Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case

Requests for arbitration

Arbitration Committee proceedings

• recent changes
• purge this page
• view or discuss this template

Case requests

Request name	Motions	Initiated	Votes
User:Doncram		8 January 2013	{{{votes}}}

[edit]

Open cases

Currently, no arbitration cases are open.

[edit]

Recently closed cases (Past cases)

Case name	Closed
Venezuelan politics	25 May 2024

Clarification and Amendment requests

Request name	Motions	Case	Posted
Amendment request: Conduct in deletion-related editing	Motion	(orig. case)	30 April 2024
Amendment request: Article titles and capitalisation	none	(orig. case)	13 May 2024
Clarification request: Extended confirmed restriction	none	none	29 May 2024

Arbitrator motions

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

User:Doncram

Initiated by SarekOfVulcan (talk) at 05:47, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Involved parties

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

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• Doncram
• Orlady
• Nyttend
• Elkman

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

• Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Doncram
• Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Doncram 2 (deleted as uncertified)
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive224#Doncram NHRP stubs

Statement by SarekOfVulcan

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

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

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

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

Response to Roger Davies

See Architects of the National Park Service and its talkpage for evidence of his continuing to create articles with insufficient evidence that the items he listed actually belong there. Note Cbl62's recent edit summaries of these can be added back if sources found, but it's been 3 months since sourcing discussion began and still nothing to support these entries. Note particularly their exchange on Jan 4, where Doncram claims to have documentation supporting his position, but Cbl62 disagrees.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 12:08, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

And multiply that by the sheer number of articles he creates to get a sense of the scope of the problem. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 12:38, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

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

Comment on Nyttend's statement

Doncram's Back in September or October, I may have relied upon a lesser snippet, within search results not allowing access to a full page, and it could have been misleading, or I might have simply erred in my editing. So what. shows another excellent reason for Arbcom to take this case. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:17, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Ryan Vesey

While not named, I would consider myself sufficiently involved in this case. I'll be flying to school soon, so I'm hoping to get a short comment now, which I will expand later. I strongly urge Arbcom to take this case. The community cannot handle this without Arbcom as evidenced by Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive778#Doncram on Indic communities and the many subsections, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive780#Doncram and NPA.

Doncram is a very large part of this issue. Steps need to be taken to address some of these problems; however, I am not entirely sure what all of these steps might be. My first experience with Doncram was at List of Methodist churches where Doncram exhibited serious examples of ownership on both the article and the AfD. My points on this matter can be seen at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive778##Doncram at lists of various churches, but the level of incivility displayed by Doncram is high. My focus would be on the edit summary where Doncram called Nyttend an idiotic non-person. De-humanization is a really big deal. I have proposed a few solutions to help with this, one being a one revert restriction, and another being mentorship.

Doncram also has a serious problem with creating articles that are not ready for the mainspace. At the time of creation, List of Methodist churches looked like this. He also created the very poor List of Anglican churches and List of Congregational churches. This habit of creating half finished Wikipedia articles is disruptive. I suggested to Doncram that he volunteer to create all of his articles through AfC; however, he declined this in his response. Where he also claimed that "I don't think that my article creations are any problem. There is no problem with articles that I create, and simply having someone else review my articles would not satisfy the editors following me and contending". An editor who does not see any problems in the articles he creates should not be allowed to make the determination of whether an article is fit for the mainspace. I hope that ArbCom will impose a sanction requiring Doncram to create articles through the AfC process.

While Doncram is a large part of this issue, he is not the only part of this issue. I have come across a couple of glaring problems in Nyttend's edits related to Doncram where I believe he has lost objectivity. Nyttend recently had a large group of speedy deletions of redirects created by Doncram overturned in a deletion review. More recently, Nyttend was found to have incorrectly speedy deleted Old Union School (Chesterville, Ohio) under A3, and later under G12. (There was not unanimous agreement that the G12 was incorrect; however, it is impossible to say an A3 isn't correct but a G12 related to possibly infringing content that was introduced later is). In any case, I would like ArbCom to consider an interaction ban between Nyttend and Doncram, or at a minimum declare that Nyttend is considered involved and cannot use administrative tools in cases related to Doncram. Ryan Vesey 06:29, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

@SarekofVulcan, it's interesting that you should use Charles E. Bell as an example of improper behavior by Doncram. There, instead of responding to concerns, you responded to Doncram with "whoopee" modified to "WP:CIR". In another case, you move warred at User:Doncram/Old Union School (Chesterville, Ohio) and then move protected a perfectly acceptable article for the mainspace. These are both clear examples that disruption by Doncram isn't the only issue at hand. Administrators like Nyttend and yourself, consistently take action without discussing, that is in many cases improper. Ryan Vesey 07:00, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

@Nyttend, let me be clear that I am in no way "requesting your head". I have never been under the impression that your administrative actions in general were incorrect. Only that you seem to make some poor decisions when it comes to articles created by Doncram. You are certainly not watching this dispute from the sidelines. In the history of my interaction with Doncram, you have appeared in virtually every dispute. Doncram is certainly part of the issue, else you would make similar actions when articles are not created by Doncram, which I don't have evidence of you doing. My impression is that the communication issues from Doncram and the consistent disruptive behavior has caused you to create a special "this is how you deal with Doncram" method of using the admin tools. Once that method is created, it means you are involved, even if all of your involvement has been in an administrative capacity. You are also not effectively being made the subject of the case. This ArbCom case is to discuss the problems relating to Doncram and hopefully provide a solution to that. It would be nonsensical to address the Doncram issue without examining the role other editors have in that issue. Ryan Vesey 15:34, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Elkman

It's late at night, so I don't have time to make a full statement.

I'll note that Doncram started a request for arbitration this afternoon, about 10 hours ago my time, but never posted more than the skeleton of the request. I really have no idea if I was going to be named in that request or not.

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

My own interactions with Doncram haven't quite pushed me to file a request for arbitration on my own. However, Doncram has had several ongoing disputes with other editors, such as Orlady and Nyttend, as well as others. At Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places/Archive 53#My resignation letter, Dudemanfellabra (talk · contribs) announced that he was quitting the NRHP project in frustration. And, actually, I was largely inactive for several months in 2012 because of my own frustration. Doncram's behavior has come up in numerous discussions at WP:ANI, so even though the RFCs have been unproductive, his behavior has been discussed at great length, with huge walls of text. And, his block log speaks for itself.

Actually, I've made a semi-complete statement, but I may come up with more specific examples as this case progresses. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 06:39, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Jehochman

There was an RFC in 2010 on Doncram. There are allegations of possible administrator behavior issues. ArbCom seems like the right venue to resolve things. I have to say that upon seeing Sarekofvulcan requesting arbitration my initial reaction was "ut oh". Sarek and I haven't had too many interactions, but my general impression is that he tends to shoot from the hip and that his administrative interventions sometimes make things worse. It might be a really good idea for Sarek to focus more on communication and less on action. Doncram was getting ready to file arbitraton and Sarek beat him to the docket. It might have been smarter to wait and see what Doncram had to say. Jehochman ^Talk 08:27, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Interesting. My children take music lessons at the Universalist Church of West Hartford. If there has been a lame edit war on that page, I will be very interested to hear why. Jehochman ^Talk 01:22, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Beyond My Ken

The Doncram situation has festered for quite a long time and it seems as if only an ArbCom ruling can resolve it. I urge the committee to take this case. Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:25, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Aside from the NRHP problems, recent AN/I threads have focused on Doncram's similar behavior patters in editing Indian caste-related articles. [1],[2], [3] That the same kinds of behavioral problems popped up in an entirely unrelated subject area, with another group of editors, is telling. Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:36, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Nyttend

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

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

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

Statement by Orlady

[Will be provided; I'm busy with other things at the moment] --Orlady (talk) 16:24, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Georgewilliamherbert

Regarding my block of January 5 - notice diff / [4]- I think it may be useful to note or clarify for the record that I was only responding to the immediate, ongoing disruption/edit warring on the DRV page and not to the wider or longer term issues claimed here, which I have not been paying any special attention to. - Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:50, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Statement by The Devil's Advocate

I haven't been involved in this dispute but during one ANI case I opposed an attempt to severely sanction doncram on the basis that I saw a lot of mutual hostility and provocation that should be sorted out. One thing I just noticed is this page in Orlady's userspace that is in flagrant violation of WP:POLEMIC. There is obviously a need to review the conduct of multiple editors here and not just that of doncram.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 22:45, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Statement by LadyofShalott

I have not watched the involved editors closely, but if this case is taken, I think the behavior of all should be examined. Doncram and Orlady engaged in the lamest edit war I think I have ever seen at Universalist Church of West Hartford (history). LadyofShalott 23:38, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Clerk notes

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

User:Doncram: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <1/0/0/6>

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

• Awaiting statements. T. Canens (talk) 05:59, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
• Also awaiting further statements. The ones posted so far are fine in terms of length, but please ensure subsequent statements don't get any longer than those posted already. Also, please keep the statements focused on why a case is needed or not. Carcharoth (talk) 07:21, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Still awaiting statements from Doncram (and now Orlady). Regarding what Elkman said here: "I may come up with more specific examples as this case progresses". Please remember that this is not a case, it is a case request. Details should be left for any case (if accepted). The focus here should be on providing short and concise reasons why a case is needed. i.e. Less (preferably none) of the responses to what others are saying (things become swiftly unmanageable if everyone responds to everyone), and more focus on individual statements as to why a case is or isn't needed. Suggest that those who have posted overly long statements already, work on making them more concise rather than lengthening them by responding to what others have said. Carcharoth (talk) 01:14, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
• Comment: could the parties please provide details of a (recent) arbitratable issue that the community has failed to resolve? If you have evidence of this, I'm all ears but failing to open an arbitration case isn't really sufficient.  Roger Davies ^talk 10:06, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
• I'm still waiting for doncram's statement, but, at first glance, I believe that there may be issues worth examining; I have not made up my mind yet, but I'm inclined to think that we should accept. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 13:54, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
• Would like to hear from doncram before deciding whether or not to accept. Worm^TT(talk) 15:13, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
• Accept; the community has already tried and failed several times to resolve the issues. Ideally, I would prefer to see a statement from Doncram, but I shall take his previous attempt to file a case as indicative that he doesn't object to a case being opened (and, indeed, that he seeks one himself). — Coren ^(talk) 15:50, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
• Leaning toward acceptance based on the ANI thread and the overall history, but awaiting Doncram's statement before voting. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:58, 8 January 2013 (UTC)