Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/IronDuke and Gnetwerker/Workshop

This is a page for working on Arbitration decisions. It provides for suggestions by Arbitrators and other users and for comment by arbitrators, the parties and others. After the analysis of /Evidence here and development of proposed principles, findings of fact, and remedies. Anyone who edits should sign all suggestions and comments. Arbitrators will place proposed items they have confidence in on /Proposed decision.

Motions and requests by the parties

Motion to Dismiss Issues other than WP:AUTO

1) The central point in this case is whether Gnetwerker's activity on the Reed College page constitute a violation of WP:AUTO. All other issues cropping up here should be summarily dismissed, or decided subsequently to that point.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Motion by gnetwerker - 01:33, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

• In the event that my activities are found to violate WP:AUTO, I will be banned from the Reed page, and my POV (or lack thereof) is moot -- the page will follow its own course. Similarly, if I am banned from the page, then I will not be in a position to refactor its Talk page. All other decisions follow from this, and (aside from cautions for rudeness, etc) largely become moot as a result. A summary judgement on this will ease the burden of this action on ArbCom and the parties. In the event that a WP:AUTO violation is not found, I will accept IronDuke's non-judicial promise to stop harassing me and drop the remaining complaints against him. -- Gnetwerker 01:33, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Template

2)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed temporary injunctions

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Gnetwerker enjoined from refactoring Reed College talk page

1) Gnetwerker is enjoined from refactoring Reed College talk page.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

• Gnetwerker has consistently refactored the Reed College talk pages to exclude comments that he didn't like, comments that related to ongoing issues relating to the page (including comments about this case), and left truly moribund discussions in place, as well, as his own warning to other editors to be careful on his turf. This is part of an ongoing effort by Gnetwerker to make the WP Reed College page look like a brochure for Reed. He doesn't even want objectionable comments on the talk page, in case someone (prospective parents? students?) might see them. Evidence is: [[1]], [[2]], [[3]], [[4]]. He has characterized these refactorings in a deliberately misleading away; this abuse is pronounced and purposeful, and has no legitimate archival purpose. In many instances, the talk page was not overly long, and the comments on it just a few weeks old. (NB: Apologies, but my diffs were slightly off on this before, so please recheck.) IronDuke 16:49, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
• The above comment is easily disproven simply by looking at the diffs I supplied. Also, Gnetwerker's "routine" refactorings seem to consist of removing all discussion of drug use at Reed (which sems to be a popular topic) and comments that he doesn't like. IronDuke 02:08, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I have not now, or ever, ignored, Sdedeo's refactoring, I have commented on it more than once. I think you know this. In any case, to sum up what happened: you kept trying to insist that as part of our mediated solution to the drug-use dispute, all comments be refactored (just as you are doing in this arbcom case). In fact, you even suggested that if I did not agree to this, there would be "no deal." [[5]]. Sdedeo, not realizing I objected to refactoring all comments, refactored them all. I posted a query on Sdedeo's talk page [[6]], got this reply, [[7]], posted it on the Reed talk page [[8]]. You evinced confusion as to the origin of our mediator's thoughts, and subsequently insisted that the only way you would allow me to put my own comments back on the talk page was if Sdedeo were to come back and do it him/herself [[9]], which is part and parcel of your continuing to edit as if you owned the page. IronDuke 13:42, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm... I see the word "tendentious" is getting to be a theme here. Contrary to Gnetwerker's contention, I have not "prevailed." The comments (my comments) which I want to see back on the Reed talk page are still off it. The reason for this is that I would rather suffer the frustration of having my opinion censored than disrupt the talk page (arguably worse than disrupting the article itself, as it kills discussion if the page has to be protected). Apparently, this possibility didn't bother Gnetwerker, because he ended up being more tenacious than I could bring myself to be in patrolling the talk page. IronDuke 05:16, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, "tendentious" is a lovely word. It means "having a partisan, biased or prejudiced opinion". -- Gnetwerker 06:58, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

• Objection: This injunction (submitted by IronDuke) is pointless. The talk page is not (and will not) be refactored again until this action is complete, as it is obviously a "hot button" for IronDuke, even though he views it as a billboard for his harassment of me. I have moved all of my relevant comments to the "Findings of Fact" section below. -- Gnetwerker 08:07, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Gnetwerker enjoined from refactoring this page

2) Gnetwerker should be enjoined from refactoring this page

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

• Submitted by IronDuke:This [[10]] refactoring (on this page) was done by Gnetwerker (also here [[11]], where Gnetwerker "signs" my comments for me, although I had added a signature for them all below). I take it that he objects to my placing my comments within his. I did this to make this dispute easier to follow (and I think this is clear). Gnetwerker's refactoring has made my comments hard to understand as he has removed them from their context. If there are objections to the way in which I presented my comments, I would welcome being told that it is improper. I have looked and seen no such policy, but that certainly doesn't mean it isn't there. What I did find was this [[12]]:

*Removing evidence from an any Arbitration page is unacceptable. Modification of other users' edits of Arbitration pages, inserting peripheral material, and especially deleting them or portions of them will not be tolerated.

And no, to anticipate Gnetwerker's criticism, I was not "modifying" his edits, merely responding in the clearest, easiest to follow way. Please, can it be established that only arbcom members can refactor this page? IronDuke 06:14, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

• IronDuke has been interspersing his edits inside my own, making it unclear that sections above or below them are mine. This constituted a modification of my edits, in a format that stipulates and requires maximum clarity. He should confine his edits to before the beginning of mine or (if they are later in time) after my signature, as is common practice. No comments were refactored, removed or modified by me (IronDuke was, in effect, modifying my comments by editing them internally) - I simply preserved the integrity of my comments. -- Gnetwerker 06:28, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

• I ... uh ... refactored this section to make it use the appropriate template. -- Gnetwerker 08:14, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

• As I look, I see a variety of formats for arbcom pages, although I have no objection to this one. I have seen more times than I can count where, in the course of a lengthy conversation on a talk page between editors, editors respond to each other within each others' comments. I have no memory of anyone ever objecting to this. Gnetwerker appears to have strong feelings about this (which I am happy to honor). However, rather than, for example, asking me not to respond to his comments within his own comments, or asking me to re-edit my own comments out of his so that my own comments are clear and make sense (which now, in some cases, they aren't and don't) Gnetwerker gleefully moves my comments (which I believe is unacceptable here) and even "signs" them for me. Then, after I object, he asserts that "No comments were refactored, removed or modified by me", which is obviously not the case. Though this is but a small part of the problem, I hope it sheds some light on why Gnetwerker could use a strong caution about working with other editors in a respectful, civil, positive way. IronDuke 00:10, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

• As I create my comments with content and formatting assuming retention of their integrity, I request that IronDuke refrain from editing them by placing his comments inside mine. I will stipulate that I have moved my comments when I have felt that IronDuke's edits violated their readability and/or integrity. -- Gnetwerker 01:07, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed final decision

Proposed principles

Template

1) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Editing regarding a subject you are involved with

1) It is not forbidden to edit regarding a subject you are involved with. If discretion is used and sources appropriate to the subject are consulted, a user may do so. Tendentious editing in such a circumstance may result in banning from editing.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

• I would agree to this. IronDuke 03:40, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Courtesy

2) Users are expected to be reasonably courteous regarding other users even when provoked. It is not a defense to charges of discourtesy that the other user acted improperly.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

• I agree with this, except to note that my contention is that Gnetwerker's comments were more serious than simple "discourtesy." (Please see below.) IronDuke 03:41, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• There were no complaints/charges of WP:NPA or WP:CIV by the mediator or other parties, or by IronDuke until this action started (which was after the discussion ended). Also, I submit as an amendment to this the parting advice of fellow Reedie [Larry Sanger]]: "to show the door to trolls, vandals, and wiki-anarchists, who if permitted would waste your time and create a poisonous atmosphere here". -- Gnetwerker 21:10, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't want to misread your quote. Is it your contention that I am a troll, vandal, or wiki-anarchist? If it is not, may I ask what the point of inserting it here is? IronDuke 05:11, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

This is a proposed principle, not a Finding of Fact. -- Gnetwerker 01:20, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Refactoring of talk pages

3) Talk pages of articles may be archived from time to time. Archiving may involve refactoring, with older material which remains relevant retained and newer material which is repetitive or resolved being archived. Unless abuse is pronounced and purposeful, errors or differences in opinion regarding refactoring are not subject to sanction.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Edit warring over refactoring is not acceptable. If someone believes material remains current it should remain on the talk page. Fred Bauder 15:02, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

• In no case did a (counter) reversion of refactoring take place, after an objection was lodged. -- Gnetwerker 20:42, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

• This is simply not true. Please note in this diff that Gnetwerker deleted my heading" == Please stop deleting comments from the talk page ==" as well as all my comments.[[13]] IronDuke 02:12, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

• As noted repeatedly, no comments were ever deleted. Some sections of the Talk page were refactored. -- Gnetwerker 21:12, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

• Also, please allow to me to quote (in context, I hope) the archiving policy [[14]]: "It is customary to periodically archive a talk page when it becomes too large." Gnetwerker archived a very short talk page, removing an ongoing discussion. [[15]]. Also, "Regardless of which method you choose, you should leave current, ongoing discussions on the existing talk page." Virtually all of Gnetwerker's refactorings violated this. :::And it was an issue. I objected to this archiving [[16]] and replaced comments not directly relating to the drug dispute back on the page. You reverted this. [[17]]. I replaced my comments [[18]]. You reverted again [[19]], and I although I continued to object to your "refactoring," I began to fear there'd be an edit war if I insisted on being allowed to have my comments present on the talk page, which is one of several reasons I brought this action. I let the page stand until you decided it was time to remove even my objections to your removing my comments. [[20]]. IronDuke 03:13, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

• This is a Proposed Principle, not a Finding of Fact, so the detailed discussion of events really doesn't belong here. I have moved my comments down to the section containing IronDuke's proposed Finding of Fact. -- Gnetwerker 18:58, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

No original research

4) Wikipedia:No original research provides that information known only to the user or the result of his researches are not acceptable sources for information in a Wikipedia article. The source must be a reliable published report.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Information without an adequate source

5) Users may not add information to Wikipedia articles which do not have a source in a reliable published source.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Tendentious editing

6) Sustained aggressive point of view editing, especially when accompanied by edit warring is unacceptable and may result in a ban from the affected article. In extreme cases in a ban from the site.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Using affiliations to discredit views

7) "Using someone's affiliations as a means of dismissing or discrediting their views" may be considered to be a personal attack.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

• Added by Gnetwerker 22:32, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

• This is not what happened here. I point to the Carl Hewitt case[[21]] as an example of other editors pointing to Hewitt's affiliation with the subject matter. I don't know that anyone even raised the idea that this was a personal attack, but if they did, it was rejected. My suggestion that Gnetwerker edits in a POV manner due to his "Affiliation" with Reed doesn't even rise to the level of discourtesy, much less personal attack. IronDuke 03:21, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• The Carl Hewitt case was about editing on the subject of one's own academic research. This was not the case here. -- Gnetwerker 07:49, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Abuse of Process

8) "Requests for arbitration should be used appropriately within the guidelines on that page. They should not be used for frivolous or pointless disputes and should not be used as a forum for personal attacks, harassment, and abuse" Wikipedia:Arbitration_policy/Precedents#Abuse_of_processes.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

• Added by Gnetwerker 22:42, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
• Abcom rejects frivolous cases on a routine basis. That they have accepted this case is prima facie evidence that it isn't frivolous. IronDuke 16:52, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
• The case may not be frivolous, but as the Reed page has moved on without disruption since IronDuke's departure, it might be considered pointless. In any case, the case was brought not to improve the Reed page (which was improved through mediation), but to harass me. -- Gnetwerker 18:26, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

So arbcom took up a pointless case to do what? Was it me they wanted to torture or you? IronDuke 05:19, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Locus of dispute

1) The locus of the dispute is Reed College with IronDuke focusing on alleged problems [22] and Gnetworker taking a more balanced point of view [23].

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

• I'm confused by this. Is there anyone out there (other than Gnetwerker) who would call his edits "balanced?" They are all either neutral or positive, none negative. And the diffs supplied just support this, with Gnetwerker providing unsourced positive spin, and me citing sources (admittedly, not a positive one). IronDuke 17:10, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

• Is this[24] edit positive to Reed? Or this[25], or this[26], or this[27]? IronDuke's charge is an utter calumny. -- Gnetwerker 07:55, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

If I may sum up the diffs you supplied: "Reed did a bad thing way back in the past, but they really made up for it recently. Some dorms may not have the architectural merit previously associated with them. Reed students default on their loans a lot." (The fourth diff seems to involve the insertion of a couple minor numbers followed by boasting of Reed's endowment). This is negative? You've written more negative things about me in one posting than in all these put together. IronDuke 05:27, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Gnetwerker has been discourteous to IronDuke

2) Gnetwerker has sometimes been discourteous to IronDuke, see Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/IronDuke_and_Gnetwerker/Evidence#Gnetwerker_engaged_in_personal_attacks.

Comment by Arbitrators:

I don't believe the evidence would support a finding of personal attacks. Fred Bauder 14:22, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

• Comment by Gnetwerker: As I stated in the evidence, I did not believe i was discourteous to IronDuke, and in the one situation where he complained, I apologized. I believe the quotes in his evidence are taken out of context:

• nonsense -- this was used in an edit summary. The word appears, in fact, in the one of the milder WP:Vandalism templates ({{subst:test2}}). It was not intended as a discourtesy, as at that time I thought IronDuke's repeated addition of the exact same line without discussion was simple vandalism.
• arbitrary: Again, noted a reversion of an "arbitrary" re-ordering -- i.e. one done without discussion (prior or post) on the talk page. This seems mild to me in view of what I see on other WP pages.
• vandalism: The context sentence[28] for this is "[IronDuke's] position doesn't anger me, repeated vandalism does". Clearly, the quote is taken out of context.
• trying the community's patience: is from a Wikipedia link suggesting the IronDuke look at that policy[29], not an attack on IronDuke.
• bogus: the phrase form the citation[30] is that "the comparison ... is bogus". The definition of the word is "not genuine" and it is not a term of disrespect.

Several of the other references in IronDuke's complaint do not point to uses of the words he quotes. ArbCom may feel that the overall tone was disrespectful, or that I need a caution in order that the result appear balanced, and while I disavow that intent, I can accept that opinion. As I stipulated in my evidence that I was intemperate on at least one occasion in considering IronDuke's "sustained low-quality editing" (phrasing from here, to avoid further accusations) to be vandalism, for which I apologized long ago. If I am to be criticized, I would like it to be for things I really said in the context they were said. -- Gnetwerker 22:26, 24 February 2006 (UTC) edited 20:28, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I think that Gnetwerker's pre-positioning himself to interpret a finding of discourtesy against him (which would properly be under WP:CIV, wouldn't it?) as arbcom wishing to "appear balanced" is itself evidence that Gnetwerker does not see that his behavior was improper. This is another reason why I believe that a stronger reprimand is called for. IronDuke 06:25, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I'd just like to note here that Gnetwerker has refactored this page (and yes, that word does seem to come up a lot in relation to him) so that my comments are harder to read, and in some ways meaningless. My best guess is that it is not for the parties to refactor these pages, so I'm not restoring this to it's former, clearer version (again, capitulating to Gnetwerker to avoid an edit war on an arbcom page, of all things). Again, if someone could weigh in on the rights and wrongs of this... IronDuke 06:21, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

• You make this point above, at length. It is not true. I have moved your comments out of inside my comments, where they do not belong. You should respect the integrity of others (my) formatting and exposition of my own comments. Please make your comments before or after mine, not inside them. -- Gnetwerker 06:37, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

• Comment by IronDuke:

Quite right, I messed up the diffs, have (I hope) corrected them, and supplied the terms above for Gnetwerker's comments, if he chooses. IronDuke 02:36, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

• Is it your contention that you discuss all changes on the talk page before making any edits? Or that it is WP policy to do so? But I will concede this is one of the milder examples. IronDuke
• I took "bogus" to mean "fake" or "counterfeit" (not neutral terms). Bogus is a sort of a sneering term, and I believe you used it in this way, and meant for me to take it in just that way. From wiktionary [[31]]. IronDuke 03:48, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Gnetwerker, you keep asserting that the quotes I provide are taken out of context, which is... tautological? Yes, they are by definition taken out of context. That is the nature of a quote. However, I've made, in all instances, the context quite clear when the quote does not speak for itself. I don't understand what you're getting at here. Are you saying you were just idly chatting with me in a friendly editor-to-editor fashion about how angry vandalism makes you, and not at all implying that my edits were vandalism? You might then just as well have written "Your position doesn't anger me, global warming does." The implication of your comments is completely clear.
• Again, I can only conclude this is disingenuous. Is Gnetwerker suggesting that he just randomly places links to WP policy on user pages? IronDuke 02:28, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• I might be willing to AGF and concede that your first use of the word vandalism was relatively innocent, but I have difficulty believing that you failed to grasp WP vandalism policy after four or five years of editing. IronDuke 02:19, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

• hilarious: — Preceding unsigned comment added by IronDuke (talk • contribs)
• disruption:— Preceding unsigned comment added by IronDuke (talk • contribs)
• drivel:— Preceding unsigned comment added by IronDuke (talk • contribs)
• not normal:— Preceding unsigned comment added by IronDuke (talk • contribs)
• can't be trusted:— Preceding unsigned comment added by IronDuke (talk • contribs)
• threatened with block as a vandal:— Preceding unsigned comment added by IronDuke (talk • contribs)
• BS:— Preceding unsigned comment added by IronDuke (talk • contribs)

Comment by others:

Calls for recusal by IronDuke

3) Based on Gnetwerker's apparent connection with Reed College IronDuke has repeatedly called for Gnetwerker "recusing" himself from editing the article. However Gnetwerker's edits are within the usual accepted bounds of Wikipedia editing.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

• I'm not sure what is meant here by "usual accepted." I believe I've shown that Gnetwerker consistently tries to portray Reed College in as positive light as possible, minimizing or removing information (even from the talk pages) that would, in his view, make Reed seem less than perfect. I know that POV editing is "usual" on WP, but I hope not accepted. IronDuke 03:25, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

• I vigorously dispute the charge of POV editing here. In any case, as pointed out in the evidence, when the first call for recusal was made, I posted to WP:AUTO here[32] to ascertain a community position. Insofar as a position was forthcoming, it did not support IronDuke's position. Furthermore, the mediator did not believe it to be a significant issue. -- Gnetwerker 18:56, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

And speaking of our mediator, that same mediator, Sdedeo raised NPOV concerns [[33]] with Gnetwerker's edits [[34]], all of which are very positive about Reed and two of which come from Reed itself. This was a truly disappointing edit, because I'd felt so positive about our work together on the drug use section, I thought surely Gnetwerker would at least take a break from POV editing. When I saw he wasn't (and that he was removing my comments from the talk page), I brought this case. But this is not the only POV edit Gnetwerker has made. There have been many, and I'll list some here. Keep in mind, please, as you read them, that I am not saying that all of them, or even most of them, are false but rather, constitue a campaign of relentless boosterism on the Reed page. [[35]], [[36]], first attempts to tendentiously edit and downplay Reed's drug-use reputation "the basis for the drug use image is now largely historic, if it was ever true" are (I think) Gnetwerker's words [[37]], more boosterism [[38]], more reversion of (sourced) drug-use info [[39]],

• IronDuke was a party to a mediated resolution of the content of the section he refers to and he agreed to the result, which has since stood largely unchanged. It is an abuse of process that, 1 month into the ArbCom process, he raises accusations of POV editing in respect to that section, and in defense of that uses quotes from long before either the mediation or his appearance on the page. Nonetheless, this does not constitute an admission of any deliberate POV on my part with respect to the older edits. -- Gnetwerker 01:14, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Original research by Gnetwerker

4) Gnetworker, using either his status with Reed College or his investigatory skills, has from time to time relied on interviews with persons associated with Reed College or internal documents of Reed College as sources, see Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/IronDuke_and_Gnetwerker/Evidence#Original_research_by_Gnetwerker.

Comment by Arbitrators:

This is a constant temptation when you have ready access to accurate inside information. The source for information in a Wikipedia article must be a reliable publication which is publicly available. Fred Bauder 15:13, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by Gnetwerker: :I will accept ArbCom's criticism here without complaint, as I agree that WP:NOR is essential to WP. However, I wish to point out the following:

• Architecture document: The document referred to in this part of IronDuke's complaint[40] (The Reed College Heritage Master Plan) is, in fact, a public document (though not online). Further, this was not presented as evidence of an edit, but as a justifaction for removing and completely unsource, WP:V-violating edit, and in any case occurred far in advance of IronDuke's complaint. I hope that ArbCom will not consider that research in order to feel secure in removing other's unsupported POV is forbidden.
• Access to Officers of Reed: This is exactly the same situation[41] as above, where -- in order to help disprove IronDuke's completely unsupported, uncited addition (the "heroin deaths" quote), I asked people long associated with Reed College about the issue. This was added to the Talk page only, not the article. Is it really not permitted to reference personal conversations in identifying that an unsupported edit is in fact false? How can one WP:V the negative proposition of "there is absolutely no evidence supporting IronDuke's heroin use assertions"?
• Reed Drug Use Survey: Similarly, in [42] I was not claiming special access to Reed adminsitrators -- I supplied a phone number to allow IronDuke (or anyone else) to ascertain the truth. Again, this was on the Talk page, not in the article. Finally, I will stipulate that I did try to get Reed to publish a survey[43] that would prove this issue. When it became clear that this wasn't going to be published (and may have been considered WP:NOR in any case), I voluntarily removed any reference to it from the article.

In summary, I understand and fully agree with Fred Bauder's position -- but I think that ArbCom should distinguish between comments on the Talk page used to discredit unsupported information in the article, and WP:NOR in the article itself. IronDuke challenged me to prove that his statement was false -- perhaps I should not have even tried, but the record shows that I (apparently) tried too diligently, and may now be reprimanded for it. -- Gnetwerker 22:11, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Low quality tendentious editing by IronDuke

5) IronDuke has added derogatory material to Reed College which was not based on a reliable published source [44].

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

• IronDuke re-added this material three more times [45] [46] [47] in quick succession. -- Gnetwerker 23:20, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

• The information I added was not tendentious, nor was it low quality; it lacked citation. Frequently, additions are made to articles with the phrase "citation needed" in quotes. Since I could not come up with an appropriate citation for it, I quickly came to see that the removal of it was not only acceptable, but necessary. IronDuke 16:57, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

• The comment inserted four times over 6 days was not merely "uncited", it was false, as subsequent investigation showed. I suggest that repeated insertion of a false claim, in the face of evidence of its falsehood, is a clear example of tendentious, low-quality editing. That IronDuke continues to claim that the insertion was correct (but uncited) is further evidence of POV and a lack of good faith. -- Gnetwerker 21:06, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

• Sorry, I never saw it shown false. Might have missed it. Can you show me where it was shown to be false? Also, I have no idea what AGF is doing at the end of your comment. I'm not assuming bad faith by insisting that what I know to be true is true. I'm either wrong about what I believe or right, but AGF? Just puzzling...IronDuke 02:41, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Also, I'm quite proud of the work I did on the final version of the drug section. I provided a number of good sources and (with Sdedeo's help) made the paragraph completely cited and substantiated. IronDuke 03:30, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

• There are 4 references in the Reed College page "Drug Use" section. None of them were originally supplied by IronDuke.

• Ref 11 in the current article (Willamette Week editorial) was supplied first by me here[48];
• Ref 12 (Princeton Review "reefer madness" comment) was most recently supplied by me here[49] though it had been used on the page before;
• Ref 13 (Reed Psych Dept survey) was first supplied by me here[50];
• Ref 14 (National College Drug Use survery) was suggested by me here[51];

In short, IronDuke supplied no citations that were usable in the final (mediated) article. IronDuke's few contributions of citations were [52] (made here[53]) which is a sidebar in an unrelated article in the local alternative newspaper, itself sourcing a 1996 student newspaper article sourcing an unstated 1996 survey (no doubt WP:NOR like the later survey), almost definitionally a source of dubious reliability, the "College Prowler" citation (made here[54]) and citing an avowedly anecdotal document, and a citation of a single student's opinion from the Yale Daily News Insider’s Guide to the Colleges, 2006 that did not make the final cut. IronDuke says in this[55] edit "if we’re keeping score, I’ve now put in three" citations. The edit history after this point will show no more. In short, IronDuke provided no useable citations to his comments or the article. -- Gnetwerker 07:18, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

• Again, this is easily disproven. "The Yale Daily News Insider's Guide to Colleges also notes an impression among students of institutional permissiveness: “according to students, the school does not bust students for drug or alcohol use unless they cause harm or embarrassment to another student.” (2006 edition, p. 771)." This source was provided by me. [[56]]. I used a quote from Willamette Week. Gnetwerker used a different article from the same source, which was fine by me. Yes, not all of my sources "survived," but that is the whole point of a mediated compromise, I think. So, Ref 11 is from a source I initiated, Ref 12 is from a source already in use on the page (I take Gnetwerker's word for this) Ref 13 was indeed supplied by Gnetwerker, but was interpreted in such a way as to imply that Reed's reputation for drug use is baseless. I was flabbergasted to find that the study said nothing of the kind, and tended to reinforce the notion that Reed has drug use well above the national average.

Also, an early contribution Gnetwerker made to the section was to delete it entirely as he and I were working on it. [[57]]. IronDuke 13:05, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

• I stand by the analysis I provided above. Also, the two Willy Week references, while from the same nominal source, were sourced separately, and used separately: IronDuke used an unreliable reference to source a (putative) fact, while I used this source (which is unreliable with regard to fact) to source an overall impression or reputation. With regard to the Reed survey, I can provide references if requested refuting IronDuke's position and demonstrating his ignorance of statistical analysis and comparability of same in the mediated discussion. -- Gnetwerker 18:33, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

• Above, IronDuke says (vis his "heroin use" comment) "Sorry, I never saw it shown false. Might have missed it. Can you show me where it was shown to be false?". Yes. There exists no evidence in this discussion or currently available elsewhere to prove IronDuke's point is true. Meanwhile there exists the following evidence of its falsity:

1. User:JesseW posted[58] that he googled a list of names that IronDuke supplied as "evidence" and found nothing;
2. In [59] I posted the results of research indicating that one of the names supplied, Michael Babich, was not a Reed student at the time of his death -- IronDuke did not disagree. In the same post I reported reviewing copies of the school newspaper since 1997 for the information, finding nothing, and searching the archives of the local newspaper "The Oregonian" back to 1987, also finding nothing. The latter search can be done by anyone online[60], the former requires physical going to Reed, but the back-issues are public;
3. It was at this juncture -- when his unsourced edit was disproven -- that IronDuke started attacking me and demanding by "recusal";
4. Here[61] IronDuke admits "Gnetwerker quite rightly points out that I have no verification at hand (other than knowing for a virtual certainty that they happened)" admitting he has no evidence other than a personal conviction (i.e. POV);
5. Given IronDuke's continued assertion of the truth of his statement that "heroin deaths were not uncommon at Reed", I interviewed a Reed adminsitrator and a Reed Trustee[62]. While this is now being portrayed as original research, it was not to defend a statement in the article, but to finally and definitively rebut IronDuke's false statement.

It is implausible that deaths due to heroin use could have been "common" at Reed without a record of some of them existing in the student newspaper (not a paragon of accuracy, but not controlled by the administration), the major newspaper in Portland, OR, or the recollections of Reed staff, a Trustee, and myself (an alumnus and long-time Portland resident). For IronDuke to state otherwise continues his pattern of misbehaviour and POV on this topic. A perhaps more interesting question is that IronDuke "defends" his statement with the listing of four names: "Michael Babic, Jeremy Weiner, John Rush, and Nick Fisher"[63]. IronDuke has never said who these people are, what is supposed to have happened to them, or how they relate to his assertion or the Reed College page. Though he claims "no relationship"[64] with Reed, he declined to answer JesseW's question about where he got the names[65]. For the purposes of this case, IronDuke should disclose the source of his information, and what his connection with Reed College is. -- Gnetwerker 20:57, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I'll also just add Gnetwerker's thoughts on the quality of my editing skills. "IronDuke has chosen, rather that attempt to contribute to sourcing any of the current article, to simply re-write it in the form he sees fit. This is fine, and may be an improvement (ultimately)." [[66]] Was my initial inclusion of the deaths of members of the Reed community from heroin an edit I stand by now? It is not, and I have made that clear. Does one uncited claim (which is frequent and frequently accepted until citations are found on WP) mean that the sum total of my contributions to the page are "low-quality?" Gnetwerker would seem to disagree. IronDuke 07:25, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

• I will stipulate for the record that my comment, repeated above (implying that the page might be improved by ironDuke), was only said to be nice. However, most of IronDuke's edits on the Reed page consisted of removing things, not (the hard work of) supplying citations and sources. -- Gnetwerker 07:47, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Current editing of Reed College

6) While Gnetwerker continues to edit Reed College on a regular basis, IronDuke has not edited since January 18 when he was involved in the controversy over drug use.

Comment by Arbitrators:

This finding affects remedies, there is no point in banning someone from an article who is not editing the article on a regular basis. Fred Bauder 16:28, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

• I am concerned that after the resolution of this case, IronDuke may return to the (now smoothly functioning) Reed page as retribution. I suppose that matter can be addressed if it in fact occurs. -- Gnetwerker 18:35, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

IronDuke's repeated calls for Gnetwerker's "recusal" amounted to a personal attack

7) In 14 closely-spaced instances [67], [68], [69], [70], [71], [72], [73], [74], [75], [76], [77], [78], [79], [80], including on several third-parties' talk pages, IronDuke called for Gnetwerker to leave the Reed College page. The repeated accusations constitute "Using someone's affiliations as a means of dismissing or discrediting their views" (from WP:NPA), and "accusatory comments ... if said repeatedly".

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

• Submitted by Gnetwerker 22:51, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
• Again, please see [[81]]. IronDuke 03:32, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• The Carl Hewitt case is not relevant to this point. The question is whether 14 closely-spaced demands (with no support from any other parties) consistutes a repeated accusation consistent with WP:NPA. -- Gnetwerker 18:50, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

IronDuke's Complaint is an Abuse of Process

8) The dispute on the Reed College page was resolved[82] through mediation prior to IronDuke's filing of a request for arbitration[83], and IronDuke's filing of the action was primarily retaliatory against Gnetwerker[84]. Because the issue was resolved, this is a "pointless dispute" per "Requests for arbitration ... should not be used for frivolous or pointless disputes and should not be used as a forum for personal attacks, harassment, and abuse".

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

• Submitted by Gnetwerker 23:07, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

• "The dispute on the Reed College page was resolved." This was clearly not the case, for several reasons. 1) Gnetwerker continued to refactor my comments despite my strong and repeated objections. 2) Gnetwerker never addressed his own relationship to the college and 3) Gnetwerker began to make POV edits, reverting what I had done. And again: if my filing this case was abusive, I have little doubt that it would have been speedily rejected. IronDuke 17:01, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

• After IronDuke's departure, other editors have returned to the page, the edits in question have not been questioned by anyone as POV, and the page has moved on and improved. Any further dispute is in this domain, not the domain of the Reed page. -- Gnetwerker 15:56, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Writing about yourself

9) Editors should avoid contributing to articles about themselves or subjects in which they are personally involved, as it is difficult to maintain NPOV while doing so.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

• Submitted by IronDuke. This passed unanimously in the Carl Hewitt case [[85]]. IronDuke 02:51, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Objection: This is redundant with Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/IronDuke_and_Gnetwerker/Workshop#Calls_for_recusal_by_IronDuke. Also, as noted elsewhere, the Carl Hewitt case is about edits regarding one's own academic research. That is not the case here and the precedent (if there is such a thing in these cases) is irrelevant. -- Gnetwerker 07:20, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Yes, there is such a thing as precedent in these cases, although arbcom is free to ignore it if they think the precedent isn't "workable." The Carl Hewitt case is quite relevant. Yes, it's true that the facts of that case are not exactly the same as the facts in this one, but it's very useful here. Carl Hewitt made edits to an academic subject that he was closely involved with, and pushed POV and Original Research while doing so. Gnetwerker made edits to academic subject that he was closely involved with, and pushed POV and Original Research while doing so (as has been demonstrated elsewhere on this page). IronDuke 00:22, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Gnetwerker has inappropriately "refactored" talk pages

10) Gnetwerker has inappropriately modified talk pages in order to hide comment he doesn't like and to antagonize editors he doesn't like.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Submitted by IronDuke. IronDuke 07:30, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

• [86] was a routine refactoring prior to IronDuke's arrival on the page. All others were refctorings of the Drug Use dispute subsequent to mediation. In no case did I refactor to archive others' comments and retain my own. -- Gnetwerker 20:40, 28 February 2006 (UTC) (moved from "Principles" section by Gnetwerker 07:58, 2 March 2006 (UTC))

• Regarding IronDuke's "evidence" cited in the "Preliminary Injunction" request above:

• "[87]" is a refactoring that predates IronDuke's appearance on the page, and includes comments by many users (including myself);
• "[88]" is an attempt to provide a dedicated space for the Drug Use dispute, and says "It has not been moved to hide it, but to re-focus this page on the subject matter";
• "[89]" simply adds a red-dashed-line box around the above quote; and
• "[90]" is a refactoring of the drug-use related comments after the completion of the mediation.

IronDuke again ignores the fact that the mediator (Sdedeo) refactored the entire Drug-Use dispute (including the "recusal" comments), not me. -- Gnetwerker 07:37, 1 March 2006 (UTC) (moved from "Principles" section by Gnetwerker 07:58, 2 March 2006 (UTC))

• The timeline is:

1. Sdedeo refactors Talk page[91]
2. IronDuke has a private conversation with Sdedeo off the Reed page (per above)
3. IronDuke posts snippets of this conversation (in which I was not involved) on the page [92]
4. But the mediator (Sdedeo) chooses not to revert his refactoring
5. IronDuke takes matters into his own hands[93]
6. As this was not the result of the mediation, but (perhaps) a private offline conversation, I revert[94]
7. Three weeks later, after IronDuke has abandonded the Reed page, the dispute is again archived[95]
8. But IronDuke objects, so it is reverted

In addition to IronDuke's persistent unfair referring to this refactoring as "deletion" of his comments, he continues to be tendentious on the topic, despite the fact that he has prevailed at each turn. -- Gnetwerker 15:52, 1 March 2006 (UTC) (moved from "Principles" section by Gnetwerker 07:58, 2 March 2006 (UTC))

• IronDuke again pulls citations supportive of only his position. Wikipedia:Refactoring_talk_pages#Remove_off-topic_comments supports archiving in the manner that was done. Also various edit summaries indicate sensitivity to objections:

• "Archived 2005 comments (separately, so revertable if there is an issue)" [96]
• "IronDuke didn't like it, so page reverted to before new page creation" [97]
• "Created page for Jan 06 Edit War" [98]

-- Gnetwerker 07:47, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

• Also see the timeline I supply above in Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/IronDuke_and_Gnetwerker/Workshop#Gnetwerker_enjoined_from_refactoring_Reed_College_talk_page -- Gnetwerker 18:22, 1 March 2006 (UTC).

Although it will not be immediately obvious to readers, I have responded to these points in prior versions of this page. As noted above, Gnetwerker refactored his comments "away" from mine, so that it will take a rather clever and tenacious reader to see which of his points I am responding to. I don't know if I should attempt to make sense of this all and reorganize things so they do make sense, but I know that the process is so time-consuming, and the danger of having my comments rearranged again are so great, that it is truly depressing to contemplate. IronDuke 05:01, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Gnetwerker has made POV edits

11) Gnetwerker has made POV edits.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Submitted by IronDuke. IronDuke 07:33, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Our mediator, Sdedeo, raised NPOV concerns [[99]] with Gnetwerker's edits [[100]], all of which are very positive about Reed and two of which come from Reed itself. This was a truly disappointing edit, because I'd felt so positive about our work together on the drug use section, I thought surely Gnetwerker would at least take a break from POV editing. When I saw he wasn't (and that he was removing my comments from the talk page), I brought this case. But this is not the only POV edit Gnetwerker has made. There have been many, and I'll list some here. Keep in mind, please, as you read them, that I am not saying that all of them, or even most of them, are false but rather, constitue a campaign of relentless boosterism on the Reed page. [[101]], [[102]], first attempts to tendentiously edit and downplay Reed's drug-use reputation "the basis for the drug use image is now largely historic, if it was ever true" are (I think) Gnetwerker's words [[103]], more boosterism [[104]], more reversion of (sourced) drug-use info [[105]],

• My comments on this are sufficiently layed out in other sections above. I will respond in more detail if requested. In any case, the Drug Use section was the subject of mediation, and IronDuke agreed to the result, which still stands. This complaint is thus out of order. -- Gnetwerker 08:20, 2 March 2006 (UTC) - edited 01:16, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
• A complete list of my edits (since January 2003) have been compiled here: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/IronDuke_and_Gnetwerker/Evidence/Complete_list_Gnetwerker_edits. Feel free to review it to determine any pattern of POV edits. -- Gnetwerker 06:30, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Gnetwerker cautioned regarding discourtesy

1) Gnetwerker is cautioned regarding discourtesy.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Gnetwerker cautioned regarding original research

2) Gnetwerker is cautioned to avoid using unpublished material as a source.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

IronDuke cautioned regarding unsourced material

3) IronDuke is cautioned regarding use of information, especially derogatory material, which does not have an adequate source in a reliable published source.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I see no reason for a formal caution. I have cautioned myself about this more than once [[106]]. IronDuke 07:39, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

All Comments Refactored to Reed College/Drug use dispute

5) The comments of both parties on this topic will be refactored to Talk:Reed_College/drug_use_dispute.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

• Submitted by Gnetwerker 23:13, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

• This motion, perhaps more eloquently than any of the evidence I provided, indicates that Gnetwerker is determined to banish my comments from the main talk page. Why this is, I cannot say, except to offer it as further evidence that Gnetwerker ought not to refactor the Reed College talk page. IronDuke 03:35, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

• In any outcome, the discussion that IronDuke wishes to carry out on the Reed Talk page is off-topic and will be obsoleted by the outcome of this action. If my edits are found accceptable and no violation of WP:AUTO is determined, then the comments will be out-of-date, and part-and-parcel of the "Drug Use Disupute". If I am found to have violated WP:AUTO, then I will no longer be editing the page, in which case this discussion will also be out of date. Indefinite retention of IronDuke's repeated claims of comment deletion and calls for my recusal are a form of harrassment which may be part of the page's archival record but have no relevance to the ongoing discussion on the page. -- Gnetwerker 18:46, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

IronDuke is enjoined from further demands for Gnetwerker's "recusal" from Reed page

6) IronDuke will refrain from further demands that Gnetwerker "recuse" himself from editing the Reed page.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

• Submitted by Gnetwerker 23:13, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
• If arbcom decides that Gnetwerker's participation on the Reed College page is perfectly acceptable, it would be pointless for me to demand his recusal. IronDuke 17:04, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Gnetwerker cautioned regarding violations of WP:CIV

7) Gnetwerker is cautioned regarding violations of WP:CIV.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

• The "petty" examples are, as per the policy (and please see the list of attacks/incivility above):

• rudeness
• judgmental tone in edit summaries
• ill-considered accusations of impropriety of one kind or another
• calling someone a liar, or accusing him/her of slander or libel.

The more serious example is:

• calling for bans and blocks

Submitted by IronDuke. IronDuke 03:00, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

• IronDuke's repeated calls for my recusal were a call for bans and blocks. -- Gnetwerker 07:31, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, they were not. They were a call, as you have elsewhere pointed out, for "recusal." Recusal is voluntary. And in any case, this does not speak to the issue raised in this point. IronDuke 12:37, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Gnetwerker banned from refactoring the Reed College talk page

8) Gnetwerker is banned from any and all refactoring the Reed College talk page.

8.1 8) Gnetwerker is banned from any and all refactoring of any talk page. IronDuke 07:37, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

• Submitted by IronDuke. IronDuke 03:06, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Objection - this remedy is supported by no proposed Finding of Fact. -- Gnetwerker 18:36, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Finding of fact supplied. IronDuke 07:37, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

• Objection - the locus of this dispute is the Reed College page. A remedy of banning against all refactoring (anywhere) is draconian and uncalled-for. It is another component of IronDuke's harrassment. -- Gnetwerker 08:01, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
• If Gnetwerker had confined himself to the original instances of removal of my comments from the Reed talk page (despite my objections) I could see a simple caution being in order. That he then removed even my objections to the first removal (in essence, removing my comments on more than one ongoing discussion), and then, again has moved both his and my comments around on this page so that arbcom members would essentially have to go into the history to recreate which comments are replying to which, indicates that a ban on Gnetwerker is more than reasonable. As for draconian, I'd say a permanent ban on refactoring, etc., the Reed talk page is obviously in order, but a milder ban, of a week, say, on all other pages would at least send a message that this sort of thing isn't tolerated. IronDuke 00:31, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

An entry will be added to Wikipedia:Lamest_edit_wars_ever

9) Upon conclusion of this case, an entry regarding it will be added on Wikipedia:Lamest_edit_wars_ever

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

• Submitted :-) by Gnetwerker 07:01, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
• Withdrawn -- Gnetwerker 18:15, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Gnetwerker will disclose his relationship to Reed College

10) Gnetwerker will disclose his relationship to Reed College or cease POV editing.

Also acceptable to me (as per Gnetwerker's objection) is:

10.1) Gnetwerker will disclose his relationship to Reed College. IronDuke 07:46, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Submitted by IronDuke. IronDuke 07:35, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

• Objection: This is a "when will you stop beating your wife" comment -- since I deny (and it has not been found) that I have engaged in POV editing, the proposal is improperly formed -- Gnetwerker 07:40, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Analysis of evidence

Place here items of evidence (with diffs) and detailed analysis

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

General discussion

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others: