment for one source
• experienced editors can engage in long-term low-level harassing at scattered locations that seems below a threshold of clearly incivil behavior at any one location, or at any few locations reviewed by others, while delivering oppressing, intimidating presence to their targets
• bully-types are protected by anonymity; in real life their actions would be more visible and not tolerated; they would be confronted
• in real life a long-term bully could be confronted in-person (I would really like to meet those who have targeted me, and say "Hey, look at me, I am a human being, why on earth are you following and harassing me, don't you see what this is doing to me and others?")
• in real life management at a firm or administration at a school could and would impose limitations, e.g. physical separation, and impose consequences if the bullying-type person crossed boundaries; in Wikipedia no one at a Wikiproject has any authority; there are no boundaries...the scope for following to brand new areas is unlimited...there is little/no precedent of any Wikiproject dealing with bullying-type behavior by ejecting a nominal member, for example.
• harassing persons can impose creepy stalking intimidation that drives many editors away completely
• persons interested in prosecutorial-type actions can gravitate to the ANI noticeboard and elsewhere and find community with fellow types; persons who don't condone the often-snide, chummy atmosphere at ANI may speak up occasionally to stop a bad process, but get burnt out and are not fundamentally interested in hanging out at ANI
• bully-types can bedevil individuals or entire WikiProjects where those present don't care to engage in the negativity
• individuals and Wikiprojects who do care to counter bullying type behavior get targeted and/or get frustrated and/or burnt out and leave
• the Wikipedia does not have Human Resources type practices (trainings, clear leadership from the top, school-type programs to address bullying etc.) that combat harassment and bullying. I believe Wikipedia does now have clear practices to counter child molestation-type practices, but it has not recognized workplace-type harassment as a problem publicly.
• the arbitration process of Wikipedia is so far unproven in its ability to address bullying and harassment, I think. It may do fine here. But perhaps the arbcom members should consider consulting with some experts about bullying, and consider collecting more evidence than what has come forward in the presented evidence. For example, I think an expert would be interested in collecting more evidence, e.g. surveying past and current Wikiproject NRHP members (who are very notably not much present in this arbitration), about what they perceive to have gone on. (I expect many would say they don't like the negativity, they dislike the bullying, they (like many humans) may blame the victim too and suggest the victim brings it on in some way, but have no real suggestion how the victim can possibly ever get the bullies to stop. They may very likely say they have spent enough of their lives already in the past ANIs where they spoke very clearly on the record, etc.). Deciding to collect more information from experts, to define a process for reviewing harassment/bullying allegations, and then running a new evidence phase would be a possibly reasonable course of action for arbcom, I think. I don't think arbcom has to come down on one or a few parties here and "settle" the issue, if it is not ready to be settled yet.
• I am hopeful this arbitration will reach a reasonable conclusion. Within this arbitration a view has been expressed that long-term harassment has not adequately been proven, or that the harassing parties were simply well-meaning and/or oblivious and are not responsible for their actions (indistinguable from sadistic actions). If that view prevails I will personally have some issue with the arbitration's adequacy (including the adequacy of my own participation, which is imperfect I acknowledge). However it is pretty important evidence that the target of bullying perceived it as bullying and repeatedly labelled it as such, and asked for parties to stop and to participate in mediation etc. And that the bullying-type parties persisted. Why on earth should they. Would you persist in inflicting pain on someone who has told you that it hurts already, that they perceive you to be biased and hurtful? If someone must impose some prosecution to counter copyvio or something, why on earth not pass over the responsibility to another uninvolved party, rather than go on forever after you have been clearly seen as biased. For some to go with the view that they see nothing wrong in some limited set of diffs, is in my view inadequate: it shows they didn't walk in my shoes and experience the following--which continues even now--at hundreds and hundreds of scattered places, and they didn't experience the anguish of seeing ANI-type incident after incident trumped up and expanded and morphed on and on.

--doncram 12:32, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Continuing to make sweeping allegations without even _trying_ to support them, and saying that if it doesn't go your way you have doubts about Arbcom's competence? Yup, I think harassment has been pretty well established here, but I don't think it's in the direction you'd like it to be. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:32, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

I revised my statement above that you comment upon. That wp:OWB list you reference does have many good suggestions/maxims. SarekOfVulcan, I would honestly like to meet you in person and have a conversation. --doncram 14:36, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

It sure is confusing when a user changes his comments after others have replied! (Come to think of it, that pattern of changing comments after others have replied is a behavior that sometimes causes me to pay attention to another user's contributions history -- if I think they might change their comments after I replied to them, I want to know about it, so I tend to keep an eye out for their edits.)

As for the content of Doncram's comments, I wonder if there is a case of mistaken identity here. I don't see evidence that any of the parties to this case are, or ever have been, "fundamentally interested in hanging out at ANI". Although four of the parties are admins or have been admins at some point in the past, we're all basically "content editors", as indicated by statistics such as edit counts by name space. The five main parties here all have very high edit counts (ranging from about 30,000 for Elkman to almost 200,000 for Nyttend). Only Sarek, at 41%, has had less than half of his total edits in article space. Article space percentages for the rest of us range from Orlady at 60% to Nyttend at 71%. Doncram (the only one of us who was never an admin) has had only 4% of his total edits in the Wikipedia namespace (which includes noticeboards, Wikiprojects, RFAs, XFDs, and arbcom); Nyttend and I are not much higher, with ~6% of our edits there; Elkman has ~10% of his edits in that namespace; while Sarek has had almost 20% there. It appears to me that none of us (with the possible exception of Sarek) has shown much interest in noticeboards. If you look at the edit statistics for users who spend a lot of time at ANI, Arbcom, etc. (such as most of the Arbcom members and Arbcom clerks), you'll see very different statistical patterns. --Orlady (talk) 23:08, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

How Wikipedia encourages harassment includes the fact that bullying-type-behavior can be encouraged by an inappropriate culture at ANI. But by the way, per X-edit counter in September 2012, SarekOfVulcan's three top Wikipedia space edit counts were 2257 edits at ANI, 390 at AN, and 198 at 3RR, vs. top mainspace article, Freemasonry, having 149 edits. (And my own Talk page had by far the most edits (107 vs. 54 for next one) at any individual Talk page, besides at SarekOfVulcan's own.) --doncram 00:17, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, since you haven't provided specifics or evidence to support your allegations, and I'm the person you have most often accused of bullying, I assumed that you were alleging that I am "fundamentally interested in hanging out at ANI". Thus, my comment was mostly about myself, although I looked at the other parties, too. Subsequent to that post of mine, I've checked the ranked lists of contributors to ANI, and determined that I'm tied for number 1,097 in contributions there, with a grand total of 120 edits in less than 6 years -- only about 22 edits per year. Thirty-seven of my 120 edits there were in threads that involved Doncram in some way. Doncram is tied at about number 1,320, with 94 edits there over a bit more than 4 years -- also about 22 edits per year. At WP:AN, Doncram has 182 edits over 4+ years (about number 350 in the ranking, and more than 40 edits per year), and I rank around number 430, with 110 edits in 6+ years (less than 20 edits per year). The statistics indicate that neither one of us is "fundamentally interested in hanging out" at either of those noticeboards. Furthermore, it appears that Doncram is a somewhat higher-frequency participant than Orlady. --Orlady (talk) 02:02, 20 February 2013 (UTC) I generally feel somewhat guilty that I have so little involvement in the Administrators' noticeboards, because it signifies that I'm not doing my share of the heavy lifting. I don't think that any Wikipedia administrators actually enjoy ANI, but this place would fall apart if it weren't for the administrators who take it upon themselves monitor activity there -- and take action to resolve the incidents that get reported. --Orlady (talk) 00:33, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Shocked as I am to say this I mostly agree with the proposal except the part about site bans. I think there should be an interaction ban between doncram, orlady and Sarek. I agree Sarek should be desysopped based on this and the multiple times he has himself been blocked from editing for things like edit warring (not just a year ago). I think all three of them need to stay away from each other and the NRHP project. None of them are doing it any good at this point except dragging it through the mudd. A also agree that discretionary sanctions on the NRHP project are overkill but may be necessary. Site bans are not necessary though. All three of these editors are a net benefit to the project and would be a great loss if they were forced to stop editing completely. 108.28.162.125 (talk) 01:13, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

I think it's only fair that participants here know that IP 108...125 is User:Kumioko. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:46, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

So what. No one is trying to hide Ken. No reason to go shouting it from the hilltops. All they have to do is look at the contributions and it will be obvious. 108.28.162.125 (talk) 04:43, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Of course you're trying to hide who you are. If you weren't, you'd be editing with your account, or at the very least, signing your IP edits with your name. Your continued insistence that others are responsible for recognizing you, instead of your identifying yourself, is intellectually dishonest in the extreme. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:25, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

• For me, a major outcome of this Arbcom case has been the realization that Doncram apparently believed -- and apparently still believes -- all of the horrid things he said about me over the years. I actually thought that when he said things along the lines of "stay away from me; you're a bully", the main message was that he was asserting WP:OWNership over whatever page or pages were the subject of dispute. I also assumed that when he called me "evil", "hateful", "sadistic", etc., he was blowing off steam in an irresponsible fashion -- or possibly hoping that I would get mad enough that I would do something stupid in reaction that would get me into serious trouble. Further, I thought he was just being obnoxious when he complained after I tried to be friendly, or when I took his side in a contentious editing discussion. Now I perceive that he likens me to the witch in Hansel and Gretel, and thought that any time I behaved positively toward him, it was part of a calculating plot to destroy him -- like the witch feeding Hansel to fatten him up before eating him. I wish I knew what it was that happened that caused Doncram to form such a bizarre fantasy about me! --Orlady (talk) 21:10, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

What constitutes "interaction"

The possibility of interaction bans, and my acknowledgement that it would be best for me to avoid interacting with Doncram, leave me wondering what interaction is (and isn't). Do I need to stay away from any and all content that Doncram has created, or could I participate in discussions and article editing as long as I don't comment in response to him?

One very real current example is the follow-up to the closure of the WP:Articles for deletion/List of Congregational churches. It closed as "no consensus", but an indication that there is agreement that the current form of the article isn't ideal, and a recommendation that discussion continue on the article talk page. Since it's pretty clear that Doncram has staked out ownership of that article, I gather that I'm now excluded from discussing it on the article talk page. I'm,concerned about the direction that that page and Doncram's associated categories take, due in part to my on-again off-again project to create state- and denomination-specific subcategories in Category:Christianity in the United States by state so that local churches can be categorized in a fashion that treats them as something other than buildings.

Another current example is the itchy fingers I developed after seeing that Doncram added {{Expand list|date=February, 2013}} to List of Reformed churches. I have two concerns about that edit. First, since this is a list of denominations and not of local churches, I don't think that it's obvious that it needs expansion. Second, the comma in the date field places this page in a nonexistent category. I believe, however, that "no interaction" means that I should not revert any aspect of that edit. Is that consistent with others' understandings? --Orlady (talk) 19:48, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

If one party edits an article first, the other party should avoid it. Even if the second edit has nothing to do with the first, you may be accused of 'testing the limits' of the ban or otherwise WP:GAMEing your restriction. You are essentially at the mercy of admin discretion. Attempts to clarify the boundries of an iban will almost never be answered usefully. The unofficial reason is because ARBCOM does not want to impose on that discretion. Repeated attempts to clarify the boundries of the ban will be taken as evidence you are unable to abide by the sanction and are in need of a harsher one. 204.101.237.139 (talk) 22:44, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

That answer from 204.101.etc. is not consistent with either Wikipedia:Banning policy nor the list of existing bans at WP:Editing restrictions. It's clear from those pages that there is a fair amount of interpretation involved, and that each such restriction is specifically tailored to the situation. --Orlady (talk) 00:53, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

I believe the normal principle of interaction bans would be in play. That is, being in the same place around the same time is not an issue in itself. Were you editing an article Doncram created and where Doncram was the sole contributor, that is an obvious interaction. If Doncram edited part of an article and you edited a completely different part soon after then that would not be an interaction. Sometimes editing the same page can be a problem if it happens frequently enough and cannot be explained by anything other than deliberate following of contributions. Basically, if you see the other person edit a page or comment in a discussion and you have no compelling reason to be involved then do not get involved. Should you be editing the same page or commenting in the same discussion then you should basically not mention them even implicitly or address any positions they take. Obviously, the difficulty of that is such that it is simpler to just avoid editing the same pages or commenting in the same discussions.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 06:37, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

1 question, 5 days, 14 arbs and no answer at all to your clarification request from any of them, let alone a useful one. Is my answer consistent with policy? Maybe not. Is it consistent with reality? So far, yes. 206.47.78.150 (talk) 17:43, 25 February 2013 (UTC)