User talk:Doncram

(e) as of Dec2010 as of Dec2014

A barnstar for you!

	The Photographer's Barnstar
	For your participation in one of my contests, as part of the NRHP contest, I award you the Photographer's Barnstar! Buggie111 (talk) 23:58, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Yay! :) Thanks! --doncram 00:00, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Dr. Franklin E. Kameny House

The DYK project (nominate) 00:04, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Fisher & Fisher

Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:04, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Helfensteller, Hirsch & Watson for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Helfensteller, Hirsch & Watson is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Helfensteller, Hirsch & Watson until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 15:42, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

	Season's greetings and best wishes for 2012!
	Thanks for all you do here, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 23:15, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Categories for new building articles

Hi, there should be an existing Buildings and structures in . . . category for almost all the counties in every state of the United States. So, when you create an article about a building or structure, please use the Buildings and structures in ... County, State category, instead of just the County category. If there is no existing Buildings and structures category for that county, please create it. Thanks so much. I hope you are enjoying working on these historic building articles. You are really the expert! Happy holidays. Jllm06 (talk) 16:06, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Okay, thanks, I'll try to use that. But, it is irritating to see more refined categories simply removed by another editor, if the category doesn't exist. Erring by being more general, less specific, seems safer. Like there seems to be a category for "Buildings and structures in Tulsa, Oklahoma, but not one for Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, when I do try to comply with your request. --doncram 00:47, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

December 2011

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 6 months for edit warring, as you did at Charles Coker Wilson. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Courcelles 22:31, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Doncram (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Request unblock due to arguable unfairness in the nature and sentence length of the original blocking process, and due to time served, and due to there being no apparent further need for blocking to prevent edit warring. I agree that edit warring is in general not a good thing, and will seek to avoid it. Specifically I was blocked by editor Courcelles for edit warring at Charles Coker Wilson, an article I had just created and was developing. The block was upon the emailed request to Courcelles of editor SarekOfVulcan, who was then engaging in an apparent game of contesting my edits on this and other new architect articles, and who was apparently at 5 reversions on the Charles Coker Wilson article in fact. S had been closely following my edits in new articles, often within one minute of a new article being created, and making small or large changes, sometimes edit conflicting. I don't object, in fact I welcome many of S's edits adding to articles I have recently started in mainspace. I was mostly accepting S's contributions and continuing to develop, but in I do think that to avoid disruption that if there is a disagreement, some deference should be given to the editor creating an article. In my reverting S about a reference format in the process of continued development at the article, I thought I was making a thoughtful, constructive point that was reasonable, and that S should defer a bit. In fact S did later partly agree on the point, reflected in the current article. S was blocked for a shorter time than me for the edit warring, and has requested and received unblock. In retrospect again, S's pattern seemed calculated to find a point of disagreement and then to seek dispute for wp:ANI actions. S's name for the game is "mutual blockdom" as termed by himself in his later unblock request; it appears from his edits and later request for unblocking that he was engaging in a game to seek the blocking of me and, necessarily, himself also, but for shorter time. It appears from Courcelles' edit summaries and/or comments at S's talk page that S actually requested the block and discussed the appropriate lengths of time for him and me both. I acknowledge also that editor Courcelles and some other administrators and editors have had concerns about my involvement in editing that are reflected in a number of ANI noticeboard discussions and in blocks of me. This, indeed, is partly what S was exploiting, that he could initiate dispute in an obscure article and expect that if I were to open an ANI or 3RR discussion that would seem to bear out negative views and would likely backfire upon me. S's own view of me is highly negative, reflected by multiple edit summaries invoking "Competence is required" dictum to imply that my development was not competent, while i disagree. I believe that I am a productive editor and would like to have my reputation as that re-established. I would be interested in there being a mediation or other dispute resolution to address what issues other editors have, or for peace to prevail otherwise. In my returning from the last block, I had engaged in simple development of needed articles, and I don't think that the community would find general fault, except about how one is to deal with the heavy-handed, harassment type editing of S as a dispute-seeking editor. I don't have a good answer about how to deal with S when S is operating in that mode, except to say that S's assertion in his own unblock request is that he will not seek mutual blockdom going forward, so perhaps the issue should not arise going forward. To be clear I was not following S or any other editor; S was following me. Again in this specific case, I thought i put in a good reference within my own edits and restored that 3 times, I thought, while further developing the article that I had just started at 21:09, 28 December 2011‎. Upon seeing S's repeated edits, and negative edit summaries, I thought that continuing to develop to a stopping point and opening a discussion at the talk page would be best, rather than opening an ANI. The best option in my view for S would have been to discuss the point at the Talk page. I could have opened a Talk page discussion sooner, but have found that not to work with S. Upon seeing one more change by S, anyhow, I did stop developing and reverting and I opened a Talk page discussion. S's edit at 22:17 i think was apparently his 5th reversion (which I thot was his 4th). I did not change it, but rather posted at Talk page at 22:24, 28 December 2011, opening discussion. I had low hopes for any rational discussion, as I have found S to be unwilling to discuss at Talk pages I've opened. On previous occasions, not leading to blocks, S had contested up to 3RR and then ceased, and would sometimes engage in perfunctory Talk page discussion thereafter. S then disputed at the Talk page that my opening a Talk section there was sincere, and he made requests to Courcelles to have him and me blocked. As a matter of fact, my editing of the page had ceased, and the blocking was not necessary to prevent edit warring at the time. I guess S's wording of request would stand for me too: "It has not been enjoyable not being able to edit over these past two weeks, and I think I've learned the lesson I needed to. "Mutual blockdom" is definitely not a disruption I will be engaging in in the future. I'd like to request that the block be reduced to time served. Thanks for your time." doncram 19:47, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Decline reason:

In August 2011 you were blocked for 3 months, with hopes that when you return you would no longer show the WP:BATTLE approach that you have taken on this project - specifically with certain editors. In terms of the escalation process, 6 months is valid, and appropriate because you do not seem to be able to stop yourself from behaviours detrimental to the project as a whole. Serial disruption by serial edit-warriors is wholescale improper on a collegial project. You have focused far too much on someone else' actions, yet fail to take into account how ridiculously disruptive you have been, and how much time has been wasted trying to deal with that disruption. In short, you still don't get it, and I see no reason to believe that reducing this block - based on the request above - will amount to a hill of beans when it comes to your behaviour (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 20:00, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Sorry about length of above, and that you perceive my behavior negatively. I didn't and don't want to wp:BATTLE. What was I supposed to do, back then, given apparent wp:BATTLE mentality of SarekOfVulcan in disputing my edits, though? --doncram 20:11, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

• I disagree with the refusal to unblock. It's probably not worth much as I am not an Admin (and for all that Doncram and I have sparred in the past) but a 6 month block is egregious for what happened since it was a tit-for-tat spat with an Admin, whose first edit was less than 5 minutes after Doncram started the article. I suggest time served, or at most 6 weeks including time served because while Doncram should have known better, Sarek should have as well and said as much on his talk. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 20:14, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Let me say it again ... "escalating blocks". If doncram only wanted a 6 week block, he should have stopped the battle a few blocks ago (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 20:21, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

BWilkins, if he were the only one who did wrong I'd agree with you. If Sarek wasn't an Admin, I'd agree with you. If it weren't with someone Doncram had a history with, I'd agree with you. But all of those things put together? I simply don't agree with it. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 20:35, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Sarek isn't an admin, actually. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:09, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Apologies! But you were (I think!) the last time he was blocked? Best, Markvs88 (talk) 22:42, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, in August I was still an admin, as I was in June where we were both blocked. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:47, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

I have to agree with Markvs88 here. Sarek was laying out a trap and Doncram was stupid enough to step into this.

This now appears to be a trick of some admins to shut up Doncram. Multichill (talk) 21:19, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

• Comment. I support a significant reduction in the length of the block or even an unblock. Yes, Doncram has been stubborn about starting rough drafts of articles in main space rather than user space. When he returned from the last block, his editing appeared to have improved, except for the ongoing feuding with Sarek. I don't want to pass judgment on who was more in the right or more in the wrong, but I understand that both Sarek and Doncram were blocked. I would hate to see Wikipedia lose such a valuable contributor. The Doncram saga is really troubling. This is a guy who has a passion for Wikipedia and for historic sites. He is tireless and wants to contribute. His contributions, on the whole, have been a very big plus for the encyclopedia. There has to be a better solution than a 6-month block that not only punishes Doncram but also deprives Wikipedia of six months of his work. Perhaps Doncram could make a commitment to creating rough drafts in user space and only moving them into main space when he's confident that they are ready for prime time. I know that Doncram does not like the idea, but such a commitment might persuade others to support an unblock. Cbl62 (talk) 21:52, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
  • I have to disagree with this. Doncram has a behavioral problem that goes beyond simply publishing incomplete articles into mainspace, instead of just userspace. When he was blocked for three months on August 2, 2011, I figured I could set a timer for three months and then know when his disruptive activities would continue. It took him a few weeks after his reinstatement, but the arguments eventually picked up again, culminating with the infamous "Fuck you, Sarek" on December 19. After his block expired on December 27, he started editing again, culminating in a forest fire at Charles Coker Wilson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) on December 28. That counts as less than two days of good behavior before the latest six-month block. If Doncram is unblocked now, I predict it would only be a matter of a week to a month until his edit-warring, name-calling, and ownership of articles starts up again. Asking for an unblock to "time served" seems about as likely as Socrates asking for asking for free meals at the town hall. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 23:05, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Elkman, then you are saying that (philosophically) you agree with the position that if an inmate serves his sentance and is released that he should then be re-incarcerated at the maximum sentance regardless of the circumstances or the severity of the next infraction. Like a guy with a grand theft auto and burglary gets picked up selling pirated DVDs getting life. I must disagree here, since the forest fire on Charles Coker Wilson was set by multiple parties. I'm all for punishing bad behavior, but in this case the punishment does not fit the crime, and if Sarek is blocked or unblocked doesn't make any difference: the point is that it was not only Doncram that should have known better and that the two editors have history. As I said before, time served might be a little light, but 6 months is excessive. I still suggest 6 weeks. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 14:48, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Note: Blocking isn't about punishment; it's about preventing additional disruption. --Orlady (talk) 16:01, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Banning user:SarekOfVulcan from editing articles which Doncram just created would be a good way to not have additional disruption. Multichill (talk) 16:53, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

But it is not just Sarek with whom Doncram has had problems. How many people do we stick with an interaction ban etc, which is effectively what you are suggesting? At what point does the balance tip? - Sitush (talk) 16:56, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Multichill, Sitush, & Orlady, I agree with all of your points. My POV (and remember, I have no particular affection for Doncram!) is that YES he is often disruptive, but in this case he should not have a 6 month ban. The way this is being discussed, if feels more like "this is just another stop on the process to banning him for life" than what actually happened -- an incident with a particular editor on a particular (newly created page). I did follow the pages of the discussion on his 3 month block at the time. In no way can what happened here be considered to be even a tenth of that. It doesn't fit, and it's as convenient as an ending to a Law & Order episode where McCoy throws the book at one instead of both purpetrators evenly because one talked. Only here, it's because one has a big rap sheet and has civility issues.

Bans don't follow a linear line. I've seen dozens of times where an Admin blocked an editor for a week, then for 2 weeks, then for 72 hours... etc. So I still cannot agree that 6 months makes any sense for what happened this time. This is a classic example of the rules not being applied evenly. Will Doncram do something to get blocked again? Yeah, probably. That's not the issue here. The issue is the rules not being applied in a manner consistant with context.

So the question stands... do we jail people so they won't commit crimes? If not, then this is excessive given the circumstances. If so, then just ban him for life and be done with it, at least it will end the drama. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 17:26, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't even see anything wrong with the idea of jailing people so they won't commit repeated crimes, whether in real life or figuratively on Wikipedia. Past behavior predicts future behavior. As the saying goes, "once a criminal, always a criminal". If someone screwed up in the past, that person should never be trusted again. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 23:52, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Ah. Well, I beg to differ on that on, Elkman. We all can learn from our mistakes and, believe me, I have made them! On the other hand, I do appreciate the frustration. There is no easy answer but in the weird microcosm that is en-WP there are policies, guidelines and, yes, consensus. My own sense is that Doncram has been pretty much consistently unwilling to "give an inch" in order to help us all through the situation. Nonetheless, there is some good mixed among the detritus. My suspicion is that if Doncram yielded, say, 65% then we would all be happy. But that is a number plucked pretty much out of thin air. - Sitush (talk) 02:24, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

• I would support a shortening of the block, with conditions. If Doncram will agree to start articles in user or talk space and only move them into mainspace once they are deemed ready by the community, the block can be shortened (I suggest three months), and the remainder of the sentence can be served as a type of wiki-probation. For the next three months after Doncram returns, he will be under watchful eyes, and if he gets into a dispute, the block is reinstated. Sound fair?--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 15:00, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

It appears some people are wholly missing the point here: even an indefinite block means "until the community is convinced that the disrupting behaviour will not recur". Although this is a 6 month block based on escalation, the arguments surrounding any shortening of the block need to focus on the same idea: will the behaviour recur? The whole reason that the block has escalated to 6 months is because every time they're unblocked, the same disrupting behaviour recurs. Clearly, there's no proof that the behaviour will not recur in the future - indeed, there's not even a suggestion that Doncram will ensure it does not recur. Here's the only possible unblock condition: if any admin perceives any type of incivility or battleground behaviour, then Doncram will be indefinitely banned from the project with no avenue of appeal for 1 year. Put the money where the mouth should be ... (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:08, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Point of fact 1 I recognize that this and following "Point of fact" are not proper form arguments in requesting unblock, but they seem relevant to consider. Point 1: SarekOfVulcan asserted to the blocking administrator by email (I believe, am not privy to the emails, and/or to how Courcelles was brought in otherwise) and at the talk page that I exceeded 3RR on the new Charles Coker Wilson page, which i did not believe I had, back then when I posted at the Talk page and stopped editing the article, but in fact I had not. I think S mistakenly viewed this edit as changing the form of the displayed reference, when it did not. In that edit i compacted the text but did not change what displayed at all. Several weeks later, I mistakenly agreed with S that I had seemed to exceed 3RR. I initially believed i had not, and it seems i truly had not, exceeded 3RR. While I think S deliberately exceeded 3RR, and further that he ten believed he was exceeding 4RR. I dunno, in the context of S following and confronting and writing what seem to be insulting edit summaries about competence (e.g. "Undid revision 468157872 by Doncram (talk) again, WP:CIR", please do compare his vs. my edit summaries), I don't think my continuing development of the article should look that bad. In S's request for adminship not far back i expressed difficulty about S's not communicating, not answering direct questions, and other editors agreed that was a concern. It followed a number of cases where S had intervened on articles i was developing and having followed a "modus operandi" of reverting without explaining, without answering my followup questions at Talk pages about what his objection was. Given that recent history, and continued experiences, in this case where after his reversion S was apparently insisting on something, I a) did not expect he would actually discuss it at the Talk page before he had to, and b) expected he would eventually agree he was in fact mistaken in his initial belief. The least burdensome-to-the-community approach to deal with this, seems to me to be pretty much the course I followed, i.e. restoring the change that i implemented, not reciprocating with insulting edit summaries, and opening a Talk page discussion at the point when I expected S would deign to explain and discuss somewhat. Or, in S asserting that I exceeded 3RR, is this merely about the fact that I restored an Under Construction tag to the article, which S had removed after my very first edit, when in fact i was very much constructing the article??? --doncram 03:21, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Oh, feh, it could possibly depend on how you count. If you want to view this, my first change of that reference as a reversion, then you could argue I eventually exceeded 3RR. But, that was a good faith improvement of the reference that S had constructively added; I think S's reversion following is the first edit that goes into 3RR counting, if you actually want to be technical. --doncram 03:56, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Point of fact 2 In this my first change of the displayed reference, I revised crediting of Bisher to reduce overstatement of Bishir's general role with the North Carolina Architects and Builders encyclopedia, and to increase Bisher's credit with respect to this particular article. S's subsequent edits and summaries were about restoring Bisher to display as overall editor of that encyclopedia, in a way that I thot was excessive. Later, after S was unblocked, he actually returned to reduce the overstatement by removing Bishir's name altogether. At the time, I deliberately went off to develop some other articles: to create Joseph F. Leitner, where no one has disagreed about Bishir showing as an author not an overall editor, and to edit Frank Pierce Milburn where Bishir is appropriately given no credit. I think S agrees with those treatments, and that if we had had a discussion at the Talk page, that S would have agreed either to my then-preferred treatment or that I would have agreed to the later-implemented treatment. I was specifically developing more examples in order to have a better-informed discussion with S, as I believed that with more perspective he would see that crediting Bishir as overall editor in every reference to that encyclopedia would be excessive. Which he later agreed to, on his own. It seems unfortunate to be blocked for 6 months for the fact that discussion was cut off, especially when S, upon further consideration, actually agrees largely with my initial view. --doncram 03:21, 21 January 2012 (UTC) Small text

Content is an absolute red herring right now. Why not address your behaviour overall. Why not take a good close look at the unblock condition I provided? If you can't accept it, then you basically accept that you are unable to bring your behaviour anywhere close to Wikipedia community standards. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:03, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Totally agree with this. Doncram, please realize that arguing about how to count edits for interpretation of 3rr is an excellent example of why you are in this mess (eg: that was a good faith edit). If you'd like my support for this unblock, you need to demonstrate a real change in how you view your contributions. Commit to leaving every edit of a page as a working, complete article. If someone reverts you, dont count how many edits you've made, go immediately to the talk page. If you feel yourself getting angry at someone in Wikipedia, walk away for a bit. It's not going anywhere. I like your contributions in general, but I really dislike the negative interactions with others. It's up to you to convince people you will act different, not anyone else. dm (talk) 17:16, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

I realize I'm a bit late to the party, but I would favor reducing this block length by half. Doncram is generally a good contributor who tends to be zealous, not vandalistic or necessarily destructive. bd2412 T 17:11, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

So after all that, we have these opinions:

(Note Orlady & Sarek have commented but not come down on one side or another.)

1. Unblock or lesser block: Markvs88, Multichill, Cbl62, Mercy11, Nyttend
2. Lesser block, conditional: Dudemanfellabra, Sitush(?), Dmadeo, Pubdog, WereSpielChequersm, BD2412
3. Abstain: Orlady, SarekofVulcan, Elen of the Roads
4. Keep 6 month block: BWilkins, Elkman, DM

• in order words, deadlock with a small lean towards a lesser block by 5:3. I don't see where to go from here unless the numbers change. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 13:43, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
  • The numbers are now : 8 lesser block (6 weeks/time served/on condition...), (3 abstainations) and 3 for the six month block. That's 8:3. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 15:53, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
  • The numbers are now : 11 lesser block (6 weeks/time served/on condition...), (3 abstainations) and 3 for the six month block. That's 11:3.
    

Therefore I have now entered a new unblock request. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 19:54, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm too involved to weigh in with an opinion, other than to say that an uninvolved administrator needs to consider whether appropriate criteria for unblocking have been met. --Orlady (talk) 15:19, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

You can put me down as "abstaining in an attempt not to make things any worse", if you like.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:52, 23 January 2012 (UTC)-- copied from user talk:Markvs88. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 16:23, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm not convinced there's an understanding yet by Doncram of why he keeps getting blocked. Without that, applying restrictions are meaningless, because he's very unlikely to remember to stick to them. Last time he just served out the block without discussion - this time there does seem some prospect of discussion, so I'd let it brew for a while yet. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:47, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure I'd belong in the "keep 6 month block" bucket. I'm in the I agree with the point Bwilkins was making. I hope Doncram changes how he interacts so that the positive side of his contributions can start being what people remember. If he demonstrates that, I'd be happy with time served. dm (talk) 06:09, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

I came over here simply because I wondered if anything had been going on, not knowing about this long discussion. I'd have to agree with Dudemanfellabra about the best possible solution: long blocks are appropriate when disruptive actions continue despite shorter blocks, but I'm not quite sure that this long of a block was needed — the block from the community discussion was three months, and other than that, Doncram has never had a block longer than three weeks. Let's reduce to time served, since this is his longest block to date other than the one from the community discussion, but only with a provision that it will be restored for its full length if the actions that prompted it are repeated once. Nyttend (talk) 13:30, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

• Vote for "immediate unblock with time served" reconsideration by Admin(s).

Much of what I could had said in support of an "immediate unblock with time served" (i.e., great contributing editor; shows remorse and contrition; Sarek was the one going after Doncram and mostly with the sole purpose to irritate him and not the other way around; Doncram gets the credit over Sarek for having opened the Talk discussion (and in so doing showed he -did- learned something from his previous 3-month block), beyond irritating Doncram, Sarek wiki hounded him and not the other way around; it was Sarek and not Doncram the first editor that got personal in the edit summaries, etc., etc.,) has already been said. I add the following four points.

One, increasing the amount of time blocked to 6 months solely on the basis that Doncram had been previously blocked for 3 months -IS- the definition of punitive action, and on which blocks should not be based; it is not the definition of "preventing additional disruption" as some seem to be arguing.

Two, I generally have little trust in the Wikipedia block system because in the bulk of cases both editors should had been blocked, but only one is. Also, because in most cases it depends on who reports it first, irrespective of who did what, when and how - as this case was. And also because far too many times it depends, not on who the disruptive editor was, but on who is the more astute editor - as, regretabbly, is the case here also. I am of the belief that astuteness should not be rewarded in the world at large nor in the little microcosm of Wikipedia that we do "control"; said differently: don't be fooled by the more clever editor when passing down a block judgment.

Three, is that yeah, yeah, yeah, Doncram should had known that his request for unblock should had come with a higher dosis of self-guilt while focusing less on Sakes's volations (as real as they are), but I am myself convinced Doncram has learned that by now.

Four, as for the fateful F/U, if there is any one here that can say he would never break down and spit out an F/U John Doe when confronted with enough harrassment, then I say he probably hasn't lived long enough to have seen enough evil in the world yet. Could he have endured more harrassment before breaking down? In hindsight we will all say "yes", yet none of us were in his shoes at that moment in time.

My name is Mercy11 (talk) 19:11, 27 January 2012 (UTC), and I approve this message.

I'm minded to support a shorter block. I don't support the suggestion of creating articles in Sandboxes, articles belong in mainspace. But I have a suggestion for Doncram, would you be willing to try and work to 1rr? I'm not suggesting this as a condition, but as a sincere commitment from you and yes I appreciate it won't be easy. Though I can suggest various ways to help that, one being to keep several writing projects on the go and walk away from ones that get contentious. ϢereSpielChequers 21:07, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I vote for Option 1, Unblock or lesser block--Pubdog (talk) 22:37, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Just stopped by - I would certainly go for "time served" given a statement by Doncram that he knows what the problem is and how to avoid it. Part of the problem (just part) is that a couple editors seem to want to go after him (i.e. they have the same problem) (not referring to Elkman). Doncram has to understand that that's possible to happen again, but he still has to avoid the problem. Smallbones (talk) 21:21, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

New request

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Doncram (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

After two weeks of open commenting, 17 editors have weighed in (not counting Doncram himself). The vote is 11 for immediate unblocking, 3 for keeping the six month block, and 3 have abstained. It is opined here that the six month block is being used contrary to point #3 of Blocks should not be punitive: that it is a punishment not befitting the events which transpired. There is some concern among the dissenting vote regarding Blocks should be preventative, but is felt by the majority that this is being applied more against the user in question and than this particular incident. Therefore given the circumstances we request that the length of Doncram's block be reduced to time served, or to 6 weeks (unblock on Saturday, 11 February 2012). Thank you & Best, Markvs88 (talk) 2:55 pm, Today (UTC−5)

Decline reason:

We don't generally lift blocks because of an ad-hoc vote of interested users who happen upon the blocked user's talk page, especially when the unblock request is placed by someone other than the blocked editor. If you wish the block to undergo community review, one of the commenters here can start a discussion about it on WP:AN to garner wide community input, or Doncram can appeal to arbcom. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 20:06, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Thank you to many editors who have commented here, for your good efforts and thoughts. I am busy in real life and was not following this closely. I will try to catch up and make a new unblock request or otherwise reply substantially here within a day or two. Thanks, --doncram 20:45, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Notice of Administrators' Noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 19:32, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your efforts, Markvs88. I see that item at "Reduced block requested for Doncram". I am busy in real life but will reply substantially within a day or two. Thanks. --doncram 20:47, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Comment. The "Reduced block requested for Doncram" matter can be found at the Administrator's Archive #231, item #8 HERE. My name is Mercy11 (talk) 04:01, 17 March 2012 (UTC), and I approve this message.

Military Historian of the Year

Nominations for the "Military Historian of the Year" for 2011 are now open. If you would like to nominate an editor for this award, please do so here. Voting will open on 22 January and run for seven days. Thanks! On behalf of the coordinators, Nick-D (talk) and Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 22:59, 15 January 2012 (UTC) You were sent this message because you are a listed as a member of the Military history WikiProject.

The Bugle: Issue LXX, January 2012

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; award recipients; contest results Articles: The month's Featured and A-class content Book reviews: Nick-D Nick-D looks into two recent Milhist books Review essay: Kirill Lokshin, the first coordinator Op-ed: Hchc's English Castles

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 23:55, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Apologies in advance if now is not the right time to ask a question about National Historic Landmarks

Don, I fully understand that, in light of current events, you may not be inclined to respond to my question, but I hope you will, mainly because I think you care about this project.

I'm trying to track down the copyright status of a photo described as coming from the National Historic Landmarks collection. So far, my searches haven't definitely identified what this is, and specifically, whether inclusion in this collection means the photo is pd.

I think you are knowledgeable in this area, so I am hoping you can tell me, or point me in the right direction (and perhaps others reading this may know as well.)--SPhilbrick(Talk) 19:38, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

The specific request is resolved, but I'm still in the dark regarding the National Historic Landmarks collection.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 23:33, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I have seen the term but don't know specifically what it means. I wonder if it means photos that are used in the old system of NHL summary webpages, such as this one for Riverby Studio in NYS. Many of the NHLs were visited and photographed and nominated by Federal staff in the 1960s, even before the much larger NRHP program began; Federal staff produced photos would generally be public domain (PD). I wonder if the term refers to that original set of NHL documentation. I recommend inquiring directly to the National Register about what the term means in a specific usage of theirs. Hope this brief reply helps. --doncram 21:06, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Re: Noel Owen Neal House

This former NHRP site is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Noel Owen Neal House; if you post any additional relevant references here, I will try to add them to the article. Dru of Id (talk) 21:28, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

NRHP table

Hey, did anything come of this, to remove "neighborhood" column? CTJF83 23:02, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Category:Chicago architecture

See my proposal to merge Category: Chicago architecture into Category:Chicago school (architecture). Hugo999 (talk) 23:16, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXI, February 2012

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; award recipients; contest results Articles: The month's Featured and A-class content Book reviews: Nick-D looks into two recent Milhist books Op-ed: Ian Rose discusses article assessments

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 09:44, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Dispute resolution survey

Dispute Resolution – Survey Invite Hello Doncram. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Wikipedia, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released. Please click HERE to participate. Many thanks in advance for your comments and thoughts. You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associated research page. Steven Zhang DR goes to Wikimania! 23:23, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

You're invited! New England Wikimedia General Meeting

	New England Wikimedia General Meeting
	The New England Wikimedia General Meeting will be a large-scale meetup of all Wikimedians (and friends) from the New England area in order to discuss regional coordination and possible formalization of our community (i.e., a chapter). Come hang out with other Wikimedians, learn more about ongoing activities, and help plan for the future! Potential topics: What is a Wikimedia chapter and should we work towards one? Planning of regular Boston meetups (any other New England cities?) Planning for upcoming coordinated events (Wikipedia Love Libraries, Wiki Loves Monuments, Wiknic, etc.) Outreach to universities (WikiProject Academical Village) and cultural institutions (GLAM) Wikimania DC is this summer. Your ideas!
	Sunday, April 22 1:30 PM – 4:30 PM	Conference Room C06, Johnson Building, Boston Public Library—Central Library 700 Boylston St., Boston MA 02116
Please sign up here: Wikipedia:Meetup/New England!

---

Message delivered by Dominic at 08:34, 11 April 2012 (UTC). Note: You can remove your name from this meetup invite list here.

NRHP new article template

It was a bit pedantic of someone to put a speedy tag on Talk:National Register of Historic Places featured properties and districts/New Article Template. I have moved it to User:Doncram/NRHP new article template. I suggest a further move into the Wikipedia namespace. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 20:26, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Notifying as required

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. My name is Mercy11 (talk) 21:22, 10 June 2012 (UTC), and I approve this message.

Good to see you

I've been watching for your return. Welcome back. If you need a second set of eyes or hands at any point, don't hesitate to ask...although I may end up saying no. Dru of Id (talk) 01:55, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

• It's good to have you back -- hopefully for the long haul! Cbl62 (talk) 01:59, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

To Markvs88, Multichill, Cbl62, Mercy11, WereSpielChequersm, BD2412, and others, thank you for your attention and positive words previously. As you will have noted, I did not choose to continue the appeal process about the block. I thought about making some speech or something but honestly don't see any big morals to state or apologies to make. I have previously enjoyed contributing new articles and adding to existing articles in wikipedia, and I hope to restart doing so. I have enjoyed being away from Wikipedia and its drama. I hope that giving it all a rest prove to have taken the edge off of whatever people's issues are, mine and/or theirs. I do hope that others see their way to choose to avoid violating civility, harassment and other basic good Wikipedia and human being practices, and so will I. If you are a person reading this who has in the past engaged in what a reasonable person can view as hateful behavior, please reconsider your interest here, and please go away, please leave me alone. Thank you again to those who have tried to be helpful. --doncram 23:34, 30 June 2012 (UTC)