User:Elkman/RFAR

Scratchpad for current evidence

 * - as of today still contains un-tableized entries, blank rows, and many saying "founded built NRHP-listed" with no dates
 * Oh, and apparently I broke Doncram's edit-lock on the list of Presbyterian churches, because I was supposed to maintain his "hidden list" of churches he was trying to merge in

Specific allegations that I'm lying

 * Architect vs. builder vs. engineer
 * "Elkman's generator and my batch /drafts system and any other system arguably should not put anything into an "architect=" field that is not verified to be an architect rather than a builder or a consulting engineer or other party."
 * Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive225 "Elkman should not make unsubstantiated assertions. He, like many other users of his programming, should not be misled by its erroneous output. It is a documented error in his "Elkman nrhp infobox generator" that it mislabels, as architects, associated persons and organizations who were builders or engineers instead. Elkman, why don't you fix your generator?" (That's on my list right after I stop beating my wife.)
 * Probably the reason behind phrases like, "It was designed and/or built by"


 * Significant year not being the same as the year the building was built
 * "What's put into the infobox's "built=" field and into the category for year of architecture by Elkman's article infobox generator is in fact the first year-date of possibly several year-dates of significance. It might not be a built date at all. ... Out of 30,000 infoboxes built using Elkman's system, there will be some thousands of factual errors, due to the incorrect ."
 * Probably the reason behind phrases like, "It was remodelled, expanded, or has other significance in"


 * Build date of the Floyd B. Olson House
 * Resulted from my attempt to explain how the sigyear date worked at Administrators' noticeboard/Archive224
 * "From what you say here, plus informed understanding of how the NRIS database works, it appears the "built=1922" assertion in the article is incorrect. Rather, the house was likely built earlier but is significant for its association during 1922-1936 with notable person Floyd B. Olson. If i were Elkman, I would rant on and on about how terrible it is that an erroneous assertion has been out there in Wikipedia since 2008."
 * "I thought Elkman was confessing to having relied upon imprecise information in a mainspace article, as the article then and now shows no other source for the built=1922 interpretation of NRIS, but I stand corrected. Or Elkman lucked out in this case that assuming the NRIS info meant built turns out to be the case (usually a pretty good bet)." Yeah, apparently I only create accurate articles by luck.


 * My generator claiming that nomination forms are not yet available for a state
 * "It seems odd that you would generate statements "Nomination forms aren't yet available for STATE", given that nomination forms are in fact available upon request for all NRHP-listed places. And where nomination forms are even available on-line for hundreds and thousands of items where your generator says they are not, as for National Historic Landmarks and others. So I suggest, respectfully, that you revise that statement." (This probably isn't as bad of an allegation that I'm lying as the others -- but it's bad enough.)
 * "But, I do agree that where NRHP nomination documents are available on-line, they should be included upfront in new articles. I do that. Elkman's article generator does not." (No, he was just filling out a standard link, even if the form wasn't actually there at that link)
 * A general accusation of lying
 * "I think in this discussion and others, there are many issues, which some would identify as basic questions about Wikipedia values, or about concerns about editor Elkman's article generator, or about many other matters." (So, in other words, just forget about the specific concerns about Doncram's edits, and focus on what I might be doing wrong or whatever anyone else is doing wrong.)

Oh, and here's a gem: "Anyhow, you lie! Liar liar liar liar liar!!!!!!!!! I am just astonished at that."

WP:AN discussions

 * Administrators' noticeboard - current case as of 8/1/11; current case about whether dumping poorly formatted data into a list article should be tolerated
 * Administrators' noticeboard/Archive226 - discussion about whether disambiguation pages with one or two blue links are really necessary; also about unwillingness to develop pages in userspace
 * Administrators' noticeboard/Archive225 - guesswork about whether was architected by USFSAG, whether I've made unsubstantiated assertions, and why his guesses are more reliable than my going to the office and reading the form
 * Administrators' noticeboard/Archive224 - long, verbatim quotes from NRHP nominations, accusations that I don't really know what the significant year is, accusation that I don't know the build date of the - probably the most relevant for this RFAR
 * Administrators' noticeboard/Archive223 - SarekOfVulcan's proposal to keep Doncram from generating thin stubs; also a note that he's doing some of them to create disambiguation pages - huge, long walls of text that would necessitate bypassing RFC/U and going to RFAR
 * Administrators' noticeboard/Archive187 -- advocating for an unblock for sockpuppeteer
 * Administrators' noticeboard/Archive188 - followup to the above, dating to 2009
 * Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive634
 * Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive529
 * Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive633

Other discussions

 * Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places - Doncram makes requests for something he's not even using; by extension, he's accusing me of making other users' bad edits by proxy
 * Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places - response to allegations that I'm lying about architect vs. builder vs. engineer, and lying about the significant year
 * Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places/Archive 49, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places/Archive 49, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places/Archive 49, and [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places/Archive 49


 * User talk:Orlady/Archive 11 - a good chunk of the whole page
 * User talk:Orlady/Archive 13 and following material
 * User talk:Orlady/Archive 10
 * User talk:Orlady/Archive 10 - Orlady considering a content dispute to be vandalism
 * User talk:Orlady/Archive 10 - Doncram making an ultimatum, or bullying Orlady

Here's a gem: - a whole bunch of guesswork about the database

Doncram's block log

 * 9 August 2010: 3RR on
 * 8 September 2010: Edit war between Doncram and
 * 11 October 2010: Disruptive editing at, , and others
 * 15 April 2011: Personal attack at, 1 week
 * 17 May 2011: Edit warring, 1 week
 * 9 June 2011: Edit warring at and, 3 weeks

Policies

 * WP:OWN
 * Tendentious editing
 * WP:NPA
 * WP:RS - is the database a reliable source, and sufficient enough to provide a basis for an article?
 * WP:CIVIL - not just Doncram

Other issues, not policy

 * Whether information from the NRIS is a reliable source
 * Whether I know the difference between an architect, a builder, and an engineer -- also since the form lists just one field, but the person named there can be an architect, a builder, or just the guy next door who helped lay stone
 * Whether I know the actual usage of the sigyear field
 * Whether bare, sub-stub articles with only a minimal amount of information from the database can be allowed
 * Why one user can develop automated articles from a database, but my infobox generator is called into question
 * Why it's supposedly OK to use just information from the database to develop an article, as opposed to other sources that would corroborate or clarify the information, and to make an article more interesting and readable
 * Why it's necessary to create disambiguation pages when there isn't anything to disambiguate yet, other than the idea of having a disambiguation page there
 * Short articles with excessively long talk page discussions
 * Underconstruction used as a pagelock mechanism or as WP:OWN

Possible other issues

 * Orlady and SarekOfVulcan just reverting Doncram's edits instead of fixing, improving, or discussing
 * Whether Orlady is wikihounding Doncram
 * Whether I'm getting way too cranky in my viewpoints and statements