Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Doncram

Arbitrators active on this case
Active:
 * AGK
 * 1) Carcharoth
 * 2) Coren
 * 3) Courcelles
 * 4) David Fuchs
 * 5) Hersfold
 * 6) Kirill Lokshin
 * 7) Newyorkbrad
 * 8) NuclearWarfare
 * 9) Risker
 * 10) Roger Davies
 * 11) SilkTork
 * 12) Timotheus Canens
 * 13) Worm That Turned

Inactive:
 * 1) Salvio giuliano

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 Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive778 and the many subsections, Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive780.

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 Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive778, 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 '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 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)
 * I do not like that Orlady engage in a lame edit war with Doncram. Most editors do not come here with rude or argumentative intentions.  These tendencies may developed over time due to badgering, nagging or needling (often superficially polite) from some members of the community. Petty administrative enforcement may also contribute to the development of sour editors.  Orlady, why was it so important for you to remove the See Also link to List of Unitarian, Universalist, and Unitarian Universalist churches?  That was a harmless link, even if we assume arguendo that your edit was "proper".  Were you following Doncram around just to pester him?  That might not have been your intention, but it appears to be the effect. I think a broad review of the behaviors of all concerned would be valuable.  Hopefully the case will present more advice and less in the way of formal editing restrictions. Jehochman Talk 14:04, 10 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. ,, 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)
 * @Kumioko - Two brief points: admins (and therefore Arbs) can see the second RfC, so they are able to evaluate it for evidentiary value - if it has any (I can't see it, so I can't tell). Also, from my observation -- and like you, I have not been involved in these disputes -- the problem with some of Doncram's article creations is not that they are "stubs", but that many times they are "sub-stubs", and that often the information in them is inaccurate or exceedingly vague because no effort has been made to verify it or expand it.  The creation of legitimate stubs is, as you imply, a worthwhile effort, since by accretion stubs eventually become articles, but a stub that consists of only vague information, which has been created simply because of the existence of an entry in a database, is not in any way helpful to the project, and Doncram has consistently refused to recognize this possibility. His responses to criticism, as reflected in the numerous AN and AN/I threads about his behavior, is consistently sub-par, sometimes rising to a battleground mentality, but all the time dismissive of the possible value of others' comments.  It appears to me, simply from reading these threads for quite a number of years now, that Doncram is of the opinion that he never does anything wrong, and that his critics are always incorrect.  That is not a position that is conducive to collegial collaboration, and is, in my view, the ultimate cause of the problem that has been raised here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:43, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Georgewilliamherbert
Regarding my block of January 5 - notice diff / - 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)
 * Arbs should state whether they intend this to focus primarily on the NRHP matters with the Indian caste stuff being looked into merely because of similar conduct issues or if they are going to try and handle each as equally valid matters of interest. If this is going to focus on the NRHP-related articles then I see no reason why the case can't be named "National Register of Historic Places" out of respect for doncram's perfectly understandable desire to not have an ArbCom cased named after him. Should the intent be to have a case viewing conduct in both of these topic areas as worthy of arbitration then the name "National Register of Historic Places and Indian castes" would be a bit long, but it would not be so obscenely long as to be beyond consideration. Should each topic area be seen as worthy of arbitration then there could always two separate cases with each named for the relevant topic area.-- The Devil's Advocate tlk.  cntrb. 19:12, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Looking back it appears doncram is topic-banned from the Indian caste articles so I believe the only topic area where arbitration is needed is the NRHP topic area. As such I believe the most appropriate course is to have this case be Arbitration/Requests/Case/National Register of Historic Places or WP:ARBNRHP. That way the case can avoid any systemic bias from a user-specific title and thus look more objectively at the conduct of all parties.-- The Devil's Advocate tlk.  cntrb. 20:47, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
 * @Brad I think working in an appeal of a topic ban in all this would be kind of cumbersome and distracting. Since the only way to address that subject under these circumstances in an arbitration context is the capacity for ArbCom to review appeals I think the focus of this case should be on the NRHP subject, with the Indian caste subject only being noted where it is relevant i.e. evidence of the dispute from the NRHP topic area expanding to other topic areas. Many of the same parties were involved in the Indian caste dispute as I understand so it would be relevant to analyzing the conduct of editors in the NRHP topic area.-- The Devil's Advocate tlk.  cntrb. 21:24, 9 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). Lady of  Shalott  23:38, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Jehochman: It was over whether to include a "see also" link to List of Unitarian, Universalist, and Unitarian Universalist churches or not. Lady  of  Shalott  05:08, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Kumioko (uninvolved)
This situation between Doncram and some other members of NRHP has been going for a while and frankly I'm surprised it didn't land here sooner. I am pretty familiar with this situation but I consider myself uninvolved. As with some of the other folks above I think that more than one editor was the problem and if this case is accepted all their conduct should be reviewed. A note on the links if evidence. One link is from 2010 and one from 2011 only a few months later. The third link is a red link and should be removed as prejudicial. If we can't see it to review the information, its fruit from the poison tree and should be removed from view. I also think that providing links to 2-3 year old discussions hardly proves that steps have been taken to keep this from going to Arbcom. Is there nothing in the last 12 months? It is my opinion that a lot of this has come from some users not liking Doncram creating stub links for NRHP articles. They view them as worse than having no article at all. The point is though as long as Wikipedia allows these to be created there isn't anything that the project or the individual members can do other than edit the articles once they are created. Kumioko (talk) 01:58, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
 * @Beyond My Ken, although I expected this case to come here eventually and I believe that Doncram has a fair amount of blame for this, I don't think they are the only one who's conduct needs to be reviewed by Arbcom. I think that a number of editors did some things wrong and inappropriate in this particular case. I think its good Doncram created a lot of articles but I also agree they should have taken more care to ensure the information was more accurate. I also think that some of the arguments from those against him were overblown and based on personal opinions about the creation of stubby or ultra stubby articles. If the Arbcom takes this case, which it appears will happen, they need to review all the evidence of the case and all the members and act accordingly. Not just do the usual and focus on the accused. There were several wrongs done here and they all need to be identified and dealt with. Including, IMO, the actions and timing of the one that started this case. My point on the red link is this. That was obviously deleted for a reason. I do not know or particularly care what that reason was. It is irrelevant. The point is it was deleted and IMO has no business being presented here as evidence. Whether the admins and Arbs can see it is also irrelevant. They are not the only ones making comments here. I may be the only non admin making comments here I don't know, but the fact remains I cannot review it so therefore in my eyes whatever it contains does not exist. Its like telling the jury to decide a case based on what's behind mysterious door number three, it might be a new car, it might be a pile of manure, either way I can't see it. Kumioko (talk) 17:31, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
 * @Sarek, I left a note on your talk page but I'll leave a note here too. I think the edits you made here removing the comment after the redlink are inappropriate. Aside from my feelings on the red link being inadmissable because it was deleted and because many of us commenting cannot see it, I think you are too involved to make an edit like that. Kumioko (talk) 21:44, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Mors Martell
As this matter concerns possible admin tool abuse, I encourage the acceptance of the case. It's also apparent that the community has tried and failed to resolve it, although it is unfortunate the 2010 RFC received so little attention. --Mors Martell (talk) 08:39, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Statement by WereSpielChequers (uninvolved)
Whilst I'm less familiar with this specific situation than Kumioko is, I see one aspect of this as symptomatic of one of our major problem areas. Instead of trying to change policy in a certain direction some people create problems for those who follow an aspect of policy that they disagree with. Personally I have little or no problem with people debating a policy in WP space or launching RFCs, occasionally you lose a debate or get tired of the same issue continually being reraised, but the understanding behind such discussion is that it is OK to follow current policy until such time as that policy is changed. What I truly loathe and consider deeply toxic to the community and corrosive of community trust is the changing of policy by criticism of those who follow that policy.

Taking List of Anglican churches as an example, one I'm unconnected with other than in doing the occasional ten thousand edit or so categorisation exercise of images of English churches on Commons. Doncram is criticised above not for how he left the article on his fifth edit to it less than an hour after creating it, but for the edit in which he started that article. Now I can see some merit in a policy change that required experienced editors to start new articles in sandboxes or offline and only release them into mainspace when they were clearly beyond CSD standard. But the proper way to achieve such a change is to transparently make a case in an RFC, not to harass editors such as Doncram. Irrespective of any other aspects of this case I believe it would be very helpful to the community if Arbcom were to rule "policy development by harassing those who follow current policy" as an example of actionable incivility.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  11:55, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Thundersnow
I emailed a member of Editor Retention in mid-December. The following is that email, with non-Doncram stuff removed and noted with elipses, one instance of copyeditting for [dating], and piped links added.


 * I signed up as a user in August after 3 years of IP editing so I could work in the NRHP project and their images. I recently stopped editing Wikipedia because I felt there was no remedial action available when I felt bullied. ...


 * After I felt bullied by Doncram on my talk page and their reverts of my edits, I looked for a place to protest their actions. It took a couple of days for me to come back after laying out Doncram's and my dispute on the NRHP talkpage, and when I did I found the then-current (November) AN/I posting about Doncram.


 * I believed protesting Doncram's actions to be hopeless after seeing certain comments there. Editors at that post saying, "Oh, for crying out loud" and "This again?" led me to believe that Doncram and/or Orlady is/are often taken to task for things yet is/are still stepping on toes. ... "Doncram should by this point be aware..." and "It's getting rather late in the day to be pointing this out" is ambiguous as to if it is late for the one incident, or Doncram's overall behavior in light of the exasperation previous editors had posted. The closing admin's statement of "Doesn't appear that action is forthcoming or needed at this time" was also disheartening, as editors felt enough exasperation at Doncram and/or Orlady and/or NRHP to post said emotions, yet all that happened was a couple of figurative finger-shakings. ... If I had posted about Doncram I believe the worst that would happen would be an interaction ban, and that would hurt me more than them, as they are heavily into NRHP articles (the reason I signed up).


 * The [early December] Doncram-related AN/I comments have put paid to any hope I had of contributing to Wikipedia again. Doncram is being defended as a beneficial contributor when they have insulted, belittled and/or bullied numerous contributors, edit warred, removed others postings, and on and on. Why should I stay with a project that allows such things, or work with editors who believe that none of that matters because so-and-so is a good contributor? ...

Thundersnow 12:06, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Bwilkins
I was waiting for Doncram's statement before I even began to draft my own as I wanted to see if Doncram was willing to accept responsiblilty for their actions before commenting. Having now seen Doncram's statement, it's clear that they do not - indeed, the nearly whole community seems to be against them - but why? I mean, they're a "prolific editor" after all! Why can't they simply be left alone!?!?!

First, let me state that I am not at all concerned that Sarek is the one who has filed this: they have been both a witness to and a victim of Doncram's repeated ugly behaviours. I even believe that SoV took a little time off the project (if not at least admin duties) because of sheer frustration related to Doncram.

The simple point however is this: the community as a whole has set standards for behaviour and article content. As such, anyone's behaviour and anyone who creates content (all of us?) are accountable to that same community. When any member of the community challenges our behaviours or our content, we are expected and required to reply and act accordingly - not simply turn nasty and then charge through your changes like a bull in a china shop. In short, inside a community constructive criticism is not only going to happen. it's required to happen - and we as editors need to respond accordingly and appropriately.

The fact that Doncram has such a long list of people they are in conflict with is not the fault of those people. It's like the old story of the man who went to his psychiatrist and said "Doc, I'm having trouble: my wife won't listen to me, my son won't listen to me - not even my dog will listen to me", and the Doctor said "alright, let's begin with you". Well, Doncram has flat out refused to look at themself - indeed, in their own statement above, they blame others for their own behaviour. Without the ability - or even willingness - to be introspective, it's not a surprise that Doncram has been blocked numerous times, nor is it a surprise that the community has finally lost its patience with them.

I fail to call Doncram a "prolific" content creator - much of their work is data dumps (much of it improper). They have things to add, true. They have a desire to add, true. They have no desire to change their behaviours, and no desire to listen to any criticism. The harm to this project - as evidenced by the huge number of "conflicts" leads me to suggest that this case is a neccesity to protect the project as a whole from the bull-in-a-china-shop mentality (✉→BWilkins←✎) 13:01, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
 * @ Doncram - your desire to rename the case and deflect the possible blame off of you is merely cementing my comments above. You are, indeed, the author of your own issues, and it's ironic that you claim on one hand to take responsibility, but on the other hand deflect - nobody else forced you to type anything on Wikipedia.  Congratulations. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 17:16, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
 * @ Salvio - although I recognize your line of thought, I believe renaming this to NRHP or whatever would unintentionally also remove the fact that this ArbCom case is about behaviour, and not just about some crappy stubs (✉→BWilkins←✎) 13:10, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Boing! said Zebedee
I comment here merely as an observer on the "Indic articles" problem that got Doncram his topic ban. The problem was that Doncram was doing another "data dump", producing bad lists full of errors through ignorance of the Indian caste system. He steadfastly refused to listen to people who have actually done the research in the relevant topic areas - in this case, Sitush has been hard at work researching this area for close on two years now, he understands most of the relevant documentation, and he knows all of the kinds of subtle problems that can creep in when people create or edit caste-related articles without knowing what they are doing. And Doncram's response is to add Sitush to the list of bullies who are picking on him. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:57, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Colonel Warden
It is explicit policy that articles may be started as a weak stub: "Even poor articles, if they can be improved, are welcome." The complaints about Doncram's work are therefore contrary to this policy. I am not familiar with the NRHP material but Doncram's work on Indian castes seems productive and there was recently a consensus to keep the List of Scheduled Castes, for example. As an example of what Doncram has to put up with, see here: "You think you know what you are doing? You haven;t got a clue." This seems to be just like WP:OWN and so Doncram is entitled to feel aggrieved. Warden (talk) 18:59, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Statement by JASpencer
Sarek does not make clear that one of the areas that Doncram has been involved in is to stop the renaming of Masonic lodges, an area of interest to Sarek. Sarek as a Freemason has been asked by fellow members of his fraternity to make preferential decisions for them (something which in the case I highlighted doesn't seem to have been done in this case, yet).

I am not saying that this affects the case with Doncram, nor am I saying that this is the only reason that Sarek has raised this, what I am saying is that there is a high probability that it contributed to it and that Sarek's not mentioning of this is worisome.

JASpencer (talk) 23:17, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Choess
Doncram has been a very prolific creator of articles, largely on NRHPs or related subjects, and these articles tend to be very short and sourced to a single database. This dependence on a single source has sometimes resulted in obvious errors being carried into mainspace. Other editors have frequently dealt with this by aggressively reverting and deleting his contributions in which they perceived errors, actions which have not always been sustained by the community. Personal attacks have been suppressed with admonitions and blocks (for both sides) at intervals, but lengthy discussions over the past few years have failed to reach consensus on whether Doncram's methods of article writing are problematic or acceptable, and if so what remedy could be proffered. More recently, his foray into articles on the subject of caste showed similar patterns of behavior and conflict, with (initially) a different set of editors. I would ask ArbCom to accept the case with a view to analyzing these issues. The community has already tried punishing involved parties for misbehavior (3RR, PAs) without long-term success. The recurrence of disagreement in two quite separate topics should give the committee perspective to examine these issues of editing philosophy (e.g., standards of due diligence in article creation) without getting lost in minutia. Choess (talk) 02:56, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Statement by lvklock
Mainly, I'm dusting off a comment I made on this subject at Jimbo Wales talk page, here, where, I might add, Mr. Wales himself found it appropriate to remove hostile comments toward doncram with the edit comment "rm personal attacks", here.
 * I hesitate to comment because my opinions are often discounted due to the fact that Doncram and I have edited together in the past, and they perceive us to be friends. Whether we're friends or not, I have been an observer and I have things to say. Mainly, my point is that yes, Doncram has repeatedly edited in this systematic, "bot-like" way. And? When he started, and Wikipedia was newer, these edits seemed to be welcomed as an integral part of building a wiki. Now they seem to be cause for editors with the sensitivity that nothing should go into mainspace until it's complete to drive him out. As Kumioko says at the ANI, "that is the nature of Wikipedia, someone adds some info, someone else modifies it and over time the article gets developed. I'm not sure what in the Wiki concept is not clear." Thank you, thank you, thank you. I have said in essence this same thing over and over again in comment at various discussions, most recently in my first comment at a discussion of why there aren't more women editors at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/St. Boniface Cemetery, Wrought-Iron Cross Site, where I said, in part that the editors who disapprove of Doncram, "in my experience, want to insist that every editor complete every aspect of an article before moving it to mainspace, thus going against the very heart of what a "wiki" is supposed to do, which I believe is to allow each person to contribute with their strengths." (And, by the way, when did "bot-like" become a bad thing? Aren't bots used in Wikipedia all the time?) Choess says above that "There has been a steady process of escalation wherein the community has AGF'd until it strained itself, made various suggestions and accommodations to try to get Doncram to edit in a more acceptable fashion." Acceptable to whom? Acceptable to a few vociferous editors who don't like his chosen editing style? Or acceptable under the "rules" of Wikipedia? Because as far as I can tell, other than when his frustration has led him to edit warring, Doncram does not consistently do anything against the "riles". Some of these editors don't like stubs at all. Would Wikipedia be where it is now without stubs? Some of them object to his correct statements which reflect the ambiguity of his source. Isn't some small amount of correct but vague information better than none at all? Some contend that what he produces doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. Aren't they missing the point that Wikipedia is not a traditional encyclopedia? It's a WORK IN PROGRESS! I know I had other pertinent stuff in my original edit, but it's late and I'm tired and frustrated. I'm frustrated because this whole discussion reminds me of all the things that I used to love about Wikipedia, and of all the reasons I basically quit editing. I firmly believe that if there's a shortage of editors at Wikipedia it's because of editors like the contentious voices who refuse to "live and let live", but instead insist that everyone contribute some minimum level of article that includes aspects that do not reflect their strengths or interests. If you let me contribute what I'm good at and I enjoy, then Wikipedia is a fun hobby that has the added benefit of adding something constructive to information readily available on the Internet. If you insist that I include in my contributions things that I find extremely tedious or tiresome, then it's a job, and since you're not paying me, I quit. Lvklock (talk) 03:26, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Lvklock (talk)

Statement by uninvolved Senra
Not all tiny stubs are bad. By way of illustration, a was manually created in September 2008, as were many other similar stubs, by. That stub was until May 2010. It was promoted to featured status in July 2010 where it currently remains. Perhaps each database should be vetted by the community prior to using semi-automated stub creation tools? -- Senra (talk) 13:49, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved Dennis Brown
Generally, I would echo Boing!'s statement and just add that it is sad to see Doncram's behavior decline in this fashion over the last year. There has been a denial of culpability and a quickness to assign blame that isn't conducive to a good working environment. Perhaps Doncram really believes that others are "out to get him" or are trying to bully him, although the evidence indicates otherwise. He has become an island in his own mind, and less willing to cooperate or consider the viewpoints with others. This has spilled into a number of venues and is to the point that it is disruptive to Wikipedia as whole. Dennis Brown - 2&cent;    &copy;  Join WER 13:53, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Acroterion
Over the past four years I've seen a move on the part of Doncram from an encouraging mentor as de facto project coordinator of the NRHP project to a destructive spiral of negative interaction with a wide variety of editors, to the point that some have left the project. While I don't care to emulate his style of creating brief stubs, it's certainly allowable and has been beneficial to the encyclopedia. What is detrimental is his increasingly casual attitude toward research and facts and their presentation, in which the creation of individual articles is prime and editorial judgment is discarded, and his radical personalization of disagreements with editors who contest his more dubiously-considered contributions. In 2010/2011 I attempted to mediate a dispute between Doncram, Polaron and Orlady over historic districts in Connecticut : we made small progress, but it was painful, and was an early indicator to me that more trouble was ahead. Since then, Doncram has become extraordinarily vindictive toward those with whom he disagrees, using words like "evil" on at least one occasion. Orlady has seen the worst vilification, as well as Sarek. Neither are blameless in their own regard, but I see no evidence of more than extreme frustration on their parts. Other editors have dropped out of the project (both NRHP and Wikipedia as a whole) because they're tired of standing on a battleground and tired of cleaning up after Doncram. Now this attitude metastasizes to Indian castes: in contrast to the stolid NRHP area, castes are always controversial, never clear-cut, and as explosive as anything on Wikipedia. A remedy is needed, and (though it's clear that this will go forward) I urge ArbCom to take this matter in hand.  Acroterion   (talk)   13:36, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Comment by Bishonen
Doncram's statement, posted some hours ago with an apology for being "longer than 500 words", is actually 1,728 words. That's merely the original statement, before the lengthy responses to others. You don't usually accept anything remotely that sort of length. And I don't think it's any advantage to Doncram themselves that their statement is so wordy people can't face reading it. Bishonen &#124; talk 17:43, 9 January 2013 (UTC).
 * I sent him ArbComSize. If the case hasn't been opened in 24 hours and the size of the statement doesn't go down, I will leave only the first 500 words. -- Guerillero &#124;  My Talk  21:34, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved Sjones23
Doncram's behavior has been declining over the last year. He is becoming less willing to cooperate or consider the viewpoints of others. This issue led to situations in a number of venues and is to the point that it is disruptive to the Wikipedia community. Orlady and Sarek have seen the worse vilification and other editors have left the project, which includes both NRHP and Wikipedia as a whole, because they are tired of standing on a battleground and tired of cleaning up after Doncram. I would like to encourage that the Arbitration Committee please look into this case. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 17:22, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Request for amendment (June 2013)

 * [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment&oldid=560560691 Original discussion]

Initiated by  Nyttend (talk) at 00:22, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Case affected :


 * Clauses to which an amendment is requested
 * 1) Principle 5
 * 2) Finding 1.1
 * 3) Remedy 2.1


 * List of users affected by or involved in this amendment
 * (initiator)


 * Confirmation that the above users are aware of this request
 * Carptrash (diff of notification of this thread on Username2's talk page)
 * Doncram (diff of notification of this thread on Username3's talk page)
 * Dudemanfellabra (diff of notification of this thread on Username4's talk page)


 * Information about amendment request
 * Arbitration/Requests/Case/Doncram. Not requesting any changes to principle 5 or finding 1.1; they're simply the relevant ones, and I wasn't clear if I needed to mention them, since the preloaded template mentioned all three things.
 * Requesting something along the lines of "Doncram is indefinitely banned from commenting on contributors"

Statement by Nyttend
Since the case was closed, we've had at least two AE requests (Archive132 and Archive135) related to Doncram's pattern of commenting on contributors, not on content; in both cases, AE admins decided that Doncram's actions hadn't risen to the level of "repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any normal editorial process or any expected standards of behavior and decorum". As a result, Doncram continues this pattern with edits such as this one: ''I think it is rotten that some editors feel that they can go around bashing me. Dudemanfellabra, obviously, was being rude, and it was reasonable for Carptrash to sense that, and to be offended. It is even more rude, in my opinion, for Dudemanfellabra to just clarify that he meant to bash me, instead. He meant to offend me, and to trumpet his disrespect to everyone else''. Much of the case centered around Doncram's comments on contributors, not content, and if I understood rightly, remedy 2.1 was included to prohibit such actions. Is this what we permit people to say when they've been placed on a general civility probation? If the remedy were created with this kind of edits in mind, Arbcom needs to reword it in such a way that the AE admins will enforce Arbcom's intentions. If Arbcom were simply meaning to solve the general WP:NPA situation and didn't have this specifically in mind, they need to add this prohibition because their current remedies aren't working. Nyttend (talk) 00:22, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps my original statement wasn't clear — the only reason I mentioned Carptrash and Dudemanfellabra is that Doncram's mentioned both of them in the diff to which I linked, and they're the only ones (besides Doncram and me) to have participated in the thread in question. Nyttend (talk) 00:27, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Doncram
(Temporary reply: I will edit this to add some diffs)  I myself wondered about opening a clarification question here, specifically about the tenor of remarks by editor Dudemanfellabra in several recent episodes, and about how I should respond. Nyttend links to my response to Dudemanfellabra in current discussion at wt:NRHP. Dudemanfellabra had said something negative directed at me but not completely clearly; another editor took offense; Dudemanfellabra explicitly clarified that he was targeting me; the other editor commented and I responded similarly that I have feelings too. I in fact do not like to be targeted and to be repeatedly bashed publicly.

As I then stated, I honestly don't know how to deal with an editor repeatedly bashing at me. I think it is wrong. I think we can in general have a guideline that editors should comment about edits and not editors, but what if one editor is following and repeatedly commenting in an antagonistic, personal way. I have been wondering if I should open a Request For Comment about Dudemanfellabra, about several recent comments.

I have chosen to respond in different ways: i simply deleted Dudemanfellabra's negative comments and all of the associated discussion section at my own Talk page in one recent case, where another editor was making complaint about good edits that I had made (e.g. this good edit) because I had not done something further on the associated Talk pages, and I was trying to respond positively enough, and Dudemanfellabra chimed in with a negative comment, and after one more comment by the other editor I deleted that all with mild "okay, chat over, thanks" edit summary.

In this post Dudemanfellabra calls my work "half-a**ed"; in the next edit I deleted that with edit summary "Delete swearing post, unwelcome". I am honestly offended at this tone and the words Dudemanfellabra is using.

Showing at wt:NRHP is another Dudemanfellabra comment calling my work out negatively, with 6 links to recent articles or drafts by me, with complaint about "just a lazy longquote from the nomination form as you're so inclined to do." I disagree completely about my work being "lazy" and I disagree completely about appropriate use of good quotes from NRHP nomination documents explaining why places are NRHP-listed. The discussion was not part of any policy or guideline discussion on quotes, it seems to me as just a side jab.

At wt:NRHP just now, in further discussion where Dudemanfellabra targets me, I thought I could not delete Dudemanfellabra's comment although I do feel it amounts to a personal attack--he even emphasizes that he is meaning to attack me personally--and I chose to respond as I did, by saying basically I did not like that. I think it is fair to observe that at least Dudemanfellabra seems to feel entitled to jab me at will, showing disrespect repeatedly. I request that Dudemanfellabra be advised to adhere to standards of civility, and to stop the repeated jabs.

The arbitration case may have not gone far enough to address a culture of negativity and repeated insulting that has grown over many years at WikiProject NRHP and in associated NRHP articles and personal Talk pages. It helped a lot that an interaction ban was put into place, eliminating one source of contention and negativity. The arbitration settlement is not a solution if other editors step up with contention and negativity, however. I rather think what's needed is for NRHP editors, at WikiProject NRHP, to speak up and say they don't want the negativity and the jabs. I was inviting that; what we have here is different, taking the "solution" process away from where it should be taken care of, IMHO. -- do ncr  am  00:37, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Kumioko
This submission is baseless and the comment that Doncram made, that Nyttend linked too, isn't even derogatory. I could list a dozen edits made by 3 editors alone that are far worse than that. He was simply responding too comments that were left by another editor and stated he had feelings too. I also want to add that the AE complaints that he is referring too were also thrown out for good reason. Editors shouldn't be expected to sit silently after repeated abuse. As I stated in a couple other places I think the Arbcom ban on him creating NRHP articles is a waste of Articles for Creations time. They created a special process just for Doncram because they recognize that its a waste of their time but they are forced into the situation by Arbcom. Kumioko (talk) 00:37, 17 June 2013 (UTC)


 * @Orlady, I feel I must point out that your conduct in the Doncram case was less than steller. Let alone for an admin. I don't deny that Doncram has made some harsh comments but its generally after someone has been unnecessarily harsh or insulting to him. Every link that has been provided shows that. Someone left him a nasty note, frequently uncivil and he responded in a way as to make it obvious he didn't appreciate it. I don't deny that. What I do have a problem with is him being singled out, without anyone saying anything to the other editors. I also have a very low opinion of the fact that no one seems to care and the prevailing desire here seems to be to ban him from the project. Kumioko (talk) 17:53, 17 June 2013 (UTC)


 * @Devils Advocate, I agree completely. This personal crusade by Nyttend against Doncram is far beyond an admin performing their role. He's flat out harassing and hounding Doncram and frankly it appears to me that he is goading Doncram into doing something he can block him for. Utterly unacceptable behavior for anyone, admin or otherwise. Kumioko (talk) 05:00, 18 June 2013 (UTC)


 * @Sandstein, your stating essentially that it is ok for other editors to insult Doncram but its not ok for him to comment back to them. Because the whole reason Doncram made those comments is because they were making derogatory comments about him. So, if you are going to punish a user for returning comments to an editor who is insulting them then you also need to be willing to deal with the other editor and tell them to be civil as well, which you seem utterly unwilling to do. These sanctions do nothing but allow a user to be targeted by editors who do not like them or their edits and we all know that there is always someone here in Wikipedia that is not going to like what we do. If you are going to punish Doncram for his comment which to me seem petty for this comment, then someone also needs to tell the other users to stop constantly harassing and insulting him with uncivil comments. Kumioko (talk) 11:09, 18 June 2013 (UTC)


 * @Thryduulf, there isn't a need to "present them", they are clearly evident in the discussion of the links provided against Doncram. The submitters just picked and choosed Doncrams comments because they supported their case. They didn't bother to present the whole picture because frankly, it would show that there is a lot more to the story than what they want to be known. Anyone can see it if they bothered to look instead of just assuming that the linkn provided is the end of the story which seems to be the case here. I'm not saying Doncram is innocent but when people are constantly harassing him over petty crap and then expect him to just sit there and take it I have a huge problem with that. Also, I couldn't get anyone to take action at ANI over an admin who was violating policy against a clear consensus why would I invest my time in an RFC when multiple admins seem hell bent on getting Doncram banned from the project. I am one editor who a lot of folks don't even like because I am vocal when they do something stupid and screw up. Particularly when they are admins and abuse their rights and status to get their way. If you want evidence go do some due diligence and read the discussions in context. Same goes for those admins and Arbs commenting on here. If your willing to block a user under a sanction for not sitting in a corner and letting others abuse them and not doing or saying anything to those other editors then you should quite being arbs and admins because you don't deserve the position or the responsibility. Kumioko (talk) 14:43, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Carptrash
I believe that I unknowingly wandered into a combat zone and took a shot that was aimed at someone else. There is obviously history at play here and I don't understand it well enough to offer anything useful. I was invited to comment, I have never been to one of these events before. Now I have and I won't use up more of your energy. Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 14:19, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Orlady
As a party to the Arbcom case (but not to the talk-page discussion that precipitated this request), I agree with the request for amendment. In my view, Doncram's long-standing habit of commenting on the person rather than the subject matter -- and of interpreting comments on his content as personal attacks motivated by personal vendettas against him -- was one of the main issues underlying the Arbcom case. I thought that warnings -- rather than sanctions -- under the existing probation were appropriate in the two Arbitration Enforcement instances cited because I hoped that Doncram would heed the warnings. However, that's not working. I think this amendment is needed (1) in view of the recent evidence that he is reverting to the kind of behavior that got us to Arbcom in the first place and (2) because administrators at AE were reluctant to act because the Arbcom remedies did not explicitly refer to this kind of behavior as being subject to sanctions. --Orlady (talk) 17:09, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
 * @Kumioko: If you have serious concerns about my conduct (in the Arbcom case or elsewhere), please provide (ideally somewhere other than this page) diffs illustrating the behavior that you object to. I'm tired of innuendo about my behavior that's based on the theory that "where there's smoke, there must be fire" (i.e., the assumption that Doncram -- and a couple of other users I won't name here -- must have had a valid basis for all those horrible things they said about me). --Orlady (talk) 18:50, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

I am pleased to see that Doncram has removed a couple of comments that were sources of concern in this discussion. --Orlady (talk) 16:50, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Dudemanfellabra
I don't really have anything to add either. I believe my evaluation of Doncram's contributions is accurate. Although his contribution history is a long one, anyone willing to take the time to look over everything will see a minimal improvement at best after the arbitration, as far as substantive contributions (i.e. article writing). No one is asking him to create only like featured articles or anything, but as has been said many times before, if he just put a little more time and effort into everything he does to make it more presentable and less quick-fix-y, the number of complaints/attacks about/on him would drop off drastically.--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 17:18, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Statement by The Devil's Advocate
Again? Nyttend needs to leave Doncram alone. It is as simple as that. There is nothing in the diff Nyttend provides that points to any issue unless we are saying that Doncram shouldn't be allowed to object to what other people say about him. He has been dogging Doncram for some time, even using his admin tools to further his interests in their feud, and it is time for it to stop. What Arbs should consider is an amendment enacting an interaction ban between Nyttend and Doncram.-- The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 20:50, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

@Sandstein, did you see the comment Dudeman made? While one could argue that uncivil remarks such as "your trademark quick-fix, let-someone-else-clean-up-my-mess style" are better off ignored, it is quite obscene to suggest that objecting to such remarks is worthy of sanction. I would think the purpose of the probation is to keep Doncram from over-reacting or attacking without prior provocation, not to give anyone he might be in a dispute with a chance to get their licks in with impunity.-- The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 07:28, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Mathsci
There does not seem to be any reason for an amendment to the Doncram case. During that case, fault was found with Doncram. The outcome of the case was unambiguous and very little has changed. Continued attempts to suggest otherwise and to cast the blame on others, either here or at WP:AE, are unhelpful, not supported by any evidence and will not alter the outcome of the case.

In the last report at WP:AE, the uninvolved administrators Sandstein, Gatoclass and EdJohnston commented. Doncram was given a logged warning not to personalise discussions. A glance at the talk page of WikiProject NRHP shows that he has taken no notice of that advice. The hyperbolic personalised language—exaggerated claims of being hounded and victimised—that was criticized in the arbitration case is being repeated. It is only the editors at the receiving end of his comments that have changed. That confirms, if confirmation were needed, that it was not other parties in the arbcom case that were at fault. Doncram's comments are unconstructive, create a toxic editing atmosphere and stifle discussion. During the case, Doncram avoided a site ban and a topic ban, partly because parties like Orlady and Nyttend discouraged any measures like that.

The arbitration committee can indicate informally to administrators at WP:AE that the findings concerning Doncram were serious and that he is still on probation. The outcome of the case means that Doncram is not in the situation of a regular editor. If he continues to repeat the conduct criticized in the final decision and for which he has subsequently received a logged warning, then reports at WP:AE of future violations should result in more than just further warnings. Mathsci (talk) 03:36, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The findings of the arbitration committee were written as guidance both for the parties and for uninvolved administrators at WP:AE. They included problems with article editing (2.2) and with responses during discussions (2.1). Exactly the same problems have arisen with new NRHP editors. Those who disagreed with the outcome during the case were given ample opportunity to comment at the time. Recycling those objections now, either here or at WP:AE, is not helpful. "Evidence" of problems with other parties was presented during the case and did not convince arbitrators. Similar claims are being made now. Without supporting diffs, however, assertions of that kind are unhelpful and, as Thryduulf mentions, potentially harmful. Mathsci (talk) 15:24, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Sandstein
In reply to AGK: I was one of the administrators who processed the AE requests Nyttend refers to (1 and 2). After re-reading the discussions, it appears to me that while my administrator colleagues and I agreed that Doncram's conduct was problematic, we were of the view that it did not rise to the level of "repeatedly or seriously", as envisaged in the relevant sanction, that would require action beyond an explicit warning. At least on my part, what may also have been relevant was an impression that the conduct by some of the editors engaged in disputes with Doncram appeared similarly confrontative, such that sanctioning Doncram only might have created the appearance of one-sidedness. In view of the most recent edit cited here by Nyttend, it does now appear to me, prima facie, that Doncram's practice of commenting about contributors rather than content, in a derogatory manner ("stop Dudemanfellabra from polluting [the project]") meets the requirement of repeated misconduct that would warrant sanctions, if this were an enforcement request.  Sandstein  05:38, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Several users have criticized that the sanction only covers misconduct by Doncram, not by others. As indicated above, I agree in principle that this is not optimal. In my view, the Arbitration Committee should try to craft conduct restrictions in such a way that all users involved in a (future) dispute can be held to the same standard of conduct - for example, by way of discretionary sanctions or other topic-level restrictions. However, once the case is closed and we are at WP:AE, we must apply the sanctions as they are written, not as we may wish them to be written, even if that means that we must sanction users who are subject to individualized restrictions (for what I must assume are good reasons) for conduct we are not authorized to sanction in others. If that turns out to be a problem, interested users may petition the Committee, through this process, to modify the sanction. But in this case, I do not think that the possibility of Doncram being provoked into disruptive behavior warrants amending the sanction. In my view, everyone is responsible for their own conduct, without regard to what others may have done. That means everyone is also responsible for not letting themselves be provoked. Including not by comments such as "your trademark quick-fix, let-someone-else-clean-up-my-mess style": While I agree that such comments are uncollegial and confrontative and ought to be avoided, they do focus on a reasonably specific perceived content problem, rather than on Doncram as a person, which is why I would argue they fall short of being sanctionable, at least under our current (regrettably loose, in my view) civility standards.  Sandstein   15:21, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Statement by EdJohnston
@AGK: I participated in [//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive135#Doncram the May 28 AE]. I agree with Sandstein that if more reports are made to AE of a similar nature we should consider taking some admin action. Blocking is something to consider, but short blocks seem unlikely to affect the long-term hostilities. In June 2012, User:Doncram returned to editing after a six-month block without evidence of any change. Read his talk page for the dates immediately following his return. See the tone of the [//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Doncram/Archive_20#Bert_Leedy_Round_Barn Round Barn talk thread of June 2012]. Doncram was picking up just where he left off, both in the positive sense (content) and the negative sense (interpersonal) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ADoncram&diff=500111611&oldid=499992037]. See the comment about 'hateful behavior': The six month block was the last community action taken, and if the problem continues, one could see the argument for a 12-month block. Another option might be more restrictions on Doncram. That couldn't be done at AE, but a new request for amendment could be made to the committee. Short blocks for incivility in a case like this one seem like they wouldn't stop the endless recurrence of the problem. EdJohnston (talk) 15:45, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Thryduulf
@Kumioko, The Devil's Advocate and others

If you feel that one or more users are harrassing and/or baiting Doncram, then you need to present evidence (diffs) of this behaviour in a suitable location, probably an RfC about their conduct. Being on the receiving end of incivility does not excuse anyone from acting incivilly themselves, but if you feel that he is being baited and that this should reduce any punishment then you need to comment to this effect at AE when his incivility is brought there.

Accusations of baiting, without presenting evidence of such, are just as harmful as actual baiting is (c.f. Orlady's "smoke without fire" comment). Thryduulf (talk) 14:28, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Gatoclass
I'm inclined to agree that there is no need for an amendment to the case and that I see no reason why a complaint of this type couldn't be handled at WP:AE. Gatoclass (talk) 16:01, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Clerk notes

 * This section is for administrative notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Arbitrator views and discussion

 * The thing here is that Doncram could already be placed under the restriction you suggest under the terms of his existing probation if, at WP:AE, the evidence were there to justify or if an individual administrator felt strongly enough to do so. Am I misreading this or is it being suggested that the sanction be modified in order to encourage others to sanction them and/or make it easier for them to do so?  Roger Davies  talk 05:36, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
 * We need to hear from the administrators who declined to sanction Doncram after the Arbitration Enforcement (AE) requests in question. Nyttend, please notify the AE administrators of this amendment request, and then tell us when you have done so. We need to know why the administrators determined they should not sanction Doncram. AGK  [•] 13:12, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Agree with AGK. NW ( Talk ) 03:18, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * @Ed: AE actually has quite a lot of flexibility here. R2.1 was written as a "you can try to do anything short of a site ban" remedy. I originally proposed that remedy because it is clear that while Doncram has a lot to offer the community, normal sanctioning procedure has not worked. That's not holding him to a different standard; that's saying that procedural restrictions on obtaining consensus for novel sanctions to address the same problematic behavior as another hypothetical editor can be dropped. With that said, I don't think that there is much that the Committee could or should do in this instance, and I think it's up to the broader community to address the matter in the manner that they see best. NW ( Talk ) 16:38, 18 June 2013 (UTC)


 * In light of Sandstein's statement, I don't think it's necessary for us to intervene here. T. Canens (talk) 10:00, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * @Ed: Remedy 2.1 explicitly allows for the imposition of "any other sanction that the administrator deems appropriate". AE is fully empowered to impose additional restrictions to address the issues, and to enforce them with blocks if necessary. T. Canens (talk) 05:30, 19 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I fully support Sandstein's comments. There has traditionally been difficulty/discomfort in imposing conduct sanctions on a user who is unnecessarily provoked, and there may be room to consider a provision somewhere that users found to have unnecessarily provoked a user under conduct sanctions should share in the imposed sanction. Dudemanfellabra's remark was uncollegiate, and it may be appropriate for AE admins to consider giving him a warning. Meanwhile, Doncram should have better sense at this stage than to respond in the manner that he did. However, AE can handle this, and Sandstein appears to be on top of it.  SilkTork  ✔Tea time  15:59, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Request for amendment (March 2014)
[//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment&oldid=601239410#Amendment_request:_Doncram Original Amendment Request]

Initiated by  SarekOfVulcan (talk)  at 16:17, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Case affected :


 * Clauses to which an amendment is requested
 * 1) Remedy 5


 * List of users affected by or involved in this amendment
 * (initiator)


 * Confirmation that the above users are aware of this request
 * [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ADoncram&diff=600178243&oldid=598395824 Doncram notified] by Thryduulf (talk) 16:39, 18 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Information about amendment request


 * Remedy 5
 * I would like to have the ban removed

Statement by SarekOfVulcan
During my last RFA, the interaction ban was a reason for at least one of the opposes. It has been in place for a year. I would like to establish that this ban is no longer necessary before running again, so I ask that it be removed so I can work on establishing a track record.
 * @ - over the past year, I've adapted to a much less confrontational style of editing. I'd like to be able to prove that the ban isn't needed anymore, but the only way to do that is to try it and find out. I'm sure there are more than enough people out there who will be happy to alert you if I'm mistaken. :-) -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:33, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
 * To clarify, I'm not asking for the ban to be removed so that I can interact with Doncram - just so that I can establish that I can avoid him without being forced to. -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:44, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
 * @ - yes, I was asking for the ban to be removed, not to be changed to be one-sided. -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 02:54, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
 * @ - That sounds like a good plan. -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:58, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
 * @ - oh, there were definitely other issues at play there. This was the only one that I couldn't affect by just changing my behavior. -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:01, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Doncram
No way, if it is up to me, unless it is part of a complete revocation of all restrictions against me, including a ban on my editing in NRHP area, and unless there is an explicit promise by SarekOfVulcan that he shall not follow and combat me, and that should be enforceable (i.e., in effect be a continuing interaction ban). The interaction ban was a result of arbitration begun by SarekOfVulcan, following long campaign of following my edits and combatting which dragged down my reputation, including multiple ANIs and AFDs and discussion at Jimbo Wales Talk page, and so on, and which I and some others perceived and still perceive as unjustified bullying, and the interaction ban was the only good outcome of the case. SarekOfVulcan has not communicated any meaningful apology for his actions, publicly or privately; his comnents in recent RFA were patheticly inadequate. I cannot see what he could say publicly or privately that would be adequate, either. -- do ncr  am  18:01, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Candleabracadabra
I think that Doncram has done an impressive job of abiding by very biting restrictions on his editing. I urge the Arb committee to lift these sanctions so he can return to making positive contributions. The restrictions have been a loss to Wikipedia and his fellow editors. I oppose a one-sided removal of restrictions. As Doncram has noted, the problems were in large part a result of Sarek's combative behavior. Sarek promises that he has learned form past mistakes. Doncram has been punished long enough. And the NRHP editing environment has gotten worse without his presence, enormously useful contributions, and assistance to fellow editors. Candleabracadabra (talk) 02:43, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
 * To clarify per Sarek's response, if you can avoid engagement with Doncram his editing restrictions as well as the interaction ban should be removed. If you hadn't pursued the conflict with him the ban on his editing and the ban on your interacting him would BOTH not be in place. You are requesting to remove your interaction ban so you can further your political aspirations on Wiki without moving to assist him in having his full editing priviledges restored. The loss of his ability to work on NRHP subjects has been very bad for his fellow editors and for Wikipedia. You should work to resolve that issue if you want your restrictions lifted and think you can be an effective administrator. Doncram masde enormous contributions to an area you r involvement in the dispute got him banned from. I don't think you should be allowed to "move on" without helping to end the dispute and helping to restore this hugely constructive editor to good standing in the article area where he did SO MUCH good. Candleabracadabra (talk) 03:00, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Orlady
I tried to refrain from commenting here, but here I am, anyway. Seeing that it's been a full year since this arbcom case closed and both parties have apparently successfully abided by the mutual interaction ban, I think it would be timely to remove the imposed ban on mutual interaction and replace it with a voluntary agreement to avoid interaction. I call your attention to some prehistory of this case that I believe is relevant background on the interaction ban: ANI discussion from July 2012. SarekOfVulcan started that discussion by expressing concern about several statements that Doncram had made about me that Sarek (and I) deemed to be serious personal attacks. That discussion led to a (temporary) voluntary moratorium on interactions (between Doncram and both Sarek and me). The voluntary moratorium was proposed by User:Cbl62 in a comment that stated, in part: I really don't care to get into a "blame" or "fault" game, but the relationship between these good people has been very negative for more than a year. ... I don't see [Doncram] reacting with similar venom except toward Orlady and Sarek. Given the past history, any criticism he receives from Sarek and Orlady is received with extreme sensitivity. As I see it, the principal reason for avoiding interactions between Sarek and Doncram (and between Doncram and me) was and still is Doncram's "extreme sensitivity" to interactions with Sarek (and me) -- and his history of displaying that extreme sensitivity by reacting in an uncivil fashion. Arbcom's decision to apply an imposed interaction ban (in lieu of a voluntary "ban") between Sarek and Doncram seems to have been motivated mainly by the fact that Sarek had deliberately edit-warred, violating 3RR. Given the apparent nature of Doncram's perceptions of and reactions to Sarek (and what appears to be a more severely negative perception of and reaction to me), it is understandable that Doncram would oppose any relaxation of the ban. However, both of these editors are grownups who should be able to regulate their behavior and their emotions without a ban. If the year-long interaction ban was not long enough to allow Doncram to "get over" the effects of edit-warring that occurred in 2011, that does not bode well for any future requests he might make to vacate other restrictions that resulted from this case. I believe that both parties would abide by a voluntary agreement, and if they do so, the history of success possibly could help Doncram support a future request to review the other restrictions. --Orlady (talk) 16:09, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Clerk notes

 * This section is for administrative notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Arbitrator views and discussion

 * Sarek, I have to say you haven't give us much to go on here. You want to establish that the ban is not necessary so you can run for RFA again. You wanting to be an admin again is not a reason for the committee to do anything. In other words, I would want to see something a little more compelling that "it's been a year" to reassure that the problems of the past would not happen again. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:20, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
 * For the interaction ban to be totally removed from both parties (as SoV is requesting) so that SoV can demonstrate that he is able to avoid commenting on Doncram, we need to assess whether the same applies to Doncram (whether Doncram can exercise sufficient self-control). If Doncram can demonstrate that they have reached a point where they can move forward as regards the interaction ban, then I would consider reducing this to both being informally 'bound over to hold the peace' with a full lifting a year later, otherwise I would only consider reducing this to a one-way interaction ban (with SoV informally agreeing not to interact with Doncram for another year - equivalent to being bound over to hold the peace). The difference is that breaches of an interaction ban can lead to a block. Breaches of an informal 'bound over to hold the peace' type arrangements would lead to re-imposition of the interaction ban (at WP:AE) rather than a block. The issue of Doncram's topic ban should be raised separately and filed by Doncram himself (if he wishes to do so) rather than raised by others (as above). Carcharoth (talk) 08:35, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Years ago, while discussing an IBAN proposal on ANI, someone (can't remember who) wrote this is an interaction ban, not an interaction blame, to emphasise that interaction bans do not necessarily presuppose misbehaviour on the part of either user, but rather they are imposed when two or more people have demonstrated that, for whatever reason, they are unable to interact in a productive fashion and their interactions usually result in a massive waste of time for everyone. For that reason, even if an interaction ban is lifted, it's generally a good idea for both parties to continue to avoid each other. Also, since interaction bans are reciprocal in nature and are meant to protect both editors from the negative effects their interactions usually have, they should be lifted only if a. both editors agree or b. there is a very important reason to do so. The desire to run for adminship, for me, is not reason enough to override Doncram's objection. Salvio Let's talk about it! 09:55, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
 * It's annoying when you've written your thoughts down, only to have another arb edit conflict with you and say it better. Salvio. In summary, interaction bans are there to stop the disruption caused by two people interacting - there's so much history there that the interactions are never going to be productive. I really don't like one-way interaction bans for that reason, and agree to them only in exceptional circumstances. Having looked at the RfA in question, I don't believe the issue was the interaction ban, but rather how Sarek handled questions regarding the case. I do not see that lifting the interaction ban would be helpful, especially with Doncram's objection. Worm TT( talk ) 10:10, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree with the above so far as the interaction ban removal is concerned; that being that if one party to the IBAN objects to lifting it, we would need very good cause to overrule that, and "I want to file an RfA" does not meet that burden. Sarek is not barred from filing an RfA by the sanction and could explain the ban in the candidate statement if so desired. Modification of any other sanction imposed as a discretionary sanction should go through the normal appeals process for DS. Seraphimblade Talk to me 16:23, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Decline, per Seraphimblade et al. AGK  [•] 16:21, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The IBAN does not restrict you from running for adminship, and I am not inclined to remove the ban, particularly with Doncram's objection. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:40, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Amendment request: Doncram (May 2016)
Original discussion

Initiated by Doncram at 14:24, 10 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Case or decision affected


 * Clauses to which an amendment is requested
 * 1) Arbitration/Requests/Case/Doncram (12 March 2013)
 * 2) Arbitration/Requests/Case/Doncram (12 March 2013)
 * 3) Arbitration/Requests/Case/Doncram (25 September 2013)


 * List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:''
 * (initiator)


 * Information about amendment request
 * Arbitration/Requests/Case/Doncram (12 March 2013)
 * Request release from probation


 * Arbitration/Requests/Case/Doncram (12 March 2013)
 * Request removal of restriction on creation of new articles


 * Arbitration/Requests/Case/Doncram (25 September 2013)
 * Request removal of topic ban (topic = National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) articles)

Statement by Doncram
For years I have abided by the restrictions, and have not appealed them though I could have a year later. Instead I have participated in other areas of Wikipedia, including at wp:AFD where per wp:AFDSTATS I have voted in more than 600 cases since then. I'm proud of my influencing numerous AFDs in a good way (see User:Doncram/AFDs). A large number of edits of mine stem from my participation at wp:Disambiguation Pages With Links; I won its August 2015 competition by disambiguatimg 1,780 articles. I have created almost 800 articles since the arbitration case, complying by submitting articles through AFC. Early on I sought to compensate for the effort imposed on AFC editors by myself participating as a volunteer there, but dropped that when it was suggested that my promoting others' articles as part of AFC work was not allowed.

About the NRHP topic ban, I substantially complied. My compliance was questioned a few times by a non-logged-in editor in cases usually resolved by my modifying a comment that I had made in an AFD or at a Talk page. ''And I did respond directly at wt:NRHP to a suggestion that a huge amount of past work by me was suspect, when that was a misperception, and my response did completely settle the concern. (Technically I should not have responded there, and I was given warning for that, but it seemed more honest than posing a clarification request here stating the response and asking if I could communicate it, and thereby indirectly delivering it.)'' A reason for my preparing this request now is that I wanted to be free to address Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of courthouse buildings in the United States: A, although that is now closed. I acknowledged in that AFD the relevance of my topic ban and addressed that in part by stating I would report myself (which this does). An ironic effect of the NRHP topic ban all along has been that I cannot improve NRHP-related articles which I created when there is a complaint that they are not satisfactory in some way. The courthouses article is an example. During its AFD I reorganized but did not add new NRHP material, but I would have preferred to be free to complete the expansion that was needed. Also over time I have noted factual errors in watchlisted NRHP-related articles that I would have liked to address. I would like to fix those problems, and I would like to resume my practice of improving NRHP-related articles created by myself and others where more sources have gradually become available online, or where I am otherwise interested.

For anyone now or ever concerned about my creation of articles, I would like to point out that in my entire editing history, by my analysis there have been only a handful of articles I created that were subsequently deleted, even though the NRHP topic ban prevented me from participating in AFDs since 2013. Also the community never addressed Arbitration/Requests/Case/Doncram, but for what it is worth I have no intention to antagonize editors focused upon stub articles in the NRHP area.


 * I want to ask for some slack about the first comment I made in the recent AFD, in which TheCatalyst31 is correct in pointing out that I unnecessarily commented about my experience of the 2012 actions of another editor. I was embarrassed about the state of the article, and I reacted in part by putting fault onto them.


 * I wish I had not opened my mouth that way. Being reminded of the article, I would have preferred simply to fix it without saying anything at all, but given the topic ban I could not.  It screamed at me that some explanation was needed, when the nomination was correctly pointing out that the title bizarrely did not match the contents, and also I wanted to try for a suspension/withdrawal of the AFD by the nominator (which was declined) so I commented.  When making the comment I recall feeling that I had split the difference between saying nothing to explain the article's condition (which embarrassed me) vs. saying more (I don't recall what), but I regret that I showed my thin skin and included any trace of personalized comment at all.  Granting this request would allow me to return and fix some other NRHP-related articles that I know have deficiencies and avoid exactly this kind of situation from arising.


 * As a mitigating factor, please note that after my initial comment, I think I acted reasonably:
 * I tried to recharacterize the past more moderately: "I returned to the article in 2012 when my watchlist showed several changes starting with this one. As I recall I left the article again to avoid contention, until I came across it recently in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/Today or Category:AfD debates (Places and transportation), which I browse frequently." (Saying this much should not have been necessary to start with either, but I was trying to replace what I said in the first comment. Saying essentially "Yep, contention happened but we don't need to go into it.  And I haven't been hanging on whatever the NRHP editors are doing, it's just random that I noticed this.")
 * I suggested that I would seek some resolution / permission (which I could not immediately do, as it took time to figure out processes here and look for past relevant similar requests) which is what this is now
 * I acknowledged validity of some concerns and I edited at the article, reorganizing it without adding new NRHP material, immediately addressing some of them. I crossed my fingers about this being okay, ban-wise.
 * As one editor put it, I was "skirting rather close to" my topic ban, but no one directly objected and I edited some more to respond to further comments that I agreed were also valid
 * In my final edit in the AFD i provided a diff to final cleaned up list-article (readable by admins only, I presume, not readable by me) which showed the article cleaned up, organization-wise
 * At least one editor "granted" that organizational concerns had been addressed, but still compared it to a wp:kitten (a kitten could be "roughly framed out" but "left 97% undone for other editors to deal with") and questioned whether I could "see it through" to an acceptable state by doing the "heavy lifting" needed.
 * That's what I would like to do, in any other articles that are at all "kittenish"--and there are a few, none as poor as that one though--I would like to do the "heavy lifting" that this editor suggested was necessary.


 * Let me say more:


 * I consider the 3 years since the arbitration to be more than a pause in contention. The time allowed me to disconnect from the area, and it may have allowed some others to let go of some stuff too.  The continuing NRHP editors have done whatever they wanted, which is great.  At this point, I would rather not revisit any of the pre-2013 drama, and I care less about what the NRHP editors do.  I am quite happy to be out of various roles I used to play, like trying to accommodate new editors differently than others would.  I appreciate not being blamed for anything new since 2013.  I don't want to be blamed for anything else going forward either, and that includes my respecting the effective consensus that new short stubs are not wanted. (That's not so hard to abide by, either, as the short stubs that were needed for various purposes--like to avoid or settle contention from non-NRHP editors about disambiguation pages needed to support the NRHP area--were in fact all created.)


 * I don't want the article creation ban continued because it gets in the way of my working effectively in completely unrelated areas. Like my creation of this was central in settling long-running contention between others about the Isle of Man area.  Like allowing me to volunteer at AFC.  And it is not necessary.  I did in fact learn from using the AFC process, by my experiencing how uninvolved, non-NRHP editors viewed new draft articles.  I likely will continue to use AFC or seek someone else's opinion when I am unsure whether a draft is mainspace-worthy, but the project is not served by requiring that.


 * I don't want general probation continued because that is not necessary either. I have constructively participated for three years, including removing causes for contention in various areas.  At this point I deserve to be allowed to get credit or not for my peace-making or other skills going forward, without anyone being able to characterize me later as doing okay but only because I was under special scrutiny, and without a cloud over me causing editors to have unnecessary concern.


 * If I wanted to come back earlier, I and others might have still been too raw. Give me some credit for removing myself for longer.  But three years is an eternity, and I request to be trusted without any of these three restrictions. -- do  ncr  am  19:57, 12 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Q: Just for fun: How many short stub articles, out of the 4,412 "NRIS only" articles that Dudemanfellabra links to below, would you guess were created by Doncram? An answer is here. -- do  ncr  am  04:47, 13 April 2016 (UTC)



Statement by TheCatalyst31
I was one of the folks who asked for this topic ban in the first place, and I'd still be very reluctant to see this lifted. The issue is not just the quality of Doncram's articles (though that was a pretty big issue as of when the ban took place), it's that he can't seem to get along with other editors working on NRHP-related articles. Before the topic ban, the project seemingly had a major dispute every other month, and we lost several productive editors to it; since the topic ban, we've barely had any conflict at all. Given that Doncram recently accused another NRHP editor of sabotaging an article, I don't see a change in that behavior, and I'd still be pretty worried about disturbing the peace. TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 12:36, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Seraphimblade
Given the issue brought up by TheCatalyst31, accusing someone of "sabotaging" an article for a simple move as recently as last month, I'd be very hesitant to advocate lifting the restrictions at this time. That's awfully similar to the behavior that led to these restrictions in the first place. I'd like to first see that Doncram has stopped taking disagreements so personally and is able to participate in discussion about them in a civil manner. Seraphimblade Talk to me 20:23, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
 * To reply to the request from, while I said I would be hesitant, I'm not categorically opposed. I think the solution proposed here is a good way to test the waters, and I don't have any objection to it. Doncram, in the event it passes, I hope your return to this area is a successful one. Seraphimblade Talk to me 14:44, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
 * As a point of clarification, though, now that I think about it, the portion of the motion removing the topic ban allows Doncram to edit "stubs". Does this mean only stubs, i.e., articles tagged as such? It would seem to me to make more sense to word it to say "existing articles" if that's the intent. Seraphimblade Talk to me 14:52, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Dudemanfellabra
Although I did not comment on the original arbitration request, my name was mentioned several times, and I was closely involved with Doncram before the ban/other restrictions. I believe, actually, at the time of the arbitration that I was taking an extended break from Wikipedia, largely due to the conflicts surrounding Doncram and WP:NRHP.

Personally I agree with TheCatalyst31 that the project has been running rather smoothly without Doncram for the past three years (wow, has it really been that long?!). Despite the recent comments that were pointed out above, I would be conditionally supportive of lifting the topic ban, though I would still like to see the article creation ban in place. We have way too many short articles (many of which were created by Doncram himself, which is relevant in my opinion) that can be expanded before we start worrying about creating new articles, especially the short template-esque stubs that Doncram was known for creating before the ban. I might support the idea of allowing Doncram to work on these stubs and otherwise re-integrate himself into the project. If the topic ban were to be lifted in this manner, I would still think the general probation requirement should stand. If he were to get into some contentious debate attacking the editor rather than the edits, I think the ban should be reinstated.--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 22:42, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Doncram gives an estimate of the number of NRIS-only articles on this page that he believes were created by him. I have actual numbers here, generated by a script I wrote here. Of the 4386 articles currently listed on the page, he created 784, or roughly 17.9% of them. That's quite a lot higher than his estimate of 294, or 6.7%. Only two editors created more of the articles on that page than he did, Swampyank with 1169 (26.7%) and Ebyabe with 788 (18.0%). Just so everyone has the facts here.--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 09:11, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Statement by JzG
If the ban is lifted (which seems fair enough given the passage of time without further incident) I would suggest a restriction preventing (a) title-warring or (b) the creation of context-free stubs, which were the main problems before. Guy (Help!) 23:15, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Ammodramus
I've been involved with WikiProject NRHP for some years, and have had a number of interactions, positive and otherwise, with Doncram. I'm inclined to concur with TheCatalyst and Seraphimblade: the project's talk page has been characterized by civil discourse and mutual respect over the past few years, and I question whether this would continue if Doncram's topic ban were removed.

One reason why Doncram's participation led to so much strife was his apparent unwillingness or inability to recognize that consensus could go against his position. When other participants joined in disagreeing with his chosen course, he tended to attribute it to "bullying" (e.g., , , ). Unfortunately, he again deployed this trope in his recent "harassing, bullying" comment at AfD. A one-time lapse in AGF is understandable and forgivable, but the choice of words suggests that he still perceives the project as dominated by active and influential bullies who find pleasure in ganging up on those who're actually trying to build the encyclopedia.

Doncram's user page does nothing to alleviate my concern. Opposition to bullying is laudable, when bullying is actually taking place; and expressing an opinion on the incidence and severity of bullying at WP is certainly allowable on one's user page. However, Doncram's past use of the term suggests that his world picture is one of "Doncram trying to improve WP despite persistent attacks by bullies". This does not bode well for the future of constructive discussion at the project talk page.

If Doncram's topic ban is removed, I'd support Dudemanfellabra's recommendation of a continuing article-creation ban. Although it was hardly the only source of strife, much of the contention at the WikiProject revolved around Doncram's mass-creation of what most members regarded as subminimal stubs. I don't share Opabina's optimism that Doncram will abide by "the minimal expectations for a reasonable stub", absent a strong and unequivocal policy to compel him to do so: while he was active in the project, he continued to create two-sentence robo-stubs despite fairly strong consensus against them. — Ammodramus (talk) 12:48, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Beyond My Ken
I agree with Ammodramus, Dudemanfellabra and JzG that if Doncram's topic ban is lifted, it needs to be replaced with either a ban on creating articles entirely or, at the very least, a ban on creating basically contentless stubs. Whether Opabina's perception is true or not in the general case (I certainly haven't noticed any general movement away from the creation of "sub-stubs") really doesn't necessarily follow in this specific case. The determination of ArbCom was that Doncram was not helping the furtherance of the encyclopedia by creating such articles, and years of other activities says very little about what their behavior would be like in their preferred subject area if sanctions were lifted entirely. BMK (talk) 07:10, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Just a non-Arb agreement that Doug Weller's proposal seems apt. BMK (talk) 23:18, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Einbierbitte
I have been with the project practically from its inception. I have never had any acrimony or conflict with Doncram, but I note that he has acted against consensus. I think that the ban should be lifted with the caveats mentioned by Beyond My Ken. Einbierbitte (talk) 15:10, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Station1
Late on 25 April, Doncram made edits to Chicago Boulevard System that added information about a NRHP historic district and a proposed NRHP historic district. He has also made several comments at Articles for deletion/Chicago Boulevard System that rely on his link to a web page about the proposed district, as well as comments at User talk:Jayaguru-Shishya. Also on 25 April, he made edits to Taliesin (studio), a NRHP property. All these edits seem to me to violate the topic ban. Perhaps others disagree. I also noticed this edit summary includes an incorrect accusation. Station1 (talk) 01:26, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Statement by {other-editor}
Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the amendment request or provide additional information.

Doncram: Clerk notes

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


 * Done. Kevin ( aka L235 ·&#32; t ·&#32; c) 04:42, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Doncram: Arbitrator views and discussion

 * Given the age of the sanctions and the absence of any obvious conduct issues for the past several years, I'd be inclined to lift them. However, I'd like to hear from some of the other editors who would be affected by this.   Please invite  and WikiProject National Register of Historic Places to comment here. Kirill Lokshin (talk) 01:04, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
 * It appears that these sanctions were last used in 2013, and Doncram's most recent block was a brief one for edit warring in 2014. Given the time that's passed, I'd be inclined to relax or remove the restrictions. I'm not convinced that one recent incident of frustration, with a reasonably constructive follow-up response, is a major concern. The community may not have had a formal discussion about stubs as recommended in the case, but standards have drifted upwards over time in any event. The minimal expectations for a reasonable stub created by a long-term editor are certainly much higher than they used to be, so I'm not sure that an explicit restriction on article creation is needed. However, I wasn't active at the time of this case, so I'd like to hear more input before making any suggestions. Opabinia regalis (talk) 19:00, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Also agree with Doug. Pinging to make sure you see this, since this request has been sitting for a bit. Opabinia regalis (talk) 21:30, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Good point, . Since no one's voted yet anyway, I made the change from "stubs" to "articles". Opabinia regalis (talk) 00:56, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
 * It seem to me that enough timehas gone by to grant the appeal.  DGG ( talk ) 23:46, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I'd like to propose this:
 * remove the "general probation", unused since 2013
 * allow creation of non-NHRP articles
 * revise the NHRP topic ban to allow him to edit existing stubs but not create new articles.
 * Comments? Doug Weller  talk 15:29, 25 April 2016 (UTC)


 * I support Doug's proposal. Drmies (talk) 15:39, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Doug's proposal sounds like a good compromise. Seems reasonable. --kelapstick(bainuu) 21:11, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Doncram: Motion


Enacted -  Mini  apolis  12:47, 11 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1) Opabinia regalis (talk) 00:56, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
 * 2) Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:59, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
 * 3)  Doug Weller  talk 14:03, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
 * 4) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:40, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
 * 5)  DGG ( talk ) 04:48, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
 * 6) kelapstick(bainuu) 05:28, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
 * 7) Kirill Lokshin (talk) 23:33, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
 * 8) Keilana (talk) 19:01, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * 9) Drmies (talk) 21:55, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * 10) GorillaWarfare (talk) 07:47, 11 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose


 * Comments
 * Proposing this to get the request moving, I'm still deciding. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:00, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Amendment request: Doncram (November 2016)

 * Original discussion

Initiated by Doncram at 01:09, 30 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Case or decision affected


 * Clauses to which an amendment is requested
 * 1) May 2016 motion that Doncram "is indefinitely restricted from creating new pages, except for redirects, in article space which are related to the National Register of Historic Places, broadly construed."


 * List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:''
 * (initiator)


 * Information about amendment request
 * May 2016 motion
 * Request rescindment of the restriction.

Statement by Doncram
I request complete release of a very old restriction on my creating new articles in mainspace. Specifically, remedy 2.3 of the Doncram arbitration case, passed 12 March 2013, restricted me from creating new pages in article space, and allowed for appeal after one year. I waited to appeal until April 2016, and this Arbitration committee voted in May to partially release the restriction. (Technically, the committee rescinded the entire new article restriction and simultaneously imposed a new one for NRHP articles alone: motion passed in May 2016 (version just before archived), i.e. the 'Motion, that "The following remedy is added to the case: Doncram (talk · contribs) is indefinitely restricted from creating new pages, except for redirects, in article space which are related to the National Register of Historic Places, broadly construed".) However it is framed, I have abided by a restriction not to create new NRHP articles directly in mainspace for 3.5 years, while still contributing actively. I request this restriction be dropped.

During March 2013 to April 2016, as I noted in April, I created 800 new articles, mostly new NRHP place articles. [''All those NRHP articles were created in the first six months, up to when an NRHP topic ban was imposed in September 2013, all by using the AFC process. The first was this, created 2013-03-12, #15 on this reverse chronological list of all 9,400 articles ever created by me; the last was this created 2013-09-16, #774 on the reverse chronological list. Consistent with Tazerdadog's comment below, there were just one or two cases where AFC editors questioned notability or otherwise balked. All 750 or so promoted articles used at least two references and evidently met AFC editors' concerns about article adequacy. I then took a 2.5 year break from the NRHP area, during which I created only about 50 non-NRHP articles. In April 2016, I requested removal of all restrictions. There was discussion of frustrating situation for me in which I had said something unnecessary, which I regretted, and that was talked out. I shared that "I consider the 3 years since the arbitration to be more than a pause in contention. The time allowed me to disconnect from the area...", and more. This sitting arbitration committee, in this amendment rescinded the topic ban, rescinded general probation, and partway rescinded the article creation restriction. Since May, I have been free to edit in NRHP area and to create new articles, with just the edit restriction (not a topic ban) that in practical terms meant I needed to use AFC to get new NRHP articles into mainspace. I have mostly chosen not to create new articles, and instead mostly edited NRHP articles created in 2012 and before. --doncram 05:26, 12 October 2016''] Since the amendment in May 2016, I have created 51 new articles: 12 new NRHP place articles, 8 new architect articles, 14 disambiguation pages, and 16 are other non-NRHP articles. The new NRHP place articles were promoted by the Articles-For-Creation process or by other editors. I'm not sure what the continued restriction for new NRHP articles is intended to accomplish, exactly, but, if there's concern about my new articles, it is most relevant for arbitrators to browse some or all of the most recent NRHP articles; these are listed here.

Since opening the April-May amendment request, approaching 6 months ago, I believe there have been no serious problems and any other general concerns should be lessened.
 * I have proceeded to edit NRHP articles, mainly by my developing about 200 NRHP place articles tagged "NRIS-only" with additional sources to remove them permanently from that category. Specifically I have worked steadily on this worklist of about 750 NRIS-onlies originally created by me.  I have worked alone and with collaboration of other editors (including Farragutful on this batch of all Iowa NRIS-only articles and Bubba73 on this batch of Georgia articles).  I have received positive "thanks" for expanding some of these.
 * I have participated some at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places and elsewhere without conflict.
 * I've done the "heavy lifting" needed to fix up List of courthouses in the United States, an NRHP-related list-article whose problems were discussed at the April-May amendment request.
 * Unrelated to NRHP, I have continued participating constructively IMO in AFDs and in other areas. For example, I am participating in consensus-building processes in ongoing proposals / RFC discussions that I opened in two non-NRHP areas, here and here.  It may be that neither directly produces any great change, but I think constructive discussion going on is sorting out some advances that will perhaps achieve consensus in future followups.

About my future intentions:
 * To reiterate from the amendment request, I have no intention to antagonize editors focused upon stub articles in the NRHP area.  I do not intend to create what any NRHP editor would call "context-free" stubs.  I hope this addresses an arbitrator's concern below that I address issues that led to this NRHP article creation ban;  I certainly do not wish to have concern about my NRHP articles be an issue again.  (To be clear, I am not subject to any topic ban;  the only restriction is a process one.)
 * About title-warring as a concern expressed in the April-May amendment request, let me say or reiterate that I fully expect to continue to use the proper wp:RM process for any potentially contested moves and to participate constructively in sorting out best names to use (as I believe I pretty much always have). Since May, I only recall one substantive name change I requested or participated in: this RM that I opened, which closed without consensus to make the move I wished, and that took care of that.
 * In general I do accept that consensus can go against a view that I have, and I do not insist that my opinions are always right, and I make concessions and do apologize as a matter of practice. This is an example of where an editor disagreed with me in the WikiProject NRHP forum and I responded with concession.

At this point I see no purpose served by the restriction, and I wish to be released from it so that:
 * this particular cloud over my editorship may be removed (the restriction was in fact cited negatively one or more times, for example within this long ANI statement [not NRHP-related, and which was soon closed])
 * I might participate in AFC in reviewing and promoting others' articles in the NRHP area, rather than being a burden on AFC's editors who must review my own new NRHP articles;
 * the arbitration case may be considered finished, and I might just get on with things, and also so that no future arbitration committee needs to review the 2013 arbitration case. This is the last substantial restriction remaining that I expect to appeal. (The only other remaining restriction is an interaction ban which may remain in place permanently.)  I could have waited until six full months had passed, but I hope evidence available now suffices and that the committee would also like to have this wrapped up.  -- do  ncr  am  00:50, 30 September 2016 (UTC). Revised, 18:24, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
 * P.S. Notice of this amendment request given by me to NRHP wikiproject, on 1 October. -- do ncr  am  18:32, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Under the May outcome, I applied myself to removing sources of some others' dissatisfaction, making myself work through tedious worklists of old NRHP articles cheerfully, which I likely would not have done if I were put under NRHP topic probation. To remove the cloud over my editing, I might have simply avoided the area for six months (to let the clock expire, to avoid possibility of any random conflict, or simply out of discouragement). Instead I did not avoid the area, and gave the committee new data: many edits in NRHP area (>200 in List of courthouses in the United States, >200 old NRHP place articles improved, participation in the wt:NRHP forum, creation of new NRHP articles, without serious problems. At this point I don't see why a narrow edit restriction should be replaced by a broad probation;  I have effectively been under a six month probation already and acted constructively. Sincerely, -- do  ncr  am  18:58, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Opinion by JzG
Too soon, IMO. Guy (Help!) 13:38, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Tazerdadog
I have reviewed likely hundreds of Doncram's AFC submissions on NRHP topics a couple of years ago, and found exactly one to be objectionable. Tazerdadog (talk) 08:21, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Statement by {other-editor}
Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the amendment request or provide additional information.

Doncram: Clerk notes

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



Doncram: Arbitrator views and discussion

 * Decline I don't see an acceptance here of the issues that lead to this topic ban and a willingness not to repeat them. --In actu (Guerillero) &#124; My Talk  13:04, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Doncram has addressed my issues since I voted to decline. A probation of sorts would be ok with me. --In actu (Guerillero) &#124; My Talk  15:45, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Decline Doncram doesn't seem to have addressed how he would avoid the issues which lead to the topic ban in the first place. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:00, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Doncram has now addressed my concerns. I'd be happy with suspending the sanction (probation). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:28, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I do not see, at first or second glance, a reason to turn this down immediately. I cannot, from my ivory tower, easily see where Doncram might have had problems recently and there's not much feedback yet. I'd love to hear from some of the old hands, such as or, maybe. Drmies (talk) 03:13, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree with Drmies. This is a substantive request with quite a bit of detail presented to document a recent history of unproblematic editing, and to my knowledge no one has objected to Doncram's editing since the May motion, so I don't see why we'd be so quick to dismiss this request out of hand. I'd be inclined to grant this, or if that's not palatable for the rest of the committee, consider a probation instead. Opabinia regalis (talk) 19:46, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Unless someone new comes up with compelling arguments against granting this, I'm fine with it. Doug Weller  talk 09:50, 16 October 2016
 * Your comment here seems to conflict with your vote, could you explain what has changed for you? -- Amanda  (aka DQ) 01:33, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
 * The creation of the second motion. It's a marginal thing for me (and maybe if there'd been no objection at all I'd probably not have voted for parole). Doug Weller  talk 10:05, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I hadn't read Doncram's comments made last night. Because of them I've changed my vote. Doug Weller  talk 10:13, 24 October 2016 (UTC)


 * This seems fine to me also. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:07, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Doncram: Motion regarding Arbitration/Requests/Case/Doncram (rescinded)



 * Support
 * 1) Proposed. --  Amanda  (aka DQ) 06:01, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
 * 2) First choice. Opabinia regalis (talk) 00:54, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
 * 3) First choice. GorillaWarfare (talk) 05:13, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
 * 4) Second choice given that the other motion at least relaxes the restriction now and hopefully there will be no reinstatement of it.  Doug Weller  talk 16:17, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
 * 5) *First choice now after reading Doncram's comments made last night about the width of the probation. Doug Weller  talk
 * 6) Only choice. There ius no evidence of current problems.  DGG ( talk ) 17:17, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
 * 7) ok with this. could argue either way. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:40, 29 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * 1) I'd prefer to first try a parole. Salvio Let's talk about it! 10:27, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
 * 2) As I said above I'd prefer a suspended sanction / parole / probation (whatever it's being called now) (something along the lines of this). : I'll propose a suspended version, would you prefer it to be for 6 or 12 months (my preference is 6 months). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:00, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Personally, I prefer 12, but I am fine with either. Salvio Let's talk about it! 11:19, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) prefer, below -- Guerillero  &#124;  Parlez Moi  03:20, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
 * 2) Prefer suspension. Kirill Lokshin (talk) 16:20, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
 * 3) Courcelles (talk) 17:28, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
 * 4) Drmies (talk) 14:09, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * 5) kelapstick(bainuu) 16:44, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Abstain


 * Recuse

Doncram: Motion regarding Arbitration/Requests/Case/Doncram (suspended)

 * Enacted: Kevin ( aka L235 ·&#32; t ·&#32; c) 16:52, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Enacted: Kevin ( aka L235 ·&#32; t ·&#32; c) 16:52, 5 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1) Proposed. Given that there is support for rescinding it immediately hopefully this is an acceptable middle ground. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 22:45, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
 * 2) Second choice. Opabinia regalis (talk) 00:54, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
 * 3) Second choice. GorillaWarfare (talk) 05:13, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
 * 4) Only choice. Salvio Let's talk about it! 11:32, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
 * 5) First Second choice.  Doug Weller  talk 16:17, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
 * 6) only choice -- Guerillero  &#124;  Parlez Moi  03:21, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
 * 7) Fine with me. Drmies (talk) 00:30, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
 * 8) ok with this. could argue either way. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:41, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
 * 9) Kirill Lokshin (talk) 16:20, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
 * 10) Something we've done many times before. Courcelles (talk) 17:32, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
 * 11) kelapstick(bainuu) 16:45, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose
 * 1) There was no violations, and he's been under semi removal already. --  Amanda  (aka DQ) 01:32, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
 * 2) The complete removal of the restriction is my only choice. This is not necessary, because a sanction can be reimposed in any of several ways.  .     DGG ( talk ) 16:12, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Abstain


 * Recuse

Clarification request: Doncram (April 2017)
Original discussion

Initiated by Beeblebrox at 00:15, 18 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Case or decision affected

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:
 * (initiator)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request


 * 

Statement by Beeblebrox
[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=747984605#Doncram:_Motion_regarding_Wikipedia:Arbitration.2FRequests.2FCase.2FDoncram_.28suspended.29d. Doncram: Motion regarding Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Doncram (suspended)] So, this restriction was suspended for six months, but that six months was up nearly six months ago. We got a third-party request at WP:PERM to consider re-granting Doncram the Autopatrolled right that was revoked in the early days of this dispute. Since it's unclear if he is still under an editng restriction (it's still listed at WP:RESTRICT) it is equally unclear if we should consider re-granting this user permission.

My apologies I seem to have misread some time stamps, and additionally the listing at RESTRICT, upon further examination, actually says this did expire on May 5th of last year, so that didn't help either. While we do routinely grant autopatrolled based on third-party requests, if Doncram doesn't actually want us to there's probably no point to this. I'm not sure if I should just remove this, or let a clerk do it? Beeblebrox (talk) 02:27, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Doncram
I was notified of the auto-patrol nomination and, just now, of this ARCA. This doesn't need to be an ARCA; it is not worth discussing.
 * 1) I don't need to be auto-patrolled and didn't ask for it (though I would be happy to have the right...it seems silly not to).
 * 2) The six month suspension was started 5 November 2016 and therefore ends May 5, coming soon.
 * 3) What was suspended for six months has nothing to do with auto-patrol...there was/is no restriction on my account with respect to auto-review, anyhow; the proposal to grant auto-patrol is not anything that the arbitration committee need to consider.  But if this point #3 is not clear, it still does not be a matter of discussion at ARCA.  I would rather this request for clarification be deleted than for a bunch of people to have to go through unnecessary work to review the situation and vote.  Just cancel this, and advise the auto-patrol nominator to delay for three weeks.  Or go ahead and study it, i don't care. -- do  ncr  am  00:44, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

P.S. Beetlebrox denied the auto-patrol request already, before opening this here, if I am reading time-stamps correctly. There's nothing open. It may be that Beetlebrox wants for there to be some new community discussion about me before auto-patrol right is granted, but I would think that does not need to come to the arbitration committee. I give up, anyhow. -- do ncr  am  01:44, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Statement by {other-editor}
Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should opine whether and how the Committee should clarify or amend the decision or provide additional information.

Doncram: Clerk notes

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



Amendment request: Doncram (January 2018)

 * Original discussion

Initiated by SarekOfVulcan at 16:52, 17 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Case or decision affected


 * Clauses to which an amendment is requested
 * 1) Arbitration/Requests/Case/Doncram


 * List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:''
 * (initiator)


 * Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request''




 * Information about amendment request
 * Arbitration/Requests/Case/Doncram
 * Request to lift the ban

Statement by SarekOfVulcan
I just avoided agreeing with Doncram in an AfD because of the IBAN. It's been in place for almost 5 years, we've done a good job avoiding each other, and I'd like to not have this hanging over our heads any more. (Previous request )
 * , I would find that an acceptable alternative. -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 01:20, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
 * , it was Articles for deletion/Webb Mountain Park. I noticed that C. W. Gilmore had edited it, and I wondered what was up. For the most part, I haven't come across Doncram's edits at all. In my editing, I come across Doncram very rarely. (Rephrased for clarity. For example, I can think of one large noticeboard discussion I edited after he did.) While I still have a strong interest in historic buildings, he doesn't typically edit the ones I'm looking at.-- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 11:51, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Doncram
Why the request? They are not explaining. I am in fact a victim of long-term harassment by this editor, and I resent being dragged back into any discussion about it at all. I certainly don't need or want the editor's help in AFDs, one of two areas in which I participate frequently. I probably would avoid any AFD where they had commented, and in 5 years I recall coming across such cases only one or two times. For a number of years they followed me to new NRHP articles which I had just started and repeatedly interrupted with partial deletions or opening AFDs or ANI incidents. They opened the arbitration case against me which led to me being blocked from partipating in the NRHP area (and i have only been active there again during the last year or two, after accepting the block), and then they did not themselves participate in the NRHP area for all the years since. I would not welcome their following me to NRHP topics and AFDs in the future. --Doncram (talk) 22:15, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Mendaliv
I'm not a fan of indefinite sanctions simply because they create an artificial status quo which often turns permanent. Especially interaction bans. The basic question you wind up asking in these cases is why the requestor wants the IBAN lifted, which inevitably turns into concerns that the requestor intends to interact with the other party in a disruptive way; after all, if the requestor didn't want to interact with the other party, why would he or she make the request? Well, I think that logic needs to go away. It leads to indefinite sanctions becoming permanent, and imposing an additional unnecessary burden on editors when doing basically anything on-wiki. That is, every time you contribute anything from then on out, you have to think, "Could this be seen as an IBAN violation?" I think that's unfair, particularly after a period of years.

That said, I think rather than a straightforward removal, the Committee might do what it did in the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=747984605#Doncram:_Motion_regarding_Wikipedia:Arbitration.2FRequests.2FCase.2FDoncram_.28suspended.29 November 2016 motion] in this same case: Rescind for six months and allow any admin to reinstate during that period, and if the six months lapse without incident, the IBAN lapses entirely. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 01:10, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I would add, somewhat in response to BURob 13's comment, that my hope would be that the eventual outcome would be to kick future issues (should they occur) to the community rather than this remaining under Committee supervision forever. I'm thinking along the lines of the way courts disfavor mandatory injunctions because of the supervision burdens involved. Though I know this is a prohibitory remedy we're talking about, I think the same principles ought to be observed, and at some point we should expect the vast majority of sanctioned editors to fully exit the arbitration remedy system.My point is that I think the full lifting of the IBAN in this case ought to be understood to terminate the Committee's jurisdiction over that aspect of the matter. Honestly, not having to deal with AE or Committee procedure whenever a dispute comes up is, for most editors, going to be the real goal of getting a remedy lifted. On a Wikipedia where many view process as bureaucracy, the possibility of having to deal with AE or the Committee itself can itself be burdensome. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 22:49, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Statement by {other-editor}
Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the amendment request or provide additional information.

Doncram: Clerk notes

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



Doncram: Arbitrator views and discussion

 * To both editors: Do the two of you still edit in the same topic areas? Do you often come across each others' work? Specifically to SarekOfVulcan, what was the AfD in question and how did you come across it? ~ Rob 13 Talk 08:30, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Given what Sarek said about the frequency he encounters Doncram these days, I'm inclined to lift this sanction. Since they supposedly don't encounter each other much these days, we have a very easy litmus test for whether either editor is acting disruptively after the sanction is lifted. If one of the two suddenly starts initiating contact regularly or appearing on the same pages with great frequency, it's easy enough to re-impose the sanction (or a different one, if only one side is acting problematically). ~ Rob 13 Talk 16:34, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Support lifting it the same way as we did in the November motion Mendaliv mentions. Doug Weller  talk 19:25, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Support what Mendaliv said: Rescind for six months and allow any admin to reinstate during that period, and if the six months lapse without incident, the IBAN lapses entirely -- Euryalus (talk) 23:11, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Doncram: Motion

 * Enacted: Kevin ( aka L235 ·&#32; t ·&#32; c) 23:07, 21 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1) Proposing in line with above comments. ~ Rob 13 Talk 13:51, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
 * 2) Agreed, this is the right way to go. RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:00, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
 * 3) Euryalus (talk) 14:06, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Katietalk 14:24, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
 * 1) Happy this no longer needs to be a formal arrangement. WormTT(talk) 15:06, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
 * 2) Sarek should be mindful that Doncram still has concerns, and should continue to steer clear, but I agree that five years should be long enough for the formal remedy. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:37, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
 * 3)  Doug Weller  talk 17:10, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
 * 4) What NYB said. Opabinia regalis (talk) 17:26, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
 * 5) Slightly belated support. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 19:53, 20 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * 1) I have to echo Callanecc and highlight the comment of NYB. With a party concerned about an end to a sanction, we should be looking at potential alternatives, yet not promising anything if we resort to this. Blindly walking a sanction out because it's old doesn't mean it doesn't still have use. --  Amanda  (aka DQ) 05:56, 21 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Abstain
 * 1) When one of the parties to an interaction ban has concerns about it being lifted, I'd rather it not be modified. However, given that the sanction has been in place for 5 years and that a suspension (rather than outright removal) is being proposed I'm here rather than opposing. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 23:25, 20 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Discussion by arbitrators