Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/IronDuke and Gnetwerker/Workshop

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration | IronDuke and Gnetwerker

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 7265 (talk | contribs) at 07:47, 1 March 2006 (→Refactoring of talk pages). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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

Template

1)

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)

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)[reply]
  • [[[5]]] 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Regarding IronDuke's above-cited "evidence":
  • "1" is a refactoring that predates IronDuke's appearance on the page, and includes comments by many users (including myself);
  • "2" 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";
  • "3" simply adds a red-dashed-line box around the above quote; and
  • "4" is a refactoring of the drug-use related comments after the completion of the mediation.
-- Gnetwerker 07:37, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Comment by parties:
Also, please allow to me to quote (in context, I hope) the archiving policy [[7]]: "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. [[8]]. 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. IronDuke 03:13, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Archived 2005 comments (separately, so revertable if there is an issue)" [9]
  • "IronDuke didn't like it, so page reverted to before new page creation" [10]
  • "Created page for Jan 06 Edit War" [11]
-- Gnetwerker 07:47, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
This is not what happened here. I point to the Carl Hewitt case[[12]] 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)[reply]
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:
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 [13] and Gnetworker taking a more balanced point of view [14].

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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[15] 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[16], not an attack on IronDuke.
  • bogus: the phrase form the citation[17] 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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 [[18]]. IronDuke 03:48, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]


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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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[19] (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[20] 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 [21] 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[22] 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, the 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)[reply]


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 [23].

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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[27];
  • Ref 12 (Princeton Review "reefer madness" comment) was most recently supplied by me here[28] though it had been used on the page before;
  • Ref 13 (Reed Psych Dept survey) was first supplied by me here[29];
  • Ref 14 (National College Drug Use survery) was suggested by me here[30];
In short, IronDuke supplied no citations that were usable in the final (mediated) article. IronDuke's few contributions of citations were [31] (made here[32]) 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[33]) 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[34] 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)[reply]


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)[reply]
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:


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

7) In 14 closely-spaced instances [35], [36], [37], [38], [39], [40], [41], [42], [43], [44], [45], [46], [47], [48], 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:
Comment by others:

IronDuke's Complaint is an Abuse of Process

8) The dispute on the Reed College page was resolved[50] through mediation prior to IronDuke's filing of a request for arbitration[51], and IronDuke's filing of the action was primarily retaliatory against Gnetwerker[52]. 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)[reply]
  • "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)[reply]
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:
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:
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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:
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)[reply]
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.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
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:
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/IronDuke_and_Gnetwerker/Workshop&oldid=41721616"