938:
to historic districts and other geographic articles." I believe I have worked constructively to raise and discuss issues regarding historic sites and places. I would like to reply constructively to allegations, but I don't understand specifically what is being alleged. I also do not understand how each certifying party asserts he or she has tried and failed to address specific behavior of mine. There are other problems with the statement of this RFCU which have been pointed out by another editor at
814:'s name comes to mind as well. I still think that a voluntary agreement between those two editors on how to structure NRHP coverage might solve this whole problem. My past efforts to get a voluntary agreement did not stop the dispute. If those two editors won't volunteer to push things along, outside opinion may be needed to produce a solution that can be enforced by admins.
210:. The ensuing discussion generated a lot of argument, particularly Doncram alleging that Polaron was starting the dispute by creating the articles that engendered the dispute. (It sort of sounds like a Family Circus cartoon where Billy complains, "It all started when Dolly hit me back!") I should also note that Orlady participated in that discussion as well.
937:
I am aware of this RFC/U. I am confused by the statement of dispute above as I do not believe it supports the summary statement for this RFC/U, which states that it is alleged that I have been "involved in multiple edit wars, uncivil behavior, and ownership of articles and listing standards relating
582:
Second, the personal attacks and continued sniping need to stop. Doncram's viewpoint appears to be that in each of these cases, a narrowly-structured agreement is necessary, and that any time the agreement is breached, he wants the editor(s) in question to be blocked. This attitude -- among many --
875:
about the format as well. Perhaps the article content issues could be discussed in a different RfC, but there are still allegations that
Doncram and Orlady are following each other around, or that Doncram and Polaron are following each other around, or other issues that have resulted in bickering.
56:
user, not different disputes or multiple users. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with ~~~~. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: 22:50, 4 February 2010 (UTC)), the
886:
As I mentioned in the link Elkman references above, I don't view this venue as entirely satisfactory, since there is more than one party involved, and since there are issues of content-related policy in play. However, there have been repeated issues involving 3 and 4RR, with
Doncram calling for the
578:
First and foremost, the goal of writing articles about historic places should be to create good-quality articles that provide enough context to identify a district, to give an overview of what buildings and structures are included in the district, and to explain why it's important. I've voiced my
180:
have also been involved in various conflicts lately. In particular, Doncram and Orlady have recently disputed wording such as, "The district has some significance." in regard to historic districts on the
National Register of Historic Places. These disputes have involved a long amount of argument
756:
Although I am identified as a party to this case, I have tried valiantly over approximately the last two years to engage productively with
Doncram. The cumulative volume of talk-page discussion between the two of us (including discussion between us and others) is now surely in the multi-megabyte
201:
Doncram and
Polaron have been in a long-standing argument about naming of historic places and historic districts. Polaron has been placing redirects from NRHP lists to town names when the town has substantially the same boundaries as the historic district. The problem is that the boundaries of
870:
While there are content issues that could be discussed in an article RfC, there are also behavioral issues, such as civility, sniping between editors, agreements being breached, 3RR, and so on. I don't know if there's a better format for addressing these issues other than a user conduct RfC.
437:
423:
has continued with no sign of stopping. To complicate matters, Orlady used administrative rollback for at least one of the reverts. Orlady has asserted that inserting placeholder text, such as, "The district has some significance" is vandalism and not subject to
852:
Why is an RfC on one of the disputants preferable to a request for comment on the underlying issues? Have the appropriate noticeboards been tried to get a consensus from uninvolved editors, rather than targeting one of those involved with a user conduct RfC?
771:
Much of the actual discussion with
Doncram has played out in my user talk space, AN/I or AN3. The issues involved do not exclusively concern Doncram, but he is the central figure in these disputes. Polaron and Orlady have had parts to play in this as well.
586:
To the extent that Orlady is saying anything personal about
Doncram or making conjectures that are inapplicable, that needs to stop. I'm not exactly sure how to rate what she's said, so I'd like other editors' perspectives on the topic.
651:
647:
643:
590:
Third, we should remember that
Knowledge will not be broken if we don't have articles about every single historic district. Knowledge is still a work in progress. If the encyclopedia is missing an article about
663:
1184:. Discussion should not be added below. Discussion should be posted on the talk page. Threaded replies to another user's vote, endorsement, evidence, response, or comment should be posted to the talk page.
639:
942:. While I respect the right of other editors to comment, I don't see how having an open RFC/U on my behavior is helpful at this time. I remain open to receiving feedback, at my Talk page or otherwise. --
333:
264:
655:
454:
175:
595:, for example, someone looking for information on the topic could go elsewhere. On the other hand, a sub-stub article on the topic would provide no meaningful information to the reader.
592:
377:
372:
446:
381:
632:
364:
207:
420:
351:
1181:
939:
45:
127:) have been in a long-standing conflict regarding the naming of historic districts, particularly in Connecticut and other New England areas. Doncram and
607:
368:
270:
206:
is a perfect example of this dispute. The argument is many times longer than the article. Last
October, I reported a three-revert rule edit war at
486:
928:{This is a summary written by the user whose conduct is disputed. Users not named in the request or certifying the request should post under
519:
contains a proposal by EdJohnston to limit the dispute by putting restrictions on editors. This doesn't seem to be attracting an agreement.
360:
1041:
This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute.
687:
659:
297:
228:
535:
480:
182:
48:, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the
565:
309:
240:
17:
638:
Prior to the first item listed above, the various parties engaged in discussion of the issues at various places, including
667:
545:
327:
315:
258:
246:
124:
110:
76:
690:
was found to be due to a factor-of-10 error in the acreage data on a website that participants were using as a resource).
303:
234:
208:
Knowledge:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RRArchive112#User:Doncram_and_User:Polaron_reported_by_User:Elkman_.28Result:_.29
139:
675:
555:
321:
252:
671:
492:
151:
858:
560:
274:
169:
157:
188:
Note that although
Doncram is named in this RFC, the behavior by Polaron and Orlady should also be considered.
145:
1007:
Any users may post questions in this section. Answers should be reserved for the user named in the dispute.
624:
498:
421:
Knowledge:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Orlady_reported_by_doncram_.28talk.29_.28Result:_.29
163:
845:
Any users may post questions in this section. Answers should be reserved for those certifying the dispute.
683:
606:
Doncram and Polaron have reached some sort of agreement on the issue of Connecticut historic districts at
540:
510:
701:(Provide diffs to demonstrate that the disputed behavior continued after trying to resolve the dispute.)
468:
when Doncram reacted badly to some of her feedback. They've also disputed the actions of banned user
897:
854:
800:
782:
717:
712:
628:
619:
516:
339:
291:
282:
273:, which has mostly stuck together. Well, sort of. On February 2, Polaron created some redirects to
222:
213:
474:
82:
951:
906:
880:
862:
804:
791:
766:
751:
947:
707:
278:
118:
104:
70:
762:
613:
203:
133:
438:
Knowledge:Featured list candidates/List of National Historic Landmarks in New York/archive1
1071:
This section is for all users to propose solutions to resolve this dispute. This section
890:
887:
other parties to be blocked, without appearing to fully understand his role in the event.
796:
775:
286:
217:
30:
550:
469:
679:
425:
686:. Some of these discussions led to agreements (for example, the original dispute at
629:
User talk:Acroterion#Update of the 3RR case. Need a volunteer to explain Poquetanuck
943:
811:
807:
428:. I voiced the opinion that it isn't vandalism, but it is sloppy article writing.
114:
100:
66:
398:
877:
758:
748:
722:
Content fork creation concerning existing train station articles in Connecticut
128:
1180:
signed comments and talk not related to an endorsement should be directed to
579:
opinion on this several times, but no progress is being made in this area.
419:, where Doncram told Orlady to stop following him around. The argument at
407:
with the placeholder text, "The district has some significance..." Orlady
1075:
and resolutions are not binding except as agreed to by involved parties.
113:) is involved in two different, yet intersecting, disputes. Doncram and
413:
took offense at Orlady's motivation and reinserted the placeholder text
528:
List the policies and guidelines that apply to the disputed conduct.
431:
Doncram and Orlady have a history of arguments beyond that. Orlady
214:
User_talk:Acroterion#3RR_thread_is_copied_here_from_Elkman.27s_talk
664:
Talk:National Register of Historic Places listings in Rhode Island
91:
Users should only edit one summary or view, other than to endorse.
640:
Talk:National Register of Historic Places listings in Connecticut
625:
User talk:Acroterion#3RR thread is copied here from Elkman's talk
350:
On February 3, 2010, Doncram reported Orlady for edit-warring at
1189:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
810:
is not the only person whose action may need to be reviewed.
656:
Talk:National Register of Historic Places listings in Vermont
509:
and a number of sockpuppets in regard to articles concerning
972:
List the policies and guidelines that apply to the response.
181:
with various incivil behavior, as well as firmly entrenched
718:
User talk:Acroterion#Another idea for admin action on NRHP
620:
User talk:Acroterion#Ideas for resolving the open 3RR case
517:
User talk:Acroterion#Another idea for admin action on NRHP
340:
User talk:Acroterion#Another idea for admin action on NRHP
593:
Boston Post Road Historic District (Darien, Connecticut)
872:
728:
723:
504:
462:
458:
450:
442:
432:
416:
412:
408:
404:
394:
390:
386:
355:
29:
The following discussion is an archived record of an
57:
page will be deleted. The current date and time is:
708:
User talk:Polaron#Canaan_edits_and_edit_restriction
279:
User talk:Polaron#Canaan_edits_and_edit_restriction
824:Additional users endorsing this cause for concern.
741:Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute.
352:Knowledge:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring
216:contains more of the discussion. Following that,
642:, where most of the discussions are now found in
281:, and also asked Acroterion to block Polaron at
185:from Doncram and other editors in the dispute.
39:No further edits should be made to this page.
610:. Orlady has been involved with this as well.
342:, which has prompted a wall of text in reply.
1195:No further edits should be made to this page.
269:brokered an agreement between the parties at
202:historic districts aren't always available.
8:
1173:Reminder to use the talk page for discussion
940:Knowledge talk:Requests for comment/Doncram
736:Users certifying the basis for this dispute
417:the dispute continued at Orlady's talk page
183:ownership of articles and listing standards
46:Knowledge:Requests for comment/User conduct
697:Evidence of failing to resolve the dispute
599:Evidence of trying to resolve the dispute
631:-- these discussions were subsequent to
608:User talk:Acroterion/NRHP HD issues list
271:User talk:Acroterion/NRHP HD issues list
633:this very long 3RR report and followup
7:
713:User talk:Acroterion#request a block
614:Talk:Poquetanuck#a_specific_proposal
283:User talk:Acroterion#request a block
361:Riverview Terrace Historic District
338:proposed an editing restriction at
967:Applicable policies and guidelines
523:Applicable policies and guidelines
409:commented out the placeholder text
24:
1055:Users who endorse this summary:
688:Talk:Norris, Tennessee/Archive 1
660:Talk:Hartford (village), Vermont
358:. To summarize the conflict at
31:user conduct request for comment
616:reached some sort of agreement.
583:is causing continued problems.
536:Knowledge:Ownership of articles
727:Edit-warring, general warning
654:. Discussion also occurred at
566:Knowledge:No original research
59:09:35, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
18:Knowledge:Requests for comment
1:
987:Users endorsing this response
668:Talk:Peace Dale, Rhode Island
546:Knowledge:No personal attacks
405:initially created the article
44:In order to remain listed at
952:00:52, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
907:21:35, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
881:16:28, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
863:01:58, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
805:16:09, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
792:21:25, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
767:16:08, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
752:22:55, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
1182:this page's discussion page
676:Talk:Apponaug, Rhode Island
556:Knowledge:Gaming the system
356:the version at this writing
1212:
672:Talk:Wyoming, Rhode Island
435:that the dispute began at
561:Knowledge:Content forking
277:. Doncram complained at
275:Canaan (CDP), Connecticut
1192:Please do not modify it.
96:Statement of the dispute
36:Please do not modify it.
415:. After edit warring,
684:Talk:Norris, Tennessee
541:Knowledge:Edit warring
511:New Rochelle, New York
1051:{Enter summary here.}
957:Response to concerns
1149:Comment by parties:
1119:Comment by parties:
1089:Comment by parties:
962:{Add summary here.}
197:Doncram and Polaron
1160:Comment by others:
1130:Comment by others:
1100:Comment by others:
1066:Proposed solutions
346:Doncram and Orlady
902:
787:
635:, in October 2009
1203:
1194:
930:Additional views
904:
900:
896:
893:
789:
785:
781:
778:
508:
487:deleted contribs
467:
466:
402:
384:
337:
268:
204:Talk:Poquetanuck
192:Cause of concern
179:
60:
38:
1211:
1210:
1206:
1205:
1204:
1202:
1201:
1200:
1199:
1190:
1175:
1142:
1112:
1082:
1068:
1048:
1046:Outside view by
1038:
1004:
989:
969:
959:
925:
903:
898:
891:
889:
855:ChildofMidnight
842:
788:
783:
776:
774:
738:
699:
601:
576:
574:Desired outcome
525:
472:
440:
436:
375:
359:
348:
289:
220:
199:
194:
131:
98:
58:
52:dispute with a
34:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1209:
1207:
1198:
1197:
1174:
1171:
1169:
1167:
1166:
1165:
1164:
1156:
1155:
1154:
1153:
1141:
1138:
1137:
1136:
1135:
1134:
1126:
1125:
1124:
1123:
1111:
1108:
1107:
1106:
1105:
1104:
1096:
1095:
1094:
1093:
1081:
1078:
1067:
1064:
1062:
1060:
1059:
1047:
1044:
1037:
1034:
1032:
1021:
1003:
1000:
999:
998:
997:
996:
994:
988:
985:
984:
983:
982:
981:
979:
968:
965:
958:
955:
924:
921:
910:
909:
895:
841:
840:
837:
836:
835:
834:
833:
831:
818:
817:
816:
815:
794:
780:
769:
754:
737:
734:
733:
732:
731:
730:
725:
720:
715:
710:
698:
695:
694:
693:
692:
691:
636:
622:
617:
611:
600:
597:
575:
572:
571:
570:
569:
568:
563:
558:
553:
551:Knowledge:Stub
548:
543:
538:
524:
521:
347:
344:
198:
195:
193:
190:
97:
94:
88:
87:
86:
63:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1208:
1196:
1193:
1187:
1186:
1185:
1183:
1179:
1172:
1170:
1163:
1162:
1161:
1158:
1157:
1152:
1151:
1150:
1147:
1146:
1145:
1139:
1133:
1132:
1131:
1128:
1127:
1122:
1121:
1120:
1117:
1116:
1115:
1109:
1103:
1102:
1101:
1098:
1097:
1092:
1091:
1090:
1087:
1086:
1085:
1079:
1077:
1076:
1074:
1073:is not a vote
1065:
1063:
1058:
1057:
1056:
1053:
1052:
1045:
1043:
1042:
1035:
1033:
1030:
1029:
1025:
1024:
1019:
1018:
1014:
1013:
1009:
1008:
1001:
995:
993:
992:
991:
990:
986:
980:
978:
977:
976:
975:
974:
973:
966:
964:
963:
956:
954:
953:
949:
945:
941:
935:
933:
931:
922:
920:
919:
915:
914:
908:
905:
901:
894:
885:
884:
883:
882:
879:
874:
869:
865:
864:
860:
856:
851:
847:
846:
838:
832:
830:
829:
828:
827:
826:
825:
821:
813:
809:
806:
802:
798:
795:
793:
790:
786:
779:
770:
768:
764:
760:
755:
753:
750:
747:
746:
745:
744:
743:
742:
735:
729:
726:
724:
721:
719:
716:
714:
711:
709:
706:
705:
704:
703:
702:
696:
689:
685:
681:
680:Talk:Wauregan
677:
673:
669:
665:
661:
657:
653:
649:
645:
641:
637:
634:
630:
626:
623:
621:
618:
615:
612:
609:
605:
604:
603:
602:
598:
596:
594:
588:
584:
580:
573:
567:
564:
562:
559:
557:
554:
552:
549:
547:
544:
542:
539:
537:
534:
533:
532:
531:
530:
529:
522:
520:
518:
514:
512:
506:
503:
500:
497:
494:
491:
488:
485:
482:
479:
476:
471:
464:
460:
456:
452:
448:
444:
439:
434:
429:
427:
422:
418:
414:
410:
406:
400:
396:
392:
388:
383:
379:
374:
370:
366:
362:
357:
353:
345:
343:
341:
335:
332:
329:
326:
323:
320:
317:
314:
311:
308:
305:
302:
299:
296:
293:
288:
284:
280:
276:
272:
266:
263:
260:
257:
254:
251:
248:
245:
242:
239:
236:
233:
230:
227:
224:
219:
215:
211:
209:
205:
196:
191:
189:
186:
184:
177:
174:
171:
168:
165:
162:
159:
156:
153:
150:
147:
144:
141:
138:
135:
130:
126:
123:
120:
116:
112:
109:
106:
102:
95:
93:
92:
84:
81:
78:
75:
72:
68:
65:
64:
62:
55:
51:
47:
40:
37:
32:
27:
26:
19:
1191:
1188:
1177:
1176:
1168:
1159:
1148:
1143:
1129:
1118:
1113:
1099:
1088:
1083:
1072:
1070:
1069:
1061:
1054:
1050:
1049:
1040:
1039:
1036:Outside view
1031:
1027:
1026:
1022:
1020:
1016:
1015:
1011:
1010:
1006:
1005:
971:
970:
961:
960:
936:
929:
927:
926:
917:
916:
912:
911:
888:
867:
866:
849:
848:
844:
843:
823:
822:
819:
773:
740:
739:
700:
589:
585:
581:
577:
527:
526:
515:
501:
495:
489:
483:
477:
430:
349:
330:
324:
318:
312:
306:
300:
294:
261:
255:
249:
243:
237:
231:
225:
212:
200:
187:
172:
166:
160:
154:
148:
142:
136:
121:
107:
99:
90:
89:
79:
73:
53:
49:
43:
35:
28:
871:Acroterion
411:. Doncram
310:protections
241:protections
152:protections
892:Acroterion
797:EdJohnston
777:Acroterion
499:block user
493:page moves
403:, Doncram
322:page moves
287:EdJohnston
253:page moves
218:Acroterion
164:page moves
1002:Questions
839:Questions
652:Archive 3
648:Archive 2
644:Archive 1
505:block log
470:Jvolkblum
316:deletions
247:deletions
158:deletions
1140:Template
1110:Template
1080:Template
923:Response
873:asked me
481:contribs
298:contribs
229:contribs
140:contribs
125:contribs
111:contribs
77:contribs
944:doncram
812:Polaron
808:Doncram
757:range.
451:history
433:asserts
378:protect
373:history
354:. See
115:Polaron
101:Doncram
67:Doncram
932:below.
899:(talk)
878:Elkman
784:(talk)
759:Orlady
749:Elkman
682:, and
650:, and
426:WP:3RR
382:delete
328:rights
304:blocks
259:rights
235:blocks
170:rights
146:blocks
129:Orlady
54:single
459:watch
455:links
399:views
391:watch
387:links
16:<
1144:3)
1114:2)
1084:1)
948:talk
859:talk
820:---
801:talk
763:talk
627:and
475:talk
463:logs
447:talk
443:edit
395:logs
369:talk
365:edit
292:talk
223:talk
134:talk
119:talk
105:talk
83:logs
71:talk
50:same
1178:All
334:RfA
285:.
265:RfA
176:RfA
1028:A.
1023:Q.
1017:A.
1012:Q.
950:)
934:}
918:A.
913:Q.
876:--
868:A.
861:)
850:Q.
803:)
765:)
678:,
674:,
670:,
666:,
662:,
658:,
646:,
513:.
461:|
457:|
453:|
449:|
445:|
397:|
393:|
389:|
385:|
380:|
376:|
371:|
367:|
61:.
33:.
946:(
857:(
799:(
761:(
507:)
502:·
496:·
490:·
484:·
478:·
473:(
465:)
441:(
401:)
363:(
336:)
331:·
325:·
319:·
313:·
307:·
301:·
295:·
290:(
267:)
262:·
256:·
250:·
244:·
238:·
232:·
226:·
221:(
178:)
173:·
167:·
161:·
155:·
149:·
143:·
137:·
132:(
122:·
117:(
108:·
103:(
85:)
80:·
74:·
69:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.