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

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

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

Behaviour on this page: Arbitration case pages exist to assist the Arbitration Committee in arriving at a fair, well-informed decision. You are required to act with appropriate decorum during this case. While grievances must often be aired during a case, you are expected to air them without being rude or hostile, and to respond calmly to allegations against you. Accusations of misbehaviour posted in this case must be proven with clear evidence (and otherwise not made at all). Editors who conduct themselves inappropriately during a case may be sanctioned by an arbitrator, clerk, or functionary, without further warning, by being banned from further participation in the case, or being blocked altogether. Personal attacks against other users, including arbitrators or the clerks, will be met with sanctions. Behavior during a case may also be considered by the committee in arriving at a final decision.

Arbitrators active on this case

Active:

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

Inactive:

Salvio giuliano

Colonel Warden's comment

Colonel Warden's comment seems out of place here, since it is not really evidence, it is argumentation, and therefore belongs in the Workshop, not here. I'd ask that Colonel Warden or a clerk move it there. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:48, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is evidence of the current text of relevant policy/guidelines. I could present this in the form of diffs, if you like, showing that this text has been in place throughout the years of this dispute. Warden (talk) 12:43, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Colonel, are you aware that a LONG noticeboard discussion reached consensus that Doncram's substubs were a problem -- and that userfication was an appropriate action if such creations continued? --Orlady (talk) 14:46, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It does appear to read as something that would be better put as a proposed principle on the workshop page. Could you please move it there so it can be discussed by other editors and Arbitrators? Thanks. NW (Talk) 14:51, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have much experience at Arbcom but I seem to recall putting something onto a workshop page once where it seemed to be buried and ignored. I don't mind having some discussion too (as here) but would like the policy to remain as formal evidence because this seems at the root of the issue with Doncram. My position is that this is not a "proposed principle" — it is established policy and the evidence serves to make this clear. And this evidence seems quite brief and succinct. Warden (talk) 17:50, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Colonel, one of the problems is that the "evidence" doesn't say what you think it says. It does not speak in any way about length of articles, and it certainly doesn't support the idea that it's OK for articles (of whatever length) to carry inaccurate information because the creator is apparently too busy making more stubs to bother about checking the information, and even digs in his heels when he's told by other editors that the information is wrong.
Now, clearly, we disagree about the scope and meaning of the policy, which I would like to continue to discuss, but doing so on the evidence talk page is really not the best way, which is why it should be moved to the Workshop for discussion there. That's the purpose of the workshop. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:39, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think the historical and current state of a policy or guideline page are relevant as evidence, so I don't have a problem with Colonel Warden's posting to the evidence page, especially since it is an admirable example of brevity. If Colonel Warden or anyone else wants to discuss the matter further, I agree that the workshop page is the right place for that. It would also be the right place for proposing a relevant principle for us to consider including in the decision, if anyone wanted to do that. Also germane would be discussion of the extent and limitations of the policy or the proposed principle, since very few policies or principles on Wikipedia are unlimited or without exceptions. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:48, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks, I defer to your judgment. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:53, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Those two Methodist churches on the U, U, and UU church list (discussed in Sarek's evidence)

Closing thread. AGK [•] 13:50, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, I noticed those two misplaced churches after looked at recent edits to Knoxville Unitarian Universalist church shooting, an article on my watchlist, and checked "what links here". There was a link from the U, U, and UU church list. I looked at that list and was dismayed (mostly because a few friends of mine are members of this church) to see the listing of Tennessee Valley Unitarian Universalist Church (a redirect to the shooting article) with the description "site of the 2008 Knoxville Unitarian Universalist church shooting". I did not touch that entry on the list (note that I perceive a bit of COI in connection with the church). I was surprised to see two other Tennessee churches adjacent to this one on the list, since I didn't remember them from my work on Tennessee "church" and "religion" categories. I guessed that these might be church buildings that had been used by these two different faith groups during their history. After reading the two articles, I saw no indication of any U, U, or UU history, so I removed them.

I have to think that only someone with either or both a strong sense of article ownership or paranoia about me would see my removal of those two erroneous list entries in a negative light. --Orlady (talk) 15:51, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Whether Orlady meant it this way or not, I request that Orlady not be allowed to game the arbitration process and make this talk page into an extended evidence page to bring up more stuff, clogging and confounding the process. It is not proper to bring up, and it is not proper to accept, suggestions of this nature here, IMHO. I and everyone else have enough to do to deal properly with Evidence properly brought up in the Evidence section of this arbitration.

About the 2 methodist church items that appeared for a while in the Unitarian and Universalist church article, their inclusion there was obviously an editing error, as I had copy-pasted from a Methodist church list article to get the table item format set up. Orlady did notice them and did remove them, and I did not restore them. I'll offer freely here that in many articles I created Orlady has made edits that fixed something or that otherwise improved the article. On the other hand, I'll further offer that in many cases I disagree with the usefulness of Orlady's , because I disagree and I find them often wp:POINTY and I suspect that Orlady's interest is to poke / taunt / prod / confuse a situation / suggest negative things about me, as much or more than the interest is to improve the article. Especially in a context of combative editing and perception held (rightly or wrongly) by an editor that he is being harassed by Orlady, it is arguably not beneficial for Wikipedia for the harassing-type editor to butt in to make even correct an obvious error, especially if there is a clear editing process going on that would obviously have fixed the error. Here there was such a process going on, as I was marching through the rough draft list state by state fixing up information and would have gotten to those items. While no one owns an article, I think reasonable people should agree it also can be rude and unhelpful at times for another editor to butt in. A lesser option would be to post a note at the Talk page. I don't care to discuss this particular item further. If Orlady wishes for it to be considered Evidence of something, I wish for Orlady to introduce it into Evidence in a proper way. I will likely respond with my different view. --do ncr am 22:41, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Doncram, I have never previously (at least not to my recollection) been a party to an Arbcom case, so I don't know the ins and outs of the process -- I assure you I am not attempting to "game" a process I don't yet understand. I am aware that I am limited to 1000 words and 100 diffs on the evidence page, so that is not a place to make extensive comments on other parties' evidence. I had not intended to bring up the UU church list in my evidence. It's been introduced as evidence by Sarek, who listed it in his evidence section under "Expand on Elkman evidence re list of churches". Among other things, he quotes the edit summary in which you complained about my removal of those two Methodist churches. I used this page, on which comments are not length-restricted, to document my recollection of that particular edit, in case it turned out to be relevant to anything. I don't know how this talk page is used in the Arbcom process, and I surely don't know how to "game" Arbcom on this page. --Orlady (talk) 19:04, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Other walls of words

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I'm impressed by the length of some Doncram comments in a fairly recent "move" discussion that turned out to be totally non-contentious. These long comments appear to me to be at least semi-assertions of article ownership -- and they are likely to encourage molehills to grow into mountains: [1] and [2]. I note that I and others responded in somewhat greater length than we might have otherwise: Orlady reply, Kudzuvine reply. In the end, the whole matter was utterly uncontentious: state of talk page immediately before page was moved --Orlady (talk) 17:21, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't care if someone wants to comment sarcastically about the length of this post. Please feel free not to read it.

What is the allegation here? I think it is to suggest something nefarious. In fact the move discussion was in fact non-contentious. My comments there were perfectly appropriate and were helpful in leading to there being no contention there. I wrote what I did in fact as matter of clearing the way. The parties involved there included , and I recall perceiving that there was expectation on the part of some that there would be unreasonable contention. It is also arguably an example of Orlady violating the terms of their own one month agreement not to follow my edits. I did not throw a fit about that possibility, however. As can be seen from what I wrote, I was bending over backwards to be helpful, to explain what I wished for in terms of the NRHP name being used in the article and yet to emphasize that I was not asserting any absolute policy dictated that, and that i would accept a different outcome.

About any issue of Walls of Words: communicating is good. Sometimes it takes words to communicate. There is no policy or guideline that discussion at a Talk page about a possible move is not helpful. Misunderstandings fester often because different editors can easily perceive short statements in different ways not intended. In the situation linked, my writing a bit long of a statement, and returning to clarify or even grovel to express my willingness to accomodate other info and views was, IMO, clearly extremely helpful. I should be commended, frankly, for writing that.

I think that the bringing up of item after item in this Talk page, just as has been done in ANI discussions, tends to suggest there is a broader scope of controversy, tends to suggest that there is smoke and so there must be fire. About this item specifically, there is no evidence of anything except for a responsible, collaborative editor providing information and cooperating.

I would like to request that Orlady be directed to make their allegations clear and to use the arbitration Evidence process properly, and to be enjoined from pot-stirring at this Talk page.

Whether Orlady meant it this way or not, I request that Orlady not be allowed to game the arbitration process and make this talk page into an extended evidence page to bring up more stuff, clogging and confounding the process. It is not proper to bring up, and it is not proper to accept, suggestions of this nature here, IMHO. I and everyone else have enough to do to deal properly with Evidence properly brought up in the Evidence section of this arbitration. --do ncr am 22:54, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Doncram, the reason you cannot find a specific allegation against you in that comment is that I did not make an allegation against you, particularly not of anything "nefarious". I merely observed that your lengthy comment on that talk page came across as a semi-assertion of article ownership and may have had the effect of inflating that discussion into something bigger than it otherwise would have been. I agree that the move discussion was non-contentious.

As for my participation in that discussion, I did not and do not perceive it to be a breach of my voluntary agreement (at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive761#Evil) to Cbl62's request that you, Sarek, and I dis-engage for a period of time during which he would personally review your work. The discussion in question was not a discussion of your recent work, but rather a discussion of the name of an article that you had worked on briefly (not created) in 2008 and 2009. I became aware of that discussion because it was started by a user in my geographic area, and because I thought the article's title at the time of "Market House and Sheds" referred to a site in our area. When I saw that you had commented in the discussion, I made a point of apologetically saying that my participation in the discussion was unrelated to you. My agreement not to comment on your editing for a month did not include a clause that said "Any time Doncram comments in a general editing discussion, that discussion becomes his personal territory and I hereby agree to stay away." --Orlady (talk) 18:32, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Without making any judgement on the matter at hand (ie is a wall of words a form of disruptive editing?) I would comment that generally speaking this talk page is not the place to post auxiliary evidence or responses to evidence presented on the evidence page. Secondly, a thread of the two of you sniping at each other makes both of you look bad and could IMHO have an effect on the outcome of this arbitration. I know it is difficult when there is a long history between two people but the best course of action will be to present your evidence on the evidence page and walk away, letting your evidence and the evidence of others, speak for itself. Peace. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:08, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

FTR, the Guide to arbitration states that "Responses to another editor's evidence should be placed in a subsection in your own section for rebuttal, or on the talk page." I was commenting on the general topic of "Walls of words" that was raised by Elkman in the Case request (but isn't documented on the Evidence page yet), so I chose to place this on the talk page, at least for now. --Orlady (talk) 20:28, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 21:28, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(+204,710) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:48, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

You have both made your arguments concerning the City Market incident, so I think we should conclude this thread now. AGK [•] 13:49, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Signpost

There is a draft article here, and the comments seems to indicate that it's turning into another forum for discussion amongst the parties. I'm frankly not even sure why this is even newsworthy to the community, but its existence should be known. MSJapan (talk) 20:48, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your note. AGK [•] 13:46, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Outside observer

I have been observing this case since its inception and have been examining the evidence at its being presented. I'm looking forward to Doncram's evidence presentation to get the whole picture. Also, the comments by uninvolved editors that were submitted at the case request phase are valuable and insightful. I'm hopeful that the clerks will be vigilant in maintaining a uniform standard of evidence presentation so that those that exceed word limits are not permitted to do so as seemed to occur during the request phase of the case. Thanks to all who are working to resolve this situation so that the project can move forward more smoothly and efficiently in the future. Best, -- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:03, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lame observation

No, it is not relevant. AGK [•] 13:45, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is hardly relevant but... Am I the only one who sees the irony in Doncram's evidence being a bunch of stubs requiring expansion? 204.101.237.139 (talk) 17:51, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello 204. I would like to know if this comment was made while logged out of the main account attached to this IP. In case this is the situation, it will be appreciated if you can log in and reclaim this comment as yours under your main account. Regards. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 18:19, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It was not. 204.101.237.139 (talk) 20:42, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Query about pages not visible to some participants

I note that Doncram's evidence refers to the AfD for Natchez Trace (band), leading me to think that it could possibly be helpful for non-admin participants here to see that deleted page and its associated talk page, Talk:Natchez Trace (band). Is there a protocol for restoring this kind of content outside the usual space for the duration of a discussion like this? (I would not want to restore the article to article space.) --Orlady (talk) 20:27, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I object to the proposal / request to restore that. I have suffered already in this arbitration by the restoration of a properly deleted RFC2 about me, which I had properly requested to be deleted and which I believed was permanently deleted. I didn't ask for it to be restored and want it deleted again. There is no general need for any and all redlinks / past pages to be made available by restoring them.

I will stipulate (meaning acknowledge for the record) that the deleted article was not a great one, was a marginal article, where reasonable people could disagree about notability. I will further stipulate that there are several more non-NRHP articles that I have created (probably a few dozen instances, a tiny fraction of the number of articles I have created), where it turned out when the writing/research process went as far as it could, that the article was not clearly notable. These include articles about modern buildings or bed-and-breakfast houses where some history was claimed or about communities or about other items, where my purpose was to partly to shore up a disambiguation page (by ensuring that multiple linked articles existed) and/or was to respond to an explicit or implicit request by a new editor or by someone who had added an item to a disambiguation page. The Natchez Trace (band) article would have had bearing in a contentious discussion about a Natchez Trace disambiguation page--it existing as an article would have shored up the Natchez Trace disambiguation page. I recall that I followed up on a comment by Orlady themself, to the effect that one or more bands named Natchez Trace was probably. I tried developing the article, Orlady disputed it, and as I recall it was deleted as not satisfying the musician notability standard.

I mentioned it in my Evidence section as a matter of completeness, as I had searched through all past AFDs involving Orlady and me and I presented all that I found. Sure, this one went Orlady's way, Orlady got the page deleted. The AFD itself and the presence of the item in my list of past AFDs--with accurate indication that it was deleted--serves fine.

I suspect that Orlady seeks to have this brought into evidence as some proof that an article I did defend (in its AFD and probably at its Talk page), was "proven" bad. Orlady could wish to ridicule me about stuff said there, I don't know. I see no demand/need for the article and its Talk page to be restored to present any further picture. It is not central to this case at all. I ask for the scope of the case to be limited, to throw this stuff about non-NRHP items out. This may not be the place for such a proposal/request, but nor is this Talk page the place to present and discuss information not in evidence in the Evidence page.

Whether Orlady meant it this way or not, I request that Orlady not be allowed to game the arbitration process and make this talk page into an extended evidence page to bring up more stuff, clogging and confounding the process. It is not proper to bring up, and it is not proper to accept, suggestions of this nature here, IMHO. I and everyone else have enough to do to deal properly with Evidence properly brought up in the Evidence section of this arbitration. --do ncr am 22:19, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Since Doncram cited the AfD as evidence, I thought that he and other non-admins might want to be able to see the article or its talk page. If Doncram doesn't think it's relevant to the evidence, there's probably no useful purpose in making it visible. --Orlady (talk) 14:14, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think Orlady has made a simple and legitimate request that serves the purpose of this talk page. Hopefully one of the clerks will examine this concern and make a decision about it as not everyone is an Admin and those that aren't will not have access to that portion of Doncram's evidence. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:19, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted articles are routinely undeleted for the purpose of Deletion Review. I don't see that an ArbCom case is less important than that, so any articles cited as evidence should be temporarily undeleted, or the evidence citing it removed. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:48, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In my view, deleted discussions that are cited in evidence need to be undeleted for the duration of the case. I will direct a clerk to do so when the evidence phase ends. AGK [•] 13:42, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Question for clerks or arbs

This question is a general one, although in this case at this moment I believe it only applies Doncram's evidence.

Since the deadline for evidence is only a few days away, it seems pertinent to ask if bolded section headings with no evidence in the section will be removed once that deadline has passed? Without further information and diffs, these amount not to evidence but to allegations, and it doesn't seem correct to allow unsupported allegations to remain in the record of the case. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:46, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Bolded section headings lacking proper evidence will be removed once the deadline has passed. Regards. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 05:45, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Very good, thank you. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:10, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Such "placeholders" are acceptable because there is rather a lot of evidence for the parties to organise. Like Hahc21 says, they will be removed when the evidence phase closes—because unsubstantiated assertions are not evidence. AGK [•] 13:40, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to see this is being considered and will be attended to if needed. Cheers! -- — Keithbob • Talk • 23:24, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to point out that Doncram has filled out the otherwise unfilled sub-headings of his evidence with pointers to other people's evidence, with no additional diffs or corroboration. My feeling is that this is simply a way to get around the requirement discussed above, that no unsupported allegations are allowed, and I suggest that these sub-sections should be deleted by a clerk, especially since Doncram's evidence in total is considerably longer than generally allowed. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:16, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

An extension has been granted to Doncram to properly fill those sub-sections with evidence. I believe that, until this new deadline is not reached, the information contained there can stay. Regards. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 04:19, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) I just now saw that the deadlines have been extended for two weeks, so my comment above is no longer pertinent. However, I do note that Doncram's evidence is considerably longer than other editors have been allowed, and presumably will get longer as he uses the two additional weeks to flesh it out more. As the subject of the case, it's certainly appropriate that Doncram should have more latitude in his presentation, but exactly how much latitude will that be? Is there a set limit that the subject of a case must follow, or is this done on an ad hoc case-by-case basis? Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:23, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)I'm a little disturbed that Doncram's completely unsupported allegations that I followed him to hundreds of articles in 2011 within minutes and opened AfDs and ANIs without discussion of substance get to sit there for two weeks without him having to back it up. Aren't unsupported allegations held to be a personal attack? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:27, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Beyond My Ken: Doncram's limits are 3000 words and 300 diffs. When a user is given an evidence extension, their new limits are noted by the bot here: User:HersfoldArbClerkBot/Length reports. Other current extensions are for Sarek, with 1100 words, and Orlady, with 1200 (I don't think the unlimited diff count shown for either of them was intended, and will be correcting that shortly). Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 04:33, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. - And yes, they are done on an ad-hoc basis on request to the Committee. Also, the bot's configuration page shows the limits as well, but it's a bit less readable: User:HersfoldArbClerkBot/Configuration Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 04:36, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Sarek: As stated above, if they remain unsupported in two weeks when parties are no longer permitted to submit evidence, they will be removed. Until then, he'd just re-add them when he does get around to posting his evidence, so it's somewhat unnecessary. It does look as though he's flushed them out some today, they're no longer completely empty. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 04:33, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Um, you say that like it's a Good Thing. Previously, the section read "SarekOfVulcan has engaged in excessively combative editing, eschewing less combative options". Now it reads For example, at dozens or perhaps hundreds of valuable NRHP articles created or developed by me during 2011, SarekOfVulcan followed and often contended within a few minutes. In general I tried often to open discussion at Talk about any possible issue, though I gradually tried less, because SarekOfVulcan would either not reply or would only reply rudely with comments like "CIR" (competence is required), where SarekOfVulcan assumed/believed i must be wrong, many/most cases turning out that SarekOfVulcan's assumption was wrong. SarekOfVulcan has many times opened AFDs or ANI reports or other escalations, without discussion of substance. For example ANI report mid-2012, after I returned from 6 month block, where SarekOfVulcan turned out to be completely wrong in every complaint. Orlady typically tried to extend/expand the ANI's scope. I raised this ANI at Jimbo Wales' Talk page, and appropriately Jimbo responded indirectly by supporting a main editor mediating, who sought to limit the scope. By the sheer repetition of charges at ANI, which I view as quite a flawed forum for substantial discussion, SarekOfVulcan has dragged me down. Not a single diff for any of that. Remember my evidence submission about Doncram exaggerating to the point of mendacity?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:40, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Granted, he could provide diffs for some of it easily, like the CIR ES -- I probably provided one in my own evidence. But "most cases turning out" requires a bit more effort, and "completely wrong in every complaint" does as well. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:44, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeeaaahhh... I didn't actually read them yet, I just opened the page and went "Oh, hey, there's stuff there now." While it wouldn't be the first time the Committee has gotten an evidence submission that was purely prose, diffs are somewhat expected. Doncram, if you see this, do please add some diffs to all that; if none are added by next week or so I'll ask or have a clerk ask him to do so directly. If none are added, then we'll probably need to determine what to do about it then. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 04:53, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Recuse

Since I added evidence to this case, I formally note that I am now recused in my capacity as a clerk per WP:AC/C. --Guerillero | My Talk 09:22, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Orlady response to other users' evidence on Sons of Haiti

Several other users have presented evidence regarding the Sons of Haiti AFD. I believe that the record indicates that a sincere, good-faith effort was made by several users to evaluate the notability and verifiability of the article topic:

Doncram created the article as a minimal stub with only a directory listing for sourcing.
At the time Sarek encountered it, before he started the AfD, the page was poorly sourced, POV-tainted, and did not offer much promise of becoming a credible article; he reverted the POV before he nominated it at AFD.
In starting the AFD, Sarek properly commented on his unsuccessful efforts to find reliably sourced content about the topic.
Six participants in the AFD (including Sarek, Doncram, and myself) commented at some length on their efforts to find sources. I recall doing a lot of online searching that yielded very little: [3], [4], [5].
In the AFD, JASpencer asserted that the topic was notable, but offered no sources to substantiate this view or help with improving the article.
Concurrent with the AfD, there was extensive discussion on the article talk page about sourcing and whether or not the group was "bogus", as well as extensive editing to the article by Doncram, Sarek, and two other users.
The focused effort documented in the AFD, the talk page, and the article history resulted in an article that was found to be a keeper at the conclusion of the AFD.

I believe that Doncram's implication that Sarek and I were wrong in our judgements of the article is not supported by the evidence. Having no personal experience with Freemasonry to give me insight regarding the antagonism that may exist between Masonic groups, I have no insight as to whether Sarek's AFD might have resulted from a personal bias, as alleged by JASpencer. However, I believe that the record does not indicate any bad faith on his part. --Orlady (talk) 19:14, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Personal bias, no. Systemic bias, probably. I have no antagonism against the Sons of Haiti -- I know nothing about them, and given the lack of sourcing we turned up, it's probably going to stay that way. Still not convinced the sourcing in that article supports WP:N. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:23, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, I'm also not convinced of the group's notability, mostly because I'm not convinced of the verifiability of the article content. I think it's likely that the article conflates multiple groups that have used this same name. --Orlady (talk) 01:02, 20 January 2013 (UTC) NB: If multiple groups have been conflated, several contributors (not just Doncram) are jointly responsible for the conflation. --Orlady (talk) 01:08, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But you do think that the Sons of Haiti are "bogus", no? Why did you move to delete in less than 24 hours? JASpencer (talk) 21:23, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, not particularly. "Irregular", certainly, but that's a term of art. And I moved to delete because there was no assertion of notability in the article, and no sourcing that I could find that established notability -- as opposed to existence -- to my satisfaction. "They owned a building in Seattle that turned into a major cultural center" is not an assertion of notability. "They had lodges in three states" is not an assertion of notability. ("fifty states" most likely would have been.) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:51, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, Sarek was not one of the two contributors who repeatedly used the word "bogus" in discussing the Sons of Haiti on the article talk page. --Orlady (talk) 01:02, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

True, but I was corrected on another page about my use of the word "irregular" in connection to the Sons of Haiti. "While mainstream Freemasonry does deem groups like the Sons of Haiti to be irregular, it uses a different word when talking about such groups - the word "Bogus" (as in "Bogus Freemasonry", or "Bogus Masons".)" I assumed that as Sarek was a "mainstream" Freemason that he agreed with the UGLE definition, or that Blueboar had accurately represented the UGLE position. I apologise if one (or both) of these assumptions was wrong.

As far as the "No, not particularly" Sarek, was that that you think that they are not bogus or that you don't know enough about it. It could mean either.

JASpencer (talk) 09:13, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note. In an edit summary Sarek said "I said exactly why I deleted Sons of Haiti". I can see this in the AFD. What I don't see in the AFD, or this page or anywhere else is why he did it so quickly. This was less than 24 hours. I found that aspect worrying. JASpencer (talk) 14:40, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The contextual history gives plenty of clues as to why Sarek nominated Sons of Haiti less than 24 hours after it was created. This was not a case of a user with a particular topical interest starting one article and not yet having had time to build it. The background for the creation of the Sons of Haiti article included an ongoing discussion at Talk:List of Masonic buildings regarding Washington Hall in Seattle, an edit war over the article Washington Hall (Seattle, Washington) that had [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&diff=next&oldid=388979395 reached] the edit warring noticeboard, and a contentious discussion on the talk page for the Washington Hall article. The Sons of Haiti had been discussed at some length (by Doncram, Sarek, Blueboar, ALR, and me) before Doncram created the article about it. Moreover, if Doncram had intended to work diligently on building that article, he had ample opportunity between the creation of Sons of Haiti (at 17:58, 6 October 2010) and the start of the AFD (at 13:03, 7 October 2010). During that period, he logged more than 50 edits, including creation of 8 additional new article-space pages (mostly about Odd Fellows Halls). --Orlady (talk) 15:58, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So Sarek suggested that the article be created as that would be a better place for discussion, and then moves to delete it within 24 hours of creation? I was unaware of this aspect to the story. This does not appear to be constructive behaviour.

This is clearly an inappropriately prompt AFD. It may have been the case that Doncram would not have worked on this article, but that is not the reason to move to delete an article within 24 hours. 2 months, perhaps.

JASpencer (talk) 16:15, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Since many refs indicate they're a Masonic organization, and it has very little to do with the reasons the hall is notable, I don't think we need to make a big deal here -- we can just report what the sources said. Sons of Haiti would be a better place for the discussion, if it existed... In other words, I didn't tell Doncram to create the article, despite JASpencer's amiable statements above. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:54, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Sarek, if that was addressed to me it would read like an invitation to create the article - particularly such a prolific article creator as Doncram. And it seems that this is how Doncram did read it. It may not have been meant to bait (although admittedly that is what I thought before your explanation) but you must see how this behaviour could be seen as a bait and switch. It also makes your statement that the first draft was poor even stranger. You knew that there were sources, you knew that there was some background and you acknowledged that the article would at least help order the discussion. JASpencer (talk) 18:07, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Umm... because I was talking to ALR, not Doncram? I was saying that there was very little point in arguing about whether they were Masonic or not in the article about the historic building they owned. If there were a Sons of Haiti article, that would be the place to argue about the exact nature of the organization.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:16, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And while I have your attention, why did you give it less than 24 hours for an AFD? JASpencer (talk) 18:09, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Because it was a very clear CSD#A7, but I was willing to give it a week to prove notability. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:16, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please, let's not let this Arbcom case devolve into microscopic examination of the details of individual incidents such as this one. The parties to this case have interacted at hundreds of individual articles over the years. One reason (IMO) why the various past moderation efforts and noticeboard discussions did not lead to effective resolution is that most of them were narrowly focused on particular incidents or articles, any one of which was fairly inconsequential. This case only makes sense (and only has a chance of achieving an effective result) if a large number of individual incidents and articles are considered together, holistically. --Orlady (talk) 18:23, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm inclined to agree with the sentiment expressed by Orlady. This is not a pivotal issue or incident in this case which consists of hundreds of diffs and interactions between the involved parties. It might be time to move on.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 23:42, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Orlady comments on the two pages that Doncram has labeled "attack pages"

It was a serious error on my part not to have tagged the "words" and "List" pages in my user space with {{noindex}} when I created them. As Doncram correctly notes, I did not tag the "words" page until last month. I'm embarrassed to say that I didn't tag the "List" page until a few minutes ago. I'm very sorry that I didn't recognize the need for this sooner. I wish I could tag the page retroactively , but of course I can't change the past.
As I have indicated elsewhere, I created the "List" page to keep track of articles with identified issues, and I would like to maintain the list in some form until everything listed has been cleaned up. Initially that page did not contain any indication of its intended purpose (it was a list of articles), but after Doncram added a description of his theory on its purpose, it has carried a description. If it would make Doncram feel better, I'd be happy to remove the descriptions and all other commentaries (mostly added by Doncram) that aren't related to documenting the cleanup status of the listed articles.
Also as I have indicated elsewhere, I created the "words" page when I was beginning to doubt whether my behavior might be as bad as Doncram alleged, and I wondered how the collections of words that the two of us had used would look to an uninvolved observer. I found myself horrified by the collection of words that had been used about me, and I did save the page because I expected to need it some day. The page is now blanked and I expect to be able to delete it at the end of this case. --Orlady (talk) 01:28, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the "List" page, The Devil's Advocate suggests that the articles listed "were apparently selected solely because they were articles to which Doncram had contributed." While it is true that these were articles that Doncram had created or contributed to, that was not the basis for selecting articles for inclusion. Some of the pages had been identified in discussions at WP:AN regarding Doncram's NRHP stubs. Many more were identified by searching Wikipedia for certain strings of text that had been identified as problematic. As I recall, search strings included "is or was a property", "is or was a building", "built or has other significance", and "designed and/or built". These and other strings represent deliberately vague wording that Doncram had crafted in order to create article text based solely on cryptic information found in the NRIS database. Those searches did not identify any other contributors using the same wording. Some of us contend that it is better to say nothing than it is to speculate in this fashion. The articles that The Devil's Advocate identifies as having been created by users other than Doncram all had these kinds of language, added by Doncram. For example, Emmanuel Church (Newport, Rhode Island) stated that the church "was built in 1900 and has other significance in 1912 and in 1921", which means that these three dates were listed in a date field in the NRIS database. I contend that it is OK to show these three dates in an article infobox, but if the contributor doesn't have any idea what the "other significance" is, those dates don't belong in the article text. SarekOfVulcan revised that article to eliminate the problematic wording. Around the time that I created the list (in 2011), a number of users who were defending Doncram's work suggested that it would be a simple matter to fix the problems that were being identified, but many of the articles have not been edited since that time. --Orlady (talk) 05:53, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I believe Orlady has never, or virtually never, apologized to me for wrongs done. If any of that above is meant to be an apology to me, rather than as excuse to avoid just criticism by others, I do not see it, and I do not accept an apology out of what's said above. This is part of too much, over too long. As stated in Evidence, I see the pages as hate pages and always have, and they have chiefly been used to harass in my view, and they should be deleted. --do ncr am 23:30, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Doncram, I do deeply regret any harm done to you by my failure to mark these pages for "no index" earlier. I do intend to delete the "words" page at the conclusion of this Arbcom case (if it isn't deleted for me before then). Furthermore (as I've said on the Workshop page), I have been horrified by the realization that you apparently saw my efforts to "keep my cool" with you not as an attempt at peaceful coexistence (what I intended), but rather as some sort of coldly calculating and sadistic campaign against you. I'm horrified to think that I might have caused you that kind of psychic pain, and I'm sorry for whatever it may have done to you. I didn't apologize earlier because I didn't think I had anything to apologize to you for -- I honestly thought your accusations against me were false and unfounded. --Orlady (talk) 23:00, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Doncram objects to this edit summary. I admit that out of context, it looks snarky, but individual edit summaries don't give a lot of room for context. The context for the comment about my user space was the similar assertions he had been making when he removed or refactored my posts on his talk page; the reason for my collapsing his comments was simply that lengthy comments got in the way of using the page as a cleanup list. --Orlady (talk) 23:00, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Orlady response to others' evidence and comments pertaining to Frederick G. Clausen

Doncram mentioned this article on the Evidence page, and The Devil's Advocate discusses it further on that page and refers to "the Clausen incident" on the Workshop page. T.D.A. interprets the history of this article as an instance when Orlady "blatantly followed Doncram to an article, made frivolous charges and insulting comments, and when Doncram reacted Orlady made a veiled threat of adding more negative material to pages focused on Doncram," and calls the incident a case of "textbook hounding." I've researched the history and have the following alternative account and interpretation of the events:

I'm not entirely sure when and how this article first came to my attention, but I surmise that it was from a discussion of the article that SarekOfVulcan opened on the ANI noticeboard at 20:13 on 2 December 2011 [6]. My first edit at the Clausen article came after that ANI posting and I commented in the ANI discussion just 25 minutes after Sarek (after Doncram had commented). My comments compared the article and its edit history to the history of Charles L. Thompson (renamed by Doncram to Charles L. Thompson and associates). To my mind, following up on ANI postings is not "blatantly following" another user.
Around the same time, I made two edits to the article: added a template requesting identification of the speaker associated with a quotation and added content from a source I had found, plus a citation to that source. I don't see it as a bad thing to make small constructive edits to another user's newly created article.
I commented two more times in the ANI discussion, which drew participation from several other users.

My first comment on the talk page [7] first comment] wasn't made until 16;15 on 4 December 2011. By that time, Elen of the Roads was busy making some thoroughgoing edits to the article to address various issues raised at the ANI discussion. This is the comment that The Devil's Advocate focuses on. The first part of the comment, which T.D.A. characterizes as "clearly denigrating Doncram" stated in full:

Frederick G. Clausen was a notable architect. The cleanest and sanest way to document his biography and his work is with a stand-alone article about his. The fact that his son was also an architect who also may be notable, that he sometimes worked with other architects, and (nmost particularly) that NRIS data dumps for "Clausen" return some records for buildings that he didn't design (or didn't design by himself) does not mean that it is sensible to create an everything-but-the-kitchen-sink article that covers his life and work, his son's life and work, and 140 years of miscellaneous architectural and business history in Davenport.

It is not at all "clear" to me that this statement was denigrating to (nor even about) Doncram or any other living person.

The rest of my comment was made in direct response to Doncram's assertion that this edit to the article "should lay to rest one or more editors' concerns..." Seeing some longish quotations of fairly perfunctory text in that edit, I commented:

Surrounding a paragraph of copyright content with quotation marks does not avoid copyright violation. Fundamentally, it is plagiarism. This has been pointed out to you before. See Wikipedia:Plagiarism, Wikipedia:Quotations, and Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing.

Doncram identified that second statement as a "personal attack": [8] and [9]. I continue to contend that it was not, and I stand by my last statement in that discussion. If I had thought that Doncram was a newbie or a contributor of limited competence, I would have been gentler and less direct in that statement about plagiarism, but I was under the impression that he was a long-time contributor who had compiled tens of thousands of edits and created many new articles, so I didn't think it was necessary or appropriate to treat him like a newbie or a child.

All in all, I fail to see this as a case of bad behavior on my part, much less as an instance of "textbook hounding." I can imagine, however, that many Wikipedians would be offended by Doncram's language in this comment that he directed to me. T.D.A. considers my response to that comment to have been "intimidation". In retrospect, I think some people might say I was being too nice when I merely pointed out the rudeness of the statement and the possibility of repercussions; I believe many users would have taken the case to a noticeboard to request sanctions. --Orlady (talk) 04:50, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The "possibility of repercussions" was you suggesting you might add more negative material about Doncram to those two pages you maintain in your userspace. Your claim of it being a copyright violation or plagiarism to include those quotes was completely bogus. Bogus accusations of serious policy violations are personal attacks. Your response of suggesting "repercussions" that were limited to you doing things that would reasonably cause discomfort to Doncram is plainly intimidating, even if that were not your intent.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 19:01, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I think I understand what your are saying now! As I understand it, you are saying that it's perfectly acceptable for Doncram to call Orlady "inflammatory and obnoxious" when she expresses a concern about copyvio/plagiarism implications of his content, but it's a personal attack when she responds by asking him to refrain from personal attacks and reminds him that there have been similar incidents in the past. Did I get that right? --Orlady (talk) 20:33, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

He said it was inflammatory and obnoxious to make accusations of copyright violations or plagiarism in that instance, and that was certainly true. As to "reminding him" of past incidents, there is no "so you can hold it over the other editor's head" exemption to WP:POLEMIC. You either intend to use it as evidence imminently in a case, or you are violating the policy. That you used the suggestion of adding to that page during a dispute you initiated with Doncram is a serious problem and you should recognize it as such.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 23:23, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Devil's Advocate evidence

I have not gone through every diff but in perusing the first few I notice:

Under the heading: Many times Orlady has shown up at articles Doncram has created soon after he creates them, sometimes within hours or even within minutes of him creating an article.... the first diff in toolserver shows only the interactions between Doncram and Orlandy and gives the appearance that she was first on the scene and that the two of them were alone on the article. While the Sidney Yates Building article history shows that Sarek was also there and that he/she edited the article before Orlady did.
The second diff under the same heading shows similar toolserver results ie just Doncram and Orlady's edits. But the Anderson County Courthouse history page shows that three other editors had made multiple edits to the article over a one year period before Orlady made her edit a day after Doncram had last been there.

So it might be better if Devil's Advocate used the History page as a diff instead of Toolserver as it allows Orlady's edits to be seen in a broader, more neutral, context. Also, a random User Interaction Analysis using Toolserver and the names Doncram, Orlady and SarekOfVulcan for the period Dec 1, 2012 to Jan 21, 2013 (6 weeks) yields this result which seems to show that, at least recently, Sarek has edited with Doncram just as much as Orlady has and that their combined edits are much lower in number than Doncram's. Also it makes one wonder why Orlady's interactions are being singled out when it would appear that Sarek (and possibly others) have interacted with Donacram just as often. Also in said diff we see that, on 2 out of the 16 articles in the Toolserver search, that Orlady was the first to those articles and then Doncram "followed" Orlady there. So the point is that Toolserver search results can spin things in different ways depending on how they are used. I'm sure that Devil's intentions were to present evidence in a way that was easy for the Arbs to quickly assimilate and so he/she chose Toolserver, however I felt it useful to point out that it does not always provide context and could in some instances give the wrong impression. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:42, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I did include some instances of revision histories for pages where Orlady and Doncram are the only noteworthy contributors and many of the instances I note involved Orlady showing up within minutes of Doncram editing a page or creating a page. Hardly the sort of thing that suggests merely stumbling upon it at ANI, it popping up in a watchlist, or because someone else already showed up there. That Orlady may not always be the first one to show up does not diminish what Orlady has been doing. It only indicates that Orlady is quick to hop on any situation involving Doncram, and that includes following his contributions.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 18:47, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would added that I am not singling out Orlady for any particular reason. That is simply a problematic interaction I noticed when I first commented on this dispute. Others seem to be addressing the nature of Sarek's interactions with Doncram satisfactorily enough so I don't see any particular need to weigh in any further on that point.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 19:04, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your responses. I'm going to enter a portion of my post here into evidence so that the Arb's are sure to have a broad picture and make an informed decision. Best, -- — Keithbob • Talk • 21:25, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I further note that Sidney Yates Building is an example of a page that was still a very tentative rough draft when Doncram finished his initial edits, at which time it was titled "Auditor's Building Complex". Its roughness is indicated by the statements "is associated with James G. Hill" and "the U.S. Bureau of Engraving and Printing was associated with this building", both of which are best interpreted as indicating "these names are in the sources, but I haven't yet figured out what they signify". A further problem was that the stub was a based solely on sources that were 33 years old, which is a very long time in the history of a building in a high-value urban setting where building uses and configurations often change. I'm rather proud to look at the results of the tag-team editing that Sarek and I (plus one very important edit by Doncram) did over the next 37 hours, during which time we located and sifted through a variety of information sources that allowed us to do a thorough revamping of the article, converting an unsatisfactory muddle into a reasonably informative stub-level introduction to this building. It seems to me that this is the kind of collaborative improvement that Doncram says he hopes to foster when he creates stubs. --Orlady (talk) 20:11, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bot having issues

Hey all, the bot that checks evidence limits has been having some issues recently due to some malformatted templates and some actual bugs with the bot itself. I'm working on fixing them, but you may get multiple warnings for over-length evidence as a result. Apologies in advance, but hopefully it should be working again shortly. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 00:26, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also, just to point out, {{diff}} uses four arguments, not three. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 00:28, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

True, but {{oldid}} uses three. Sorry about that... --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:57, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And apparently it was also having issues identifying parties to a case, due to a very stupid bug which I'm not sure how it showed up. But that's getting fixed too. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 00:35, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And it should now be fixed and will return to its regular operating schedule. Sorry for the inconvenience. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 00:42, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for fixing it. I was starting to wonder how I'd trim a statement of 826 words and 20 diffs down so it would be less than 1000 words and 100 diffs. I don't know what I would have needed more: creative writing, or creative arithmetic. :-) --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 05:30, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Orlady comments on some of Doncram's Evidence

Doncram says of "The Cathcart and 3 other articles" that Orlady nominated them for deletion, "believing article was [Doncram's] creation." This is wrong for multiple reasons. First, I didn't start the AfD; it was started by User:Glenfarclas. I did, however, add three more buildings to the nomination after the AfD had been running for two days. The history doesn't even hint that I thought Doncram had created these articles or that my involvement was somehow focused on him. Apparently Glenfarclas (no relation to Orlady) did initially mistakenly identify Doncram as creator of the article.

Doncram refers to "April 2011 AFD:Iowa Masonic building" and says "SarekOfVulcan arguing Delete; Kept." That's a misrepresentation. This refers to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Grand Lodge of Iowa building. When the AfD was started, the article was completely unreferenced and didn't have a credible assertion of notability. Most AfD comments focused on issues of notability and reliable third-party sourcing. Sarek's initial !vote was to delete, but he changed to "keep" after the article had been repurposed to become Iowa Masonic Library and Museum (a topic that had sourcing). I don't see how this item helps make a case for Doncram.

Doncram refers to "July 2011 AFD:Mississippi Masonic building" and says "Orlady argued "merger"; Kept". His link points to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Masonic Hall (Long Beach, Mississippi). My initial !vote there was to merge due to lack of sourcing. I said "If somebody gets more information some day, a separate article could be created, but at this time there's no purpose to a separate article." After Cbl62 paid to acquire a published source and edited the article, I changed my !vote to Keep and congratulated Cbl62 on his successful research. I don't see how this one helps Doncram tell the story he appears to be trying to tell. --Orlady (talk) 05:48, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relating to the "Iowa Masonic Building" article, see also Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive683#Unfriendly reverts. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:42, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I stand corrected that it was non-involved Glenfarclas who opened The Cathcart AFD, and who misunderstood me to have been the creator. Orlady extended the AFD by nominating 3 more articles, and Orlady's name appeared at the bottom of the main AFD statement, that's what I saw. I believe Orlady was fully aware that I had in fact created 2 of those and I had recently edited the 3rd. All were Kept. It is indeed an example of Orlady following and deleting what Orlady perceived to be associated with me. --do ncr am 23:24, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I just revised the item in my section of Evidence to clarify that Orlady added to the AFD nomination, adding 3 articles, tho did not start it, in this edit. --do ncr am 23:41, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I listed all the deletions found by a search process explained. The Mississippi Masonic building and Masonic Iowa Masonic Building articles were always valid as topics; the fact that they were improved during AFD to a standard Orlady and/or SarekOfVulcan "approves" of, misses a point of unnecessary deletion nominations on topics that are valid. One possible goal in the AFDs, like for multiple ANIs, is to target and drag down a single hated-for-some-reason editor. That is eventually how I came to perceive it, and believe that is reasonable interpretation. --do ncr am 23:24, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments on some newer evidence

I'm hoping that Doncram will be providing some more diffs (or at least links) to back up his statements, since I don't recognize several of the past events and interactions that he alludes to -- ~~notably I have no recollections related to his allegation that Polaron used a sockpuppet account and I encouraged the sock~~. (see below regarding this allegation --Orlady (talk) 01:33, 10 February 2013 (UTC))[reply]
Doncram agrees with me in identifying that FLC review for the list of national historic landmarks in New York as a key event in our interaction. His comments indicate that he is still bitter about the experience. In contrast, I was surprised and disappointed that neither he nor any of the other article creators followed up to bring the article to FL status. Apparently, his expectations of the FLC review process were unrealistic. Reviewers for featured article and featured list status typically identify additional improvements needed before a page can be considered "featured"; it is incredibly rare for any page to be approved for "featured status" without being modified. I saw the "issues" with that New York landmarks list as minor in comparison with many other FLC nominations that eventually made it to FL status. (For an example of such, see this review from 2007 that I worked on.)
I've stumbled upon a user talk page discussion that I think documents some of the key history related to the development of Doncram's theory that I was following him around. User talk:Orlady/Archive 4#hey, truce please occurred over a few days in October 2008. In starting the discussion with a statement that "It looks like you are visiting all of my recent edits, second-guessing me with reverts and moves" and citing The Hermitage (Tennessee) and William Aiken House and Associated Railroad Structures as examples. My reply explained how I had come across those edits of his. It indicates that I had noticed a a pair of edits by Doncram that began implementation of some major changes related to the NRHP WikiProject. I had reverted one of his edits as premature because it converted an important page into a collection of redlinks to the future names of other pages that hadn't been moved yet. (I restored his changes a couple of days later after the other pages moves were completed.) I explained that the Hermitage page was on my watchlist due to some recent edits there, and that I had been puzzled by his move because I didn't see it as necessary and appropriate for disambiguation (and I was familiar with the situation because I had recently edited the relevant disambiguation page). Further, I said that I looked at his contribution history "to try to figure out what had led you to decide the name was ambiguous", which is how I noticed the William Aiken House article. I consider this to have been a perfectly valid explanation of how and why I had "followed" his edits, and I see the activity I described as an appropriate use of edit history. However, from subsequent interactions, I wonder if he would suggest that I was "lying".
Something I learned for the first time from Doncram's evidence is that the complex mediation effort that Acroterion oversaw in 2009 between Doncram and Polaron had been initiated after a phone conversation between the two of them. I'm not sure what difference that information makes, but I'm guessing now that Doncram considered their interaction to be exclusive to the two of them. I was aware that the mediation was focused on the two of them, but because it was a content discussion that had implications for a large number of articles, I don't think that it was reasonable to expect it to be an exclusive interaction. Doncram has been asserting that I "butted in" and acted as a "spoiler", but looking back I think it was perfectly appropriate for me to get involved -- just as no one editor owns an article, no two editors should be able to claim joint ownership of articles. The mediated discussions had led to an agreement on some deliberately vague language to be inserted in a large number of articles about historic districts in New England, wherein the articles would say something along the lines of: "Podunk is a village in the town of Groton, Connecticut. Podunk Historic District is a historic district in the same town. The district and the village are substantially similar." I objected to the "substantially similar" language as being fundamentally meaningless -- much like other deliberately vague language that has been an issue with more recent Doncram stubs. I consider it entirely appropriate to have "butted in" and "spoiled" the agreement, because I don't believe any two users were entitled to establish an enforceable specification for the affected articles. --Orlady (talk) 23:04, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Further to the above, I've discovered archival conversation about that mediation that indicates that Acroterion was consulting with me about the substance that was under discussion, while asking that I try to avoid direct interaction with Doncram: User talk:Orlady/Archive 8#Historic Districts vs. locales, User_talk:Orlady/Archive_8#Mediation. The mediated interaction between Doncram and Polaron was supposed to resolve continued contention between the two of them, not make content decisions binding upon all other Wikipedia contributors. --Orlady (talk) 02:11, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'd forgotten about that conversation: I was in general trying to confine the discussions to issues relating to Polaron and Doncram since they were the ones asking for help, but it became apparent that it was larger than that. As I stated then, the outcome was intended to deal only with Doncram and Polaron, and would not be applicable to anyone else. I was trying to keep it from being too big, and to keep personalities out of it. I personally viewed Orlady's participation as helpful (to me at least), and not "butting in." I've not commented until now since I viewed events from 2009 as stale, but the second link does have relevance to the current discussion, four years later. Acroterion (talk) 02:43, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In his evidence, Doncram implies that my involvement in some NRHP WikiProject discussions in 2008 had the effect of driving User:Appraiser away from Wikipedia. This apparently refers to the interrelated discussions of article and category names at: [10], [11], [12], [13], Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 October 8#Category:Railroad-related Registered Historic Places, Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 October 8#Category:Infrastructure-related Registered Historic Places, and [14]. Appraiser was an active participant in those discussions. If s/he was driven away by my involvement in those discussions, this is the first time I've heard about it. Skimming the discussion records reminds me that these were difficult discussions. I do see that Appraiser wasn't happy with the wording, in the general form of "National Register of Historic Places listings", that ended up being implemented. I also see that it was Doncram who moved that main page and that my note at the bottom of this discussion archive indicates that he did so without first announcing and explaining his intentions on that talk page. I'm sorry if it's true, but I don't see evidence that I drove Appraiser away. --Orlady (talk) 03:37, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I know User:Appraiser in person, since he also lives in the Minneapolis-St. Paul area. In fact, he even goes to CONvergence (convention) and a couple other conventions that I go to. I just asked him, via Facebook, if his leaving Wikipedia had anything to do with Doncram or the arguments here. He said that he left Wikipedia because he was spending several hours a day editing here and it was interfering with the rest of his life, and that he didn't leave because of any one person or because of the arguing. Without Appraiser here to comment for himself on the situation, I don't think it would do any good to speculate on his real reasons for leaving or his real feelings about who's in the wrong. I remember that he used to come to several of the Minnesota Wikipedia meetups and he was interested in National Register properties until he left, so I don't think that the categorization or naming debates had anything to do with it. I do miss his contributions to Minnesota articles, though. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 04:49, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Elkman. I had a hunch you might have a real-life acquaintance with Appraiser -- and that his absence from Wikipedia might have something to do with things like spending time with his family, but I didn't want to speculate. --Orlady (talk) 16:38, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Doncram says that Polaron used a sockpuppet account and that I ignored or abetted Polaron's sockpuppetry. He presents no evidence and I had no recollection of this, so I researched it. In searching, I found Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Polaron/Archive from September 2010, wherein a new user account was linked to Polaron, who said this was his son editing on a new computer. Further, I find that I notified Polaron of the accusation, apparently because Doncram had not notified him when he opened the SPI case. Additionally, I find that Polaron was under a 3-day block for edit warring (against Doncram) and that I unblocked Polaron a couple of hours before his block was supposed to expire so that he could respond to allegations made on the SPI case page (but nowhere else). IMO, those were constructive actions for the benefit of Wikipedia -- a far cry from "prop[ping] Polaron up, brushing over the severe violations" or "pretty clearly favoring a rogue editor", as Doncram alleges. --Orlady (talk) 01:31, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jimbo link suggestion

Maybe linking to User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 110#Help! would be better than linking the middle of the discussion? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:47, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is that acceptable here? Regardless, I think it's only fair to show the mid-discussion version, since it includes a comment by me that Jimbo removed as unduly negative. I'll gp add the full-discussion link to the evidence. --Orlady (talk) 16:22, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Orlady comments on some of The Devil's Advocate's evidence

T.D.A. cites the history of Long Meadow (Surgoinsville, Tennessee) as an instance of my 'following" Doncram. It's an excellent example of some of the issues with Doncram's stubs. As created, it lacked meaningful information: "Long Meadow is a property in Hawkins County, Tennessee, near Surgoinsville, Tennessee, that has a date of significance of 1763." (What kind of property is it? What's a "date of significance"?) If I had been forced to write a stub, based solely on the NRIS entry that Doncram relied on, I would have said "Long Meadow is a property in Hawkins County, Tennessee, near Surgoinsville, that was listed on the National Register of Historic Places in 1974" and nothing more. I encountered the page (about a site in the region where I live) 10 hours after Doncram created the stub and added tags to indicate the need for clarification. Doncram reacted just 6 minutes later, deleting the tags and saying "A property is... a property. A date of significance is... a date of significance.", insinuating that eveyrone except me would instantly understand how to interpret these terms. Over the next 12 minutes, I added sourced information that I'd found in the brief period since I first visited the article and turned the article into a reasonably informative stub. The creation of non-content like "date of significance" and the belligerent defense of that content are among the behaviors that brought this case to Arbcom. If the same effort that he put into defending the article had instead been putting into finding sources (as I did), no contention would have occurred. --Orlady (talk) 16:46, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The original sub-stub of Doncram described here was confusing and not particularly useful for potential readers. Orlady expanded the stub to something substantial and interesting. I personally have little experience in this domain except that, during the ANI discussion on Doncram in April 2011, as an exercise I took a sub-stub [15] created from the UK database of historic buildings and carried out the experiment of turning it into an interesting article. Orlady's creation of a substantial article on a historical building in Tennessee was undoubtedly the main part of the effort. Once something of substance has been created, it can be polished and improved afterwards. Sub-stubs are open invitations to write proper articles—something that is far more time-consuming. It is important for those creating sub-stubs to accept the limitations of what they have produced. Mathsci (talk) 21:42, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

T.D.A. describes my userfying of Grand Forks County Fairgrounds WPA Structures, subsequent move-warring with Doncram, my use of page protection to prevent Doncram from moving it out of user space, and Doncram's rapid success at bringing the article up to a status where I agreed that it could be returned to article space. The article that Doncram created was an extreme example of rough-draft content -- a preliminary version of an article that was a perfectly reasonable rough draft, but something that a self-respecting author should be embarrassed to publish in the encyclopedia or anywhere else. The first sentence ("Grand Forks County Fairgrounds WPA Structures is or was a property in Grand Forks , North Dakota that had a status change in the National Register of Historic Places NRIS database in 2008") neither identified the article's topic nor asserted its notability -- a status change in NRIS is not a subject for an encyclopedia article. The next two sentences ("The status then was "DR", which means "DATE RECEIVED/PENDING NOMINATION". From that status, it is clear that the property was nominated for the National Register but it is not clear whether the property is currently listed on the National Register.") did not improve the situation, at best, they can be said to have described the NRIS entry and speculated about its meaning. The rest of the text was largely intentionally vague statements and placeholders ("built or has other significance in 1936, 1937, and 1939"; "was designed and/or built by..", "the listing is described in its NRHP nomination document"), and did not give any hints about what "Fairgrounds WPA Structures" are. The fact that the page was improved so quickly after being moved to article space indicates to me that the userfication and page protection had the desired effects of averting further warring and getting the article cleaned up to an acceptable state. T.D.A.'s comments suggest that my actions were a very bad thing, whereas I see them as having had a positive effect. --Orlady (talk) 04:53, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am not going to deny that edit-warring or move-warring can force people to pay more attention to problems, but it also creates its own share of problems. That sort of "ends justify the means" mentality might seem good when it is your means leading to your desired ends, but such an approach does not encourage constructive engagement.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 05:33, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Doncram's standard "template" message on the talk page [16] indicates that the sub-stub was produced in a semi-automated way, almost certainly using Elkman's own script for generating the NRHP template. This particular sub-stub fell short of WP:NRHP standards. Orlady or others will correct me if I'm wrong, but there seems to have been some agreement in 2011 that ambiguous and misleading rough drafts be knocked into shape in user space before being placed in mainspace (Acroterion normally develops NRHP articles fully in user pace and Swampyank's stubs, although short, communicate information accurately and unambiguously). Nyttend has also userfied some sub-stubs of Doncram. Mathsci (talk) 06:19, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Further to my rebuttal discussion

T.D.A. is incorrect in saying that my minor cleanup edit at the new stub Dayton Masonic Center indicated I was following Doncram. In fact, that page was linked from a list article that Doncram and I (and others) were actively editing and discussing. Doncram's edit summary when he created the stub made this clear: "begin article relating to Talk:List of Masonic buildings discussions".
T.D.A. is incorrect in saying that my involvement with Polly Rosenbaum Building showed I was following Doncram. Doncram had included that page (as El Zaribah Shrine Auditorium) in a list of redlinks in the lengthy Masonic buildings discussion some time before he created it. Again, I was following up on the talk page. I note that Sarek also was participating in the discussion and edited the El Zaribah page before I did.

I can't remember every edit I made in 2009, 2010, and 2011 -- and I don't have time to dig through the history of every individual edit, but I do believe that many of my other edits where I am accused of "following Doncram" were related to my following up on ongoing talk page discussions, including the Masonic buildings discussion and other discussions I identified on the Workshop page in response to a question from AGK, such as the many discussions at Talk:National Register of Historic Places listings in Connecticut, related RFD discussions, and the various "Poquetanuck" pages. --Orlady (talk) 17:51, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Problem with lvklock's timeline

lvklock claims that I started a straw poll knowing that Doncram wouldn't be able to participate. First, looking at the straw poll shows clearly that Doncram did participate. Second, I was blocked for edit warring two hours after starting the discussion, and one hour before Doncram was blocked for the same edit war. Third, I apologized for removing lvklock's comments, and lvklock accepted the apology, so presenting the discussion as if I had driven lvklock away doesn't seem to represent the history properly.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:34, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Sarek, you are incorrect. First of all, from your version of events apparently I just made up the fact that doncram was blocked when I made my comments. Delusional, I guess...not. Here's how it actually went:

Sarek starts straw pole section 21:34 9 June 2011

Sarek is blocked 23:17 9 June 2011 for 40 hours

Doncram is blocked 00:34 10 June 2011 for three weeks

My comment 21:46 11 June 2011

Sarek’s reversion 21:54 11 June 2011

So, yes you started the poll before you were both blocked. But, the comments I was reacting to were the doncram bashing that started after he was blocked and after you had served out your much shorter block. And. BTW, there was much else said there that did not pertain to your exact limited question, but my comment was the only one you deleted. Lvklock (talk) 02:16, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Length of my evidence

I think my evidence is a bit over the non-party word length now, but I tried to be minimalist in what I just added. Since the time period for evidence is ending soon there is nothing more getting added by anyone, so is it acceptable that I went somewhat over the limit?--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 23:52, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, sure, why not? Doncram just asked for a two-week extension anyway. Doncram gets to go over the limit, you get to go over the limit, and meanwhile I'm still being held responsible for the fact that I can't tell the difference between a builder and an architect. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 00:03, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My experience at ArbCom is that the clerks remind people about evidence length and those of us that believe in a level playing field adjust our entries to be under the limit (as I did today) while others drag their feet, hem and haw, ask for special permission, make a few feeble attempts to remove a little bit..... but in the end their over the limit post stands. Case in point was Doncram's presentation at the inception of the case. It was brought up at talk, but it was never cut back and it still stands to this day. Now in evidence phase Doncram has been over the limit from his very first posting of evidence several days ago but it was never downsized and I see no warning on his talk page. Now its up to 2500 words and he is asking ( I hear per the user above) for more time to add more material! Devil, the counter on your evidence section is not present, and the clerks seem unable to properly monitor the page, but there are other ways to do a word count and you're at about 825 words. I commend you for bringing it up on this page, but what would be even more commendable is if you cut it back to the 500 word limit and held yourself to the same standard as everyone else.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 02:34, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Parties to the case get 1000 words typically, while non-parties get 500. These are not hard rules, and exemptions are given when there is a demonstrated need. Doncram, as the main defending party, needs a bit of leeway due to the amount of evidence about him in this case. Rules are not set in stone. (X! · talk) · @153 · 02:40, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The clerk bot that monitors evidence length will usually issue automatic warnings to people when they seriously exceed a limit (standard tolerance before a warning is 10% of the limit, so parties get warned when they exceed 1100 words or 110 diffs, non-parties 550 and 55). For some reason it didn't notify Keithbob, but it's usually pretty good about it. TDA, your section wasn't getting the word counts due to a character encoding bug related to the apostrophe in your username; I've fixed that now, and it should update on the next run. If anyone is ever unsure about their evidence section or the bot isn't providing the in-section word count appropriately, it also keeps track of all active cases and sections here: User:HersfoldArbClerkBot/Length reports. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 02:48, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and it's also worth noting that the bot tries to only count words that actually get displayed, but because of the behavior of various templates it's not always accurate. If you notice that a section's word count seems to be seriously off, let me know and I'll try to figure out how to make the bot smarter. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 02:50, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Hersfold for you conscientious assistance. However, I still don't understand why Doncram's evidence is standing at 2500 words and has been over 1,000 words for several days without any comment from the clerks on his talk page. Five editors (Doncram, Lvklock, The Devil's advocate, Guerillero and Elkman) have presented evidence regarding Orlady. But she has managed to maintain the 1000 word evidence limit because she sees value and has respect for the system. I'm sure she would like to add her many diffs and rebuttals from this page to her evidence section but so far she has refrained from doing so. I hope this is rectified quickly by Arbcom as currently it is grossly unfair.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 03:15, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

She has said plenty on this page and the Workshop page and has provided lengthy responses with lots of evidence. I am sure if we put it all together that Orlady would be found to have provided far more evidence in this case so far than Doncram. Just because it is spread out over more pages does not somehow take away from that.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 04:20, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keithbob, it is important to understand the spirit of the rule as well as the letter. The word restriction was not put in strictly for playing field fairness, it was added to help with readability. In the past, unlimited evidence entries quickly became endless rants and accusations that were too unweildy to provide understanding. The limit is more like a checkpoint. If you reach that limit and you have done so with suitable brevity then you say to arbcom "I believe I have been as brief as a can but have more evidence to provide. Can I have a word/diff extension?". Then, presumably, a clerk does a review of your evidence and concludes you aren't posting unsubstiated rants and provides it. I think TDA is going about this exactly like he should and it is quite fair that he get his extension. The same process is available to Orlady and Doncram. Though my personal opinion is Doncram's evidence is not succinct enough to warrant anymore extensions. 204.101.237.139 (talk) 16:56, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks both of you for your considered responses. I'm sure that Orlady will avail herself of the options you have mentioned ie permission for evidence extension, if she feels her current evidence presentation needs further substantiation. Best to all, -- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:19, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Doncram comment on Keithbob and Mathsci's evidence about Thundersnow and Battleground

Keithbob and Mathsci both note the Thundersnow discussion as evidence of "Battleground" mentality on my part. This is overstatement and has effect of exagerating a pretty small situation, is not evidence of Battleground-ness. Au contraire, I have many times noted edit sequences by other editors and gone to their Talk page to raise an issue, to communicate directly, to address a situation. More often than not this has worked out well. One recent example being this for a new Masonic page editor, which led to subject hearing and publicly _thanking_ me and having a productive discussion. Or 2008 spectacularly successful confrontation about naming and copyright issues I addressed to editor Pubdog, still leading user's Talk page, encouraging Pubdog to go one and be a hugely productive NRHP editor. There's an art, which I pay attention to, to being direct and prompt and serious and attention-getting, while showing respect and reason, which helps such confrontations be successful, but you can't control everything, and people will sometimes take offense. If you do rub them the wrong way, it's best to back off, to suggest other forums, to leave communication to others not perceived by the target to be compromised.

Also, Keithbob's quotation of me leaves out 2nd sentence that substantially changes tone and meaning of my response to Orlady following me into the Thundersnow discussion. Left out: "I removed a comment above; i won't battle if someone else restores it, but I see it providing no help, and I would ask other editors not to condone it." The comment was restored by someone else, pretty promptly.

Also, Mathsci stops with Thundersnow not happy, making a further request, omiting that I fully did exactly what was then requested and that I replied.

My third (?) comment of Thundersnow at T's Talk page was too strong, IMO, though successful in getting attention, and it was building on milder notices. It was nonetheless helpful, pointing a way forward (to seek discussion at wt:NRHP). Thundersnow did so, but copied the whole discussion to the wt:NRHP Talk page where several editors did agree with the substance of my concerns. I feel i was wrong strategically in my wording arguably (and I think i was crabby due to other things going on and my writing was unfairly flavored that way) in relative privacy of T's Talk page, but I think Thundersnow hurt themself by copying/repeating the attention-getting wording found to be hurtful, and magnifying its negative effect for themself. I have expressed regret for my too-strong language several times, at T's Talk page and in the wt:NRHP discussion. This recent interaction is way too magnified within the arbitration. --do ncr am 00:08, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In regard to my posting our discussion to the NRHP talk page, you said, "...it is fair for you to call me on that here." [17] You did not once say it was wrong for me to post there, nor did you ever use the words sorry, apology, apologize, pardon, or even my bad. You went out of your way to deny wrong-doing, saying, "my language was perhaps too strong" and "I could have, probably should have, been milder in my choice of words" but no follow-up that you were actually sorry to have used those words and/or that you would not do so again in the future.

In regard to the actual conversation, we had one exchange [18][19] about one article on my talk page. That looks like a content dispute me; you did not follow-up on my talk page, and I did not follow up on the article.

Three weeks later I edited Casa Paoli, not only removing images but adding an infobox and link to Commons.

In the next seven and a half hours you:

reverted my Casa Paoli edit completely but summarized it as (restore images) [20]
posted on my talk page that my assertion of WP:NOTGALLERY (from the previous exchange) in deleting images was "alarming", that such deletions were "destructive", and that you were "concerned" I was making extra work for you and "others"
reverted another 31 of my edits stretching back to 20 days, restoring in said process
- unsourced trivia [21]
- an unsourced and malformed advert/puffery [22] where no image had been deleted
- a misplaced image in a Canadian historic site article [23] (apparently you went by my erroneous edit summary instead of looking at the page/image)
- a deleted image [24] (my edit summary here was (-non-image))
- malformatting and removed the Commons link [25]
- reverted an image I had removed [26] because the image description [27] notes that the object is "not apparently a contributing structure". Your edit summary was (wrong. i think it is part of the site) but you did not supply a reference. [28]
posted yet again on my talk page, using the words "horrible", "officially horrified" and "horrified". You noted both that many of the images I was deleting were yours (COI?) and that you "tried to be careful for a while in reviewing your work to ensure that other small changes you made were re-added in my reversions, but eventually i just switch to reverting all." You accused me of "ignorance", of being "well-meaning but misguided", and that I "think photos are cheap and easy to obtain." You offered me the "choices" of stopping my edits, getting them pre-approved on the NRHP board (when did the project volunteer?) or of getting taken to RFC. You finished off by jamming your contributions log in my face by posting it on my talk page, but it was without links so I still had to go through your log. [29]

From one talk page exchange to mass reverts, personal attacks and bullying. I believe saying you have a battlefield mentality is correct.

In re, the apology and closure on the NRHP talk page. Yes, you apologized while still trying to say you had apologized before. Your original misinterpretation of my ArbCom post is still posted, in full, on the NRHP talk page however. I asked you to change that edit as it could damage my reputation, and suggested the wording you could use. [30] You then posted my suggested change as if I had said it and was asking you to repeat it for me. [31]

In that one incident you made two misinterpretations, both detrimental to me; possibly a third misinterpretation but that it makes you look better. Now you are trying to recast my NRHP posting as a bad thing, when you praised it then? Your very first sentence in response to it: "Thank you Thundersnow for bravely opening discussion here, including wholesale bringing in the user talk discussion...". [32] ~~Save the watch.~~ Thundersnow 02:23, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thundersnow I'm not sure that your presentation here will be read/noticed by all of the Arbs. I would suggest that you enter or place some version of the above in your own section of the evidence page. Of course its up to you. Best, -- — Keithbob • Talk • 02:39, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would second Keithbob's suggestion, particularly since the deadline for evidence has been extended by two weeks (provided that permission has been granted by clerks or arbitrators). The incident was also briefly described in Orlady's evidence. Mathsci (talk) 08:23, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thundersnow, you are obviously offended by my taking issue with you on one point, your repeated deletion of multiple photos in a series of articles. There's apparently no fixing that for now. Perhaps with time and with positive other interactions, I would hope you and I would find our way eventually to collaborating and cooperating and working together. Or maybe that would never happen. But that was one issue, one limited time period (note I deliberately revisited just one month's worth of your photo deletion edits and did not go back further, while I believe there was more). I expressed myself strongly, too strongly for you to accept apparently, in what I would call one incident, one discussion. What would be "bullying" would be if I then followed you relentlessly from this point on to every area you touched, no matter how unrelated, and repeatedly disagreed and contended again and again and again, for years, with you having no way to get out, while you perceived me to be biased/compromised/unnecessarily unpleasant. I would abhor that. If you had some other pattern of edits that I would disagree with, it would be far better for Wikipedia if someone else noted it and brought it up with you. If, not following your edits, I nonetheless happened to notice the pattern, I would try some far lesser, milder, indirect action, perhaps asking a question somewhere. It would be awful if I followed and took issue and escalated and painted you repeatedly as some criminal, if I tried to criminalize your behavior, etc., etc. --do ncr am 22:10, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To explain, though I am afraid we are simply not communicating here, my use of the "bravely" adjective reflected my surprise you would copy that passage. I tend to think from a non-wikipedia experience and other life experience that persons copying and repeating language found to be hurtful, seems to exacerbate the hurt. Like writing in a diary exactly some nasty thing said to you, and rereading and reexperiencing it again and again. I happened to believe it probably wasn't emotionally good for you. I tried to be nice about it, to be positive to you, to give you some respect. You may not see that. But I am not changing back and forth about what I said or meant. Again, there is no fixing this for now. --do ncr am 22:14, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Doncram, I apoligize for the snarky comment in my above post. It was rude of me and uncalled-for. I have struck it out and will not post like that again. Thundersnow (talk) 01:07, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration extension

Per a request made by Doncram on the talk page of arbitrator NuclearWarfare, and now approved by the Committee, all deadlines are extended by two weeks.

From the Arbitration Committee, — ΛΧΣ²¹ 04:01, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That being the case, the header templates are not all updated, so the dates are different on different pages. MSJapan (talk) 23:13, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That is strange, because they all use the same template, and all read "Deadlines: Opened 10 January 2013 • Evidence closes 24 January 2013 • Workshop closes 11 February 2013 • Proposed decision posted 11 February 2013" for me. --Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 11:59, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Works now. Lack of purge, perhaps. MSJapan (talk) 01:05, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just so we all have the same understanding, do all parties to the case now have the option of adding/editing evidence through February 7? --Orlady (talk) 14:44, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, though at this point you're best off probably holding off and doing a final response to doncram when he is done with his evidence. NW (Talk) 15:45, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Now that Doncram is finished with his evidence, I've started to go through everyone's evidence and respond to those items that appear to need response. (And I'm finding comments on this page and elsewhere that I should have responded to elsewhere, but apparently overlooked.) --Orlady (talk) 23:06, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please sir, may I have some more?

If the evidence I have provided so far looks reasonably succinct and relevant, could my quota be bumped up a bit, in case there is other evidence I want to respond to, or if I find other lengthy discussions that seem relevant to mention, like the George F. Barber one I just found? Thanks. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 05:53, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page conversation from 2011

While trying to sort out some ancient history related to this case, I ran some searches that led me to an interesting conversation at User talk:LessHeard vanU/archive 9#Diffs back in 2011. In that conversation, Lvklock (who has both sympathy and insight regarding Doncram) unloaded about her perceptions of Doncram's interactions with Sarek and me, and LessHeard vanU responded with a variety of observations and insights. The conversation (which I don't believe I ever saw previously) provides some perspectives on this case that may be of value to other parties or arbitrators. --Orlady (talk) 03:48, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Space and Time

Several of us have run out of space on the Evidence page, and we are all almost out of time to post evidence. I gave up waiting for some of Doncram's evidence (in order to respond to it) and I ended up posting some diffs related to his contentions in my Evidence area.

As a newbie to Arbcom, I'm not sure how information on these talk pages is handled. Do some of my comments on this page need to be moved to the Evidence page (where I'm out of space)?

Another question: If one of the parties posts a raft-full of new evidence at around 5 minutes before midnight, will there be an opportunity for the rest of us to respond? --Orlady (talk) 21:15, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, that would be midnight UTC, two hours from now. I checked last time around. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:33, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's midnight on Wikipedia. Just an hour away now. --Orlady (talk) 22:54, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Orlady, while I can't guarantee it, the cases I've seen where that's happened we have granted additional time for the other parties to review the late evidence. --Lord Roem ~ (talk) 22:04, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that insight. You've watched many more cases than I have! --Orlady (talk) 22:54, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Orlady response to Lvklock's evidence

Lvklock suggests that my pattern of involvement with the NRHP WikiProject is not coincidental, but that I was following Doncram. This is totally wrong. My personal world doesn't revolve around Doncram; never has and never will. History shows that I first interacted with that project in November 2007 after NRHP infoboxes were added to articles I was following, and I was concerned that the infoboxes interfered with article display or readability.DIFF Apparently I watchlisted the page then, because I commented in another discussion that same month.[33] Over the next several months, I occasionally commented on that page, apparently when I saw something that interested me. Most of the WikiProject activity didn't (and doesn't) interest me because I don't care about project priorities such as systematically building lists and acquiring photos for "fully illustrated lists"; I merely have some interest in local history and in laws related to historic preservation. Doncram was fairly active in the project at that time, but we didn't interact. Our only involvement in the same talk-page discussion occurred in March 2008 (this discussion). The fact that a discussion in July 2008 piqued my interest, got me more involved, and led me to finally join the WikiProject had everything to do with my personal interest and absolutely nothing to do with the fact that Doncram was also engaged in that discussion. My heavy activity in September and October 2008 (there and on a related page) was topically focused on the subject of terminology that got me engaged in July 2008. In January 2009, Doncram commented after me in another discussion where I made only that one comment; I have no illusion that he was following me there. I had a high level of activity in the WikiProject later that same month after a banned user who was on my radar screen showed up as an anon IP to try to enlist the WikiProject to take his side; again my involvement had everything to do my interests in the sockpuppetry and nothing to do with Doncram's sympathies for the anonymous IP. Lvklock asserts I don't edit on the WikiProject page when Doncram is blocked. I contend that's a coincidence, related to my lack of interest (or lack of anything to say) in the talk-page discussions -- and I see that I had 14 edits there while he was blocked in June 2011. --Orlady (talk) 06:31, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]