Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/IronDuke and Gnetwerker/Evidence

Anyone, whether directly involved or not, may add evidence to this page. Please make a header for your evidence and sign your comments with your name.

When placing evidence here, please be considerate of the arbitrators and be concise. Long, rambling, or stream-of-conciousness rants are not helpful.

As such, it is extremely important that you use the prescribed format. Submitted evidence should include a link to the actual page diff; links to the page itself are not sufficient. For example, to cite the edit by Mennonot to the article Anomalous phenomenon adding a link to Hundredth Monkey use this form: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anomalous_phenomenon&diff=5587219&oldid=5584644] [1].

This page is not for general discussion - for that, see talk page.

Please make a section for your evidence and add evidence only in your own section. Please limit your evidence to a maximum 1000 words and 100 diffs, a much shorter, concise presentation is more likely to be effective. Please focus on the issues raised in the complaint and answer and on diffs which illustrate behavior which relates to the issues.

If you disagree with some evidence you see here, please cite the evidence in your own section and provide counter-evidence, or an explanation of why the evidence is misleading. Do not edit within the evidence section of any other user.

Be aware that the Arbitrators may at times rework this page to try to make it more coherent. If you are a participant in the case or a third party, please don't try to refactor the page, let the Arbitrators do it. If you object to evidence which is inserted by other participants or third parties please cite the evidence and voice your objections within your own section of the page. It is especially important to not remove evidence presented by others. If something is put in the wrong place, please leave it for the arbitrators to move.

The Arbitrators may analyze evidence and other assertions at /Workshop. /Workshop provides for comment by parties and others as well as arbitrators. After arriving at proposed principles, findings of fact or remedies voting by Arbitrators takes place at /Proposed decision. Only Arbitrators may edit /Proposed decision.

A few of these links don't check out, but most show discourtesy. Fred Bauder 14:18, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, you're right. I put in the wrong diffs for a couple of them. I will get on this in the next day or so... IronDuke 16:28, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I think I got `em all. Please anyone: let me know if I didn't. IronDuke 02:37, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gnetwerker engaged in personal attacks against me. He has referred to my edits as “nonsense” [[2]] [[3]], as “arbitrary,” [[4]], as “vandalism” [[5]] and [[6]], as “drivel,” “bogus,” and as “hilarious,” [[7]], as “BS,” [[8]] as “disruption,” and “trying the community’s patience” [[9]], has labeled my actions “rock-throwing” and me as a “trouble-maker” [[10]], has asserted that I can’t be trusted and that I am not "normal" [[11]], and, finally, Gnetwerker has threatened to have me blocked as a vandal [[12]].

===Second assertion=== Gnetwerker has pushed POV on the Reed college page.

1. Gnetwerker and I had been in the early stages of working together on building the drug use section when he abruptly deleted the entire section. [[13]]. Gnetwerker continually attempted to ameliorate or downplay Reed’s reputation for drug use in his edits. (This is everywhere, I’m not even sure what diff to supply.)

2. Gnetwerker used a straw poll to attempt a backdoor revert of all my NPOV edits at once (no one responded). [[14]] Then, after we had settled the drug dispute section, Gnetwerker began to revert my edits without discussion, and reinserted the POV back into the article [[15]].

===Third assertion=== Gnetwerker has refactored the talk page to exclude my comments. Gnetwerker has archived the drug use section before, leaving other comments in place. He did this before I saw the page, [[16]], but first did it to me here, (before we had a mediator for our drug use dispute): [[17]]

Please note that in addition to removing all of my comments (including comments having nothing to do with the drug use section), Gnetwerker left his own (older) comment, warning “first time editors” not to insert “spurious negative commentary.” I objected to this and reinserted the sections that had been removed: [[18]]. Gnetwerker suggested we archive the discussion. I agreed, provided we limit ourselves to the drug use dispute and that dispute only [[19]]. Later Sdedeo, after having resolved our dispute re the Drug section, refactored the talk page and, as Gnetwerker had, removed all of my comments. My belief was that Sdedeo was unaware of my objection to this, and I posted a lengthy query about this on Sdedeo’s talk page [[20]]. Sdedeo responded that it was best to err on the side of not archiving comments if one party objected. [[21]]. I posted this reply on the Reed talk page, [[22]]. I also indicated that I did not wish to get into a revert war. Gnetwerker evinced confusion as to where the quote bearing the name of our mediator had come from, [[23]] and then insisted that Sdedeo make an appearance him/herself to refactor. [[24]]

More recently, Gnetwerker has removed my comments (objecting to his previous removal of my comments from the talk page, as well as objections to his POV edits having nothing to do with the drug use section) from the talk page, [[25]] incorrectly labeling this in the edit summary as "archive drug-use dispute related comments". [[26]]

WP:Auto states that people ought not to edit pages about their “business.” I believe that Gnetwerker has business relationship with Reed College, and that he is a trustee. I can provide evidence of this, but much of the hard evidence I can point to would reveal his identity. Whatever the literal rendering of WP: Auto, I think it’s clear that this is exactly the sort of situation the policy was written for: people whose job it is to protect an institution (or profit from it) shouldn’t make POV edits to support their institution (and should divulge their relationship, if any, when making edits).

Gnetwerker states that he has denied having any such relationship with Reed College. I see no evidence that he has done this. However, Gnetwerker makes frequent reference to his access to officers of Reed College, documents and studies that are not publicly available. Sometimes, he uses these private resources to add or remove content (violating WP:NOR.) Examples of Gnetwerker’s access are architecture [[27]], drugs, [[28]], to Officers of the College [[29]], and also here [[30]], reporting himself as “struggling with the Reed Administration” to publish an unpublished survey, [[31]], and having a copy of the unpublished survey [[32]].

===Fifth assertion=== Gnetwerker’s characterization of my thoughts, motives, and actions are largely inaccurate.

I never claimed current students had died of heroin overdoses at Reed (or if I did, it was entirely inadvertent). Gnetwerker rightly rejected some of my original edit (although he reverted it in its entirety) as not being verified, and I early on ceased objecting to it.

I believe our mediation was a success, and that it was the article which profited, rather than myself. I will say, since Gnetwerker mentions it, that I was surprised that he would acquiesce to a version that was far more rigorous in its demonstration of drug use at Reed than the one I had originally proposed, so much so that I lamented the lack of a (sourced) rebuttal [[33]]. This RfA in now way reflects frustration on my part about the mediation process – quite the contrary.

I know of no editors whom I “chased away.” If there are any editors who indeed feel this way, I hereby apologize.

This RfA is not retaliatory. I made several attempts to conciliate Gnetwerker [[34]], [[35]], deferring to him, [[36]], and even asked his opinion on whether we should take this to arbcom, [[37]], and perceived his answer as a yes, [[38]].

I initiated this RfA because I believe both the letter and the spirit of WP policy would discourage someone in Gnetwerker’s position from making edits.

The recent (pending?) decision in the Carl Hewitt case [[39]] has bearing on this decision. Although Hewitt was closely affiliated with the article he edited, pointing this out to Hewitt and others did not constitute a personal attack. Further, this proposed principle-

"1.1) 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."

-which is unanimous as of this writing, is relevant here.

===Comment=== Let me also say that I believe that Gnetwerker, despite having made inappropriate personal attacks on me (and on a few others), is a valuable editor and an asset to Wikipedia. I just don’t think he should be contributing directly to the Reed College page, and someone who isn’t me should let him know that his behavior constituted repeated personal attacks. I also think a long ban on refactoring the Reed College talk page would not be out of place. IronDuke 02:45, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:IronDuke's assertions are that:

1. I am a Trustee of Reed College and should have (or should now) "recuse" myself from editing the page according to the WP:AUTO policy;
2. I have deleted his Talk comments (possibly in violation of a mediation resolution);
3. I have made personal attacks on him; and
4. I edited the Reed page in a POV way.

My assertions are that:

1. This RfA is retaliatory;
2. That my participation on this page is not a violation of WP:AUTO, and the calls for my "recusal" were improper;
3. That IronDuke's assertions of Talk page "deletion" and WP:NPA are per se false, and assertions of WP:NPOV editing are either false or not dispositive; and
4. IronDuke's aggressive and repeated demand that I recuse myself itself constitutes a WP:NPA-prohibited attack.

• Assertion: This action is retaliatory.

On Jan 12 (17:43 UTC) User:IronDuke made the following comment on the Reed College page:

"deaths from heroin overdoses by members of the Reed community were not uncommon in the early to mid 90's"[40].

A thorough search of available Reed College archives, the Reed student newspaper, and a search of the local newspaper "The Oregonian" (http://www.oregonlive.com) archives dating back to 1989 was undertaken, with no example of a Reed student dying from a heroin overdose, and only one example of a former Reed student dying in Portland of an overdose.

The details of this search and the discussion surrounding it are contained on the archived Reed College Talk page: Talk:Reed College/drug use dispute. I believe that the pattern of behavior is that IronDuke is trying to chase me away from the Reed page, first with aggressive responses to edits of his comments, then with the demand for recusal, then with mediation (which did not go his way), and now with an RfA.

IronDuke's contribution to the "Drug Use" section on the Reed page is, in my opinion, an example of undue weight as noted in WP:NPOV. However, it is not ArbCom's job to determine POV. This action is a retaliation for my tenancious opposition of the insertion of IronDuke's POV.

• Assertion: There is no WP policy requiring (or other reason) that I recuse myself

On Jan 16, on the (now-archived) Talk page mentioned above, IronDuke posted: "I would ask you to recuse yourself from further edits to the article", claiming that I had a fiduciary relationship to Reed College.

While denying that I was then or am now a "fiduciary" or "officer" of Reed, or that anything on the Reed page constituted Wikipedia Autobiography, I nonetheless sought the Wikipedia community's opinion regarding college community members editing of their college's pages here: [41]. There was no suggestion (other than IronDuke's) that Reed community members should "recuse" themselves from participation on that site's page. I have stipulated early in the discussion (and long ago on the Reed Talk page) that I am a former student of Reed. None of the access that IronDuke notes above is beyond the means of a member of the Reed community (students, alumni, etc). Most of the resources are available to the public. The Heritage Master Plan is a public document, and access to the Dean of Student Affairs is available to any caller. Reed's Drug Use survey was made available to the student body. Finally, no one "profits" from a non-profit College, and I do not believe it is WP's policy to exclude (e.g.) all employees of a company from commenting on that company, or all members of a college community from commenting on the college.

Finally, IronDuke asserts that it is my "job" to protect and/or defend Reed College. This is not true, and even if it were, that is not disqualifying auto-biography, as long as one contributes to WP as an individual, and not as an actor on behalf of the institution. in question.

• Assertion: I never deleted IronDuke's Talk page comments (nor did anyone else).

Contrary to IronDuke's complaint, I did not "delete" (or even refactor) the Talk page containing IronDuke's comments. This was done by the mediator, User:Sdedeo, at 14:02 Jan 26[42], as the edit log[43] will show.

The comment from User:Sdedeo to which he refers is out of context, and in any case from after the fact. All of IronDuke's comments currently and have always existed on one of several well-identified Talk pages in the Reed College page hierarchy. His claim of an earlier "deletion" was a routine refactoring, with appropriate notices left, and an examination will show that it did not specifically target the Drug Use section, and in any case long pre-dated this episode.

Further, as a component of his ongoing harassment, IronDuke routinely refers to routine refactoring of comments as "deletion" and angrily avers that I have "removed" his comments, when -- in accordance with standard practice on WP -- overly long, out-of-date, or off-topic comments are archived in well-identified pages.

Tangentially, IronDuke asserts a systematic reversion of his edits. While sections of the page IronDuke modified during the edit war were themselves subsequently edited, none of them were part of the "Drug Use" mediation, and the preponderance of IronDuke's changes have continued to stand (and are likely to do so for some time).

• Assertion: I made no personal attacks on IronDuke.

While the discussion became more heated than is desirable on Wikipedia, nothing in my comments was intended as a personal attack. I will stipulate that I did suggest at one point [44] that I would seek IronDuke's banning as a disruption (which I mistakenly conflated with vandal), in large part because of his attacks on me requesting my "recusal". When it was clear that the disagreement would not end quickly, I sought -- without assigning blame -- a temporary page block [45], blocking of course myself as well as IronDuke. Comments I made on the Talk page about the disagreement took care to be solicitous of IronDuke's position and the possibility of error in my own[46].

If the other comments IronDuke refers to are "personal attacks", then many other WP editors have bigger problems than I. WP:NPA lists (roughly) the following categories of PAs: Accusatory comments "if said repeatedly, in bad faith, or with sufficient venom"; negative pesonal comments; racial, ethnic, etc slurs; profanity; various kinds of legal and social threats; and "Using someone's affiliations as a means of dismissing or discrediting their views". I assert that none of the comments listed by IronDuke in his first assertion[47] rise to his level, or even close to it. Some comments may have been intemperate, for which I have apologized (and would do so again), but I do not think a "reasonable person" (the presumed standard, not another slight) would find any of those comments in context to be personal attacks.

• Assertion: My edits were cited, verifiable, and not POV.

An editor is never the best judge of his or her own point of view. However, a review of the edit history will show that I, at every turn([48] [49] [50], attempted to introduce verifiable facts into the argument, rather than POV. IronDuke's contention that he "was surprised that \[Gnetwerker\] would acquiesce to a version that was far more rigorous in its demonstration of drug use at Reed than the one I had originally proposed" could not be further from the truth. My first edit of IronDuke's heroin tirade here[51] attempted to retain his central point while supplying verifiable facts. This attempt at cooperative editing was completely rejected. Only when mediation did not yield ironDuke's desired result did he turn to this forum.

I do not believe that an independent reviewer would find the page in question has suffered from an excess of positive spin. In every edit I have made I have endeavored to provide a citation (though in my less experienced days, before IronDuke, these were sometimes provided on the Talk page).

I have provided a complete list of my edits to the Reed page here: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/IronDuke_and_Gnetwerker/Evidence/Complete_list_Gnetwerker_edits.

• Assertion: IronDuke's repeated and aggressive demands for my "recusal" are themselves a WP:NPA-prohibited personal attack.

In this page [52], IronDuke demands that I state my affiliation, and then repeats that demand here [53], and then calls for my "recusal" in a headed section [54]. Later he says I "should not be editing" [55] and states that my refusal to disclose my affiliation amounts to an admission of an improper status[56]. He later says I am "too close"[57] to the subject, and then[58] makes another accusation. When the temporary page block was granted he repeated the accusation on User:Woohookitty's talk page[59] and repeats it on my talk page [60]. He agains makes the charge[61] when asking for medcabal intervention, and complains directly to the mediator[62]. When the mediator states that my edits are not in violation, IronDuke again[63] calls for my recusal, complains on the mediators Talk page [64], and later states he will "question my affiliation"[65] again. I assert that these 14 instances of a repeated accusation constitute "Using someone's affiliations as a means of dismissing or discrediting their views " (from WP:NPA), and "accusatory comments ... if said repeatedly" and perhaps WP:HA.

I did not request this action, and the case being made here is intended to be defensive.

IronDuke states (above) "I initiated this RfA because I believe both the letter and the spirit of WP policy would discourage someone in Gnetwerker’s position from making edits.". This is indeed the essence of the issue -- the "recusal" issue. IronDuke has not cited the "letter" of the policy, nor has he provided a basis for the "spirit" that college affiliates should not edit their college's pages. Indeed, WP:NPOV makes it clear that "NPOV does not say there is absolute objectivity". If it is in fact WP policy (latter or spirit) for members of a college community (broadly: students, staff, faculty, alumni, trustees) to refrain from editing pages about their college, then my opposition to IronDuke's controversial, unverifiable, and potentially defamatory edit was improper, and I will (reluctantly) withdraw from the Reed page.

Contrariwise, if my participation on the Reed page is acceptable, as I believe it is, then IronDuke has resorted to extreme and (IMO) unacceptable means to drive me away from it, up to and including this arbitration action. The amount of time and effort required to respond to this attack constitutes, in my opinion, a chilling effect on what should be the normal operation of WP. I believe that a careful review of my 4 years of contribution to WP and the Reed page will show the error in IronDuke's charges.

-- Gnetwerker 20:28, 30 January 2006 (UTC) -- (additional comments) Gnetwerker 06:39, 1 February 2006 (UTC) -- (additional comments) Gnetwerker 00:14, 2 February 2006 (UTC) -- (additional comments) Gnetwerker 18:05, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Place argument and diffs which support your assertion, for example, your first assertion might be "Jimmy Wales engages in edit warring". Here you would list specific edits to specific articles which show Jimmy Wales engaging in edit warring

Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion, for example, your second assertion might be "Jimmy Wales makes personal attacks". Here you would list specific edits where Jimmy Wales made personal attacks.