Jump to content

User:Doncram/sandboxAEdraft

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Draft for "ARCA" request:

I request removal of three restrictions on me, as these are no longer necessary, and as they impair my ability to contribute productively.

I request removal of restrictions 2.1 (general probation) and 2.3 (no creating new pages) from Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Doncram (12 March 2013). And I request removal of topic ban for me on National Register of Historic Places articles, from Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive139#Doncram (25 September 2013).

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 influencing numerous AFDs in a good way (see User:Doncram/AFDs). A large number of edits of mine stem from my participation at wp:DPWL; I won its August 2015 competition by disambiguatimg 1,780 articles. For years I have worked around the article creation ban by submitting articles through the AFC process. 774 in xtools 1 report then 24 in xtools 2 less a few redirects etc, so almost 800 articles since restricted. Early on I began 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 another's article as part of AFC work was a violation.

About the NRHP ban, there were a few times where my compliance with the NRHP ban was questioned by a non-logged-in editor, usually resolved by my modifying a comment that I had made in an AFD or at a Talk page. Also a reason for this request being prepared 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 effect of continuing restrictions is 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. Also I cannot improve NRHP-related articles where I myself have noticed factual inaccuracies that would easily be corrected. I would like to fix those problems.

For anyone concerned now about my creation of articles, I want to assert that I have pretty good judgment about what are notable topics: in my entire editing history, by my analysis there have been only a handful of articles created by me that were subsequently deleted. The community never addressed Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Doncram#Stub content debate remanded to community, but I have no intention to antagonize editors focused upon stub articles in the NRHP area. For reference:

General editor probation 2.1) Doncram (talk · contribs) is placed under a general probation indefinitely. Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions if, despite being warned, Doncram repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any normal editorial process or any expected standards of behavior and decorum. These sanctions may include blocks, page or topic bans, instructions to refrain from a particular behavior, or any other sanction that the administrator deems appropriate. Sanctions imposed under this remedy may be appealed as if they were discretionary sanctions. Doncram may not appeal this restriction for one year and is limited to an appeal once every six months thereafter. Passed 9 to 5, 05:25, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Article creation restriction 2.3) Doncram (talk · contribs) is indefinitely restricted from creating new pages, except for redirects, in article space. He may create new content pages in his user space, at Articles for Creation, in a sandbox area within a WikiProject's area, or in similar areas outside of article space. Such pages may only be moved to article space by other users after review. This restriction may be appealed to the Committee after one year. Passed 12 to 1, 05:25, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Also "topic-banned from any edits relating to the National Register of Historic Places", at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive139#Doncram (27 September 2013)

4 April 2013, Sandstein: , "Doncram is warned not to approach discussions confrontatively, not to exhibit signs of ownership, not to comment on contributors rather than content, and not to assume bad faith. The editors who are in disputes with Doncram are reminded that these expectations apply to them also." relating to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive132

28 May 2013 Gatoclass: "you are hereby reminded that comments on contributor rather than content may result in the imposition of sanctions" relating to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive135#Doncram

16 November, 2013 SeraphimBlade: this warning (SeraphimBlade 16 November 2013), to which withdrawn Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive141#Doncram related. This had to do with a misplaced concern raised at wt:NRHP about a broad swath of my past work. I considered responding indirectly by raising a question at wp:ARCA or at an arbitrator's Talk page, about whether I could respond to the allegation with (insert factual information), thereby delivering the factual information somewhere that one of the NRHP editors would be likely to see. It seemed more honest to directly address and settle the concern. 

- - - - - - - some diffs and drafting - - -

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 seemed relevant to give some explanation, 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 [1] 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, 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 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
  • 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

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. I appreciate not being blameable for anything since then. 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 my volunteering in 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 not myself sure 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. 

----

I said more than was necessary about how I had experienced administrative action taken in 2012 on the AFD-nominated article, a sore point for me. I asked for a suspension of the AFD. As the nominator responded that did not address the scope problems and "I am not putting this on hold".

  • As .
  • Kittens comment.

An earlier note to self (not posted): "In the afore-mentioned recent AFD in my first post arguably I said more than was necessary about how I had experienced an unnamed administrator's admin action on the AFD-nominated article, but I did not go any further and I myself would prefer to have said less. It was a sore point in the 2012 contention. It would be difficult for me to discuss articles where past interactions were experienced by me as incivil." ... " I chose to cease editing there for at least a while. "

So it was a sore subject. In my reaction, however, it was unnecessary for me to comment on the administrator's action back in 2012 and I am sorry...I regret that I did.



Title-warring This is a misplaced concern.

  • Arbitration finding: "Move warring": 1.3) Doncram (talk · contribs) has repeatedly attempted to impose his point of view as to the proper title of an article without first seeking consensus in the usual manner.([2], [3],

[4], [5])

Passed 11 to 0, 05:25, 12 March 2013 (UTC)


Jzy / Guy suggests a restriction on title-warring is needed. Where some title-warring happened in the past, and was documented in the arbitration, that was only about NRHP-related new articles that I was developing in mainspace (which I am not going to do in the same way), where another editor closely following me was instantly contending (which isn't going to happen). It was 39 minutes and I opened reasonable discussion that the contending editor did not reply to. In the 2nd example I went to the Administrators Noticeboard for discussion, which was arguably doing the right thing to get high-level attention, not something to be blamed for], after the contending editor used admin powers twice to remove the article, the just 65 minutes and just 3 minutes]. The 3rd example the contending editor [it after just 33 minutes] and I moved it back and called for a proper requested move, which did not happen. 17 minutes later (some discussion happened at the Talk page, but only after the 2nd move, and not a RM).

In the 4th example, an unrelated editor moved it to remove an abbreviation, then a potentially productive Talk page discussion was opened (my comment 23:46, 18 July 2011 [6]] a different editor made a major change in name of the article at Revision as of 00:08, 19 July 2011 22 minutes later, and didn't participate at Talk until after it was moved back by me. Call that Bold move and a Reversion. The same editor as in the first three entered at 13:49, 19 July 2011‎

Opened an AFD at 16:09, 19 July 2011‎, arguably the wrong venue because even in the nomination the editor acknowledged there was adequate content available for an article if focused/titled differently.

moved by me during AFD with some support in the AFD. Moving during an AFD is unusual but allowed, and certainly did not stop the naming discussion going on in the AFD. There was disagreement about the article name, but I don't see move-warring here. The only questionable act was the editor using AFD as forum when the


In all 4 cases the consensus decision was the article went to the name I had chosen, suggesting that I was not all wet, my moves were not unreasonably pushing something pointy.

The finding that "has repeatedly attempted to impose his point of view as to the proper title of an article without first seeking consensus in the usual manner" was not correct IMHO, although it would have applied to the other editor. (Findings applicability to other was acknowledged but not done.

At the time I noted the finding was bizarre, but saw that it served a necessary role for the arbitration. I can't find the diff immediately, but one arbitrator was pointing out that while proposed remedies were being discussed there were no findings or only a finding related to already-old-by-then stuff, and then this was manufactured.

The finding seemed not to matter as move-warring was not specifically addressed in any remedy (perhaps the arbitrators saw this as pretty weak themselves).


--- Dexter Universalist Church (Dexter, New York), nom doc now available at NYS scanned nom doc. supported development of List of Unitarian, Universalist, and Unitarian Universalist churches by providing coordinates and other details used there.

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Doncram/Evidence#Evidence presented by Elkman includes Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive224#Doncram NHRP stubs

george f. barber discussion mentioned by lvk, from within this discussion mentioned by cbl in Doncram NRHP stubs?


In response to comments:

  • About the proposed compromise, I would strongly prefer to have all restrictions removed, to be entirely out from under any cloud.

Let me try to say this carefully. I'd like to convey what I can that would give some assurance, but not create restriction that.

The need for arbitration was not about new NRHP articles (there are lots before and since created which are "inferior" to AFC standard or any unofficial NRHP standard). The arbitration was about contention that hurt me, editors that have disappeared, and continuing other editors including some NRHP editors who have commented here. A lot of the contention would not have happened if I had not been ___. None of it would have happened if ___.

I don't currently plan to create new NRHP articles. If a new NRHP topic interests me in the future, because I visit the place in person, or come across a worthy topic in an AFD, I only see myself wanting to create articles that are higher than any standard. Like I said above, ___.

I fully understand what is required in new NRHP articles for them to be useful to readers, going beyond what is already covered in the NRHP list-article system, or . I don't

If Wikiproject NRHP editors want to create a different standard for new stub articles generally, they are not allowed to do so if it is just a wp:LOCALCONSENSUS. But I would be inclined to abide by a local consensus if it was ___. There are longterm NRHP editors who have created many articles since 12 March 2013 that are deficient relative to AFC standard and/or an NRHP unofficial standard.

I don't want this to be a restriction in th e sense ____.

About new NRHP topic articles, it seems relevant that after the arbitration I created numerous new NRHP articles that were accepted by AFC and not one has been contested. If NRHP editors want to , I would like to be a part of that. I will

These are the 750+ articles within

From 12 March 2013 to 25 September 2013 almost all the articles numbered from 15 to 773 were

almost 800 articles since the arbitration case, complying by submitting articles through AFC." Those are items listed at User:Doncram/Articles1


. I have indicated above that . I don't know what I can say without commi

feel I more than compromised already by staying away from the NRHP Wikiproject entirely for 2 years. I


  • A comment refers to the fact that in the ongoing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chicago Boulevard System, I have indeed gone ahead already and referred to an NRHP nomination form for a proposed district. A diff spanning several edits seems to suggest more, but at the AFD'd article (not in WikiProject NRHP), I merely tried to restore a previous version that did include some NRHP information; it was re-deleted anyhow. The comment suggests a problem with that edit's summary, I'm not sure what. The edit summary included my assertions 1) that "There is some sort of consensus at the AFD" about sources (which was my opinion) and 2) that "A "delete-voter" should not remove substantial content during AFD" which also is my opinion, because it confuses the AFD. I have expressed that idea about AFD process before, just like I have more frequently expressed my general opinion that the AFD guidelines should be adjusted to treat new contributors differently. And I acknowledged in the AFD that "I am interested in developing the article too, but I am hesitating to do much as I'd prefer for a pending arbitration clarification to be completed beforehand."
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Doncram/sandboxAEdraft&oldid=717670286"