Wikipedia Arbitration
About arbitration Talk Arbitration policy (CU/OS) Guide to arbitration Noticeboard + Talk Search archived proceedings Ban appeals Report
Open proceedings All open requests Case requests Clarification and Amendment requests Arbitrator motion requests Enforcement requests
Active sanctions Contentious topics (Log) General sanctions Editor sanctions
Arbitration Committee Discuss + Contact Members Procedures Elections Talk History Clerks + Talk Clerk procedures
Audit Talk Statistics Talk Reports (pre-2016)
Track related changes
v t e

Wikipedia Arbitration
About arbitration Talk Arbitration policy (CU/OS) Guide to arbitration Noticeboard + Talk Search archived proceedings Ban appeals Report
Open proceedings All open requests Case requests Clarification and Amendment requests Arbitrator motion requests Enforcement requests
Active sanctions Contentious topics (Log) General sanctions Editor sanctions
Arbitration Committee Discuss + Contact Members Procedures Elections Talk History Clerks + Talk Clerk procedures
Audit Talk Statistics Talk Reports (pre-2016)
Track related changes
v t e

This is a page for working on Arbitration decisions. The Arbitrators, parties to the case, and other editors may draft proposals and post them to this page for review and comments. Proposals may include proposed general principles, findings of fact, remedies, and enforcement provisions—the same format as is used in Arbitration Committee decisions. The bottom of the page may be used for overall analysis of the /Evidence and for general discussion of the case.

Any user may edit this workshop page. Please sign all suggestions and comments. Arbitrators will place proposed items they believe should be part of the final decision on the /Proposed decision page, which only Arbitrators and clerks may edit, for voting, clarification as well as implementation purposes.

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

3)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Temporary injunction against interaction

1) Racepacket is enjoined from commenting on or editing articles pages related to netball or other women's sport(s) for the duration of the case.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Based on my comments at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Racepacket/Evidence#Racepacket is unable to disengage, I think it is necessary that during the course of this case for Racepacket to drop his pursuit of his agenda with the netball articles. Depending on the other outcomes of the case, he may be free to continue his work on fixing the articles after the conclusion of the case, and since Wikipedia doesn't have a deadline, any delay is not a big deal. If the case produces an interaction ban/topic ban or stronger remedies, he shouldn't be pursuing the topic areas anyway. Imzadi 1979 → 00:30, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. LauraHale has already indicated that she would be avoiding Racepacket on her own initiative, so while the arbitrators are free to amend my proposal to include a statement that she needs to avoid him, she's already doing that pending the outcome of this case. Imzadi 1979 → 00:30, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And editing them, I would imagine. --Rschen7754 00:34, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Amended. Imzadi 1979 → 00:49, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Racepacket continues with swipes like this, and is asking for permission (User_talk:Chester_Markel#Netball) to participate in the GAR of the Netball article. Arbs, please prevent a repeat of the same. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 10:19, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

May I suggest that LauraHale, Hawkeye7 and I all agree to refrain from participating in the reassessment? I was not "asking Chester's permission" to participate since it is not his to grant. I was explaining (in perhaps a humorous vein) why I was reluctant to participate. Racepacket (talk) 17:44, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User:Racepacket has just made edits to two more articles in which User:LauraHale has been a major contributor: [1] and [2] An injunction to disengage may be helpful. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:25, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hawkeye7 - did you find anything uncivil, off-topic, down-right invalid in my comemnts. Neither of those pages "belong" to LauraHale. The first is a page that "belongs" to the WikiProject Council where I am continuing a discussion of the impact of a proposed new WikiProject on the coverage of running articles, and I have vaild concerns due to my role at WikiProject Running. The second page is the talk page of Women's basketball, an article that dates back to May 2004 with 250 unique editors. It appears that some people (possibly including LauraHale) may believe that "Women's basketball" really means "netball." I believe it means a sport that has been included in the Olympics since 1976. Yet, even User:Liveste says that "Women's basketball" has not be used to mean "netball" for "around forty years now," There is nothing in any way emotional, threatening, or incivil about either edit. If the consensus goes either way on the matters raised by the two comments, I am fine with the outcome, but all viewpoints should be considered as consensus is formed. Racepacket (talk) 17:44, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What part of "leave the editor alone" is so hard to understand? Seriously, it's a very big encyclopedia here. Can't you find some other sandboxes to play in for a short period of until the personal dispute between the two of you is resolved? Imzadi 1979 → 18:35, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To expand/clarify slightly, you may be technically correct but you have given the appearance that you're following around her editing area and stalking her contributions. Continuing that behavior is detrimental to the resolution of the disputes at play here. If your behavior is acceptable, you can continue it later; if it is not, you shouldn't be continuing it now. Imzadi 1979 → 20:21, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed with the proposed injunction, could this be proposed by an arb? --Rschen7754 04:05, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Temporary injunction, take two

2) Whereas, "arbitration aims to "break the back" of the dispute "; be it resolved, that all parties to this arbitration are enjoined from editing, commenting on, reviewing, reassessing or otherwise dealing with any article related to netball or women's sport(s) including any discussion forum or noticeboard for the remainder of this case; and be it further resolved that all other editors who are contributing to this arbitration shall abide by the same restrictions.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Enough already. The dispute over these articles needs to end yesterday. It's time for all parties to drop all implements of editing related to these articles and settle the dispute. Nothing is being accomplished but adding more evidence to the case pages and fanning the flames of this dispute. If the committee won't make this proposed injunction binding, then consider everyone here on notice that it is my very strong suggestion that everyone do it anyway. When I refer to everyone, I mean any editor who has so much as saved an edit to this page or the evidence page outside of the active arbitrators hearing this case. Imzadi 1979 → 09:03, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I guess you're partially referring to Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Netball/1. Chester Markel initiated it, while several involved parties commented on it. Thivierr already submitted some of it to evidence. Even if there's no official injunction, it should really be stopped to prevent the evidence page getting bloated up. - Zero1328 _Talk? 10:21, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The problem was how it was approached, and what resulted. Chester mentioned and linked to the arbcom again, thus prompting Laura to explain that part from her POV, thus prompting Thivierr to submit Laura and only Laura's comment to evidence, thus giving an appearance of a conflict of interest, bad faith, and provocation. The comments by the involved people are lengthy and looks like undue weight. All of those points can technically be added to evidence. This distracted everyone away from arbitration, and leads to a bloating of evidence. - Zero1328 _Talk? 20:03, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I linked to the GA, so anybody could read the whole thing. I focussed on LauraHale's comments because she was the *only* person there to make a personal attack, by referring to Racepacket as " a problem reviewer who has intentionally created problems." Chester Markel referenced the ArbCom case, to give background on the situation, but made no personal attacks, didn't mention LauraHale directly or indirectly. LauraHale had no reason to reference Racepacket. --Rob (talk) 20:15, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that we're dividing attention, focus and effort here. The first priority should be to get the behavioral and personality conflicts resolved. Then we can move forward to deal with the articles. No one should be discussing whether or not an article meets the GA criteria here, because this is first and foremost a dispute over the actions between specific editors. We should stop any activity that can result in furthering the disputes and continuing the drama. Once calm and order has been restored, then and only then can we return focus back to the content. I appreciate the intent behind settling the status of Netball, but that can be done later, but we have more pressing questions to resolve first. Imzadi 1979 → 06:36, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that you are asking everyone *except* LauraHale to avoid the GA reassment. You left a message on my talk page, but skipped LauraHale's, even though she was the first person to !vote on it. That seems to promote OWNership in the article. I made comments related to the content of the article there, she made comments attacking a fellow editor, yet it's me who you felt the need to caution on my talk page. Somehow the #1 netball editor has had no similar messages on her talk page since this particular ArbCom began. --Rob (talk) 15:35, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

LauraHale is a party to this case, period; she is covered by this proposed injunction, and aware of it. I only left a message on your talk page because you were actively discussing the GAR at the time there. Imzadi 1979 → 20:08, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, my fault, sorry. Imzadi was writing this injunction at the exact same time I was writing on the talk pages. I decided to drop the talk page thing, since the arbcom case covers everyone. I got distracted from arbitration, too. - Zero1328 _Talk? 20:14, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

I started the reassessment because arbcom is not going to rule on the good article status of Netball. This should allow the dispute over whether the article meets the GA criteria to be definitively resolved in an appropriate forum, rather than continuing endlessly. Chester Markel (talk) 13:42, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, but are you on some kind of pressing deadline here? Couldn't we hold that reassessment next week, or even next month? WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:04, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Irrespective of whether the netball article actually merits GA status, I think we can agree that Talk:Netball/GA2 is not an adequate review, in that it was closed less than 24 hours after opening, without comment by any editor. If this isn't resolved in a proper forum, it will simply spread to many inappropriate locations. If such participation is judged problematic, involved parties could be restrained from editing the reassessment page for the duration of the case. This might be beneficial to the correct disposition of the article's GA status, since more opinions by editors not involved in the dispute would be helpful. Chester Markel (talk) 06:39, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the problem with this... ban all the parties of this case from participating in the Netball GAR. Okay, now what? A GAR where people make suggestions, but no one is interested in hitting the books and fixing the article. GAR, like its sister processes FAR and FLRC, are not about taking votes to keep or delist an article, they're about identifying problems and fixing them. If this injunction goes forward, it also much be accompanied by putting the GAR on ice until the case is closed, as a removal process without the people most likely to be willing to fix the article being allowed to participate is a waste of time and a poor use of a process designed to help articles, not to delist them. Courcelles 07:02, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If it does get delisted, it can be improved based on the issues identified in the GAR and submitted for a new GA review later. Also, judging from the progress of many discussions at GAR, this arbitration is likely to be closed well before the reassessment is. Chester Markel (talk) 07:09, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"If it does get delisted,..." Bingo. There's the problem. Delisting is a failure of the GAR/FAR processes. (I'll give FLRC some slack, because there's not much that can be done to "fix" a legitimate 3b problem there, but the sentiment applies to non-3b problems.) It means we identified problems, and noone could be found to dig into the books and fix them. It's not a good outcome for the article or the process- the processes really aren't about removing articles at all, they're about fixing them. Courcelles 07:31, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template

3)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

4)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Question for Ironholds

• Multiple entries into Racepacket's block log were made by administrator Ironholds. I would like Ironholds to present in evidence or on this page a detailed breakdown of his actions, including all applicable diffs and links, as the entries into the block log refer obliquely to talk page discussions that are not specified. In particular, I would like to know whether or not a checkuser's opinion was specifically sought before extending the block for "socking". Ironholds is not formally a party to this matter, but his actions are being referred to as evidence of Racepocket's behaviour. As he is not a party, I will leave him a message on his talk page drawing his attention to this question. Risker (talk) 20:29, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are two blocks in question:

1. Block no. 1 was for disruption. I was asked to weigh in as an uninvolved administrator here, since the user who had made the original block, Hawkeye, was accused of being involved and wanted to cover all the bases propriety-wise. There's no real need for a mass of diffs here - the rationale I was working on (and thoroughly investigated) is that laid down in Hawkeye's comments on my talkpage, with associated diffs. Having ascertained that Racepacket was behaving disruptively, that the block was valid, that Hawkeye could be deemed to be involved, and that Racepacket had a history of refusing-to-get-the-point in a similar fashion, I accepted the unblock request (to avoid involvement issues with Hawkeye) before reblocking as an uninvolved third-party.
2. Block No. 2, for socking, was made following a request on my talkpage by LauraHale. The evidence is there - my block was made following a comment from a clerk that it was pretty much a WP:DUCK case. A checkuser's opinion was sought - see the existence of an SPI page - but the clerk in the above comment informed the nominator that there was little or no chance of getting a CU to confirm the specific-IP address of a registered user (for good reason, I might add). I extended the block based on the SPI clerk's assertion that (1) it was an open-and-shut WP:DUCK case and (2) that this was all SPI was going to provide. SPIs and CU work are not really my area; if there's an issue here, it's that I assumed he knew better than me and went and did as advised. Ironholds (talk) 21:25, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

CC: Question for Racepacket

Note: The following exchange between Racepacket and Ironholds took place on their talk pages shortly after the related evidence was submitted. It is a direct enquiry on a piece of evidence, thus I am collating it here. - Zero1328 _Talk? 21:32, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please tell me what you are referring to here? Ironholds (talk) 12:03, 12 May 2011 (UTC) ([3])[reply]

Thank you for your question on my talk page. As you know, on March 22, I posted an inquiry on the meta wiki to which User:LauraHale responded, and by March 26, we both agreed that the WMF was not her "employer." Following that, the issue died down. On April 20, LauraHale started a new series of posts claiming "Racepacket tried to CONTACT MY EMPLOYER," rather than the person he thought was my employer. This lead a number of us to believe that someone had contacted her employer in late April causing her new round of complaints and demands. Although I had been avoiding contacts with User:LauraHale by this point, it would be better if she knew that I had not been the person behind whatever triggered the new problem. After I left the talk page message, on April 21 she clarified it to be a concern about "future outing." Only much later, did I discover that April 20 was when she started overtly laying the ground work for the second Arbitration. Rschen talk page diff. So, there was no real world event around April 20 that prompted that round of "he contacted my employer" accusations, although my response was a sincere statement based on the belief that she thought that I had done so in late April. Again, I did not contact her University in March, nor did I contact it in late April. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 13:57, 12 May 2011 (UTC) ([4])[reply]

Then why did you leave her a talkpage message making oblique reference to "issues at work"? Ironholds (talk) 14:04, 12 May 2011 (UTC) ([5])[reply]

The goal was to convey sympathy, assurance that it was not me behind whatever it was, and to avoid any language that would be potentially provocative. If I were to say "I did not do x specific thing." she could potentially take offense by my recharacterizing her statements as x. Again, the only reason why I left the message was that she had to hear from me, in a sympathetic tone that I did not cause whatever it was that created the angst at her employer in late April. If Ironholds had left a talk page message on April 20 saying Racepacket denies that he is contacting your employer, it would only add fuel to the fire. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 14:18, 12 May 2011 (UTC) ([6])[reply]

• The goal may have been to convey sympathy, but the result was "this is rather creepy and I'm not sure what he's referring to". There are, at this stage, two options. One, you are being intentionally malicious and disruptive. Two, you simply have the self-preservation skills of a lemming - post-jump. Hanlon's razor applies. Your intentions may have been good, but the result was not; for the Nth time, disengage from contacting LauraHale or interfacing with her and her work except through and in the context of the ArbCom case. If you do not, I will have you blocked for harassment. Ironholds (talk) 14:32, 12 May 2011 (UTC) ([7])[reply]

I understand your views. From the moment I stepped in to assist Bill with concluding the GA review, it has been a no-win situation. I have disengaged a while ago, have never edited the netball articles except for deleting one category in early April, have proposed dispute resolution, and have a settlement offer pending. I don't "watch" her pages and I will raise concerns through the Arbitration Proceeding. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 14:58, 12 May 2011 (UTC) ([8])[reply]

It's not "raise the concerns there". Cease contacting her elsewhere and for unrelated purposes. Ironholds (talk) 15:09, 12 May 2011 (UTC) ([9])[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

@Bill/nyb (02:29, 13 May 2011), I would normally agree, but considering under various perspectives and interpretations, Racepacket instigated unwelcome/unwarranted contact of an organization that at the time he believed had an employment relationship with LauraHale. Either he believed that WMF "employed" her in some capacity at the time he posted, or he didn't. He can't retroactively explain that entire episode away as "it wasn't her employer after all, so it wasn't a bad thing". Racepacket has been asked by a multitude of parties at various different times to leave LauraHale alone and avoid her work, yet he's initiated discussions on her talk page and in other forums related to her and her work. In the above example, his best course of action would have been to not post anything; posting something, even if under the guise of "good intentions" had undesirable consequences. Imzadi 1979 → 02:50, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Huh. Didn't expect people to make comments. Thought Ironholds summed it up enough.

Ironholds pointed out Hanlon's razor. This is related to Clark's Law or Grey's Law, which says "Sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable from malice." The interpretation of what Racepacket did can go in either direction, in which Racepacket is either being very incompetent, or is intentionally making rhetoric and false excuses for every single action. I could say something about Occam's razor, too. Regardless, if taken at face value, this was an inappropriate message. - Zero1328 _Talk? 03:10, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Creepy is an understatement. Comments like [10] would only be legitimate if an editor had already posted on-wiki that they were having problems at work. In the context of [11], in which Racepacket contacted an organization which he (incorrectly) believed employed Laura Hale, his April 20 comment would be reasonably construed as an implicit threat, similar to "Nice car. It'd be a real shame if someone stole it..." If Racepacket actually believes that this behavior is acceptable, there are some insurmountable WP:COMPETENCE issues with his participation in the project. Chester Markel (talk) 01:53, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing menacing here, Chester. I'm satisfied with Racepacket's explanation. Reading an "implicit threat" into a polite talk page note requires an enormous assumption of bad faith. —Bill Price (nyb) 02:29, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So Ironholds, myself, and everyone else who construed the April 20th post as extremely inappropriate are just imagining things? Can you name a single example of a user who attempted to contact an organization believed to be another editor's employer, subsequently wrote that editor a note about their employment status, and is still allowed to contribute? Chester Markel (talk) 02:47, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for Racepacket

1. On 9 April User:LauraHale made a settlement offer to try to resolve the conflict. [12] Why did you not respond to this offer? What, if any terms, did you disagree with? Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:31, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   I don't remember seeing it before. By April 8 the conversation was several sections (and many column inches) farther down the page. Perhaps if it had been placed at or near the bottom of the page it would have received a contemporaneous response. I have a settlement offer pending, and North8000 has a proposal as well, so it might be more productive to explore those. Racepacket (talk) 04:05, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2. Do you believe that your behaviour contributed in any way to this case being brought to and being accepted by ArbCom? Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:31, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   It would be presumptious of me to try to speak for the ArbCom as to what factors they considered in accepting a case. Racepacket (talk) 04:05, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

3. User:LauraHale and others commenting on the workshop page believe that you accused her and contributors to the netball article of inappropriate paraphrasing, plagiarism, copyright violations and trademark infringement. [13][14] Are you willing to apologise for the word choices that led people to interpret your words this way? Are you willing to retract your comments? Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:31, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   If you have a specific quotation or diff, I would be happy to comment upon it. I believe that I have been very careful to never attribute the problem in the article to any specific editor. It is possible to trace back and see who contributed a particular passage in an article but I never do that, because it diminished the amount of cooperation from other editors when working to address any such situation.

4. You've contacted LauraHale's (alleged) employer. You've repeatedly defended this position. [15] You've contacted someone at the Olympics in order to justify your own position. [16] You asked someone to contact WMF's lawyers to investigate. [17][18] You have admitted that there can be real world consequences for editing. What assurances can you provide that you will not try to get another editor into trouble with their employer or school for their Wikipedia contributions? If LauraHale is scared that that you will seek to contact people off Wikipedia, how can you allay her fears? Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:31, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   Hawkeye7 asked that I address this question first: You raise an important question which should be addressed in a general context because I don't know LH's specific situation. Perhaps the question implies that I am a malicious person who retaliates, but I am not. I am here to improve the encyclopedia.

   Wikipedia is not an online-role-playing game; it is a reference encyclopedia that has credibility with millions of users. For that reason every editor has to work hard to take copyright and trademark concerns seriously, along with the five pillars, including V and NPOV. Students seeking to get academic credit for their editing in the Public Policy Initiative understand that they will be accountable to their host school by the professor teaching their class, and WMF employees/grantees understand that they will be accountable to the WMF. None of this is new or controversial.

   When Australia and the United States pass special laws giving the Olympics extraordinary intellectual property rights in logos and even in the word "Olympic," Wikipedia needs to be particularly careful. That is why I suggested in the Netball and Cook Island reviews that the IOC be the subject of the sentence and netball be the object of the verb. If you read the Olympic sports#Recognized sports article you can see how careful it is to avoid applying "Olympic" to sports that are not played in the Olympics. I think that the IOC policy and licensing agreement is clear, but contacting their Legal Department for confirmation helped to document their views.

   I have said that I did not realize how widely read meta was, and that if a WMF employee acted in an unprofessional manner in the future, I now know the appropriate email address to use to raise the concern with the WMF, consistent with WMF's Open Door policy. Again, if it were just a content dispute, it should be resolved on the appropriate English Wikipedia forum.

   Wikipedia has certain rules designed to insulate volunteers from off-wiki harassment. And I and other editors agree to abide by those rules as a condition for holding a user account here. Similarly, university students and corporate employees typically sign user agreement as a condition for accessing computer resources. Those agreements provide a framework for expectations regarding conduct. A user would need to consider those rules before chosing to edit under a pseudonym or a signon that identifies a real name.

   I consider a graduate student's university his "employer." I was aware of LauraHale's current university affiliation at the time I wrote the meta thread, and did not go off-wiki to contact the university.

   So the final answer to Hawkeye7's question turns on whether one views a user as mature, clear thinking, and not acting out of emotion. I think of myself in those terms, but everyone can make their own assessment of their co-editors. Racepacket (talk) 20:59, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

5. You state that you 'consider a graduate student's university his "employer."' Do you acknowledge the possibility of an editor having multiple employers, each and every one of which you are forbidden to contact in retribution for a content dispute? Chester Markel (talk) 04:23, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   Yes. But I read the policy against contact on "forums not operated by the Wikimedia Foundation" as not limited to "employers." So it does not matter whether the editor has zero, one or more employers. "Racepacket contacted my employer" is a false formulation designed to stir emotion. Racepacket (talk) 22:10, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

6. You entered into an agreement with the U.S. Roads WikiProject to stay away from the roads project articles for six months. What reason did you have to edit History of Maryland Route 200, an article marked as being within the scope of the U.S. Roads WikiProject, on 15 and 18 May? Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:31, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   It was an understandable mistake. The article covers the political, environmental and legal aspects of a three decade controversy over whether and how a new toll road should be built. I nominated it for GA and that prompted an AfD by the US Roads folks, who do not believe in separate articles covering such controversies. I read a new source about the traffic and revenues missing forecasts and a new advertising campaign. Although the update could have easily been added to the Maryland Route 200 article, I did not do so because of my agreement. However, I thought that the history article was not considered a road article. Rschen told me of his objection,[19] and I immediately deleted it and will not edit that article during the six month period. I have told Rschen that he is free to raise similar objections (if any) directly with me in the future, and I will delete any other contribution made in a grey area during the six months.

7. Do you believe that you followed the proper guidelines in resubmitting History of Maryland Route 200 for Good Article unchanged three days after you first submitted it? In what way was this situation different from that of the Netball article? Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:31, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   There are several important differences:

• Bill and I provided both general and specific guidance on Netball and were willing to work with the editors than quick-failing it, as was the case with both MD 200 reviews.
• Bill and I applied the GA criteria while Rschen and Dough4872 want to apply a separate set of criteria WP:USRD/STDS
• Bill and I provided the editors with great leeway regarding the scope and structure of the Netball article, while the two road reviewers wanted to shoehorn an article about politics, history and lengthy litigation into a format used for articles about a road itself.
• I carefully read the entire Netball article and had started the process of checking sources, while Rschen admitted that he didn't read the entire article.
• When the Netball article was failed because none of the editors wanted to become a substitute reviewer, Hawkeye7 picked up the review although he had made material changes to the article. In contrast, when I renominated the History of MD 200, I put it into the queue with no clue as to who the next GA reviewer would be or when the review would start.
• Once netball was passed as GA without comment, it was quikly nominated for FAC. In constrast, I have no set timetable for History of MD Route 200, and am willing to work with anyone, including people not sharing my views, to improve the articles.

1. When you were blocked indefinitely for persistent copyright infringements between 4 February 2011 and 26 February 2011[20], why did you make 135 edits evading the block[21]? How should the revelation of this action inform the committee's assessment of whether you have been acting in good faith, and whether you are willing to avoid future disruption? Chester Markel (talk) 21:27, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:

I agree with Chester's assessment - it would appear that Racepacket made over a hundred block evading edits in February 2011. PhilKnight (talk) 22:36, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Questions for Hawkeye7

1) You stated that you contacted two administrators before contacting Ironholds at 07:14, 27 March 2011. Did you contact them on-wiki? Was that before you blocked me at 02:12, 27 March 2011?

Yes, they were contacted on-Wiki. I wanted advice from a more experienced administrator. This was before you were blocked. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:06, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2)I filed my unblock request at 02:40, 27 March 2011. Were you canvassing Ironholds and the two administrators seeking someone to perform the block or to pre-select who would respond to the unblock request?

No, it was purely for advice. Nick-D alerted me to your block appeal. I had no prior contact with Ironholds. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:06, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

3) How did you learn that Netball, Netball in the Cook Islands and Netball at the Olympics were being nominated for GA? Can you explain the short time period between the nominations and your accepting the articles for review? Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 20:50, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have the GA nominations page watch listed so I can see military history articles when they are nominated. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:06, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

4) You state that on March 13 "I have been asked to look at this review" of Netball. All I could find on your User talk page is this. Who asked you to take a part in the GA review? How did you see your role in the review? Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 15:36, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Questions for Geni

1. You agreed to be User:Racepacket's mentor as a condition of his unblock for copyright violations, taking over for User:Harej on 1 March. How much contact did you have regarding his edits on the main article space? Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:33, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   I reviewed the stuff I was asked to review. No more.©Geni 16:32, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2. As his mentor, how often have you been involved with his Good Article reviews? Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:33, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   never.©Geni 16:32, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

3. Do you feel that it was appropriate for Racepacket to investigate paraphrasing issues while conducting Good Article reviews? What advice have you given? Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:36, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   I have made no comment to Racepacket on the matter.©Geni 16:32, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

4. Did you discuss the copyright and plagiarism issues that were raised in RfC/Racepacket 2 with User:Racepacket? Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:36, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   No©Geni 16:32, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

5. Have you discussed the ArbCom case with Racepacket? What role do you think, you, as his mentor should have had during the ArbCom case in terms of advising Racepacket about the copyright and plagiarism issues that arose during the case? Hawkeye7 (talk)

   I have not discussed the ArbCom case with Racepacket.©Geni 16:32, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

6. Do you believe that your mentorship was in any way a contributing factor to this case coming before ArbCom? Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:36, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   Not particularly.©Geni 16:32, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't aware that I was a party to the main page and the suggestion that I am has not previously been raised.©Geni 16:32, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Question for LauraHale

1. Have you sought to have Racepacket blocked using off-wiki communications during the course of this arbitration proceeding? If so, please explain the reason that you did so off-wiki, and what actions of Racepacket prompted your request that he be blocked. Risker (talk) 16:28, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed final decision

Proposed principles

Disruptive editing

1) Editors whose activities are irremediably inimical to Wikipedia's functioning should, and will be ejected from the project. A long history of disruptive activity will not be ignored merely because an editor has found new and exciting ways to cause trouble.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

This is worded in a needlessly snarky fashion. —Bill Price (nyb) 01:38, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template

2) {text of Proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

Racepacket

1) Racepacket is a disruptive editor. His prior offences are outlined in Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Racepacket, Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Racepacket (2nd), Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Racepacket/Archive, Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Racepacket, Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Racepacket 2 (subpage of first investigation), Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Racepacket 3 (investigation of infringements occurring after first case was opened), [22], and noted in his extensive block log. Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Racepacket 2, Evidence presented by Laura Hale, and the request by three administrators for Racepacket to stop harassing Laura Hale show continued grossly inappropriate behavior.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

A large part of why the block log is so "extensive" is the fact that Racepacket has been the recipient of at least three wrongful blocks, including two cases of WP:INVOLVED and one case of a mistaken sockpuppet block. It's disingenuous to present the block log as unimpeachable evidence of disruption. —Bill Price (nyb) 01:41, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

When an editors's block log is presented as evidence of their misconduct, it's implicit that only the valid entries will be used. Racepacket has been blocked legitimately many times, including an indefinite block for persistent copyright violations. Also, the block log is only one small portion of the evidence. Chester Markel (talk) 05:58, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Block evasion by Racepacket

1.1) When he was blocked indefinitely for persistent copyright infringements between 4 February 2011 and 26 February 2011[23], Racepacket made 135 edits evading the block[24].

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Hawkeye7's use of administrative tools

2) Half of all blocks placed by Hawkeye7 have been improper due to involvement precluding administrative action.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed, per evidence. Chester Markel (talk) 03:33, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's important to see this in combination with his rapid approval/close in Talk:Netball/GA2, where he was an active editor. I know a GAR isn't an admin action, since anybody can do them. However, they are supposed to be done by someone not involved in editing the article, who can thereby be objective. So, that's three separate cases, of appointing himself to be a referee in a dispute he's part of, in order to get the desired outcome. --Rob (talk) 04:37, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Issues like Talk:Netball/GA2 and Talk:Netball in the Cook Islands/GA3 can easily be fixed via good article reassessment, and shouldn't require attention by arbcom unless they recur. The harsh measure of arbitration sanctions should be reserved for problems which only arbcom can address due to its monopoly on non-emergency involuntary desysopping, like involved blocking, or extremely disruptive behavior which requires quick and severe remedies, such as attempts to provide negative material to a contributor's employer in retribution for an editorial dispute. Chester Markel (talk) 04:55, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Racepacket ejected

1) The committee finds a single year site ban to be an insufficient remedy for Racepacket's multi-year disruption. Therefore, Racepacket is banned from the English Wikipedia for two years.

Comment by Arbitrators:

We do indefinite, we do one year. I don't think multi-year bans are a good idea. Even if everything negative said about him is true (which I'm not going to take a side on, as I'm reviewing evidence), I'd go with indefinite and not multiple years. It's rather moot anyway, as we generally allow banned editors an appeal after a length of time (usually six months). SirFozzie (talk) 22:09, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with SirFozzie in regard to multi-year bans. In this instance, I don't think 2-years is warranted and that a 1-year or perhaps 6 months would be more appropriate. PhilKnight (talk) 11:00, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not seeing this at all. Risker (talk) 03:44, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

@Hasteur: The voluntary agreements with some editors in the community have not been kept. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:53, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Hasteur: it's on the evidence page, and the agreement didn't just cover the GANs, but rather all roads articles. Here's a courtesy link: [Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Racepacket/Evidence#Roads_RfC]. Imzadi 1979 → 12:25, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

That's kinda harsh considering that Racepacket has entered into voluntary agreements with some editors in the community. One wonders if the proposer has an axe to grind. Hasteur (talk) 14:15, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

When Racepacket pleaded for the indefinite block placed on his account for copyright violations to be removed [25], the request probably wouldn't have been granted if the unblocking administrator knew that Racepacket would further disrupt the project. Racepacket has repeatedly engaged in abusive sockpuppetry, massive copyright violations, obstructed the good article process, and harassed users, periodically shifting his methods of disruption to avoid a site ban. A remedy can only be effective if it prevents Racepacket from causing trouble in some novel and unanticipated way, and conveys to him in no uncertain terms that his behavior has been unacceptable. Invoking topic bans as the sole sanctions against a user with such a long history of malfeasance will almost certainly serve as an invitation for further misconduct in some manner which does not run afoul of his restrictions. Chester Markel (talk) 17:13, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with risker --Guerillero | My Talk 04:06, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Hawkeye7 CITATION NEEDED You just don't throw that kind of assertion out there without proving it. To my understanding Racepacket has stayed away from the roads good articles since entering into the agreement. I am shocked and amazed at the minimal level of backing of claims that people against Racepacket are getting away with. Hasteur (talk) 11:58, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This edit[26] by Racepacket to an article concerning a roadway within the United States and therefore within the scope of the US roads project violates the agreement. Chester Markel (talk) 21:42, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Racepacket placed on general probation

2) Should Racepacket return to editing following his two year site ban, he shall be placed indefinitely on general probation. Any three administrators, not prohibited by the applicable involvement policy from taking administrative action with respect to Racepacket, may ban Racepacket indefinitely from the English Wikipedia upon sufficient cause shown. Such a sanction may only be overturned by the Arbitration Committee.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I think some sort of general probation is needed, regardless of whether a ban happens or not. --Rschen7754 22:00, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

There is no precident for something this drastic --In actu (Guerillero) | My Talk 13:38, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But there is: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Depleted_uranium#James_S._placed_on_general_probation Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/KDRGibby#KDRGibby_placed_on_general_probation Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Instantnood_3#Huaiwei_placed_on_general_probation Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/RJII_v._Firebug#RJII_placed_on_general_probation. Chester Markel (talk) 17:25, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Racepacket topic banned

3) Should Racepacket return to editing following his two year site ban, he shall be banned indefinitely from making any edit(s) touching upon the subjects of Laura Hale, Netball, or roadways within the United States, broadly construed, on any page in the English Wikipedia.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Racepacket placed on copyright, abusive sockpuppetry, and harassment probation

4) Should Racepacket return to editing following his two year site ban, he may be blocked for a period of up to one year by any uninvolved administrator for further copyright violations, abusive sockpuppetry, or harassment of any editor, as an arbitration enforcement measure.

Comment by Arbitrators:

If a user is banned for 1 or 2 years, returns to editing, and causes trouble, I think such a user can be blocked indefinitely under the blocking policy, without invoking an ArbCom remedy. In this context, I'm unconvinced a remedy is required. PhilKnight (talk) 11:07, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Racepacked banned from good or featured article reviews

5) Should Racepacket return to editing following his two year site ban, he shall be indefinitely banned from any participation whatsoever in any good article or featured article reviews.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

@Bill Price/Notyourbroom (20:02, 7 May 2011), I can't state that I'm privy to Chester Markel's exact thinking, but Racepacket did follow the netball article to FAC. [27] I'm not taking a position on the proposal, just offering an observation. Imzadi 1979 → 20:10, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

What is the rationale for banning him from featured article reviews? To my knowledge, there has never been a problem there, and I recall at least one editor in the recent RFC suggesting to Racepacket that his style of reviewing may be better suited for featured article reviews than for good article reviews. —Bill Price (nyb) 20:02, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hawkeye7 warned

6) Hawkeye7 is warned that if he continues to place blocks against users with whom he is involved in editorial disputes, his administrative privileges will be revoked.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed, per related finding of fact. Chester Markel (talk) 03:38, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Although half of Hawkeye7's blocks were improper, that fraction is only of four blocks total. While this is certainly more problematic than two involved blocks by an administrator who had otherwise demonstrated judicious use of the blocking tool, it doesn't seem like grounds for an indefinite desysopping yet. I would support a suspension of administrative privileges for a month to underscore the severity of the warning, although I understand arbcom almost never does this. Chester Markel (talk) 05:10, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed principles

WP:5P

1) Whereas it is the purpose of the project to build a free online encyclopedia through the collaboration of many editors. (WP:5P)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

As proposer. Pro forma to remind people why we're on this site to begin with. Hasteur (talk) 23:22, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CIVIL

2) Whereas editors are reminded and encouraged to work collegiately with each other and come to a resolution of conflicts civilly (WP:CIVIL)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

As proposer. Again Pro forma, but building the position. Hasteur (talk) 23:22, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NPOV

3) Whereas the project's reputation and worth is damaged due to advocacy positions writing articles, all editors are supposed to edit articles to come to a neutral point of view (WP:NPOV)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

As proposer. Again Pro forma, but getting to the principles of the case Hasteur (talk) 23:22, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Harassment

4) Whereas no editor should have to deal with offline reprisals in regard to their online Editing Threats

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

To Chester Markel (19:49, 10 May 2011): Perhaps the chronology has become so confusing it is now unclear to some why the meta thread occured. No fair reading of the thread would characterize it as "extortionate." Although more constructive means were available to LauraHale to clear up her confusion GA reviews involve the checking sources and checking for close paraphrasing, LH decided to 1) attack my reviewing by grossly misstating the facts on the Good Article Nominations talk page and 2) demand in a RFC/U dealing with the GA review of road articles that I retract a "plagiarism" accusation that I never made. I felt that both were factually incorrect, showed obvious malace, and were unprofessional. If LH were a WMF employee they would warrant a "quiet conversation" to tell her to make an effort to get along and be professional. The WMF Open Door policy allows any stakeholder to contact the WMF to address employee misconduct, so if LH were a WMF employee, the thread was proper. It turns out that LH was not a WMF employee, so the WMF closed the thread without taking action. Because LH is not a WMF employee, she cannot claim that "Racepacket contacted my employer." Different rules apply to the WMF and non-WMF employers just as different rules apply to "forums controlled by the Wikimedia Foundation" and forums not controlled by the Wikimedia Foundation. LH was attacking me falsely in a number of forums and I reached out on a WMF-controlled forum for assistance. My decision to contact the WMF to request help with a WMF employee cannot be equated with contacting some other employer about its employee. My communication was not a personal attack and was not "extortionate." It was within policy. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 18:12, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A request for a "quiet conversation" still is considered harassment. --Rschen7754 19:21, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To Rschen7754 (19:21, 16 May 2011): The issue is what channels are available to a user who is being harassed by false accusations. WP:HA#NOT is clear, "Unfounded accusations of harassment may be considered a serious personal attack and dealt with accordingly." Here, LH was accusing me of harassment for even suggesting that I would perform a copyright review as a part of the GA review process. I addressed her concerns calmly.[28][29]. LauraHale then escalated it to other fora.[30][31] By this point, LauraHale had crossed the line into unprofessional conduct unbecoming a WMF employee/grantee. I consulted Hawkeye7 on his talk page[32] and learned of LauraHale's purported WMF connection and his concern of that she will write "a scathing indictment of the Wikipedia, its editors and its policies." Given that, seeking a "quiet conversation" between the WMF and LH to get her to be more professional was logical. If Hawkeye7 as an administrator, was telling me that the problem was above his pay grade to address, by inference, it was above mine as well. Of course, I quickly learned that I was misinformed, and that LH's harassment (including demands that I withdraw accusations that I already explained that I never made) continued. Racepacket (talk) 08:42, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Even if your accusations are true here, two wrongs don't make a right. --Rschen7754 08:44, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I now realize that LH was not a WMF employee or grantee. My decision to contact WMF on-wiki about the unprofessional conduct of a WMF employee (which is allowed), can not imply a decision to contact a non-WMF employer off-wiki about the unprofessional conduct of an non-WMF editor (which is not allowed.) The entire time, I knew that a specific University was LH's "primary employer", but I decided that contacting that university would be outside policy. Racepacket (talk) 16:04, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

As Proposer Hasteur (talk) 23:22, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It may be a bit more complicated than that. We do report vandals to their ISPs, after all, and that might result in "offline reprisals", e.g., students called on the carpet to discuss their abuse of school computers. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:20, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Narrowly drawn exceptions are recognized in the case of vandalism and threats of violence. Abuse reports can be filed in the former case, and law enforcement contacted in the latter. I've proposed another exception to WP:NLT to remedy off-wiki conduct directed at editors which amounts to stalking, but that doesn't involve the imposition of consequences for any on-wiki activity. Chester Markel (talk) 04:30, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with WhatamIdoing on this one. The policy is drafted in terms of a distinction between comments on forums controlled by the Wikimedia Foundation vs. forums not controlled by the Wikimedia Foudation, and we should stick to that distinction. In terms of "real life consequences," people put themselves in different positions depending on their relationships. Some editors have contracts with their ISPs. Other students have contracts with their schools governing the terms of computer and network access. WMF employees understand that high standards apply to them because they represent the Foundation in "real life." I would also argue that students getting academic credit for their Public Policy Initiative work also agree to "real life" consequences for their editing. A student's on-wiki work will be graded, which (if the student is unhappy with his grade) could be considered an "offline reprisal." If one student takes credit for the work of someone else or somehow rigs his on-wiki achievement, the supervising faculty member has the right to take "real life" consequences. If Wikipedia wants to encourage editing for academic credit, or "Wikimedians in residence" programs, we need to accept that editors are doing this as a part of their "real lives" -- in those cases a student's on-wiki misconduct should have just as much impact as it would if the student was working at an off-campus externship or secundment. Again, I assume that the supervising faculty or staff will be acting responsibly, but it is not the Arbitration Commmittee's role to limit accountability from students who agree to "real life" consequences for the opportunity to gain "real life" academic benefits for on-wiki work. Racepacket (talk) 19:10, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The question is not whether editors on-wiki activities might have real world consequences, but whether, when you find yourself in conflict with an editor, you can try to impose such consequences upon them, to blackmail them into abandoning the dispute. Based on [33], it seems that you believe such extortionate behavior is acceptable. Chester Markel (talk) 19:49, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No. I believe my behavior was not "extortionate" because at that point, I was trying to get LH to stop her false attacks, not to blackmail her into making edits against consensus. So the proposition #4 above should have added "except as allowed by the WMF Open Door Policy or required by an academic institution for its students or people participating in Wikipedians in Residence programs, etc." Some people voluntarily agree to mix their "real world" and Wikipedia roles. Their on-wiki performance has off-wiki consequences, like grades or job-performance ratings, etc. Racepacket (talk) 08:42, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not good enough. The list of exceptions is so long that it's not worth mentioning. Abuse response contacts regular ISPs, and these folks may find their home internet connections turned off. WMF contacts the police about some matters, and these folks may find themselves in prison. Offline reprisals are not merely something that happens to academics and WMF employees.

The actual principle here would read something much closer to "A plain old editor like Racepacket shouldn't do this on his own initiative, and especially not to gain an advantage in a dispute", rather than "It must not be done". WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:07, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

5) Whereas no editor should have to deal with exposures of their identity for the purpose of their edits to the project (WP:OUTING)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

As Proposer Hasteur (talk) 23:22, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:INVOLVED

5) Whereas Administrators are specifically enjoined from acting as an administrator in cases where they are involved as an editor (WP:INVOLVED)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

As Proposer Hasteur (talk) 23:22, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good Articles

6) Whereas the purpose of the Good articles project is to bring articles that are worthy up to a certain level of quality and standards for the purposes of putting forth a selection of quality articles (WP:GA)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

As Proposer Hasteur (talk) 23:22, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

7) Whereas the list of recommendations for a Good Article Nomination/Review (WP:RGA) is only a minimum set of requirements to be promoted to a Good Article

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Why not include the most relevant point in WP:RGA is to check that articles "are not plagiarized (for example, close paraphrasing of source material should only be used where appropriate, with in text attribution if necessary)." Racepacket (talk) 04:35, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

As Proposer Hasteur (talk) 23:22, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good article nominations are supposed to be compared to the acctual WP:Good article criteria, not against RGA or any other 'how-to-review' page. WhatamIdoing (talk) 14:05, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed findings of fact

Racepacket

1) User:Racepacket (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has lead a rather checkered past on Wikipedia consisting of several Copyright Infringement Investigations, RFC/Users, Threads at the Administrator Noticeboard/Incidents, and a previous case brought to the Arbitration Committee for investigation.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Well phrased. PhilKnight (talk) 01:02, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that this is not a bit too far in judging an editor's worth to the encyclopedia. He does have a history, yes, but we can probably go without the word checkered, etcetera. SirFozzie (talk) 22:11, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

@Racepacket: as one of the filing parties of the second RfC/U against you, let me state for the record two items. 1) That RfC/U was about more than GAN reviews, or we never would have presented evidence related to Maryland Route 200 or other articles. 2) I have never cared who reviews my GANs, so long as they do so fairly, accurately and competently. To attempt to characterize the issues from the RfC/U as "three editors from WikiProject U.S. Highways who generally did not want someone from outside their group to review 'their' articles and applying the GA criteria" is not accurate. Imzadi 1979 → 00:54, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

As Proposer Hasteur (talk) 23:43, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I like the wording of this --In actu (Guerillero) | My Talk 14:00, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that there is a basis for this. If you want to get into the merits of each past episode, that would be understandable, but you should not punish an editor for being in situations with difficult people who have WP:OWNERship issues. I have only been involved in two RFC/Us. The first involved a few students and alumni of Miami University who resisted an effort to remove large-scale copyright infringements and otherwise bring articles about that school up to GA standards. The second involved three editors from WikiProject U.S. Highways who generally did not want someone from outside their group to review "their" articles and applying the GA criteria. The situtations were resolved. If Laura Hale had tried dispute resolution rather than arbitration, her situation would have probably been successfully resolved as well. Perhaps you should wait until the evidence is in before you start making specific proposals. Racepacket (talk) 20:17, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Racepacket, I've read through the 2nd RFC and the multiple ANI threads carefully, while quickly skimming the other venues. Please understand that the reason this fact is introduced is to demonstrate your continued behavior contrary to WP Policy and community norms. The fact that every time your actions get raised for concern you turn it into "It's Them, not Me" situation is one of the core problems of this case. Hasteur (talk) 20:26, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Racepacket, is it reasonable to dismiss Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Racepacket, Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Racepacket (2nd), Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Racepacket/Archive, Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Racepacket, Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Racepacket 3, [34], and [35] as "being in situations with difficult people who have WP:OWNERship issues"? Chester Markel (talk) 00:33, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am very open about all of this and would be happy to answer your questions. I thought I gave sufficient details about the two RFC/Us. If you have a specific ANI you want to discuss, please send me the link and I will do my best to remember the facts. The CCI did not turn on ownership issues. Although I have been careful to avoid any copyright infringement, I did paraphrase some Cornell press releases and the permission email that I submitted to OTRS was not deemed suitable. A year later, a controversy arose which included paraphrasing from a public domain US Supreme Court decision and two sources which were later shown to have been copying from Wikipedia.[36][37] If you find the CCI listing to be very long, that reflects the number and variety of substantive edits to articles that I have made over the last six years and does not give an indication of any actual copyright infringement. Again, throughout I have cooperated fully with the CCI volunteers and have worked to rephrase articles that they have questioned. Yet, the basic point remains, let's wait until the evidence is in. Racepacket (talk) 22:58, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That is a blatant misrepresentation of the situation. Your account was not indefinitely blocked[38], and two contributor copyright investigations opened for repeated copyright violations because you used material with permission that a reasonable editor would regard as sufficient but was later deemed inadequate, public domain content, or websites copying us. Wikipedia is not that screwed up. Since going through every entry in the CCI would take much too long, let's examine an article as a case study: National Law Enforcement Museum. Did Moonriddengirl, a user with an excellent reputation for her skill in copyright enforcement, mess up the determination that there was a copyvio present, or did you mess up the article by creating a copyright violation? Your problems with copyright are so severe that you were unblocked only on the condition that you not add any substantive content directly to articles[39]. Note the comment by the administrator reviewing your unblock request: "What is concerning to me is that until the bitter end you were defending your edits, have never acknowledged you did anything wrong and, assuming the IP edit above is from you, you are still making excuses." Déjà vu. Chester Markel (talk) 04:29, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, I (and everyone else) make mistakes. Although I know copyright law, it was only later that I came to appreciate that Wikipedia wants text that is not only non-infringing, but also completely reusable even after any possible rearrangement of elements. The important point was that we have addressed the problem and I have cooperated fully with the copyright volunteer staff and I have agreed to work with a copyright monitor to check text additions to articles to avoid any inadvertent close paraphrasing. So, the Arbitration Committee does not need to take any further action to "prevent harm to encyclopedia" because I have all text precleared before I move it into article space. All of this has been resolved in a professional manner. Racepacket (talk) 04:54, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

LauraHale

2) User:LauraHale (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has used the policies regarding Good Article Nominations in a manner inconsistent with the best practices of Wikipedia. After not getting the quick pass that they were looking for from Bill william compton, they asked for a new Reviewer to continue the same Good Article Nomination. At this point Racepacket enters the scene. Subsequent to not recieving a quick pass of GA from Racepacket, the user withdraws from the nomination and re-nominates the article a few days later with very few of the issues resolved and a quick pass by Hawkeye 7.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Not entirely convinced this meets the level to require a finding. PhilKnight (talk) 01:25, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

While it was probably less than optimal, I'm not sure that it requires a finding. SirFozzie (talk) 22:11, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I think it is a pretty important finding. Risker (talk) 19:49, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

I've tried to operate in good faith and this review was my first time through the GA process. At the time, I'd been editing for around a month. Good Article Nomination says you can withdraw your own nomination and get a second reviewer. I did this, resulting in the GAN becoming a long process, made even longer by the reviewer creating new disputes outside the first GA. I honestly don't see any basis for your statement that I've "fasktracked" the article through GAN as several contributors, as editors and trying to offer GAN related feedback to help the article pass, were looking at this article for a very long time. --LauraHale (talk) 15:37, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Again, if you have diffs showing people saying it met the GA criteria, it would be helpful, and I suggest that you add them to your evidence presentation. In that manner we can determine that they were made on-wiki and can judge the experience and credbibility of the people advising you. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 20:49, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Rob/Thivierr (04:13, 7 May 2011), I have offered evidence in this case and not added proposals. Proposals need evidence to back them, but the two items can be added by different parties. Please, add whatever evidence you feel is necessary to help explain whatever aspects of the case you feel need documenting. Please note though, this case is about more than just the GAN; there is a whole series of additional issues that happened outside of the GAN. Another point of note, ArbCom only gets involved when there is a demonstrated issue or set of issues that could not be resolved through other dispute resolution methods. Imzadi 1979 → 04:35, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Zero1328 (18:29, 10 May 2011): The following is my understanding of current GA policy, and if the policy changes I am willing to abide by any consensus revision: My position on GA reviews focuses on the article, not the nominator(s). See [40] and in particular:[41] LauraHale has the right to withdraw a GA nomination at any time. At the time of the Talk:Netball/GA1 nomination, there were at least five active editors working on the article. So I canvassed them to see if the consensus was to stop work or to address the remaining points to pass the article with someone else taking over the nominator role. In general, if a nominator wants "out," it is best if he/she discusses it with the reviewer. It may be a simple miscommunication, and the reviewer might be able to persuade the nominator to continue so as to avoid a lot of lost progress and wasted effort. As I understand the GA process, if the consensus is to end the review, the GA reviewer has the responsibility to document what happened, where things left off, and to add the closing templates, etc. This isn't a matter of "ego" or a battle over WikiCup points (which are not affected either way), it is a practical consideration in order to help any future reviewer get up to speed and it consistently places the duty to close up the review in the same person -- the reviewer. I have been the reviewer in some contentious GA reviews such as the removal of POV during Talk:Margaret Thatcher/GA3; it helps if the reviewer is the one to declare the end of the process. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 20:02, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Racepacket (20:02, 10 May 2011) except that no where does it state in the guidelines that I've seen. WP:GAN's directions are aimed at how to nominate and how to review. The Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations/FAQ mentions that "nominators have no special privileges over other editors, except that they can withdraw the nomination." That FAQ also says: "If your GAN experience has not been good or if you disagree with the reviewer's decisions, then you can renominate the article (for a different reviewer) or request a community reassessment." In neither case does the FAQ give the reviewer any right or duty to be the one to close the review. For a comparison, the delegates at FAC don't assert any right or duty to close withdrawn nominations there; other active FAC participates often process the steps if the nominator doesn't. Imzadi 1979 → 21:27, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To Imzadi1979 (21:27, 10 May 2011): There are two separate issues: the nominator's right to withdraw and the reviewer's duty to close. The quotes that you provide verify that the nominator has the right to withdraw. In FAC, the delegate does the housekeeping and decides when and how to close the review. In GA, there is no delegate, so we put the housekeeping duties on the reviewer whether the article passes or fails. (Conceivably, upon hearing that the nominator wants to withdraw, the reviewer could decide that the remaining items are so minor that the reviewer can make them himself/herself and pass the article. We should not assume that the nominator withdrawing will result in a "fail.") The reviewer is supposed to edit the template WP:Good article nominations/guidelines#Fail and to update the backlog drive statistics page. In the case of a "pass" the reviewer must also update the list of good articles. Wikipedia:Good article nominations/guidelines#Pass —Preceding unsigned comment added by Racepacket (talk • contribs) 22:34, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Racepacket (22:34, 15 May 2011), Where does it state anywhere that the reviewer has to "do the closing paperwork"? Let me know, because as far as I can tell, it does not explicitly state who does what. You're inferring that the reviewer has some duty to do something, but you're discounting a nominator taking care of processing the motions to affect the withdrawal. At FAC, it's not just the delegates that process withdrawals; several recent ones have been done by Nikkimaria (talk · contribs) and others who are not delegates. In fact, regular FAC participants will even remove out of process nominations. (FAC requires all nominations to be made by regular contributors to the article so that the nominator can make informed replies to comments, etc; if a nomination is made by a third party without consulting the primary contributors, any editor can and will remove the nomination and even tag the nomination page for deletion.) So even at FAC, where a defined role explicitly exists (director, delegate) there is no explicit requirement about certain actions being restricted to certain people. At GAN, there is no explicit requirement on who does "the closing paperwork" as you claim regarding withdrawals. Your opinion on this matter is not borne out by the facts, and in the past, it has demonstrated an inability to let go

In short, to paraphrase a song: "to everything there is a season, turn turn turn. A time to discuss and a time to walk away from discussion." You need to learn the second, and implement that. That is why so many (around a dozen, at least) editors have repeatedly requested that you disengage from LauraHale, even if you haven't figured out the wisdom of that course of action yet. Imzadi 1979 → 00:39, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To Imzadi1979 (00:39, 16 May 2011): WP:Good article nominations/guidelines are the instructions for reviewers, and they are written in the second person. "You" means the reviewer, and they instruct the reviewer to take certain steps when closing a GA review. So by both written procedures and common practice the reviewer closes. I don't see any argument for the opposite approach. A nominator may want to give up, and a reviewer might say, "look we have so little left, let's finish this today," and talk the nominator into finishing. Or a review might uncover a substantive problem which should be documented for the benefit of future reviewers and editors. I can see only positive benefits from a consistent policy that the reviewer closes, rather than run the risk that neither party closes. I do not agree with the approach that when I took the time to document the review and the reasons for closing it, the nominator could come back later and delete the information from the review page.[42] Racepacket (talk) 19:31, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Racepacket (00:39, 16 May 2011), Except when your continued insistence to "get the last word" is just once of many stubborn insistences in a pattern of harassment. There's no benefit in reopening a closed review just so you can close it again. In other words, if a nominator withdraws, and processes the "closing paperwork", consider the review closed and do not reopen it and do not try to talk the nominator out of anything. If you believe that there is a substantive issue worthy of future attention, make a neutral comment on the article's talk page, and move on. The act of withdrawing closes a review, period. Imzadi 1979 → 19:44, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are other examples where it helps to have the reviewer close. Our templates are unfriendly to GA co-nominations, and there are cases like Netball where multiple active editors are all working to bring the article to GA standards. Just because one editor's name is in the database as the nominator should not give him the right to "take his ball and go home." Ending the review should be a consensus decision by all active editors. If a nominator is allowed to request a substitute reviewer, logic dictates that the reviewer should be allowed to accept a substitute nominator to finish the review, or to "pass" or "fail" the review as the circumstances warrant. See [43] and WP:OWN.

Comment by others:

As proposer. Hasteur (talk) 23:43, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to LauraHale statement of 15:37: The fact that you withdrew from the nomination and then turned around a few days later to re-nominate without resolving the lingering issues at the time of the first GA shows a gaming of the policies. The fact that Hawkeye7 reviewed and rubberstamped the second GA so shortly after the first one had significnat issues points to a symptom of collusion . Yes it was Hawkeye7 that reviewed it, but as the nominator you also have a responsibility to ensure the article was appropriateley reviewed. Trust me, the more I'm digging into this and finding Talk Page violations makes me consider adjusting some of the findings... Hasteur (talk) 17:58, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If Racepacket misused the GA process as a vehicle to harass Laura Hale, as three administrators believed to be the case, then it was appropriate to withdraw the nomination, and renominate the article for examination by a more neutral reviewer. Chester Markel (talk) 18:07, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your non-neutral (potentially biased?) viewpoint as evidenced by the "Permanantly Ban Racepacket" proposals above do not convince me of your neutrality. The finding here is solely based on the suspicious behavior with the ending of the first GAN and speedy re-nomination/passage without any mention of the issues of the First GAN Hasteur (talk) 20:33, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As mentioned above, the assessment of Racepacket's good article reviewing practices as "harassment" is not made upon my own personal authority, but by the independent judgements of three administrators, two of whom have access to advanced privileges, and one of whom is a (recused) member of the arbitration committee [44]. Therefore, the GA review by Racepacket was properly treated as a nullity, and the matter submitted to another editor for correct review, "without any mention of the issues of the First GAN" to avoid giving any additional weight to Racepacket's disruptive commentary. If you disagree with the decision to confer good article status upon the article, you may file a good article reassessment request, which shouldn't be closed by any of the previous three reviewers. Chester Markel (talk) 00:26, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Chester, I don't follow your argument. We have limited volunteer resources to review GA articles. If one reviewer takes the time to read the sources, to document problems with the sources, problems with the factual accuracy of the article, and problems with POV, the reviewer has the duty to document his/her findings. The nominators and active editors have the duty to provide a logical response and to fix legitimate problems. If the article fails and is later submitted for a second review, most second reviewers will read through the talk page and the prior GA reviews to avoid duplicating work. Just as admins should avoid wheelwarring on a issue, GA reviewers generally try to be fair and consistent between reviews of the same article. A opinion piece which says, "So, to the business community reading this, give kindly, and support the National Men’s side with their efforts." not a reliable source because it is an editorial, not a news story. If the first GA review has a problem with this source, and the active article editors can't explain why it is reliable,[45] a later GA reviewer should ask why it is still in the article instead of rubberstamping the article as meeting the GA criteria without comment. Since Hawkeye7 passed the article on March 24 Talk:Netball in the Cook Islands/GA3 without comment, after two other reviewers failed it, it does raise questions. Certainly, he was not relying on any authority proclaiming both prior reviews to be a "nullity" if that is what happens a month later. Racepacket (talk) 21:43, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, many of English Wikipedia's processes are confusing and difficult for people to use without breaking written policies or unwritten customs. So, I'm willing to give someone (particularly a new user) the benefit of the doubt when they start participating in a new area. So, I don't think a formal finding is needed for LauraHale. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 19:52, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that LauraHale points very adamantly at the minimum requirements for Reviewing a good article heavily implies that she also read the fact that the person reviewing the Good Article Nomination is supposed to give a fair hearing to the criteria. The fact that she didn't object to someone already involved with advocating the "Good Article" status for the article doing the 2nd GAN review is inconsistent with the policies. It's not a explicit chastisment, but rather a reminder that if you're going to scream about following the rules from one side you're expected to scream if the rules get broken the other way. Hasteur (talk) 20:56, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is no reason for this to be included in the case because even if true, it is not raise to the issue of serious user misconduct. This part of the situation alone would have never triggered an arbcom case to be opened. I don't think we need to hand out criticism unless doing so helps to resolve the dispute. And I don't think that ArbCom needs to be enforcing very minor violation of decorum or guidelines that arise during GAN. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 21:16, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

IMHO, a formal FoF against LauraHale is unwarranted. She admits she was a fairly new editor and was acting in good faith in attempting to improve the Netball article. Looking more widely, Wikipedia needs more subject-matter experts to improve article quality. There are already stories of subject-matter experts being driven off Wikipedia by editors who are more concerned with nit-picking than the factual quality of articles. Delivering a formal finding against LauraHale could discourage experts from becoming editors in case they inadvertently breach some Wikipedia policy, degrading the overall quality of Wikipedia. --PeterJeremy (talk) 09:43, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't understand how LauraHale can be ignored, as so much of this thing is about disputes over Netball, where LauraHale is the most active user, and has done the most to force her way in a content area, over top everyone else. There'ld never be a major conflict over the Netball GAR, if LauraHale did not try to game the system to get the result she wanted. Racepacket has 4 edits to Netball[46]. LauraHale has 693. So, imposing a topic ban (for Netball-related stuff) on Racepacket, and not LauraHale, is an absurdity. Also, when FloNight suggests consideration for new users. But, LauraHale is not a newbie. Her first edit to Netball is not of a newbie totally unfamiliar with how things work around here. She's very familiar with the rules, and has a habit of gaming&bending them, as she did in the GAR, and also in edit wars. She frequently cites them to other people (which I also do of course), and it's absurd to treat her like she's a newbie who doesn't know what they say. Temporarily stopping LauraHale from editing certain articles she dominates, to get other people involved, would improve those articles substantially. Stopping Racepacket from making a fifth edit to Netball won't make much of a difference either way. --Rob (talk) 03:33, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Claimed "gaming" of GAR by Laura Hale isn't likely to be sanctioned by arbcom unless there are examples of it happening repeatedly. There is also the special circumstance of Racepacket's GA reviewing practices. Domination of a topic is probably too subjective of a claim to be ruled upon. If she's edit warred on the topic, with a sufficient frequency, a revert restriction could be imposed. Do you have evidence of this? Chester Markel (talk) 03:43, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The gaming of GAR by Laura Hale has already been laid out, more than once. If I lay it out again here, I'll be told this isn't for evidence. If I put it in evidence, I'll be told I have to add my own proposed section here. Then, I'll be ignored anyhow, because it's obvious a decision has already been made: LauraHale gets a free pass, and Racepacket is booted for a while. As for links of edit warring, just look at her user contributions, and Netball edits. The bulk of her edits are netball related. The bulk of Netball is her. Diffs are great for showing the needle in the haystack, but not practical for showing all the hay. After Racepacket is banned, and LauraHale resumes her OWNership of Netball, and has the same problem with another user, and goes to arbcom to cry of harassment, then I'll try and learn the rules of Arbcom, and bring it up in the appropriate manner, and be sure to link to this. --Rob (talk) 04:13, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's no free pass. Switching reviewers twice can only be justified on some rather unique circumstances, so it shouldn't happen again. To avoid continued controversy over whether this article meets the GA criteria, I've started a request for reassessment at Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Netball/1. It's not going to be closed in under 24 hours or by any of the three prior reviewers. If the GA status of the article is sustained, I expect to hear no more about how this particular article doesn't qualify as a good article for a while. Chester Markel (talk) 04:24, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And no decision has been reached. It's obvious that I have a particular view, but none of the arbitrators has expressed an opinion on findings of fact or remedies yet. Chester Markel (talk) 04:29, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rob, you should submit evidence, both for Racepacket and against Laura, as you see fit. Doing so wont mean that you need to have your own section here on the Workshop. Other community members can make use of your evidence if they see the evidence as you see it. Or the committee members may make use of your evidence. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 15:38, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not actually seeing an allegation of misconduct by Laura here. The editors and reviewers utterly fail to work together on the first GAN. The editors are confused by vague responses, and the reviewers are inventing non-existent criteria (e.g., there's no rule against deadlinks [because any such rule would directly violate WP:DEADREF] and there's no rule against red links). Laura withdraws the GAN, which is a perfectly reasonable response.

Laura promptly re-nominates the article, which is what she is supposed to do, if the primary issue is that the reviewer and the editors at the article have a personality conflict or a failure to communicate.

Anybody with an account can review a nominated article. While it doesn't happen especially often, this means that clueless newbies, total jerks, and people who think their job is to invent random criteria are permitted to review articles. If the regular editors of the nominated article believe that they have encountered a poor reviewer, they are supposed to withdraw the nomination and renominate the article so that another—and hopefully more clueful—editor can do the review.

As a matter of practical statistics, if one in 20 reviews is badly conducted, then that means that in one in 400 nominations, we'll need three reviews to find the right answer at a given article, not just two. WhatamIdoing (talk) 14:34, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One key thing to point out is that Racepacket believed that the reviewer is not supposed to withdraw. He also did it in a roads GAN. It's been argued a few times, but Racepacket considers it as a dispute, so it needs to be explicitly clarified somewhere. - Zero1328 _Talk? 18:29, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To Zero1238: I believe that a nominator and the reviewer each has the right to withdraw or to request a second opinion on a point of dispute. In both the Netball GA1 review and the Netball in the Cook Islands GA2, LH asked for a second opinion,[47] and we got a second opinion from User:Off2riorob on the "Olympic sport" question. By mutual agreement, I replaced User:Bill william compton as reviewer. I believe that the nominator as the right to withdraw as well, but that if there are a number of active editors working on the review, they should be consulted to see if anyone is willing to become a replacement nominator. In my opinion, the GA rules provide that the reviewer has the duty to document what happened on the review page and to make the edits necessary to close the review, not the nominator. The reviewer does the closing housekeeping whether it passes or fails. Racepacket (talk 22:20, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hawkeye 7

3) User:Hawkeye7 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has violated the spirit of WP:RGA in the fact that as a active "fixer" during the first Good Article Nomination, they could not give a fair hearing to the criteria for a Good Article

Comment by Arbitrators:

Again, not entirely convinced this meets the level to require a finding. PhilKnight (talk) 01:26, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed with Phil. SirFozzie (talk) 22:12, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I see this as a critical issue. Considerable harm to the project can come from the perception that our article review processes are being biased by "involved" editors and administrators, and GAN is particularly susceptible to this charge as the reviews are primarily only done by one reviewer. Nomination of an article does not guarantee that an article will be found to meet the standards of a good article, and the fact that the first two reviewers weren't prepared to pass the article does indeed reflect poorly on having an involved editor doing the review. While Arbcom does not comment on content, it can certainly support the de facto policy that content assessment decisions for Good Article or Featured Article be decided by independent, uninvolved editors. Risker (talk) 20:01, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

What I see as the critical issue is the widespread view in the wider community that an article on a sport which is neither predominantly male, nor substantially North American, cannot recieve a fair hearing. That a new female editor wandering in to the project will be subjected to harassment and a bitterly hostile environment under the guise of upholding Wikipedia's policies. [48] [49] Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:54, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the honesty in disclosing what you're really concerned with. However, that shouldn't be the issue here. As a tertiary source that follows secondary sources, Wikipedia can't help but follow the biases of those sources. Sadly, most media coverage and books written on sports focus on what men do. That's terribly unfair. It shouldn't be. But we can't counteract that by lowering sourcing requirements, or giving extra leeway to people who wish to combat society's inequities. Just because there's a lack of pictures of Malawi women playing Netball, doesn't mean should use a random picture of of non-players, because they happen to be Malawi women. We can't correct the unfairness by making a navigation template that promotes Netball as an Olympic sport above actual Olympic Sports, and promotes a para Olympian over all actual Olympians. We can't use a parliamentary speach as a source when it's just politicians saying unverified opinions to score political points, including two contradictory versions of participation levels (one said 1.2m, the other 1.5m). We can't promote substandard articles to Good Article, let alone Featured Article status. I think Hawkeye7 has pointed out the real problem, that caused the whole conflict. Certain editors feel that Netball should be treated on a full and equal basis with sports like Baseball, and Soccer. So, in their view, Netball should get the same treatment as actual Olympic sports. They want to get FA status, because those male dominated sports have FA status. This fundamental conflict in principles is what is really underlying the whole Netball dispute. Editors can not work effectively together unless they have some basic common understanding of what their mission is. Rob (talk)

Yes, you are quite right, the article on soccer, a clearly substandard article, was indeed promoted to featured status. And Netball is an Olympic sport because the reliable sources say it is. But you are overlooking the extremely strong cultural bias that makes it very hard for North American editors to accept Netball as the equal of Baseball, although both are recognised Olympic sports, and Netball is far more popular. Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:54, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But, the thing is, baseball and soccer have been played at the Olympics. That's what makes them Olympic Sports. Netball is not an Olympic Sport, and no 3rd party independent reliable source says it is. At best it's "recognized", which isn't the same thing. There are ample 3rd part reliable sources that say Netball is seaking status as an Olympic Sport, which is something you don't have to do if you already have it. Treating Netball as though it won a spot in the Olympics is equivalent to treating a losing candidate in an election as though they won, because they would have won if the world was fair. --Rob (talk) 05:02, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're going onto a tangent, into content dispute. Hawkeye7 was talking about wp:bite and regional bias and prejudice. - Zero1328 _Talk? 05:14, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I understand why you passed them, but I do feel you have unintentionally contributed to the problems here. Yes she was bitten and the behaviour at the first review is inexcusable, but passing an article with as many problems as the Netball ones was only going to lead to GA reviews and unfortunately has increased the likelihood that we will lose an editor of one of the more neglected topics. Working with the editor to get it up to standard or pointing them in the direction of a peer review would have been a much better option. This is a smaller issue than many of the others discussed here, but still should be addressed. AIRcorn (talk) 06:09, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

As proposer. Hasteur (talk) 23:43, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Hawkeye7: I don't believe it's fair to impute some sort of misogynist bias to Racepacket simply because the editor with whom he was in conflict happened to be female and the article related to a primarily women's sport. Actions like [50] simply represent his "scorched earth" approach to dispute resolution. We can expect more of the same in any future conflicts with men, women, or both. Chester Markel (talk) 06:22, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

4) Hawkeye7 has violated WP:INVOLVED due to the fact that they were in an editorial dispute with both Racepacket and User:Thivierr (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) regarding the Netball article and as such should have raised for attention to an uninvolved administrator the issues regarding the article so as to remove themselves from any possibility of being involved while taking administrative actions.

Comment by Arbitrators:

I agree with Ironholds' assessment in regard to the 48 hour block. I agree with FloNight about Hawkeye7's comment on ANI after blocking Thivierr. I don't see much of a problem with the GA page deletion, which was merely to facilitate a move. PhilKnight (talk) 11:40, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Involved" blocking is seriously problematic. I disagree that it is a side issue, as Racepacket's block history is being pointed to as evidence of how terribly problematic he is, while half of the entries relate specifically to the the Hawkeye7 block. I note also another block/unblock pair where the adminstrator involved identifies that the initial block was incorrect because of that admin's involvement. Risker (talk) 20:05, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Agreed. --Rschen7754 21:58, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

As proposer. Hasteur (talk) 23:43, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This Finding of fact needs diffs to support the claims. At the time of my comment, the case evidence page does not have any supporting evidence related to Hawkeye7 so I can not judge the seriousness of the claim. Even if Hawkeye7 did as claimed, I'm not sure that it would rise to needing a mention in this case unless prior attempts to address the matter with Hawkeye7 have failed. If true, this appears to be a side issue that can be resolved outside of the case. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 20:51, 4 May 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Read the pre-arbitration statement of Bill william compton. It spells out quite explicitly the involved nature of Hawkeye7 in the context of the 2 users and the netball articles. User Thivierr even went to the length of questioning Hawkeye7's involvement status on their user page (while accepting the spirit of the 3RR). If you want to, I can pedantically research the significant chain of events that Bill william compton described and enter it into evidence. Please refer back to the Risker's initial comments on the acceptance of this case "noting that this will likely review the behaviour of ALL parties involved in the GA processes involving netball articles." As such there is justification for a finding of fact Hasteur (talk) 21:06, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrators need to see evidence to support Fof. The evidence page is the place to collect the evidence to be added to the Finding of fact. Someone needs to collect the diffs to support the claims and add them to the Finding of Fact. All parties are always examined but all parties do not need to be sanctioned even if policy violations are noted. Policy violations happen everyday all over Wikipedia. Only violations that are serious and unable to be resolved in other venues, need to be included in the case. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 21:26, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewing the AN/I after Thivierr's block, I'm satisfied that Hawkeye7 sees that his approach was flawed and does not plan to repeat it. So, I don't see any need for this to be addressed in this case. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 15:31, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, based on that I'm going to strike the section involving Thivierr from the finding. I'm even willing to consider striking the entire finding, however I think the remedy of the reminder regarding INVOLVED is still worth hitting. Hasteur (talk) 16:16, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First, I suggest you may want to wait until the evidence is filed before going into detailed workshop discussions. But to give you a preview, Hawkeye7 did make at least three WP:INVOVLED uses of his admin powers: the 48 hour block of me, the deletion of my GA review page, and the block of Thivierr. All three were equally problematic. Racepacket (talk) 20:23, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How much longer will you be before presenting your evidence? The case was opened 8 days ago, and you've had time to work on DYKs, GARs, etc. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 15:52, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Racepacket Interaction Ban

1) Racepacket is permanently enjoined from commenting on, interacting with, or editing pages on which LauraHale is a primary contributor. Said injunction does not prohibit Racepacket from using the standard Wikipedia dispute resolution avenues and all common noticeboards.

Comment by Arbitrators:

I understand why Hasteur is proposing this, however I have reservations about the workability of a one-way ban. PhilKnight (talk) 01:08, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I dislike one-way interaction bans. It has a high possibility of gaming and has been used to incite editors in the past into committing editors into responding and then claiming a violation of the interaction ban. SirFozzie (talk) 22:14, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

As proposer. Hasteur (talk) 00:02, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I made the interaction ban one way because LauraHale has already agreed to stay from Racepacket so a formal enactment is unnecessary and clutters up the sanction books. Hasteur (talk) 14:18, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the commentary by 2 Arbitrators, I'm willing to drop this as it appears there's a distinct desire for a 2 way interaction ban. Hasteur (talk) 23:31, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Racepacket Good Articles Ban

2) Racepacket is banned for a period of 6 months from commenting on or contributing to a Good Article Nomination or a Good Article Review

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

This proposal does not follow from the facts. I have listed 90 different articles (some of which were reviewed more than once) where I have conducted the GA review here. I have received many complements and positive feedback on them on my talk page and on the recent RFC/U. In fact, I reviewed two Hawkeye7 articles prior to Netball, Talk:J. Robert Oppenheimer/GA1 and Talk:Interim Committee/GA1 and he has said that he had no problems with them and would not mind if I reviewed his articles in the future. I spend an average of 5 hours on each review, and with the shortage of volunteers you are proposing a significant reduction in the volunteer labor available for reviews. Is there a particular diff you can offer as an example of an inappropriate or intemperate comment that I have left in a review? Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 14:49, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To Hasteur: I think we are having a bit of a nomenclature problem. GAN is a Good Article Nomination, which does not involve comments. A Good Article review is performed by a uninvolved editor to evaluate the article against the Good Article criteria. Anyone else is free to comment during the review process. GAR is a Good Article Reassessment, which can either involve one editor unilaterally determining that a Good Article no longer meets the criteria, or involve a community-wide discussion of whether a Good Article should remain listed or an article that failed should be promoted. With few exceptions, my reviews have been well-received and several of the articles that I reviewed were quickly promoted at FAC. User:Imazdi clashed with me, and we quickly agreed that I would not review any article nominated by him. Later, a dispute arose with Imazdi and two others about whether I should just apply the GA criteria, or whether I must enforce additional standards adopted by the U.S. Roads WikiProject. We are going to resolve that policy issue in a separate RFC that will allow widespread input rather than in the RFC/U that has just concluded. We also agreed that I will not GA review US road article for six months. So there is no need for ArbCom action on those fronts. Because of wording problems, it is unclear whether you want me to continue my efforts to bring articles covering cultural institutions (such as universities and museums and performing arts centers) up to GA standards. By nominating them for GA and addressing any concerns found by independent reviewers, we not only improve the articles, but also document that they meet the criteria. It is more efficient if the person doing the improvements does the nomination, and I am not aware of criticism of my nominations other than from the US roads people who are enforcing their own unique GA standards. My only high visibility GAR was when I was asked as a neutral American to help reassess Margaret Thatcher. The community delisted it, and I conducted the GA review that relisted it after removing POV problems. Again, I earned praise for my effort there. Perhaps you can be more clear as to what you intend. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 19:02, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

As proposer. This and the Roads Good Article issues (as evidenced in the RFC/U and previous Arbitration request) seem to be an issue of serious contention that needs to be iced over to prevent any more flamefests. I'm open to compromise as to the length of this (but please read the next Remedy). Hasteur (talk) 00:02, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re to Racepacket 2011-05-16 19:02 This specific remedy is an injunction for any edits on Good Article Nominations (The Nomination with the Evaluation of criteria prior to listing) and the Good Article Review (Calling into question the status of the Good Article). Hasteur (talk) 21:01, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This proposal sounds like an overkill. Racepacket may have ruffed feathers with a few projects (namely US Roads and Netball) but not others. A blanket ban on GAN/GAR does more harm than good when Racepacket showed good reviewing skills and making sound judgments while reviewing articles outside of those topics. I would like to suggest an alternate solution, which is a 6 month ban on US Roads and Netball GAN/GAR. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 07:00, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

3) Racepacket is banned for a period of 12 months from primarily leading a Good Article Nomination Review or Good Article Review. To be run subsequently to the commenting ban.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

@WhatamIdoing & @Hasteur; 00:31, 3 May 2011 (UTC) I have noticed minor clashes in a similar fashion in a third (unmentioned) subject area, RSMAS. He wasn't reviewing it, but there was still some animosity simply due to his participation. - Zero1328 _Talk? 18:36, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As a member of WP:WikiProject Universities, I have been trying to bring college articles up to GA for colleges lacking their own WikiProjects. I discovered that the University of Miami article had failed a GA review in 2007, but that no editor had tried to address the deficiencies noted. From August 2009 to March 2010, I worked to bring the article up to GA standards and to clean up some of the daughter articles as well. One editor in particular, resisted efforts to improve the UM articles although he devotes most of his attention to WP:WikiProject Tokusatsu. Some UM editors resisted removing puffing and WP:BOOSTERISM. They resisted adding data about gender equality in UM's athletics program, and they resisted changing or removing long passages that had been lifted verbatim from the UM Media Guide. The editor was still upset from a then-recent ArbCom case where his admin status was removed for intemperate behavior. All of this resulted in the first RFC/U that ended in Nov. 2009. I then nominated RSMAS for GA on Feb. 18, 2010, and it failed on April 8, 2010. I then tried a second time on November 15, 2010, and it failed on Feb. 6, 2010 on the grounds that I had been indef. blocked. When the block was lifted, I renominated on February 28, 2010, and the article passed on May 2, 2010. All of this time, the user took the position that because RSMAS was his alma matter, it was an imposition on him to have other editors bring the article up to GA standards or to review it. Again, if there was a visible effort for UM editors to be improving these articles, I would not have stepped in, but all editors should be working toward to goal of a well-sourced, NPOV encyclopedia. One of the benefits of the GA process is that it brings editors from a wide variety of backgrounds and interests to take a fresh look at articles. I think that RSMAS and University of Miami are two success stories for the GA process. Racepacket (talk) 20:53, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

As proposer. The 2 Projects worth of Good Articles appear to have been caught in the crossfire with this user. Therefore I'm proposing this. As above I'm willing to compromise on the length of the ban. Hasteur (talk) 00:02, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Have you considered limiting your proposed GA bans to the two subject areas that have been the focus of the dispute, rather than all nominated articles? WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:24, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Considered it, but given the unique way that Racepacket interperts the GA guidelines and the fact that they've already voluntarily agreed to not touch the Roads Good Articles, I'm of the oppinion that they need to not be leading a GA drive for 12~18 months. Hence, that's why I structured the 2 remedies this way. Hasteur (talk) 00:31, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If Racepacket is banned from GAR then LauraHale must be prohibited from attacking Racepacket in any GAR (or ideally, she should also be so-banned). --Rob (talk) 21:20, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is based on information synthesized partially from the Netball GANs, but also from the Roads GANs that were also part of the RFC/U and the previous Arbitration request[51]. Hasteur (talk) 19:36, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Same alternative suggestion as point #2. Instead of a 12 month blanket ban on leading GAN/GAR, limit the restriction to just GAN/GAR articles on US Roads and Netball. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 07:05, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I worry that the same problem will occur elsewhere, but I cant ignore that he has done many GAs without incident and has often been thanked for this efforts. The 'Netball' exclusion should also include women's sports and Olympics. The ideal solution would be that Racepacket is sternly warned that he should avoid GAs for a topical area if someone asks him to disengage from a dispute that is sprawling rapidly. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 10:23, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

John, I appreciate your point of view. However, the whole idea of a GA, FAC or peer review is to open the article to comment from any interested editor. If the comments have merits, the encyclopedia will benefit. If the comments are mistaken, the consensus will go the other way. Here, we have LauraHale seeking to bar all editors who disagree with her from participating in any future are where she might wish to edit. Day to day editing disputes get resolved on article talk pages. However, GA means something more. Passing a GA means that the article was widely advertised and (because anyone could comment) there is consensus that it meets the GA criteria. The same is true for FAC. So, we cheapen the meaning of a GA rating when an editor can say "Please excluded knowlegable, interested editors from participating in the GAs in wide subject areas because I am upset."

More generally, the burden should be on the party seeking to edit against consensus. The long-standing consensus is that Olympic sport means a sport played in the Olympics. If an editor produces a few questionable sources that go the other way, he should work for a new consensus with all interested editors rather than muzzle those who disagree with him. My conduct during the GA review was reasonable and open to evidence from all sides. I do not believe that the ArbCom can make the same finding regarding those who POV pushing to characterize netball as an Olympic sport during the review. Given the email from the IOC Legal Department, the ArbCom should be worried about fencing off the wrong viewpoint from future Olympic articles or GA reviews. Assuming a fence must be build, at least allow the correct/consensus side to be not fenced out. Racepacket (talk) 17:01, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Two thoughts:

• If your view is actually the consensus view, then your absence would be unimportant, because other editors would come to the same conclusions. "A consensus of Racepacket alone" is not a consensus. If there really is a consensus on any point, then there are multiple editors holding a position, and any of them can say whatever needs to be said.
• GA, FAC, and PR can, and have been, closed to editors whose presence appears to exacerbate rather than resolve disputes. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:15, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Racepacket, this is not about GA, FA, peer review or consensus processes. LauraHale is not seeking to bar all editors, or even all opposing points of view. She was welcoming of the feedback from the FAC. This is about you. I am ask for you to be prevented from being involved in Women's sports especially, and Olympics also, because of the way you have undertaken reviews of LauraHale's work, adding stifling emphasis on "problems" that you perceive to be important (even when you have little or no evidence or understanding of the problem), and becoming "hyper-involved" by extending your analysis to all of her work and opposing minutiae, which has been perceived as stalking. This project is huge. If you're not getting on well with someone, and you can see that their work is beneficial to the project, the normal course of action is to step back and refocus on area's where you are able to work collegiately. Until you have learnt how to do this, you are a risk hanging over the projects of Netball, Women's sports, and Olypmics, as you have formed very strong views and have shown a willingness to pursue them relentlessness when others in the community have indicated that your concerns are not as important as you perceive them to be. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 00:23, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Racepacket

4) Racepacket is encouraged to become a mentoree to remedy civility and other issues that the community has identified so as to moderate them and become a positive contributor to the project.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

As Nominator. Hasteur (talk) 00:02, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

LauraHale

5) LauraHale is reminded that the Good Article Nomination process is not an combative venue, but an opportunity to review and improve articles prior to be listed on the Good Articles list.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

As Nominator. Hasteur (talk) 00:02, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hawkeye7

6) Administrator Hawkeye7 is reminded that administrators are not supposed to use their powers for any reason if they are in an editorial dispute with a user. The previous interactions with Thivierr and Racepacket in the context of the Netball articles disqualified Hawkeye7 from taking any administrative action in relation to violations on the Netball article.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

As Nominator. Hasteur (talk) 00:02, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All Involved Parties

6) All involved partied are reminded that as per WP:NAM, the case of a Good Article Nomination is not worth the WikiDrama that has occured in relation to these articles. There are plenty of other things besides getting a article to Good Article status and chasing a user across multiple venues for an issue.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

While I agree with WP:NAM, I question the wisdom of anyone commiting himself to getting an FA for a specific article within a finite period of time. It puts an unrealistic amount of pressure of the person who made the commitment. It would be helpful to know what exactly LauraHale said about undertaking a project to bring Netball up to FA and what time limits were set on the project. I also do not follow the reasoning that an article with over 1,400 unique editors could bring prestigue to a particular academic department. This sounds like WP:OWN to me. Racepacket (talk) 20:02, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

As Nominator. Hasteur (talk) 00:02, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed principles

Starting point

1) The purpose of Wikipedia is to create a high-quality, free-content online encyclopedia. This is best achieved in an atmosphere of collegiality, camaraderie, and mutual respect among contributors.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Agreed. PhilKnight (talk) 00:21, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Standard (updated), but it is the second sentence that is most needed here. Geometry guy 00:11, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

This needs to be pointed out --In actu (Guerillero) | My Talk 13:40, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That an atmosphere of collegiality, camaraderie, and mutual respect produces the best encyclopedia is a testable hypothesis, not a principle. It is conceivable that there are other methods of encyclopedia building that would produce better results. Perhaps some untried adversarial model could produce higher quality articles by pitting editors against each other. It seems unlikely to me, but we cannot say for sure.

Furthermore, the quality of results isn't even the real reason why wikipedia fosters a collegial atmosphere - we do so to make the experience more pleasant for all involved. Even if it was demonstrated that an adversarial model produced better results, we would still use the "inferior" collegial model since that is the "wikipedia way".

Therefore I do not support this principle in it's current form. AfD hero (talk) 11:13, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed principles

these are in no particular order. More of these are to come.

Harassment

1)Harassment is a pattern of offensive behavior that appears to a reasonable observer to have the purpose of adversely affecting one or more targeted persons, usually (but not always) for the purpose of threatening or intimidating them. The intended outcome may be to make editing Wikipedia unpleasant for targeted persons, to undermine them, to frighten them, or to discourage them from editing entirely.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Worth stating. PhilKnight (talk) 01:09, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Taken directly from Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tothwolf. Allegations of harassment have been made. If they are found to be valid the term needs defined --In actu (Guerillero) | My Talk 13:59, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, "it is unacceptable for any editor to harass another." Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:08, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

2) The purpose of a Good Article Review is to improve an article by checking it against a set of pre-defined criteria. To facilitate this improvement, reviewers should provide feedback to the person who requested the review.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

I am on IE so I will need to copy edit out all of my dyslexic errors. --In actu (Guerillero) | My Talk 13:59, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2.1) Good Article Reviews should only be passed or failed based on the Good article criteria.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

I am on IE so I will need to copy edit out all of my dyslexic errors. --In actu (Guerillero) | My Talk 13:59, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Interaction ban

1) 1) Racepacket shall not:

(A) Interact with, or comment in any way (directly or indirectly) about LauraHale, on any page in Wikipedia; or

(B) Harass or wikistalk LauraHalse such as by editing pages that she has recently edited.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

adapted from Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Abtract-Collectonian I personally believe that laura has tried her hardest to say away from racepacket --Guerillero | My Talk 16:53, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

LauraHale has gone out of her way to provoke Racepacket to react to her. Just today, she added a personal attack against Racepacket to a 3rd GAR of Netball. She called Racepacket "a problem reviewer who has intentionally created problems", linking to this case. If Racepacket is foolish enough to take the bait it will look like he's wikistalking. So, it's a catch-22 for him. Any interaction ban has to clearly apply to both parties, and both parties have to be prevented from baiting the other. --Rob (talk) 21:13, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This sounds reasonable. —Bill Price (nyb) 01:50, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I also believe that Racepacket "has intentionally created problems" with his reviews and you could say that I believe that he is a "problem reviewer". Does this mean that I'm making personal attacks? --Rschen7754 02:00, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you went to a Good Article Review that had just opened and said that, for no practical purpose, then yes, it would be a personal attack. There are many things that can, with evidence, be said in an ArbCom, RfC, noticeboard, etc..., that should not be said in a Good Article Review, or talk page of article, or other venues where content should be the primary subject. In the GA reassessment, Racepacket hadn't and hasn't said a single word, not even to defend himself from attack. So, he's gotten at least part of the message. You are permitted to make criticisms of Racepacket here, because he's entitled to respond to them, here. However, Racepacket has been told very clearly he can't respond to attacks at GA discussions. So, attacking him there is a little like slapping somebody with handcuffs, because you know they can't slap back. --Rob (talk) 05:26, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Topic Ban

2) Racepacket is topic banned from articles about netball, their associated talk pages, and any process discussion about same, widely construed, indefinitely. After one year, he can request for this to be removed at the discretion of the committee. This ban is consecutive to any editing ban.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Well phrased. PhilKnight (talk) 01:11, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Adapted from Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern European mailing list --Guerillero | My Talk 16:53, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed principles

Purpose of Wikipedia

1) The purpose of Wikipedia is to create a high-quality, free-content encyclopedia in an atmosphere of camaraderie and mutual respect among contributors. Contributors whose actions are detrimental to that goal may be asked to refrain from them, even when these actions are undertaken in good faith; and good-faith actions, where disruptive, may still be sanctioned.

Comment by Arbitrators:

I've added the hyphen per WhatamIdoing's comment. PhilKnight (talk) 16:25, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Technically, that should read "good-faith actions", with a hyphen. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:22, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Decorum

2) Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other users. Unseemly conduct, such as personal attacks, incivility, assumptions of bad faith, harassment, disruptive point-making, and gaming the system, is prohibited. Making unsupported accusations of such misconduct by other editors, particularly where this is done in repeatedly or in a bad-faith attempt to gain an advantage in a content dispute, is also unacceptable.

Comment by Arbitrators:

One thing I'd like to note here is the last sentence above. One of the reasons we accepted this case was the accusations by Racepacket of "close paraphrasing" by LauraHale. I note John Vandenberg has asked Racepacket repeatedly to provide evidence of such (4/22, 4/26, 4/28, etcetera) and Racepacket did not (and at the time I've written this, still has not) provide such evidence, while still continuing to make comments accusing LauraHale of such. Repeated accusations of misbehavior without evidence to back up the accusations is actionable. SirFozzie (talk) 22:22, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

I have provides some examples on Talk:Netball/GA1 and as early as March 22, Mar 2223 I asked our copyright volunteers to check out the situation. People can take two opposite approaches to these problems. Some of us, don't worry about who introduced the problem and just focus on getting the problem corrected. I proposed adding quotation marks. The other view seems to focus on placing blame on specific editors rather than trying to fix the problem. I will continue to cooperate with our copyright volunteers and anyone else willing to work on this in an unemotional, professional manner. Again, I have never made any statements linking individual editors to "plagarism" or "close paraphrasing." I have explained on a GA review page that I would check for close paraphrasing, and in at least three out of the 90 articles that I have GA reviewed, I found some "close paraphrasing" or worse. Each time I found a problem in an GA nominee article, I have turned the matter over to the copyright experts for their own judgment. The problem is obvious to anyone who looks at the position description table now moved to Rules of netball. The table in Netball and the Olympic Movement is attributed to http://www.snoc.org.sg/nsa.php by ref 5, but it is not sourced there. The same typographical error is in ref 5 of Women's sport at the Olympics indicates that the table was copied from that other Wikipedia article without attribution. When I visited http://replay.web.archive.org/20081019145709/http://www.olympic.org/common/asp/download_report.asp?file=en_report_1135.pdf&id=1135 I found the table that was very closely paraphrased in both the Netball and the Olympic Movement and Women's sport at the Olympics. I am emailing a copy of the PDF to arbcom-l for SirFozzie's review. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 01:15, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That table (added here and copied here) was attributed. I quote "At the November 2002 Extraordinary Session, the IOC created a table listing the requirements that a sport must meet before it is eligible for inclusion in the Olympic programme.[..] This table is provided below." That table is not an example of "close paraphrasing" or worse. That table is an example of fair-use, with proper attribution. While the URL is wrong (probably a copy&paste error?), the creator is clearly described in the prose before the copied work. Whether or not it was excessive quoting (and thus a fair-use issue) is a reasonable concern, open to debate, but this is another example of you searching for problems after the fact and bungling on the terms you are using in your accusations. You should not use terms like close paraphrasing, plagiarism, excessive quoting, etc in assertions if you arn't able to get your head around them. I did recommend that you provided your list of concerns privately to someone competent. And yet you keep digging. If you don't know your limits, Arbcom needs to restrain you. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 12:43, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First, I appreciate and acknowledge the service that User:LauraHale has provided in clarifying the status of the quote and replacing the footnote to a real source.[52] I found the original to be confusing because it had 14 different footnotes to the source, and, in legal writing, "below" can mean anywhere further down in the article rather than immediately following. Second, I must repeat that the instructions require GA reviews to check all sources including for copyright or close paraphrasing problems. The approach that I and other GA reviewers take is to identify problems without investigating which editor(s) were responsible. Although I have practiced U.S. and Canadian intellectual property law, in each case I hand the problems off to the en.wikipedia copyright team in as low key a manner as possible. John Vandenberg is the one who is demanding that this proceeding track down which users caused the problems, not me. There has been no "bungling on the terms [I am] using in [my] accusations" because I have been careful not to accuse anyone of any close paraphrasing or improper copying. Third, if Hawkeye7 really checked all of the sources and citations before he passed the GA of Netball and the Olympic Movement on March 30, how could he have possibly missed the bad URL which dates back to March 26? Just as it was my duty to check all sources in Netball it was Hawkeye7's duty as a GA reviewer to check as well. I saw enough by March 22 to justify my taking a closer look. From what I have seen of Hawkeye7's netball-related GA reviews, my concerns remain. The solution is to have an experienced editor take an independent look, but to date we have been unable to find a willing volunteer from among the copyright regulars. Racepacket (talk) 03:16, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To John Vandenberg (12:43, 7 May 2011): the table in Netball and the Olympic Movement was so poorly formatted and introduced that even Hawkeye7 as the reviewer did not realize it was a big quotation. He said, "I don't suppose that we know how netball stacked up against the table conditions? That would make a nice extra column."[53] The table has 14 footnotes which were not in the quoted source table. It was impossible for Hawkeye7 to check the 14 footnotes without discovering that 1) the footnotes were broken with an incorrect URL and 2) the table was a big block quote lifted verbatim from the IOC-subcommittee report that I have circulated to the ArbCom by email. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 19:52, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Standard, although I think harassment should be at the beginning of the example list. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:11, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Racepacket, you claim that 'I have never made any statements linking individual editors to "plagarism" or "close paraphrasing."' Why did you tell Laura Hale "You have greater access to some of these off-line references than do I. May I pick some selected pages, ask you to scan and email them to me so that I can spot check the unavailable sources?"[54]? Were you really unaware that, in the absence of evidence that the nominator had personally created a copyright problem in the article, they are under no obligation to provide you with copies of sources for copyright examination? Did you really not know that claims about potential copyright violations should not be made on-wiki until you have evidence to back them up, and that the evidence must be provided at the same time you assert the potential existence of a copyright problem, to avoid insinuating improprieties on the part of the principal authors of the article, such as Laura Hale? Since you've conducted 90 good article reviews, you should be familiar with the process. Chester Markel (talk) 02:10, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Chester, Netball started in August 2005 and 1,400 unique editors have contributed to it. I am required to check all of the sources per WP:RGA. The word "You" (plural) refers to any and all active editors, and two editors responded to the request before LauraHale. When I saw that people took offense at my request, I said that I would go to the Library of Congress instead. Again, from the start through tonight, I am being very careful not to attempt to attribute the problem back to a specific users. By avoiding the placing of blame, I find it is easier to win the cooperation of all involved in fixing the problem. I did give contemporaneous examples, which were prompted by my reading an exchanges between two editors on the talk page that implied the position description table was based on another website. Again, if anyone has a diff, I would appreciate seeing it. Is it possible that my discussion of the procedure for checking the sources was misinterpreted? I suggest you read these comments by Moonriddengirl which will provide some perspective. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 03:16, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright review of good article candidates is prudent. But posting statements to the effect of "Hey, maybe there's some close paraphrase in this article..." on-wiki, without specific examples identified, is likely to get principle contributors to the article a bit hot under the collar. That's effectively what you did on 02:31, 21 March 2011: "Need to assure that there are no close paraphrase problems, particularly in the position descriptions"[55] Did you provide any information noting text that presented a potential copyright problem, prior to that diff? Chester Markel (talk) 03:51, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that is first reference to the position descriptions. Since 21 March, the "position descriptions" table was moved to Rules of netball#Positions, and I don't believe the paraphrasing of the position descriptions has been addressed to date, but I have not looked at it carefully since the move. At the time, I felt that a few quotation marks could clear the problem with the table entries. Racepacket (talk) 05:28, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As I understand it, within a few days of 02:31, 21 March 2011, you identified a specific potential close paraphrase problem in the position descriptions table (not introduced by Laura Hale, according to the GA discussion, but you say you never accused her of any such thing.) I say potential because, according to this discussion nearly a month later [56], some editors believed that quotation marks weren't required, as the text wasn't copyrightable because it was "the simplest and most obvious way to present information", as Wikipedia:Plagiarism#What_is_not_plagiarism notes. Is there any reason why, on 09:00, 22 April 2011, you were still discussing copyright issues with the article, as they related to Laura Hale? "I had also found a number of close paraphrasing of other sources particularly in the position table, although LauraHale has removed them from public view."[57] In light of your request for Laura Hale to provide you with copies of the sources she used in writing the article[58], wouldn't she be acting reasonably in concluding that your copyright complaints were directed at her? Chester Markel (talk) 07:02, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was making a comment on the improper attempt at "rewriting history" by deleting the examples that I provided on March 25. My overall goal in any GA review is to help the active editors meet the GA criteria, and I feel a sense of defeat when an article that I am reviewing fails. When an article fails, the reviewer is supposed to document the review in a manner that makes clear what happened. However, it appears that LauraHale's goal on March 26 was to make the article appear to have met the FA criteria, because she nominated it for as a FAC the next day. Perhaps the deletion of my example was to put the article in the best possible light for the FA reviewers. So on April 22, I was discussing the situation with User:Courcelles who had protected the review page without its full contents a day after my last effort at reverting the deletion of the final days of the review. While I discussed LauraHale's improper removal of the GA1 review materials, I was not discussing paraphrasing by any particular individual. So we were discussing the entire situation, which I summarized in that edit: "I have never seen this as involving an individual, rather there are serious policy issues involving an article that has many authors (which has since been split into a number of daughter articles carrying forward the same problems.) It does not matter who is right; what matters is that Wikipedia gets it right." Racepacket (talk) 13:28, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If "It does not matter who is right; what matters is that Wikipedia gets it right" then you could have placed quotation marks around the material now in the netball rules article which potentially requires them, and filed requests for good article reassessment for any articles you believe had GA status incorrectly conferred upon them. That would be a more straightforward and effective remedy than edit warring over a withdrawn GA nomination[59], and continuing to accuse Laura Hale of impropriety regarding it[60]. Chester Markel (talk) 16:23, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I had not edited the Netball article, which made me eligbile to take over the review from Bill. Except for minor edits, such as adding proposed merger templates or fixing article categories, I have refrained from editing the Netball articles directly and have left it to the active editors both during and after the three GA reviews were completed. Again, I only recommended adding the quote marks, but it was immediately rejected as "POV pushing." (I don't understand how adding a quote mark changes the POV of an article.) So I felt it would be a mistake to get into an edit war over it. I assumed that the next GA reviewer would see the same problems and fix them, but I was disappointed that the article passed without an arms-length review. Racepacket (talk) 23:32, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You "felt it would be a mistake to get into an edit war" over the quotation marks. Really? But edit warring over a closed GA nomination[61] is okay? There's no certainty that the quotation marks would have been reverted had you added them. You also still haven't explain why you didn't file requests for good article reassessment for any articles you thought were incorrectly promoted, unless you knew that their GA status was unlikely to be revoked. Chester Markel (talk) 00:10, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As LauraHale explained to Liveste, "I was also worried that we might get hit with a GAR in response to the article passing GA." that she nominated it for FA quickly. By the time that I had learned that Hawkeye7 had passed the Netball GA, it had already been nominated for FA. So I left a brief note on the FAC page explaining the context and alerting reviewers that, unlike the typical GA, there were unresolved issues.[62]

Perceived harassment

3) Any user conduct or comments that another editor could reasonably perceive as harassing (as defined in Wikipedia:Harassment) should be avoided. On occasion, an action or comment may cause someone to feel harassed, with justification, even if the action or comment was not intended as harassing. In such situations, the user's discontinuing the objected-to behavior, promising not to repeat the behavior, or apologizing is often sufficient to resolve the concern, especially where there is an isolated comment rather than a pattern of them.

Comment by Arbitrators:

@Rschen - I've added finding of fact 2.2, which relates to harassment. PhilKnight (talk) 17:55, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Are there plans to include a FoF related to harassment? --Rschen7754 22:32, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

This needs to be stated per my proposal above --Guerillero | My Talk 13:06, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:10, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Outing

4) Posting another editor's personal information is harassment, unless that person has voluntarily posted his or her own information, or links to such information, on Wikipedia. Personal information includes legal name, date of birth, identification numbers, home or workplace address, job title and work organisation, telephone number, email address, or other contact information, whether any such information is accurate or not. Posting such information about another editor is an invasion of privacy and may place that editor at risk of harm outside of their activities on Wikipedia.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Slightly modified version of WP:OUTING. PhilKnight (talk) 13:58, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

I'm a bit confused by this - I've seen harassment for sure, and attempts to contact an employer, but I'm not sure if "outing" has taken place as described above. --Rschen7754 21:29, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It would be very helpful if someone could please post a diff regarding where anyone other than Hawkeye7 or LauraHale posted information about her employer/school. I know that it is on her User page and on a document linked to her user page, but I do not remember repeating the name of the school in any post. I know memory is not perfect, but if there is a diff, I would be willing to own up to a mistake if I made it. A specific diff would really help the process. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 20:42, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Racepacket (03:44, 6 May 2011), There is no settlement offer; there is a case before the Arbitration Committee. The committee accepted a case, and it is going forward now. There is nothing you can specifically do that would stop this case from moving forward. I suggest that you don't wait to submit evidence in this case too long because the evidence phase is scheduled to end on May 7 according to ((ArbComOpenTasks)). (Racepacket, you should be putting your comments only in the "Comment by parties" sections, not underneath others' comments. You can indicate it is a reply to a specific editor like I did with the start of this comment of mine.) Imzadi 1979 → 04:04, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To add on to what Imzadi1979 said, you're facing some pretty heavy charges and if ArbCom votes that way you could be given a long-term block. It looks really bad for you if two former arbitrators are agreeing with the charges presented. Therefore, all of your Wikipedia editing time should be going to make sure that you don't get blocked by writing evidence defending yourself from these charges. Nothing else, because you won't be able to do any editing if you get long-term blocked. And it should be soon, because it seems that they want to get this case done pretty quickly. --Rschen7754 06:10, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Racepacket (03:38, 8 May 2011), LauraHale did not "hav[e] it [this case] publicized on The Signpost" as they report on all open Arbitration cases. Secondary point, there is a case, and it won't be closed until the Arbitration Committee closes it. Your "settlement offers" came a day late and a dollar short, or we wouldn't be here. As for disclosing her university affiliation, she did so on March 13 [63], and but she did not disclose her dissertation information [64] until March 28, in response to your contacts with WMF [65] on March 23.

Regardless of intent, Racepacket, you still took an on-wiki dispute off the English Wikipedia forums. Regardless of intent, that action has had the effect of causing distress to another editor. Regardless of intent, that action and its resulting distress was the cause of her initial retraction of her comments on the RfC/U. Regardless of intent, you've refused to apologize actions that have caused another editor distress. Regardless of that intent, you've pursued this editor in additional, on-wiki forums, the most novel of which was questioning the authenticity of a photographer's statement as to the content of his own photograph knowing full well which editor had the photo uploaded for use here and the topic area of the article in which it was used. Regardless of your original intent, several other editors have suggested that you just drop your pursuit of this subject matter and this editor. Your refusal resulted in this case. You could have ended this weeks ago by apologizing for the unintended results of your actions and disengaging. You didn't, and not the committee will settle this dispute at some point in the near future. Imzadi 1979 → 04:23, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Imzadi: The relevant policy says "forums not controlled by the Wikimedia Foundation". Otherwise, people who discuss images on Commons on en.wikipedia would be violating the policy. The only off-wiki communication has been IRC messages from User:LauraHale. If you know of an off-wiki message from me, please provide the evidence. As to your second point, I have several times suggested that User:LauraHale and I resolve differences amicably in a dispute resolution, but she refuses. Most recently, I made a settlement proposal on April 28 on Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Racepacket#Statement_by_Racepacket, but LauraHale has not responded. I believe that we can easily end this now, but if taken to the evidence, workshop and decision phase, I don't see any better outcome for LauraHale or for her now-stated goal of making Wikipedia attractive to participating academics as editors or mentors. Racepacket (talk) 16:45, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is no "if taken to the evidence, workshop and decision phase". We are at the evidence and workshop phase. - Zero1328 _Talk? 00:27, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, and I'm sure ArbCom plans on moving on if you don't submit your evidence by the deadline. --Rschen7754 04:49, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have provided the ArbCom with a link to a off-wiki blog purported maintained by the person who nominated Netball for GA. As I understand LauraHale's complaint, my March 23 on-wiki posting to meta was a violation of WP:OUTING. However, two days earlier this March 21 blog posting identified the nominator and provided links to the GA review as well as unfairly criticized the duration of the review and the also misrepresented what the "American reviewer" suggested in terms of explaining the evolution of netball vis a vis basketball over time. The blog post asked for comments, but none appear. (By the way, I fully accept that netball evolved after Basketball was transplanted to England.) Given this voluntary disclosure on a blog that provides links to a detailed resume and contact information, there was nothing additional disclosed. If an editor goes off-wiki to criticize a GA review and invite feedback, how much additional privacy can they expect? Racepacket (talk) 18:36, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Submitting private evidence and then proceeding to describe it in intimate detail on-wiki is a major faux pas, Racepacket. - Zero1328 _Talk? 21:03, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Yes, the inaccuracy of the information does not always lessen the harm. In fact, sometimes linking to the wrong person or employer could cause an user more harm. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 19:18, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rschen7754, here is the diff from the evidence page that supports a claim of outing. [[66] A principle is needed to frame he finding of fact and remedies. This one works okay. --FloNight♥♥♥♥ 23:05, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Needs to explicitly specify that this is harassment and/or provide a direct link to policy in the principle itself. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:06, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've adjusted the wording to include a link to WP:HARASSMENT. PhilKnight (talk) 06:24, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Should also specify that if Wikipedia:Harassment progresses to stalking of an editor, contacting appropriate law enforcement authorities, or indicating that such contact has been performed, is not considered to be a legal threat, much in the same way that editors are not blocked when they report credible threats of violence to the police. Based on [67], it's obvious that Racepacket intends to cause real life harm to Laura Hale (by encouraging what he believed to be her employer to reprimand her, in the case linked.) It would be naive to suggest that any arbitration decision could stop this reprehensible activity. Chester Markel (talk) 17:23, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Chester: I want to understand your point. Hypothetically, if an editor was being stalked and harassed by a WMF employee who was making false accusations about the editor, would it be proper to contact the WMF in an effort to get the employee to stop? Doesn't WMF's Open Door policy invite such contacts? Racepacket (talk) 23:25, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Of course you can construct some hypothetical circumstance under which contacting Laura Hale's employer would have been the correct course of action. However, arbitration cases are judged based on the facts actually in evidence. Nothing suggests that Laura Hale was stalking you. Even your own behavior towards her doesn't seem to rise to the level of legally punishable stalking - yet. The evidence does indicate that she wasn't harassing you, but you were harassing her. Your attempt to contact her employer to seek a reprimand is particularly disturbing. Such off-wiki activities attempting to cause harm to Laura Hale need to stop immediately. Chester Markel (talk) 00:51, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If a Wikimedia Foundation employee edits they are just another editor. The focus should be on their editing and any problems should be handled internally, on the wiki they are editing on, just as they should be if the editor works for a newspaper, a university, or whatever. Speculation, investigation, and especially disclosure of any personal information about editors is inappropriate. If they are editing good, great; if not, then the issues with their editing should be addressed here, not with their employer, imagined or actual. User:Fred Bauder Talk 02:17, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) You, Chester, make many points with my complete agreement. Use of non-transparent, off-wiki communications to harassing someone is deplorable. Making up false acusations is very corrosive in a volunteer organization. Fortunately, we have Wikipedia:Harassment#Off-wiki harassment which says:

Harassment of other Wikipedians in forums not controlled by the Wikimedia Foundation creates doubt as to whether an editor's on-wiki actions are conducted in good faith. Off-wiki harassment will be regarded as an aggravating factor by administrators and is admissible evidence in the dispute-resolution process, including Arbitration cases. [emphasis added]

The policy draws the line on whether it is a WMF controlled forum or not. Here we have one party that has been harassing both on-wiki and off-wiki by making false acusations and instead of engaging in dispute resolution in good faith, has sat back and tried to mislead others into surrogate attacks based on the falsehoods. You are right, we should wait for the evidence and then reach informed judgments. Racepacket (talk) 02:32, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

*Is very confused* I read the statement above me as either A)sarcasm B)an admittance of guilt or C)accusations that Laura was harassing you. If option C is true you may want to submit some evidence --Guerillero | My Talk 02:39, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Racepacket, your purportedly hypothetical statement posits "an editor was being stalked and harassed by a WMF employee who was making false accusations about the editor". You claim "we have one party that has been harassing both on-wiki and off-wiki by making false acusations". Both insinuations appear to be directed against Laura Hale. Prove it - since you are effectively accusing her of the crime of stalking, you're going to need some very compelling evidence to support your claim. Chester Markel (talk) 02:47, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, the hypothetical was based on your language. I've been holding off on making an opening statement or submitting evidence to give LauraHale a chance to respond one way or the other to my settlement offer. Racepacket (talk) 03:44, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My language was supported by the existing evidence. If someone attempted to contact my employer off-wiki to request disciplinary action against me, I would be none too pleased. That's not stalking by itself, but it is taking the dispute off-wiki, in a way that might eventually require an off-wiki remedy, because arbcom cannot effectively restrain editors off-wiki actions. Deference to WP:NLT ends the moment an editor attempts to cause trouble for another contributor off-wiki, because the "resolve it here on Wikipedia" advice is no longer relevant. Since you tried to ask Laura Hale's employer to reprimand her, I believe the decision in this case should recognize the principle. As for your "settlement offer", it is almost certain that the case case will be decided by the arbitrators. If you have any evidence that Laura Hale has engaged in some impropriety towards you on or off-wiki, speak now, or forever hold your peace. Chester Markel (talk) 04:12, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the advise. I will get to work on the evidence. Again, I have not been using IRC to stir the pot and have confined myself to transparent use of "forums controlled by the Wikimedia Foundation" consistent with policy. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 05:33, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you'll be able to substantiate the "using IRC to stir the pot" insinuation... Or are you referring to the purported #wikipedia-en-admins cabal? Chester Markel (talk) 07:14, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Allow me to make a counter-hypothetical. Racepacket, would you be okay with me contacting your employer to inform them that you're currently being investigated on this project, based on accusations that you harassed and stalked a female volunteer? (Note that of course I wouldn't dream of doing this, it's just an illustrative example) Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 08:48, 6 May 2011 (UTC).[reply]

I think that's somewhat unfair. Racepacket probably would have treated a male editor with whom he was in a similar dispute just as badly. Chester Markel (talk) 08:56, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can we please step out of the hypothetical and back into the real world? ArbCom findings should be based in cold hard facts not on what could happen if X did Y. --Guerillero | My Talk 13:05, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is a question of accountability. All WMF employees and fellows know that they must answer to the community as to their effectiveness and professionalism. For this reason, WMF has an open door policy and conforms to best practices for non-profits. If I were a WMF employee or fellow, I would accept the comments sent to WMF from people with whom I work or interact. This is our foundation, and all stakeholders, including people who contribute their funds and valuable time are entitled to make responsible comments and suggestions without fear of reprisal. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 19:55, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Of course WMF employees "must answer to the community as to their effectiveness and professionalism", but only for actions taken within the scope of their employment. While you may have believed that Laura Hale was employed by the foundation, the suggestion that any of her contributions to the GA review were made in her official capacity is nonsensical. The bottom line is that you had an ordinary, on-wiki editorial dispute, which you greatly exacerbated by seeking to cause real-life harm by contacting her employer and requesting disciplinary action. The more you defend your actions as justified, the greater the impression that you will do it again, based on some new ad-hoc excuse. A lengthy site ban may be the only effective remedy to ensure that you aren't involved in any more on-wiki disagreements which could be escalated this way. Many employers purport to have open door policies and conform to certain best practices. But further attempts to cause real life injury to editors will never be condoned on such a shoddy basis. Chester Markel (talk) 23:53, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If she was acting as a WM employee her user name would be Laura (MWF).--Guerillero | My Talk 13:33, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To Guerillero: I would not have any way of knowing that, and I have received talk page messages from at least one employee which does not end with (WMF). Do you have a source for this?

To Chester: Please re-read the message that was left on-wiki at a WMF sponsored forum. It is completely factual, accurate, unemotional, civil and requested that someone ask LauraHale to "be professional." I have read statements on this page that do not meet those standards. I agree with you that the everyone involved should be careful about making plagiarism/close paraphrasing accusations against any user. That is why I carefully avoid attempting to trace back my findings to particular users. At the time, LauraHale had indicated her current University affiliation on her user page, and I think we can all agree that as a graduate student, that university is her "primary employer." Are you suggesting that I had gone off-wiki and contacted the University about her conduct? Finally, step back and look at this situation: X says "I am going to check your sources as a part of a GA review." Y says "You are accusing me of plagiarism. I demand a retraction." X explains. Each time Y escallates the complaint, Y is telling more and more people about possible plagiarism. Starting this Arbitration Proceeding, having it publicized on The Signpost, and discussing it on IRC, all increases the number of people who hear about "Y being accused of plagiarism." Since I am not the one escallating this, the only effective remedy for LauraHale would be to accept my pending settlement proposal or something like it. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 03:38, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Civility is as much substantive as procedural. A very nice, polite request to an organization you believe employs an editor requesting a reprimand in retaliation for their editing is more offensive than a hundred "fuck off"s. Introducing the notion of a "primary employer" is dissembling, as you are forbidden to seek real life harm against an editor by requesting disciplinary action from any organization you believe employs them in any capacity. "I am going to check your sources as a part of a GA review" does not accurately represent the tenor of your complaints about perceived copyright problems. A public arbitration proceeding protects editors against unjustified sanction. Would you rather that Laura Hale privately notify arbcom, resulting in a discussion on their mailing list to block your account with the notation: "Please contact the Arbitration Committee regarding this block"? I doubt it. Chester Markel (talk) 05:07, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Chester: I am glad we agree that the message in question was "nice, polite" and not incivil. It did not "request disciplinary action" -- it requested that the employee/grantee (Y) have a quiet conversation with some who could say "Look, X has said that he did not accuse you of plagiarism and I don't read X's remarks that way either. Also, don't rely upon me as an 'expert' on Wikipedia's policy on close paraphrasing when you debate compliance in the review. As always, try to get along and be professional." I don't think that such a little talk would be a "disciplinary action." As to your next point, if Y agreed in a contract to abide by a certain standard of conduct, any lawyer would advise Y to do that if at all possible. Finally, User:LauraHale made a deliberate decision to start this Arbitration Case and to start it as a public proceeding. Some people would interpret that as an escallation and more attacks. So, your characterization and imputed motives do not match the facts. Racepacket (talk) 16:45, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The "quiet conversation" is but the first rung in the disciplinary ladder. If Laura Hale were employed by the WMF and they had to have a "quiet conversion" with her over this, the next occurrence of the same sort of issue might result in a more formal warning, less confrontational methods having proven ineffective. Also, the WMF is not bound by your guidance. Under employment at will law, they could proceed to a formal warning, or even immediate termination of employment, at their discretion. The bottom line is that any reporting of negative material about an editor to their employer, or an organization you believe employs them, is considered to be an attempt to cause real life harm in retaliation for their editing, and a serious offence. The arbitrators will certainly consider your repeated attempts to defend the indefensible. Chester Markel (talk) 00:55, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Chester, why are you assuming that LH would escalate it beyond a "quiet conversation?" Also, note that the message was about two specific false personal attacks (with diffs provided), not about a content dispute. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 21:52, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Conduct outside Wikipedia

5) A user's conduct outside of Wikipedia is generally not subject to Wikipedia policies or sanctions. This includes actions such as sending private e-mails or commenting on Wikipedia and its users in other forums. However, in rare circumstances, a user who engages in highly disruptive off-wiki conduct which is damaging to the project and its participants may be subject to sanction. An example is a user whose off-wiki activities directly threaten to damage another user's employment.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Perhaps. I think a better example might be using external communications such as email or IRC to get editors sanctioned. The point about forums not controlled by WMF is noted. Risker (talk) 03:41, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

In order to more accurately track the policy, may I suggest changing "and its users in other forums." to: "and its users in forums not controlled by the Wikimedia Foundation." Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 19:22, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've found that the definition of "off-wiki" is somewhat subjective. You can either think of it as "off-(the Wikimedia Foundation's wiki projects as a whole)", or "off-(this specific wiki-project)". No relation to Wikipedia:WikiProject. Regardless of that issue, Racepacket commented on the meta-wiki within the context of contacting one's place of employment, rather than wiki-related activities. That makes it off-wiki, regardless of "off-wiki"'s interpretation. This separation needs to be stressed. - Zero1328 _Talk? 22:32, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To Zero1328, the policy says "forums not controlled by the Wikimedia Foundation." If you want to change the policy prospectively, I will abide by any change, but you can't expect me to be accountable for a policy change before it is made. Throughout this entire period, User:LauraHale has posted her University affiliation, a link to a draft of her dissertation and a link to her seminar presentation handout on her User page. Those documents in turn freely disclose very specific contact information, which I will not specify so as to comply with WP:OUTING. For graduate students, a university is the equivalent of an "employer." Because I did not contact the University-which-I-shall-not-name, I did not contact her "employer." Further, because User:Hawkeye7 misinformed me as to her relationshop to the WMF, it turns out that leaving my message on a forum controlled by WMF did not involve contacting her "employer" either. I know that User:LauraHale has repeatedly said that I "contacted her employer" in order to stir opinion against me, but there is no evidence that I did. Racepacket (talk) 00:11, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You clearly believed that Laura Hale was employed by the Wikimedia Foundation, since there otherwise would have been no reason to contact them. That she fortuitously wasn't doesn't make your actions any less appalling, or mean that your efforts to spread negative information to editors' employers won't be more efficacious in the future. The reliance on the "forums not controlled by the Wikimedia Foundation" language is somewhat bizarre. Are your activities really less subject to sanction by arbcom when they occur on a WMF site? Should you in fact find a way to relate negative material directly to editors' employers on Wikipedia itself, that too would be highly unacceptable. Chester Markel (talk) 05:44, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Racepacket (00:11, 11 May 2011): I have a simple question requiring a simple (read: short) answer. Why did you contact the Wikimedia Foundation? Please note that her dissertation and seminar information were posted after you contacted WMF and in response to that contact. Imzadi 1979 → 00:31, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Yes. Racepacket, you're going to need to explain [68]. And by explain, I mean apologize for it and promise never to do such a thing again, because seeking to justify it suggests the possibility of a repeat performance. Sanctions could be imposed accordingly. Chester Markel (talk) 07:30, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Racepacket: Issues on en-wikipedia should be resolved on en-wikipedia --Guerillero | My Talk 19:33, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Chester: I did not understand how widely-read the meta wiki was at the time I left the message. There are better ways to handle situations where WMF Employees are being unprofessional. (Again, remember we are not discussing content disputes between an editor and a WMF Employee, which should be resolved on en-wikipedia.) Racepacket (talk) 00:11, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I construe your observation that "There are better ways to handle situations where WMF Employees are being unprofessional" to indicate you fully intend to contact the WMF directly again should you be involved in a similar dispute with someone who is, or who you believe to be employed by them, even when the putative employee is not acting in any official capacity. Private attempts to contact editors' employers are no more acceptable than posts on a publicly viewable wiki for the same purpose. If you are claiming that email or telephone contacts would provide less evidence against you in any future proceedings, you may be right. But an effective resolution of this arbitration should preclude any such future evidentiary problems. Chester Markel (talk) 05:54, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It might be interesting to reflect on the standard used by many schools, which is that out-of-school conduct can be punished if the conduct disrupts the normal school activities. As an example, a fistfight between two students, even if off-campus and outside of school hours, is a problem if the rumors or emotions distract the students from their work the next day, but is not punishable if nobody much notices or cares.

We don't ever want to say that off-wiki conduct is always unimportant. For example, there's an attack page on the web with my name on it, written by an editor who is unhappy about Wikipedia's content policies: that is, and should be, actionable on-wiki, if such off-wiki activities have any discernible negative effect on the project or its editors. At the same time, we need to be cautious about such things. For example, there's a sockmaster who has used my username on several other websites, sometimes pretending to be me. It would be inappropriate to punish me for her actions off-wiki. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:31, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sanctions and circumstances

6) In deciding what sanctions to impose against an administrator or other editor, the Arbitration Committee will consider the editor's overall record of participation, behavioral history, and other relevant circumstances. An editor's positive and valuable contributions in one aspect of his or her participation on Wikipedia do not excuse misbehavior or questionable judgment in another aspect of participation, but may be considered in determining the sanction to be imposed.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Recidivism (continuing to repeat behavior that you have been told is against the norms and policies of Wikipedia) is a factor in our deliberations. SirFozzie (talk) 22:16, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Yes, very much so. --Rschen7754 21:28, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Support the idea that the full editing history of an editor needs to be examined. Previous violations of policy, even if not directly related to the current situation, may show that an user is in general having a difficult time working with other users or understanding policy. Unless an user realizes that they are the source of the problem, they can not address the issue in this case going forward. Also other problems will likely occur in the future in other areas where they edit. So, a sanction may need to written more broadly than to address the current situation to stop new disruptive editing from an user. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 19:34, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed findings of fact

Racepacket's block log

1) Racepacket (talk · contribs) has a lengthy block log. Blocks have been placed for a number of reasons including sock puppetry, disruptive editing, copyright violations, and harassment.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I don't know how this can be disputed, although his IP was blocked for block evasion as well. (The IP is known to be his based on Racepacket's pattern of editing meta while logged out and signing his edits with his account name; the IP should be treated as an alternate account.) Imzadi 1979 → 20:34, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Racepacket's conduct

2) Racepacket said that LauraHale (talk · contribs) was a Wikimedia Fellow in a post on Meta-Wiki. As LauraHale had not disclosed this information, Racepacket's actions constituted outing.

Comment by Arbitrators:

@Kirill - note that Principle 4 - Outing - includes the phrase "whether any such information is accurate or not". PhilKnight (talk) 21:51, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not seeing this as outing. Foundation employees are publicly identified as such, including fellows, and if LauraHale had been a WMF employee, Racepacket's manner of expression of concern would have fallen within the range of acceptable. When he was informed that he misunderstood the information that had been made publicly available to him about LauraHale, he did not pursue the matter further. Risker (talk) 02:35, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

This finding has not been credibly disputed by anyone here. Imzadi 1979 → 20:34, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm curious about a finding related to harassment. Yes, outing is a form of harassment and governed by the same policy, but given the March 18 – May 8 timeframe and widespread number of forum where postings about LauraHale by Racepacket have been made, I think a general harassment finding might be more appropriate and less contentious. Imzadi 1979 → 01:42, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously, I am disputing this finding as not consistent with the facts. Obviously, I misunderstood, in good faith, the data supplied by Hawkeye7. I was not sure of the facts, so I phrased it "I have been told that User:LauraHale is a Wikimedia Foundation fellow who is also in a graduate program at an Austrialian Unversity. Assuming that is true...." I did not state it as an unequivocal fact, but rather that I summarized what I had been told. LH had fully disclosed her identity, email address, university affiliation, etc. on the PowerPoint slides that she presents for her wiki/sports workshops. She voluntarily chose to provide links to both her draft dissertation and her slides on her User page. Thus, at the time I notified meta of my problem, I made a deliberate decision not to raise the matter outside Wikimedia with her university. (I am here to mentor students, not to destroy their careers.) Had I been better-versed in the WMF website, I would have checked the list of grantees and fellows and realized that I had been misdirected by Hawkeye7 regarding her status. However, I still maintain that were a WMF employee or grantee to become a part of an unprofessional, "stupid Indian"/"just blind and retarded"-calling cabal, they should be reported immediately under WMF's Open Door policy. I will repeat my prior statement that I did not understand how widely-read the meta-wiki has become and if such a situation arises in the future, I now know the appropriate email addresses to use. We don't want our foundation's resources used to subsidize such misconduct.

I have used LH's user name. In responses to my post, MZMcBride and Steven (WMF) unpacked LH into separate first and last names.

In response to comments below, please note that I specifically requested that someone "counsel her that we are all trying to get along and be professional." That is very different from "taking disciplinary action." Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 21:29, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Kirill, it's more of a question of intent, rather than the absolute facts. It looks like Racepacket was not aware of the public list at the time. - Zero1328 _Talk? 00:18, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Risker: Yes, he did; he continued dragging out the conversation there until someone else had to forcefully archive it. --Rschen7754 02:39, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To Rschen7754 (02:39, 17 May 2011): Your remark is erroneous. I had hoped that my 01:19, 26 March 2011 would be my last, but LauraHale refactored it by inserting a comment in its middle on 09:44, 26 March 2011 (UTC). PeterF suggesting that we stop the thread on 04:17, 26 March 2011 (UTC) and I agreed at 19:13 27 March 2011 with the final statement "(This would never have come up if LauraHale had been clear about her project and about the expert that she was offering during the GA review to contradict WP:C and WP:PARAPHRASE.) I feel that she has been harrassing me by edit warring over merge templates, challenging my WikiCup points, and editing my article talk page comments." The thread was closed on 13 April 2011, 17 days later without any further comments.

Comment by others:

Obviously, LauraHale could not have disclosed this information, given that she was not, in fact, a Wikimedia Fellow. But, even assuming that she were, how would stating this constitute outing? "Wikimedia Fellow" is an official position within the Wikimedia community, and the identities of those who hold it are public knowledge. Would identifying a user as being, say, a Steward be considered outing? It's unreasonable to classify mention of a user's official role as outing merely because they chose not to advertise the fact on their user page. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 01:20, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@PhilKnight: Of course. My point is not that the information was not correct; rather, my point is that, if it were correct, stating it would not constitute outing, because the fact that certain editors hold official Wikimedia positions is by definition publicly known. I'm having difficulty seeing how stating that an editor holds such a role would become outing merely because the editor does not, in fact, do so. If I were to post a message to the effect that "PhilKnight, a Steward, is doing something bad", would I be regarded as somehow "outing" you because you don't hold that particular position? Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 22:27, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Laura Hale" is a common name, with over 100 people[69] matching this description in the United States alone. Even if it were public knowledge that a "Laura Hale" was employed by the WMF, there would be an outing violation in claiming that User:LauraHale was the same person, had she not voluntarily disclosed the connection. Moreover, "outing" is not the only, or even the primary problem with [70] and [71]. Threatening a user's employment, or purported employment in retaliation for a purely editorial dispute, not involving any actions taken by the user as an employee, is extremely unacceptable, even if the targeted user has fully disclosed their identify and employer. Editors who stoop to such malfeasance should be promptly removed from the project. Chester Markel (talk) 01:53, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The only "outing" of LauraHale was done by Hawkeye7 (talking publicly to Racepacket). Is there such a shortage of actual facts that people have to write false ones? --Rob (talk) 03:02, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your diff contains little substantive information that was not already present on User:LauraHale. Also, "outing" is generally only considered to exist if the alleged victim states that the information was shared without their permission. No complaint by Laura Hale ⇒ no outing against her, unless an absence of permission is obvious from the surrounding circumstances. Chester Markel (talk) 03:26, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hence the quotes. He didn't literally commit "outing", nor did Racepacket. Nobody released anything LauraHale didn't choose to. As Hawkeye7 points out in his evidence, LauraHale's quite open about where she works and what she does. Racepacket likely based his belief of LauraHale's employment status on what Hawkeye7 and/or LauraHale wrote, in different spots. Relaying information that was willingly released publicly is not outing, regardless of how inaccurate the relaying was (even if it's completely screwed up). But, if Hawkeye7 wishes to accuse others of "outing" for doing this, he has to live by his own standard, or stop making the accusation. --Rob (talk) 05:24, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's a reason that "outing" normally requires a complaint by the supposed victim: otherwise, it might not have actually happened. Hawkeye7 has submitted evidence which shows that all substantive elements of his comment relating to Laura Hale were based on information already publicly available on WMF-controlled websites. Racepacket's comments relating to Laura Hale being employed by the WMF certainly weren't based on publicly released information, since they weren't actually true. Falsehood is no defense to an outing charge, however. While one might be tempted to excuse Racepacket for inaccurately relaying information that he at least thought was public, the full context of the issue needs to be considered. Attempts to damage and threaten an editor's employment[72] [73] aren't benign, good-faith activities. Chester Markel (talk) 06:34, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've been watching this sorry saga of not just one editor but a group of editors attacking LauraHale, it needs to cease immediately! In regards to the outing, Hawkeye7 was clearly stating what was on LauraHale's userpage (i.e. was not an outing), Racepacket assumes that LauraHale is a WMF Fellow and as I see it, wanted her to reprimanded. Per WP:OUTING "attempted outing is grounds for an immediate block" since it was intentional and harms the editor, whether the information is correct or incorrect, Racepacket had no right to take a content dispute to other forums (i.e. meta, commons), not only outing her but also harassing her with new disputes after being told to cease interacting with LauraHale and her contributions. Bidgee (talk) 12:04, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rob wrote, "Nobody released anything LauraHale didn't choose to."

Really? Laura chose to have Racepacket spread lies about her relationship with the WMF? If I said that you're a convicted serial murderer—a statement I assume is equally false—would you say that my claim releases no information about you that you didn't choose to have released? WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:37, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2.1) 2) Racepacket said that LauraHale (talk · contribs) was a Wikimedia Fellow in a post on Meta-Wiki. As LauraHale had not disclosed this information, Racepacket's actions were contrary to the harassment policy, specifically the part which deals with outing.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Alternative wording following Kirill's comments. 17:53, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

I think this wording works equally well, if not a bit better than the original wording. Imzadi 1979 → 20:21, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, if people are going to parse the meta-thread with precision, it should probably read "Racepacket said that he had been told that LauraHale (talk · contribs) was a Wikimedia Foundation fellow" (with a lower case F). I understand that there are a number of different positions at WMF short of being a full time, permanent employee. Hawkeye7 suggested something short-term so I used fellow with a lower-case F. However, either way, it does not constitute either WP:OUTING or WP:HARASSMENT.

• Communications with the Wikimedia Foundation about misconduct are protected.
• LauraHale had already disclosed short-term relationships with WMF and its programs.[74]
• LauraHale was under a duty to disclose accurately her relationships with the WMF and its programs.
• My posting on meta was a reasonable attempt to bring the problem of LH's continuing personal attacks to the attention of someone who could help, after an administrator explained his concerns that LH would write "a scathing indictment of the Wikipedia, its editors and its policies."
• Applying "Do not treat incorrect attempts at outing any differently from correct attempts" which is referenced by Lankiveil means asking the question, Would this violate policy if Racepacket's beliefs were correct that LH was funded by WMF?" (It is within policy.) However, Lankiveil seems to misapply the rule as if it meant, "We can assume that Racepacket would voliate policy if he knew the correct fact." Just because a user is willing to use on-wiki communication to seek assistance with an unprofessional WMF editor does not mean that the user would be willing to use off-wiki communication to reach out to the non-WMF employer.
• The purpose of the WP:OUTING policy is to shield the privacy of editors so that they will make positive contributions to Wikipedia without being deterred by disclosure of their personal information. The purpose of the exception to that rule for WMF employees is to promote transparency and accountability and to deter misconduct by WMF employees. So my meta thread was consist with both the spirit and the letter of the WP:OUTING. Racepacket (talk) 21:24, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Harassment contains no exceptions "for WMF employees". Directing complaints about editorial disputes to a contributor's employer, or perceived employer, is categorically forbidden. While the policy wouldn't actually be applied to prohibit complaints about actions taken by WMF employees in their official capacity, it certainly applies with full force to personal editing by anyone who is, or believed to be employed by the WMF. The WMF "open door policy" refers to actions taken by the foundation itself, and is not binding upon arbcom. Chester Markel (talk) 20:58, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

I think the average reader would regard this finding as being equivalent to #2, as it is not obvious that the "outing" portion of the harassment policy deals also with actions that do not themselves constitute "outing" per se. "Outing" is a particularly loaded term within the Wikimedia community, and I would encourage the Committee to avoid using it unnecessarily. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 01:57, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2.2) Racepacket's conduct in regard to LauraHale (talk · contribs) has been contrary to the harassment policy.[75]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Following comments by Imzadi, this intended to be a more general harassment finding. PhilKnight (talk) 17:53, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Given the March 8 – May 8 (and maybe later) pattern to his comments and the number of forums and WMF sites where he made them, I think it's only reasonable to conclude that Racepacket harassed her. Imzadi 1979 → 20:21, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Racepacket's involvement with road related Good Article Reviews

3) Racepacket has been involved with a number of road related Good Article Reviews. His interactions with other editors in this area has been problematic, which resulted in a Request for Comment.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

This finding is a bit simplified, but accurate. (Other issues contributed to the RfC/U, but the GANs were a primary reason.) Imzadi 1979 → 20:34, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Grammar again: It's "road-related", with the hyphen. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:41, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Racepacket's involvement with netball related Good Article Reviews

4) Racepacket has been involved with a number of netball related Good Article Reviews. His interactions with other editors in this area has been problematic.[76] These problematic interactions resulted in a Request for Arbitration, which led to this case being opened.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

This finding appears to be accurate. Imzadi 1979 → 20:34, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Grammar again: It should be "netball-related", with the hyphen. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:41, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Racepacket banned

1) Racepacket (talk · contribs) is banned from Wikipedia for a period of one year.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed for discussion. From my perspective, there are problematic interactions between Racepacket and LauraHale. If both parties were more or less equally at fault, I'd propose an interaction ban. However, from what I can gather, the blame rests with Racepacket, and not LauraHale, so a two-way interaction ban would be unfair. I notice that Hasteur proposed a one-way interaction ban, and that may well be worth considering. However, in my experience, one-way interaction bans often cause more problems than they're worth. Otherwise, Racepacket has a lengthy block log and just doesn't seem to grasp how serious his behavioural problems are. That said, a 1-year may well be excessive, so I'm also proposing a 6-month ban below. PhilKnight (talk) 11:46, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are concerns here, but I do not see them as one-sided. Risker (talk) 07:51, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Given the depth and breadth of the disputes and his history, I do not see a year as excessive. Conceding any bias based on the previous dispute from the second RfC/U, he has engaged in sockpuppetry, block evasion, copyright violations, harassment and disruptive editing. Imzadi 1979 → 20:40, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I support a full year ban. Anything less will show Racepacket that his behavior is acceptable for Wikipedia. As evidenced above, Racepacket does not seem to realize the severity of his actions. --Rschen7754 20:35, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Racepacket has also used Commons and Meta as fora. Could the ban be extended to there as well? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hawkeye7 (talk • contribs) 20:41, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

To Hawkeye: No, the English Wikipedia cannot impose any sanctions on any other Wikimedia project. In fact, it's typical for people banned or blocked here to attempt to make themselves useful elsewhere. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:54, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I just read about this case on the Signpost. As a newcomer, I find it outrageous that Racepacket actually contacted an employer of another editor. That is so far out of bounds that I believe a one-year ban to be getting off lightly. I would actually support simply ejecting from the project any editor who did this. No warnings, no suspensions — just kick them. There is no need to use kid gloves. Comet Tuttle (talk) 00:35, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1.1) Racepacket (talk · contribs) is banned from Wikipedia for a period of six months.

Comment by Arbitrators:

As above. Risker (talk) 07:51, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Not an adequate remedy for [77] and [78], previous prolific copyright violations and sockery, etc. Users who threaten other editors employment in retaliation for on-wiki disputes should be publicly condemned and punished with the harshest sanctions available, to serve as a stern warning to anyone else contemplating such community-destroying activities. Chester Markel (talk) 02:14, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your attitude is fundamentally incompatible with the principles of this project. You need to read WP:NOTPUNISHMENT if you haven't done so previously. —Bill Price (nyb) 03:05, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For garden variety editorial disputes and even common misfeasance, the essay is an accurate description of Wikipedia's practices. However, exceptionally disruptive activities which threaten to cause real life harm to editors should be punished, because the great need for deterrence of strongly community-destroying practices outweighs whatever degradation of the editorial environment is caused by use of punitive methods. Most editors simply will not contribute if they feel that any engagement in content disputes will cost them their jobs. Chester Markel (talk) 03:14, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Racepacket Good Article Nominations and Reviews topic ban

2) Racepacket is topic banned from Good Article Nominations and Good Article Reviews, their associated talk pages, and any process discussion about same, widely construed, for one year. This ban is consecutive to any editing ban.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

This would go a long way to preventing future disputes. Imzadi 1979 → 20:40, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Racepacket Roads topic ban

3) Racepacket is topic banned from articles about roads, their associated talk pages, and any process discussion about same, widely construed, for one year. This ban is consecutive to any editing ban.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

This is now necessary as Racepacket has shown that he is not willing to abide by the RFC/U settlement. --Rschen7754 08:10, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Racepacket Sport topic ban

4) Racepacket is topic banned from articles about netball, women's sports and the Olympics, their associated talk pages, and any process discussion about same, widely construed, for one year. This ban is consecutive to any editing ban.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Added women's sports and Olympics following comments by John Vandenberg on this page. PhilKnight (talk) 19:20, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback regarding this being too broad - when I post the proposed decision tomorrow, I'll use the netball only wording I had before. PhilKnight (talk) 16:29, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

This would go a long way to ending the current pattern of harassment and preventing future disputes. Imzadi 1979 → 20:40, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I find this poorly worded, and opened to various interpretations. --Rob (talk) 20:31, 19 May 2011 (UTC) Added: "women's sports and the Olympics" is particularly vague. All sports are women's sports (even when women are excluded from an organization, the very exclusion is a topic). All major sports and many minor ones, aspire to be Olympic. So, this could mean all sports. Or, it could mean articles like "Women's association football", but not "Association football". Or it could just mean articles about women's sports in the Olympics. And all these definitions of scope miss the mark. Racepacket's shown little interest in editing any such articles, even Netball (I mean the article, not talk, not GA). The problem has been in interactions with other users, particularly LauraHale, and in particularly in reviews. The topic per se, isn't relevant. Topic bans are good in cases where a user shows on obsession with a particular topic, so their bias is confined to that area, so moving them out, will avoid problems. But, that's really not the case here. LauraHale isn't going to (and shouldn't) be kept in a box of "women's sports". Surely, she'll show interest in other sports, other topics. So, this whole topic focus will do little to avoid conflicts. --Rob (talk) 00:47, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the spirit in which is offered. In response, I would point out that I have been sufficiently active in WikiProject Olympics to earn a barnstar on 26 August 2008, and I am one of the primary participants of WP:WikiProject Running, which includes both men and women running. So, the ArbCom may want to draw the line between the areas where I am already active and where LH is already active, than drawing the line on where LH hopes to be active in the future. Racepacket (talk) 20:42, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Rob and Racepacket. This is far to broad --Guerillero | My Talk 03:36, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement

Enforcement by block

1) Should Racepacket violate any restriction or ban imposed in this case, Racepacket may be blocked, initially for up to one month, and then with blocks increasing in duration to a maximum of one year, with the topic ban clock restarting at the end of the block. Appeals of blocks may be made to the imposing administrator, and thereafter to Arbitration Enforcement, or to the Arbitration Committee.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed principles

Dispute resolution

1) The earlier stages of dispute resolution are not a formality and are not trivial; editors are expected to honestly participate in these stages when a dispute arises that has not been resolved.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Rschen7754 07:31, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Imzadi 1979 → 07:54, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Canvassing

2) Canvassing is not permitted on Wikipedia. Limited posts in relevant places that are of a neutral fashion and are not aimed at votestacking is not canvassing; however, anything more is. Canvassing of any form is not acceptable in the dispute resolution process as it shows disregard for the entire process.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. I'm sure that there's been an ArbCom case involving canvassing before and I was too lazy to look up how it would be worded there; forgive me. --Rschen7754 07:57, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Guerillero: Yes, look at Zero1238's evidence, and other diffs I will submit now. --Rschen7754 19:57, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Is there any diffs to support the claim that Racepacket Canvassed? --Guerillero | My Talk 12:56, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Anything more is" has the unfortunate effect of saying that anything else is canvassing, e.g., if you gripe at a friend about a dispute, or if your good-faith effort to post a neutral message somehow misses the mark, then you're suddenly in violation of CANVASS. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:36, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed findings of fact

Racepacket and dispute resolution

1) Racepacket has shown blatant disregard for the dispute resolution process through simply ignoring the process for as long as possible. He has canvassed for support at his RFC, reflecting attempts to "game the system."

Comment by Arbitrators:

From my perspective, Racepacket had ample opportunity to reach an agreement, and he some how failed to do so. Whether he was stalling, or made some bad choices about what to prioritize, I don't know. However, since then he's shown a marked reluctance to provide evidence. PhilKnight (talk) 18:58, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Proposed. --Rschen7754 22:24, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Several of the commenters that came to the RfC/U offered "outside views" with glowing praise for Racepacket's GAN reviews, but had nothing of substance to offer in the case of legitimate disputes. Much time and attention was wasted on dealing with these, either to educate the outsiders who participated on the talk page discussions as to "what the fuss was all about" or just to discount the "praise" as "noise" (as in "signal-to-noise ratio"). Imzadi 1979 → 07:52, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Problems not isolated to netball

2) Similar problems caused by Racepacket have arisen out of areas not related to netball, specifically in the U.S. Roads project.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Agreed. PhilKnight (talk) 18:53, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Rschen7754's comment below - this is necessary as Racepacket has recently broken the voluntary agreement. PhilKnight (talk) 16:31, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Proposed. --Rschen7754 19:42, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any evidence to demonstrate that the roads problem are "similar" to those of netball. Also, it would be more accurate to say, "Some of the parties to this arbitration were parties to an earlier RFC/U brought by three members of the U.S. Road project, which was concluded by a mutual settlement." Racepacket (talk) 03:14, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

...that you broke. --Rschen7754 03:18, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Accusations of plagiarism and outing have become complex

3) During the course of the RFC and arbitration, several accusations related to plagiarism and outing were made. These accusations have become difficult to comprehend, and it is difficult (if not impossible) to tell who is in the right in this regard.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. However, I hope that ArbCom will respond to the charges of harassment and failure to follow the dispute resolution process and act accordingly, without needing to process through this. --Rschen7754 08:08, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed principles

Harassment

1) That accusations of inappropriate paraphrasing, plagiarism and trademark violation are a form of harassment. It will be difficult to entice people with academic credentials to work on the Wikipedia if any editor can hurl an unsubstantiated accusation that subsequently appear on search engines.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

As proposer. Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:09, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Misleading. First of all, the relevant phrase is "close paraphrasing"; second of all, Racepacket did not accuse any individual of having committed that action. User:LauraHale interpreted his neutral, impersonal desire to check the article's sources as a personal attack on herself due to ownership issues, and User:LauraHale was the one who began using the word "plagiarism". —Bill Price (nyb) 01:59, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed findings of fact

No evidence of inappropriate paraphrasing

1) There has been no evidence provided by User:Racepacket to support an accusation that User:LauraHale has committed inappropriate paraphrasing, plagiarism or trademark violations in regards to the Netball related articles where she has been a major contributor, ie Netball, Netball in the Cook Islands, Netball and the Olympic Movement, Rules of netball and Netball in South Africa in the versions that Racepacket examined and all subsequent edits made to these articles. There is no inappropriate paraphrasing, plagiarism or trademark violations in the aforementioned articles.

Comment by Arbitrators:

This doesn't fully disentangle the situation. Racepacket said the article contained close paraphrasing, LauraHale interpreted this to mean that she was responsible, she asked for evidence, and Racepacket didn't explain there was a misunderstanding, or indeed say where the close paraphrasing was. PhilKnight (talk) 18:52, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

As proposer. Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:09, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This comes dangerously close to a content ruling. --Rschen7754 07:15, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Rschen on this one. Arbcom deals in terms of behavior and not content. If you strike the last sentence, you'd get something that would work though. Imzadi 1979 → 07:25, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Stricken. Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:30, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This distorts what the dispute is. Of course there's no evidence of LauraHale paraphrasing, let alone plagiarism. Racepacket's never accused her *personally* of doing that. Also, he intentionally avoided bringing up the term "plagiarism" in review. Ironically, LauraHale was the first one to use the term, and then cry that she could be hurt professionally by the very word *she* brought into the picture. LauraHale has behaved as an owner and assumed any attack on "her article" is an attack on her personally. If LauraHale had allowed other editors to make more contributions, and seen the articles as being a team project, she wouldn't take such suggestion personally. But, any attack on Netball articles is automatically equated to an attack on LauraHale. If somebody suspects that there may be inappropriate paraphrasing (or even outright copvio), they should be free to seek discussion, and assistance in investigating the matter. If we demand hard proof before seeking discussion/help, reviewers will be discouraged from reviewing properly. Most people don't have easy access to most offline sources. So, if something needs checking, it's necessary to ask fellow editors (especially those most active) for assistance in checking what sources say. Such requests should not be taken as personal accusations. Editors must be protected from personal attacks. However, content has no such protection. We must all be free to be harsh critics of content, be it articles or media. Every day we delete scores of images for fear of copyright, despite there being no proof there's any violation. We treat text in a more trusting basis, as we should. But, we should not treat text like people. In more irony, it is Racepacket who is the victim of a personal attack, without evidence. There's no evidence Racepacket ever accussed LauraHale of plagiarism. At a miminum, there should be a finding of fact, to confirm this, and admonish those who made this false claim. --Rob (talk) 07:53, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So when racepacket attempted to contact her employer, although he specified her by name, he really meant the netball editors in general? Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:24, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In the note to the meta you're probably referring to he does not suggest she personally engaged in close paraphrasing. He complains of her becoming defensive when he brought up "close paraphrasing" in the article. He never said she personally engaged in it. It was in this same meta thread where LauraHale brought up the spectre of "plagiarism". Racepacket made very clear he had never used the term against her. Racepacket made multiple criticism of LauraHale at meta, but never once accussed her of close paraphrasing, let alone of plagiarism. Now, I fully agree that Racepacket used the wrong venue for his complaints. But he is absolutely correct in saying LauraHale has been excessively defensive, in taking attacks on "her" articles as attacks on her personally. --Rob (talk) 16:38, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To Hawkeye7: How can you ask with a straight face, "So when racepacket attempted to contact her employer, although he specified her by name, he really meant the netball editors in general?" At the time, User:LauraHale repeatedly, in a number of disperate fora said "Racepacket accused me of plagiarism." 1) I never accused her of anything, I said that I would check the article for close paraphrasing. 2) I did say that User:LauraHale had been making false statements about such accusations. 3) The alleged contact did not say that User:LauraHale had in fact plagiarized. 4) It turns out that I did not contact her employer. Racepacket (talk) 01:05, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, I can't say anything about the plagiarism part of the dispute because so many accusations have flown about and by now the mess is nearly impossible to sort out. --Rschen7754 08:04, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Lets drop the euphemisms. Close paraphrasing = a form of plagiarism.--Guerillero | My Talk 13:30, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, the terms are actually different. Sometimes people try to paraphrase some text, but there's really not that many ways of saying the same thing, so they end up with text closing matching the source. Now if the text is sufficiently short, doing this may be perfectly legal, and ethical, and doesn't qualify as "plagiarism". But, in such cases it may be worth considering whether to just use a straightforward quotation. But, if you use the term "plagiarism" in describing an article, you're saying somebody did something in bad faith, when you don't wish to make that accusation. LauraHale was wrong to bring up the word "plagiarism", when Racepacket avoided the term. An editor should not get offended because somebody suggests that an article has close paraphrasing, or any other problem, regardless of whether it does. We should criticise LauraHale for using the term, and commend Racepacket for not using it. --Rob (talk) 17:09, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This statement is badly misleading and drags up an issue that's been scrutinized time and time again. Racepacket never accused User:LauraHale of close paraphrasing. Her ownership issues led her to take personally his desire to check sources on the article, and her continued lying—falsely claiming not only that Racepacket indicted her personally, but that he accused her of plagiarism, which is an entirely separate type of misconduct—has colored the tone of every subsequent discussion of the topic. I cannot understand how this isn't settled yet. This is Wikipedia. The objective written record exists, and it does not support the assertion that Racepacket ever accused User:LauraHale of close paraphrasing. —Bill Price (nyb) 01:37, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think that you're splitting hairs here. No, Racepacket did not originally use the actual word "plagiarism". He used another sequence of words which could reasonably be interpreted as meaning "plagiarism". At the very best, even if Racepacket did not intend that meaning, it was a sloppy and careless choice of words. At the worst, it could be a cynical attempt to make a dog whistle statement and be able to back away from it later if things turned sour.

In any case, a clear and unambiguous statement that his words were poorly chosen and could have carried an unintended meaning, posted in a prominent location, would be a good way for Racepacket to deal with this and put this particular part of the issue to bed. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 01:24, 18 May 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Aside from the difference in the terms, the key point, is that Racepacket initially referred to the article not the editor. He did not make it personal, until after LauraHale made it personal. Nobody other than LauraHale would have thought she was accussed of anything if she hadn't started screaming "plagiarism" from every rooftop. Sadly, Racepacket's response to LH's response was unacceptable. Content is challenged for close paraphrasing and outright copying all the time, without a lot of drama. --Rob (talk) 01:50, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Racepacket violated WP:BLP

• No evidence has been presented by User:Racepacket that User:LauraHale worked for WMF. This is uncited material and therefore violates WP:BLP. The edit to User talk:LauraHale in regards to her employment situation did not cite any evidence that User:LauraHale was having a difficult time at work.
• Based on the evidence, repeated accusations of inappropriate paraphrasing and plagiarism were made by User:Racepacket. These accusations were made without evidence to support the claims, despite repeated attempts by User:JohnVandenberg to solicit evidence from User:Racepacket to support them. The insertion of such materials violates WP:BLP.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

As proposer. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:14, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for any repetition, but the fundamental problem with responding to JohnVandenberg is his framing the issue as close paraphrasing by LauraHale. I have made a deliberate effort to not trace back the problem paraphrasing to individual contributors. Placing blame gains nothing and makes securing the cooperation of the article's editors difficult. I have previously identified the position description table which was moved to Rules of netball and the Olympic table in Netball and the Olympic Movement. I had recommended adding quotation marks around some of the text in the position description table during the GA review, but that was rejected as "POV pushing." The latter article has been recently edited to show that the entire table is one big block quote from an IOC subcommittee report.

If LauraHale or Hawkeye7 wants to strike the April 20 note that I left on LH's talk page as uncited, I would not object. I left it with the intent of giving LH reassurances, but it was obviously misinterpreted. Either way, it was based on the mistaken premise that LH's complaints in late April about "Racepacket contacting her employer" was referring to something other than the March 23 meta-thread. Racepacket (talk) 10:28, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Um... When did LauraHale become the Article topic? WP:BLP is used on Articles (or subjects of an Article) not on editor comments about other editors. This is a especially disapointing usage of policy by an Administrator [79] Hasteur (talk) 03:34, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Racepacket's behavior towards Laura Hale has been reprehensible. But it can be condemned in sufficiently harsh terms without incorrectly invoking WP:BLP. Chester Markel (talk) 04:03, 14 May 2011 (UTC)WP:BLP has been changed to apply to project space material concerning editors which "rises to the level of defamation, or if it constitutes a violation of No personal attacks." Chester Markel (talk) 04:07, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pot, kettle, black. Racepacket never once made a single accusation of plagiarism. LauraHale brought up that word. The "close paraphrasing" suggestion was in relation to the article. Even though the "close paraphrasing" claim was mistaken, it wasn't about a person. It's ironic, that you're trying to radically expand the scope of WP:BLP while at the same time you're violating the same rule here, by making false claims against Racepacket, without any sources to back you up. When can we put aside this whole "plagiarism" nonsense? Nobody committed plagiarism. Nobody accused anybody of it. Even LauraHale modified her claim to, to say the accusation was against the article, instead of her personally. So, why are you continuing to advance a claim that has been dropped by the claimant? You are challenged to find a single example of a "plagiarism" accusation by Racepacket, or concede the mistake. --Rob (talk) 05:03, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to have to agree here that this one is a bit wack. Outing is a bad thing for many reasons, but it's drawing a pretty long bow to say that it's the same thing as a BLP violation. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:07, 18 May 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Proposed remedies

Removal of accusations and surrounding accusation discussions from all relevant pages

1) That the text of such accusations be removed from the pages.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

As proposer. Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:09, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is unprecedented. --Rschen7754 01:23, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:BLP Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:35, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There has already been quite a bit of refactoring of various talk pages. If the ArbCom decides to go down this path, it would be reasonable to rephrase it as calling for the removal all of the accusations made by all parties. For example, could WikiProjects U.S. Highways preserve its view of the accusations on Wikipedia:USRD/P#Dispute_resolution_cases_and_related_items? Depending on how it would be implemented, this remedy may entail more time than it is worth. Racepacket (talk) 03:32, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

What is this referring to? Accusations of what? If you're talking about the concerns raised about possible close paraphrasing, then WP:BLP does not apply, because no specific party was named. Beyond that issue, invoking WP:BLP to effectively "seal all records" of all discussions of possible user misconduct sets a bizarre precedent. To quote BLP: "All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." If applied to Wikipedia editors, this policy would immediately preclude any kind of discussion of user conduct unless conducted "behind closed doors", because claims made in such discussions would be "likely to be challenged" and "questionable". If the claims were not questionable, there would be little point in holding a proceeding like this one rather than simply blocking the editor in question. —Bill Price (nyb) 02:24, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Um... When did LauraHale become the Article topic? WP:BLP is used on Articles (or subjects of an Article) not on editor comments about other editors. This is a especially disappointing usage of policy by an Administrator [80] Hasteur (talk) 03:37, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The proposal demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of WP:BLP unbecoming an administrator. This is especially worrisome since Hawkeye7's use of administrative tools has hardly been stellar. Chester Markel (talk) 03:43, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLPTALK: "The BLP policy also applies to user and user talk pages. ... Although this policy applies to posts about Wikipedians in project space, some leeway is permitted to allow the handling of administrative issues by the community, but administrators may delete such material if it rises to the level of defamation, or if it constitutes a violation of No personal attacks." Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:01, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, BLP is now applicable to defamatory or WP:NPA violating material about editors. Chester Markel (talk) 04:10, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note also that WP:BLP contains an exception to the general WP:INVOLVED rule for the removal of material which blatantly violates sourcing standards, thereby opening an enormous can of worms since admins will now claim they can block users with whom they are in disputes if purportedly necessary to ensure the removal of "defamation" or personal attacks... Chester Markel (talk) 04:23, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A bit of WP:Courtesy blanking might not be unreasonable, but I'm not sure that it requires an ArbCom motion. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:02, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

Racepacket

1) Racepacket (talk · contribs) has never accused LauraHale (talk · contribs) of close paraphrasing or plagiarism. He brought up concerns about possible close paraphrasing in a GA review, but did not identify or accuse any editor as the contributor of that content.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

LauraHale

1) LauraHale (talk · contribs) incorrectly claimed on a number of occasions that Racepacket had accused her of plagiarism or of close paraphrasing.

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.

User interaction ban

1) An interaction ban be User:LauraHale with User:Thivierr / User:Bill william compton / User:Basement12 because of issues involving Talk:Netball/GA1, Talk:Netball, Netball, Netball in Africa, Talk:Netball in Africa, Netball and the Olympic Movement, Talk:Netball and the Olympic Movement, Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Netball/1, Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Competence is required‎, Women's sport at the Olympics , Talk:Netball in South Africa for a period of six months.

Comment by Arbitrators:

LauraHale, have you notified User:Basement12 that you have proposed that he be sanctioned as part of this matter? He is not a party at present. If you are unable or unwilling to notify him yourself, you may request assistance from an arbitration clerk. Risker (talk) 03:00, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

I proposed this because their participation and interaction with netball related articles started after User:Racepacket created disruption with the image policy proposal change that would have required Wikipedia to make sure all descriptions met Wikipedia's verifiability of sourcing, and because of issues raised on the talk pages of these articles regarding the appropriateness of their actions, the timing of their actions as it pertains to their actions, and possible issues of possible sexism and possible regionalism that led to the possible insertion biased content into articles and ignoring of sources Wikipedia has labeled as credible, support of User:Racepacket's actions by these individuals in terms of User:Racepacket's harassment and outing. My fear is that if this issue is not addressed at this time, we will be back and having another Request for Comment or ArbCom case regarding either netball or these individuals and their interactions with regular netball contributors. --LauraHale (talk) 23:12, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This nicely illustrates how you conflate different people with different positions and different actions. You need to treat each person as an individual, and say what evidence you have, and what your concerns are, for each. People can agree on some issues and disagree on others. We should all avoid forming "blocks". You need to more carefully read criticisms, and see what differences there are in people's positions. You think I hold positions that I do not. It's impossible to fully respond to your attack on me, until you treat me as individual, and explain specifically what I did that you object to and why. And, if you want to accuse anybody of "sexism", you're going to need to show evidence of that. You and Hawkeye7 have been throwing this term around, without any evidence, or consequences, and it needs to stop. --Rob (talk) 19:53, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User:Basement12 isn't even a party here. --Rschen7754 20:14, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sexism is a very big accusation over me. I formally ask Laura to provide some valid evidences for her unfounded claims. She's just can't bear if people disagree with her. — Bill william compton^Talk 07:38, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

I really think that this is a bad idea. To my understanding, if someone enters an article space after seeing a notice on one of the notice boards or responding to a 3rd Opinion request they are acting in good faith for the betterment of the project. To outright demand a interaction ban with those 3 users does not appear to be supported by any of the evidence statements. The fact that they question the veracity of statements on the topic suggests that there may be more to the issue than a misbehavior. Hasteur (talk) 23:58, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And I assume you'd like to Topic/Interaction ban me as well for coming in after the fact and taking a impartial (and not supporting your) viewpoint on the GA status of Netball? Hasteur (talk) 00:00, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Content interaction ban

2) User:Thivierr , User:Bill william compton , User:Basement12 be banned editing netball related articles and women's sport articles such as Women's sport at the Olympics where they were not major contributors prior to the start of the Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Racepacket 2 and Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Racepacket/Workshop for a period of six months.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I proposed this because their participation with myself and User:Hawkeye7 started after User:Racepacket created disruption with the image policy proposal change that would have required Wikipedia to make sure all descriptions met Wikipedia's verifiability of sourcing, and because of issues raised on the talk pages of these articles regarding the appropriateness of their actions, the timing of their actions as it pertains to their actions, and possible issues of possible sexism and possible regionalism that led to the possible insertion biased content into articles and ignoring of sources Wikipedia has labeled as credible, support of User:Racepacket's actions by these individuals in terms of User:Racepacket's harassment and outing. None of the named parties appear to indicate any interest in netball prior to the start of this situation.--LauraHale (talk) 23:12, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is another attempt at ownership by LauraHale. LauraHale is by far the most prolific editor, and insists on completely controlling the article. My first involvement was over the placement of a a non-netball image in Netball. Everybody agrees a picture actually depicting Netball is better. The only dispute was whether we should use this non-related picture in the mean time. Racepacket was focused primarily on the whole "reliable source" issue, but I was not. I simply looked at the image, saw it had nothing to do with Netball, and sought it's removal. I was guilty of edit warring, and I would happily accept some sort of revert-limit (like 1RR or 0RR), or even short-term topic ban, imposed on all recent editors of Netball (even me). This wouldn't be for the sake of punishment, but rather, for the sake of providing space for new editors, to make real progress. OWNership has to be eliminated, and broader community input into Netball is essential. Otherwise, we have the recurring problem of the OWNer editor conflicting with any outside reviewer. So, that the article can never pass a genuine outside review. LauraHale needs to stop lumping everybody she disagrees with into one group, and demonizing. People have to be able to discuss issues in the article, without LauraHale bringing her problems with Racepacket. For the record I have never supported harassment or outing, and she must withdraw that claim, unless she can show evidence. --Rob (talk) 19:26, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User:Basement12 isn't even a party here. --Rschen7754 20:15, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

I really think that this is a bad idea. To my understanding, if someone enters an article space after seeing a notice on one of the notice boards or responding to a 3rd Opinion request they are acting in good faith for the betterment of the project. To outright demand a interaction ban with those 3 users does not appear to be supported by any of the evidence statements. The fact that they question the veracity of statements on the topic suggests that there may be more to the issue than a misbehavior. Hasteur (talk) 00:02, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And I assume you'd like to Topic/Interaction ban me as well for coming in after the fact and taking a impartial (and not supporting your) viewpoint on the GA status of Netball? Hasteur (talk) 00:02, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This proposed remedy, which seeks to ban editors LauraHale disagrees with from articles LauraHale edits, provides corroboration for the perception that LauraHale suffers from ownership issues with regard to netball-related articles. —Bill Price (nyb) 18:19, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed principles

Due diligence on Copyright concerns

1) As a matter of law (17 USC §512), Wikipedia is bound to investigate and verify concerns raised on matters of copyright and close paraphrasing.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I don't see this as necessary as written. ArbCom deals in behaviors, not content, and this principle duplicates an existing Wikipedia policy (WP:Copyrights) on content in more legalistic language. Any decision in this case will not decide if there are any copyright violations because this is not the forum for that investigation. (WP:CCI is that forum.) Imzadi 1979 → 21:57, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@MLauba (22:10, 16 May 2011), No, I disagree. Your principles are based on content, not behavior, and this is not the forum for a content discussion or decision. It would not matter what the subject of the allegations were, a dispute on the English Wikipedia was taken off this specific website as part of an on-going campaign to harass another editor here. As SirFozzie stated elsewhere on this page: "One of the reasons we accepted this case was the accusations by Racepacket of 'close paraphrasing' by LauraHale. I note John Vandenberg has asked Racepacket repeatedly to provide evidence of such (4/22, 4/26, 4/28, etcetera) and Racepacket did not (and at the time I've written this, still has not) provide such evidence, while still continuing to make comments accusing LauraHale of such. Repeated accusations of misbehavior without evidence to back up the accusations is actionable." In this case, it's not the subject of the accusations that matters as much as the pattern and spread of those accusations. Imzadi 1979 → 22:27, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Harassment is reprehensible conduct and should not be tolerated. The DMCA is no defence. This recommendation should be stricken. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:32, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@MLauba (22:47, 16 May 2011), no should be questioning that asking about copyvio/plagiarism/close paraphrasing is a valid question to ask, but Racepacket has already been blocked once for that offense, and asking an academic in an already heated discussion added fuel to the flames that already existed. If that had been the end of the situation, we still would not be here. In any case, it's not the substance of the allegations, per se, that are the issue, it's the repetition as a part of a larger pattern. In some cases, adding this proposed principle would be like adding a "the sky is blue" principle. Both are true (assuming the principle above was reworded to address Kirill's comments), but in this case, I don't think that adopting this addresses the dispute as it deals with content, which is outside of the remit of the Arbitration Committee. Imzadi 1979 → 02:15, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To Bidgee (12:07, 17 May 2011): We were reviewing Netball, a article that dates back to August 2005 and has 1400 different editors. I discovered close paraphrasing in the position description table (which has since moved to Rules of netball). I then announced that I would check the whole article once the wording was finalized. I asked all of the active editors for help with sources that are not available on-line. I also asked both KnowIG and LauraHale if they had found anything in terms of copyright/paraphrasing concerns that I should consider. That is collaboration, not an accusation. In order to avoid copyright concerns and to stay within fair use, I asked if any of the active editors would be willing to supply a scan of a sampling of pages that I designate. (Because we would not be copying the entire work and would be making a copy for personal use for a limited time period, my plan is a "fair use" of the copyrighted works.) The diff you provide is Hawkeye7's response to my proposal. He said, "No, you may not. That will be regarded as harassment." In retrospect it is not clear whether "That" refers to asking for the selected pages or the "copyright review." (You provided the diff of where I clarified the tread by changing italics to quote marks around his quotation of my original proposal, but the comment is by Hawkeye7.) As I recall this tread on March 22 was the first time they alleged that normal reviewing and editing was harassment. Racepacket (talk) 14:53, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

This as well as the next principle may be required if any findings center about the allegations of close paraphrasing. MLauba ^(Talk) 20:54, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Izmadi, there has been a lot of noise made about potential repercussions a claim of close paraphrasing could have on the off-wiki activities of one party here. On the contrary, unless the whole issue about the close paraphrasing is completely dropped from the proposed decision, it is quite necessary to also remind parties that potential damage to their off-wiki reputation cannot prevent that those claims be followed up and verified. Oh, and no, CCI is for large-scale repeat infringements, for individual articles. MLauba ^(Talk) 22:10, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Again, you are missing the point. The principles here establish the fact that raising a concern in copyright areas is not, per se, reprehensible conduct, and that this is the case regardless of the status of involved editors. When the concern was first raised on the GA, it was immediately and aggressively deflected, on wrong grounds. If the Grace Sherwood affair had taught us anything, it would be that completely ignoring questions of close paraphrasing is no longer a luxury that we have.

This does in no way invalidate any concerns regarding the manner in which that concern was then pursued by Racepacket, or responded to. But ignoring the fundamental principle that the mere question is, when made in good faith, perfectly legitimate, would be a mistake here. MLauba ^(Talk) 22:47, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't quite correct; the DMCA applies to the Wikimedia Foundation (which, of course, has processes in place to process valid DMCA requests), not to individual Wikipedians or the Wikipedia "community" (which is not a legal entity in any case). Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 02:04, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry but LauraHale has not done any (proven) copyright violations, making such allegations which have not been proven harms her even more then any other editor who edits Wikipedia as a hobby, since she is currently studing at UC and has a potencial to discredit her. This is not a Kangaroo Court and such harmful allegations need to stop, I don't need to give any links to were incorrect information/allegations (due to the media, a blog post and even Wikipedia [one of the reasons why WP:BLP exisits for articles on living people]) have been made by other people to discredit other people and has hurt the person's reputation and prospects in a real World enviroment. Bidgee (talk) 02:20, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bidgee, no one has accused LauraHale of close paraphrasing or plagiarism. I don't think anyone disputes this now that the evidence has been explicitly collected on the evidence page. It never happened. Please stop repeating misconceptions. —Bill Price (nyb) 02:28, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Does the principle here assume any misconduct? No. A principle isn't a veiled attack, and I would appreciate if the more emotional posters here kept that in mind with their criticism. And Kirill, our Terms of Use are the WMF's - the DMCA goes beyond merely reacting to takedown requests. MLauba ^(Talk) 06:42, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

True; but, again, it is the Foundation's responsibility to actually enforce said terms; individual participants are merely required to comply with them on an individual level. There is no legal requirement for editors to police each others' conduct, whether for copyright violations or anything else; indeed, from a legal standpoint, editors typically would not even have standing to lodge a formal complaint regarding a perceived copyright violation. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 10:18, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The same kind of technical distinctions also apply to WP:BLP, yet we treat BLP issues as our own responsibility. We are a self-regulating organism, and dealing with the consequences of the processes we have put in place and how those processes affect users is definitely part of ARBCOM's scope. MLauba ^(Talk) 10:57, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

BLP is a community policy, not a legal mandate. I have no problem with a statement that, as a matter of community policy, editors are required to do something about reported copyright violations; but your statement that individual editors are required to do so as a legal requirement under 17 USC §512 is incorrect, because 17 USC §512 applies to the service provider rather than to those using said service. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 11:08, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Notyourbroom: Really? I see this comment made by Racepacket

"As for "Imposing on editors to insure no plagiarism is taking place," as nominator you were supposed to bring the sourcing and verifiability of the article up to GA standards prior to nominating it. In the course of that work, did you see any copying or close paraphrasing that you think that I examine? You have greater access to some of these off-line references than do I. May I pick some selected pages, ask you to scan and email them to me so that I can spot check the unavailable sources? I will do a copyright review once we have otherwise finalized the article." [Racepacket 15:16, 22 March 2011 (UTC)]

as an accusation. He may not have used the words "I believed that you plagiarised" but it is a loaded question which questions LauraHale (I can see why she took it personally) and has the ability to hurt her. Fact that Racepacket wanted copies of copyrighted content also raises more questions on his editing and conduct with LauraHale. Bidgee (talk) 12:07, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This comment made Racepacket also questions LauraHale. Bidgee (talk) 12:43, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Where is he "questioning" LauraHale here? He is making an offer to collaborate on the improvement of the article in question. Again, LauraHale is one of more than a thousand editors to Netball. She does not own it, and she is not a priori responsible for all of the prose therein. No accusations were made against her, here or elsewhere. —Bill Price (nyb) 14:38, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bidgee, LauraHale does not own the article in question. She was the GA nominator, but more than a thousand editors have contributed to the article in question. To assert that any request or comment made by a GA reviewer is somehow an attack on the nominator is ridiculous and disingenuous. Racepacket kept his wording neutral, impersonal, and respectful, and never made any accusations to anyone about anything. LauraHale had better access to Netball-related sources than Racepacket did due to her (self-identified) location in a Commonwealth nation, and so Racepacket was asking LauraHale to use her access to provide Racepacket with relevant sources. There is nothing inappropriate about this request. That is how long-distance collaboration works. I can't begin to apprehend how you and others have twisted words to spawn interpretations which have no grounding in the objective written record—a record which I remind you we all have access to, this being Wikipedia. If you cannot point to where Racepacket stepped beyond his duties of a GA reviewer and actually accused LauraHale of plagiarism, you should admit your mistake and withdraw your prejudiced remarks. —Bill Price (nyb) 14:38, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say LauraHale owns the article, only you have alleged that they "own" the article, they have made a rather significant contribution to the Netball article (without them, we wouldn't have the article to where it is now) which has included removal of content that was unsourced, as well as expanding and adding sources to the article. Don't make demands, I'm entitled to my neutral view based on what I've seen based on Racepacket's contributions and behaviour towards the Netball article, GAN and LauraHale. Bidgee (talk) 15:33, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Due diligence and editor reputation

2) Should a conflict of interest arise between the need to conduct due diligence on a potential copyright concern and the effect of such a verification on the off-wiki reputation of any editor, Wikipedia's requirements to abide by the US legislation will always take precedence. Editors raising concerns in good faith should however take particular care to avoid causing or furthering such a conflict of interest whenever possible.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I don't see this as necessary either. Imzadi 1979 → 21:57, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

US legislation supports torture too and I'm not agreeing with that either. Should the objectives of the Wikipedia prove incompatible with US law then WMF can follow Wikileaks and move to another country. I understand that people do not want to see their work given away for free and I will do all I can to protect them. But I would rather see a copyright violation on the main page than the reputation of any editor unjustly damaged. For the benefit of all Wikipedians who need an authority to help them tell right from wrong, I appeal to the arbitrators to strike this recommndation down. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:37, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed, as a necessary complement to the first proposed principle here. MLauba ^(Talk) 20:54, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Should we ignore a person's rights to privacy? No, we shouldn't. Fact is we have a process for proven copyright violations on Wikipedia, it should never require a person who is part of a conflict to take it outside of the "forum" it is happening in as it is wrong on so many levels. Not only does it harm the other editor, it also has a chilling effect (as pointed out by Hawkeye7) and also harms the person's privacy in terms of having information which wasn't public, going into the public domain for all to see (whether this information is correct or not) when the editor never wanted it to go public. It is very clear that Racepacket's allegations have been inaccurate and have been done for one purpose that has no benefit to Wikipedia other then trying to drive away a good contributor. Bidgee (talk) 02:34, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To which "allegations" do you refer, specifically? I ask because you assert that the unnamed allegations are inaccurate, but this statement is vague to the point of being unaddressable. —Bill Price (nyb) 02:43, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hawkeye7's assertion that the Wikimedia Foundation should move all of its resources offshore rather than comply with the law would be laughable if it were not coming from the keyboard of an administrator. Hawkeye7, do your political beliefs interfere with your ability to do your duties as an administrator to uphold policy and protect the project? If so, you have no business being an administrator and should resign. —Bill Price (nyb) 02:51, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Again, the principle is not aimed at the object of the accusations, it is to establish, as the name implies, a principle. And Hawkeye, your appeal to "strike down" a proposed principle are a smack in the face of arbitration procedures, leaving me to question your judgement. Your stance on copyright merely reinforces that. MLauba ^(Talk) 06:42, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed remedies

Editors reminded

1) All editors are reminded of <proposed principle "Due diligence and user reputation" above>. Should this prove an undue constraint on their collaboration to Wikipedia, they are encouraged to perform a clean start and edit under a pseudonymous account.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

This isn't really applicable to the case at hand. Imzadi 1979 → 21:57, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@MLauba (22:10, 16 May 2011), No, I disagree. In the matter at hand, it does not matter if the allegations were of close paraphrasing/plagiarism or any other of many possible forms of misconduct. Racepacket, as a part of his campaign of harassment that spanned at least ten different forums on three different websites from March 18 to May 8, publicly contacted a group and asked them to "counsel" another editor with whom he was engaged in an editorial dispute. He had a multitude of better options to deal with his concerns over potential close paraphrasing in the article(s), and he chose a public and damaging course of action. That's not "due diligence", and it's not "good faith"; it's harassment. He could have used WP:CP or WP:CCI, and as the subject of a previous block for the same alleged misconduct, it's extremely naïve to assume he didn't know about those options. Imzadi 1979 → 22:50, 16 May 2011 (UTC)\\[reply]

I disagree too. In the matter at hand, there is no evidence of any misconduct. To say that a victim of harassment is the one who needs to leave is one of the most chilling things I have ever read. This recommendation should be stricken. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:37, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To Hawkeye7: I think that there is a difference between "leaving" and a clean start. People edit Wikipedia for a number of motives, including public service and intellectual stimulation. Those motives are not affected by a clean start. A problem arises when a contributor seeks real world gain through editing either by employment or grants from the WMF or academic credit through the Public Policy Initiative. In those cases, their on-wiki conduct will inevitably have a "real world" impact on them because they are judged on their on-wiki performance. If someone wants to use Wikipedia editing to build their academic credentials or to gain credibility for their off-wiki workshops, he will have to disclose the on-wiki identity to a wider academic community and watch out for his surroundings. If he edits a long-standing article, he should watch that prior contributions might be paraphrasing or worse. If he gets into a dispute, he should urge his coworkers to avoid offensive language because it will reflect on him as well. Aside from a very limited one-semester Public Policy Initiative course (which features faculty supervision and online mentoring) it is difficult to envision how to structure an academic project based on pseudonymous accounts. So, I don't see a problem with MLauba's proposal because it sets forth the practical alternatives that exist today. Racepacket (talk) 09:40, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To Imzadi1979 (22:50, 16 May 2011): Your argument is not based on the evidence. When I found the problems with Netball, I contacted Moonriddengirl on her talk page without mentioning any particular editor. I also said that once the current changes were finalized, I would check the entire article for close paraphrasing. That was all. Subsequently, one editor grew agitated and demanded that I retract a non-existent accusation. My posting to the meta did not accuse any editor of close paraphrasing, but made clear that the editor was being "extreme defensive" about it. So, the thread is very clear that the only person linking the problem to a specific editor was LauraHale, not me. As for a "campaign", the only one that I see started when Bill william compton and Canadian Paul would not quickly pass her GA nominations and is continuing today with her proposals targeting people who question netball content — Basement12 and Thivierr. Racepacket (talk) 09:40, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

We have to balance two possible chilling effects against each other: The chilling effect that a copyright / close paraphrasing or even plagiarism concern can have on academic contributors (where those terms have a different impact than what Wikipedia deals with) vs. the fear of investigating concerns raised in good faith because of the potential off-wiki repercussions on such contributors. Provided the final decision homes in on the close paraphrasing issue, both the two principles but also this way out of a possible conflict between editor interest and Wikipedia's obligations may be worth adding. MLauba ^(Talk) 20:54, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There has been a lot of noise made about potential repercussions a claim of close paraphrasing could have on the off-wiki activities of one party here. On the contrary, unless the whole issue about the close paraphrasing is completely dropped from the proposed decision, it is quite necessary to also remind parties that potential damage to their off-wiki reputation cannot prevent that those claims be followed up and verified.MLauba ^(Talk) 22:10, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@MLauba: Are you aware of the negative ramifications of editing under a "pseudonymous account" vis-à-vis U.S. copyright law? Encouraging people to do something that potentially impacts their legal rights is not, in my opinion, something the Committee should be doing. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 02:13, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Completely moot. The point here is that if anyone cannot deal with the off-wiki fallout of a copyright concern raised here, regardless of its validity, Wikipedia cannot turn a blind eye to the concern. Nobody is suggesting that people are breaking the law, but in this present situation, the whole matter has been personalized to the extreme, and emotion rather than reason has been guiding this specific issue.

And to Hawkeye, in none of my proposed comments has there been any hint of misconduct so far, but I'm quite prepared to advance findings of fact related to how you as an administrator have mishandled the close paraphrasing matter. MLauba ^(Talk) 06:36, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can't imagine how you think this is moot. You're asking the Committee to put its name behind a recommendation that's statistically likely to negatively affect the legal rights of anyone who chooses to follow it. It's not the Committee's place to provide legal advice in the first place; and, even if it were, I would hope that we'd all want said advice to be correct. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 10:26, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This has nothing to do with legal advice. We're not saying "if you edit pseudonymously, you can ignore copyrights". We're saying that if someone raises concerns about a copyright issue in an article you are editing, we will only heed off-wiki repercussions on a best effort basis, and suggesting an alternative to avoid such repercussions. MLauba ^(Talk) 10:57, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're suggesting that the Committee "encourage" users to contribute under a pseudonym, without informing them of the potential consequences of doing so as far as the users' own legal rights are concerned. This would be uncharitable advice at best. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 11:12, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kirill, with the utmost respect, I do not follow your argument. All contributors license their text or images under CC-BY-SA 3.0. The only drawback of using a pseudonym is that one does not get public recognition for the contributions and one must disclose one's true identity before suing a third party for non-compliance with CC-BY-SA 3.0. Those seem minor to me. Is there some important right that I have missed? Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 14:08, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In terms of copyright, I'm referring primarily to the difference in copyright terms for works published under a pseudonym, where the term is fixed from the date of publication, versus works published under a "real" name, where the term is tied to the life of the author. Depending on one's particular age and/or life expectancy, one or the other is likely to be advantageous.

(This doesn't include, of course, the various non-copyright-related ramifications of editing under a pseudonym, such as the potential difficulties when bringing a suit for libel.) Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 14:23, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And considering we're looking for free content AND we nowhere require people to even register accounts, I still fail to see the relevance. MLauba ^(Talk) 15:02, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed principles

Good articles

Good articles (GA) are a valuable quality control tool. GA reviews are the first point in the life cycle of an article where articles are guaranteed to be examined by an outsider for sourcing, copyright and close paraphrasing problems. Editors who have made substantive contributions to an article should not review it. Nominators should cooperate with their reviewers.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

See WP:GAN — Bill william compton^Talk 15:28, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I support this as central to the dispute. We need a working environment that will attract both reviewers and more nominated articles. The above should be affirmed by the ArbCom. Racepacket (talk) 18:06, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Listening to other editors on NPOV and clarity

Editors frequently have difficulty detecting point of view and clarity problems in their own writing. When other editors raise these concerns it is best to collaborate rather than deny the existence of the problem.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

This goes to a fundamental cause of the problem. Reviewers and other editors have found POV problems in LH's editing, but LH refuses to see them. Similarly, LH flatly denies that her work would be confusing to readers. — Bill william compton^Talk 15:28, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

True --Guerillero | My Talk 19:03, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps, but is this something that ArbCom can say? --Rschen7754 21:16, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Off-wiki communications

While editors are free to conduct off-wiki discussions, problems arise when such discussions become the basis for on-wiki decisionmaking. Editors should avoid citing an off-wiki consensus or opinion as the basis for justifying an on-wiki action or position.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

LH justifies her decision to nominate Netball for GA based on the off-wiki opinions of unnamed advisors. If LH had posted a question on the talk page asking if people thought the article ready for GA, we would have a transparent record of her discussion. Having elected to seek private advice, LauraHale should not be allowed to rely on that advice her subsequent on-wiki debate. Similarly, LH claimed that her unnamed "supervisor" told her that close paraphrasing was permissible, and KnowIG shut off any further discussion because an "outsider" had rendered a decision. However, we don't know what advice was given, what the advisor reviewed, who the advisor was or the qualifications of the advisor vis a vis Wikipedia policy. Again, LH hides behind off-wiki discussions to cut off reasoned resolution of an on-wiki dispute. — Bill william compton^Talk 15:28, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Personal attacks

As a matter of polite and effective discourse, comments should not be personalized. Personal attacks do not help make a point; they only hurt the Wikipedia community and deter users from helping to create a good encyclopedia. Derogatory comments about another contributor may be removed by any editor.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

This is from WP:No personal attacks. Personal attacks are all the more hurtful and frustrating when they are false. To me, because "Racepacket accussed LH of plagiarism" or "Racepacket contacted my employer" are false attacks, they are just as objectionable as "Bill is just blind and retarded" or "Bill is a stupid Indian." But rather than parse each remark for political correctness, we need to ask why was bullying ever considered an acceptable mode of on-wiki communication? — Bill william compton^Talk 15:28, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Administrator decorum

Administrators are expected to maintain an appropriate level of decorum. In particular, they are expected to behave in a respectful, civil manner in their interactions with others, and to avoid acting in a way that brings the project into disrepute.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

This has been found repeatedly.

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

LauraHale has abused the GA, GA reassessment, peer review and FAC process