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 talk=

Active:

1. Casliber
2. Cool Hand Luke
3. Coren
4. David Fuchs
5. Elen of the Roads
6. Iridescent
7. Jclemens
8. PhilKnight
9. Risker
10. Roger Davies
11. Shell Kinney
12. SirFozzie

Inactive

1. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry
2. Mailer diablo
3. Xeno

Recused

1. John Vandenberg
2. Kirill Lokshin
3. Newyorkbrad

My psychic abilities tell me that there will be a site ban proposal posted here shortly. But a note to Laura Hale: if this matter ever comes to arbcom again, the result probably won't be as asymmetric. So try to work out the dispute with the remaining editors, please. Chester Markel (talk) 06:19, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, I'm not betting on Racepacket getting banned - we seem to have significant dissent from at least one arbitrator. That being said, all (ALL) of the parties in the netball dispute really need to take a step back and reexamine their actions. Several editors are definitely towing the civility line, for example. --Rschen7754 06:22, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Risker's opinion that Racepacket's conduct wasn't really so bad appears to be a minority of one. At the same time, Laura Hale's proposal to topic ban Thivierr, Bill william compton, and Basement12 won't fly. I could plausibly say that the first two supported harassment by defending Racepacket's actions, but such a judgement treads dangerously into open debate suppression territory. Chester Markel (talk) 06:29, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, the first two seem to defend Racepacket in whatever he does, without considering the evidence presented. --Rschen7754 06:41, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And that is deeply disappointing. I don't see Laura Hale defending User:KnowIG, claiming that the indefinite block is a terrible injustice simply because he supported her position in a content dispute. Some editors do recognize that certain conduct is so reprehensible that no defense of it should ever be made. Content disputes are professional disagreements, not wars; one does not make excuses for Racepacket-like behavior just because he's chosen your "side". Chester Markel (talk) 07:11, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's always more than one side of a coin. Whether it's good or bad faith, or taking sides, there's always more than one interpretation of the facts, and more to it than the evidence currently at hand. I'm not defending who's right or wrong, but there's nothing inherently wrong with an alternate interpretation. - Zero1328 _Talk? 09:16, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I've opted to honest about the bias I have (unlike some others, who conveniently forgot to mention their bias). Criticism of LauraHale, doesn't equate with blanket support of Racepacket. When the overwhelming weight of this whole proceeding is one way, I see little benefit in joining with the crowd. I consider it more useful to say what I personally experienced, and also what others seem to be missing.
• Rschen7754, I consider your statement a personal attack, and to be a lie. Racepacket's been accussed of copyright violations, which is very serious, which I never discussed. That doesn't equate to "defending". I just see no reason for me to personally examine his contributions to confirm what others have done (which takes a lot of time to do properly). I think it's absurd how each party thinks they should comment on the entire case. My main mistake here, has been to comment on to many areas, that I wasn't directly involved in. Really, the arbs are the only people who need to analyize the whole case. In any event, we can move forward by not making additional personal attacks. That would be a good start. This whole thread should not of even been started, and certainly didn't need to veer in to personal attacks. --Rob (talk) 14:46, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You claim that "Criticism of LauraHale, doesn't equate with blanket support of Racepacket" and complain about alleged personal attacks. However, during the workshop you posted a comment which may be construed as overall support of Racepacket's activities, at least with respect to Laura Hale, and a personal attack on her as well, by accusing her of raising claims of harassment frivolously and in bad faith: "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..."[1] Bill william compton posted many comments with a similar flavor: 'Regretably, we have reached the point where LauraHale has become the girl who cried "wolf" one too many times.'[2]. Both of these comments are not merely alternate interpretations, in the sense of claiming "Racepacket didn't commit harassment; contacting an organization he believed employed Laura Hale and making complaints about her editing in a large number of fora across several websites is good, wholesome behavior, which I heartily endorse." Instead, such statements are in effect asserting that Laura Hale's assessment of Racepacket's activity as harassment was disingenuous, done solely to gain an unfair advantage in a content dispute. The comments are profoundly intolerant of alternate interpretations, and, by blaming the victim of Racepacket's scorched earth campaign, in effect perpetuate it. Laura Hale's request for a topic ban of editors acting in this way was not unreasonable, and isn't evidence of article "ownership". Chester Markel (talk) 18:03, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop lying about me, and please stop using warlike language such as "scorched earth campaign". --Rob (talk) 18:51, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My comments were not personal attacks, just comments on the actions that I've seen. If you think they are personal attacks, then I politely ask that you review the WP:NPA guideline. --Rschen7754 18:59, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I politely ask you to actually be polite. --Rob (talk) 19:06, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The opposition to the proposed editing bans appears to be predicated on the assumption that the siteban will pass. As only three remedies were proposed, if the first fails, we might end up with no resolution of the dispute. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:26, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The arbs will come to a consensus. Just wait --Guerillero | My Talk 19:08, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I think were that to happen some arbs would change their vote on the topic ban. --Rschen7754 19:27, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the writing in the previous section seems to be promoting a particular action by predicting it which in turn is implying that such would be a correct decision. North8000 (talk) 19:52, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree north --Guerillero | My Talk 20:02, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Either that, or the arbs are chuckling to themselves :) --Rschen7754 21:15, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm writing here to clarify what I believe is a factual inaccuracy - "My read of the RFC/U and various other topic-related disputes is that the issues with the US Roads project is much more complex than can be addressed by banning someone who has fallen afoul of the Wikiproject, but who has successfully written quality work in this topic area." and "It should be noted that Racepacket himself has brought articles in this topic area to Good Article status, and the majority of his GARs in this area have not been problematic. Risker (talk) 07:04, 25 May 2011 (UTC)". To my knowledge, Racepacket has not brought any road article to GA status. Are you aware of any such articles? --Rschen7754 08:12, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm counting three listed on his userpage, as well as other good articles in the transportation and architecture areas. Risker (talk) 08:47, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He has never brought an article on an actual road itself up to GA status. He has worked on only two articles from the project Illinois State Toll Highway Authority (state agency), Illinois Tollway oasis (roadway feature) that were promoted in January 2010. If you are thinking about New Harmony Toll Bridge or any of the rail-related articles, our project explicitly does not cover articles only on bridges, and it has never covered other modes of transportation. So yes, Rschen is correct, technically, Racepacket has never brought an actual road article up to GA status, just two ancillary articles. Imzadi 1979 → 10:37, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Risker, this is like saying that Dick Cheney is a former President of the United States just because he was Acting President of the United States for roughly 2 days. It's a gross overstatement. Racepacket rarely edits road articles; they're not his primary focus in editing Wikipedia. USRD today has 584 GAs. Racepacket was responsible for 2 of them; that's not even half a percent of them. Even at that, they're not actual "road" articles per se, they're an article on a state agency and on a type of facility. In comparison, I'm responsible for 6 of them (actual road articles) plus 1 FA. Imzadi1979 is responsible for 127 GAs plus 7 FAs, all dealing with roads. I could mention several other editors who have contributed dozens of GAs, but I won't. As compared to other editors in the USRD project, Racepacket is not even a minor contributor; he doesn't contribute much at all. --Rschen7754 20:59, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This sort of attitude is precisely what I am referring to when I say that the problems in this wikiproject are far greater than what can be addressed in this case. Risker (talk) 02:48, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And USRD isn't the focus of this arbitration, and the project works well. We've expanded 800 stub articles so far this calendar year, we continue to update a featured portal every month, and we've reached out to other projects to form a cross-project collaboration on U.S. Route 66 and its related articles. I resent the false generalization that the project itself has issues or problems that need to be addressed here: we do have one user that's demonstrated an inability to work with others to the extent that his interactions required an RfC/U that failed to solve related issues that resulted in this arbitration. That Racepacket was unable to fulfill his voluntary agreement from the RfC/U though is troubling and has bearing on this case. Imzadi 1979 → 03:06, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The concern is that you seem to be misinterpreting the situation. Correct me if I'm wrong, but there seem to be two misconceptions here. It seems that you believe that the previous two arbitration cases are somehow connected to this one. As a party on all three of these cases, I can assure you that that has not been the case. In fact, I am the only party who was signed on to all 3 cases, indicating the turnover of editors since 2006 at USRD. In this case, in fact, I have never had any of my articles reviewed by Racepacket. I am mainly signed onto this case and the RFC to represent the interests of the project. The first case was related to mass moving highway pages, where an arbitrary decision had to be made. The second case was due to user behavior of a different user who only edited highway articles. This case is the conduct of a user who has affected multiple subject areas with his GAN reviews and related conduct (hence why this ArbCom is not Highways 3). Keep in mind that there could be other subject areas that he caused problems in - Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Racepacket/RSMAS is one possible example. In addition to this, there are clear violations of other Wikipedia guidelines, including copyright. Racepacket was only unbanned on the condition that he had a mentor. A refusal to ban Racepacket for all of this plus his harassment is virtually setting the precedent that users can do whatever they want just short of being blocked and get away with it.

Secondly, it seems like you believe that Racepacket is an integral member of the USRD project. This is not the case. This is not intended to slight him in the least. It just comes off as insulting for any outside editor to insinuate something like this when it is not true and to reject the word of the members of the project. (If we were lying, then it would be obvious because Racepacket would be able to point to edit after edit where he contributed to project discussions, articles, etc. But in this scenario, he can't). It would be like my claiming to be an integral part of the RFA process, when I've voted on roughly 15 RFAs over my 5 years as an editor. It would offend the editors who are an integral part of the RFA process if I claimed that or if anyone claimed that about me. The issue that I have here is more or less correcting the factual inaccuracy. Outside editors are more than welcome to contribute to U.S. road articles (that's what our US 66 task force is all about!), so long as they don't try to tell the project editors what to do and override consensus (which has happened too many times in the past and is a very touchy issue).

Forgive me if I'm being combative... but this has been a touchy issue for the project, and I don't want to see another arbitration case where the committee is reluctant to ban someone who has clearly violated Wikipedia behavioral guidelines. For some reason, our project seems to get more than our fair share of "problem" editors who violate Wikipedia guidelines both in style and behavior (User:Freewayguy, User:I-10 for example who were eventually indef'ed) and when we have to put up with their actions longer than we should have to, it takes time away from our own editing. --Rschen7754 04:05, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have had policy differences with Rschen and Imzadi, mostly over the question of whether a single set of GA criteria should be applied Wikipedia-wide, or whether the US Roads WikiProject should adopt their own separate criteria. We agreed that the policy issue should be settled by a well publicized, broad-based RFC rather than in an RFC/U or just by USRD editors. I am willing to abide by the consensus reached at the RFC, and until a new policy is reached, I have based my GA reviews on only the GA criteria and not WP:USRD/STDS. I did so because that is what the instructions say to do. We resolved the RFC/U by an agreement which calls for a six-month curtailment in editing and reviewing road articles. As you can see from the above, the definition of a "road article" can be confusing. Apparently Rschen thinks that articles about the Illinois Tollway or about bridges are excluded, but an article about a political controversy to build a road and its resulting environmental litigation is included. I was confused by the latter point and quickly corrected my error once Rschen told me of his concern.[3]

I do have a longstanding and sincere interest in roads (as well as other infrastructure projects). Sample road edits which date back to 2006 include:[4][5][6][7][8][9][10] and [11]. So I believe that Risker is correct — I have a long-standing, constructive role editing in the roads area and I did not come to review road articles just to pick a fight with Rschen or Imzadi. In fact, when Imzadi and I clashed in a review, I quickly agreed to refrain from reviewing any of his GA nominations, which I have honored. Racepacket (talk) 20:23, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This page isn't /Evidence 2 and I don't want it to become that, but this is a significant distortion of the facts, as the WT:USRD archives as well as the RFC show. I encourage any arbitrator who is interested in determining whether USRD truly has problems to look around project discussions and articles before making such a determination. --Rschen7754 21:13, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Second point in reply: Racepacket keeps trumpeting a supposed policy disagreement that doesn't exist. Let me be blunt (and save the boldface italics for the umpteenth plus one repetition): We do not disagree on this issue, but Racepacket keeps stating that we do. The GA Criteria are controlling, but many kinds of advice pages can inform or persuade how a reviewer interprets those criteria. As for the definition of a "road article", that's simple, see WikiProject Highways' scope or USRD's project scope. (Oh, and Racepacket never reviewed a USRD article until after I corrected him in a GAN review of an article on a local university here about how Michigan's highways are named, and then he immediately reviewed one of my GA nominations.) Imzadi 1979 → 22:42, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I apologize to Rschen7754 and the other editors in this section for not being more promptly responsive to the queries raised here. Largely, I do not see any significant changes in behaviour within the US Roads Wikiproject since Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Highways 2#Final decision: I still see a Wikiproject pushing to superimpose its preferred standards over the GA requirements; to isolate and neutralize those who work on topics the Wikiproject takes on without agreeing to the Wikiproject's expectations; and the use of off-wiki communication to discuss both content and methods to "deal with" those who don't see things the same way that certain core members of the wikiproject does is so well known that it continues to get back to me. (Here's a hint: if I know that there have been discussions about certain editors, even certain arbitrators, then you can rest assured that many, many other people know of the behaviour as well.) My own inclination would have been to leave the entire "Roads" issue out of this particular arbitration, because frankly I don't think the US Roads project should come away feeling that Highways 2 has largely been neutralized by this decision. It hasn't been; this case largely focused on individual users' difficulties with communicating information in a way that did not personalize it, and with not knowing when to stop talking, and the issues related to the US Roads project was not addressed at all. Risker (talk) 03:21, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• I'll try to keep this brief; let me know if you want clarification on these points. This is solely to defend our name as a project; it has little bearing on the case.
  • It's enough of a struggle to even make sure that reviewers enforce the GA criteria. A lot of GAN reviews are done by USRD reviewers who are familiar with the standards, and who note any deviation from the standards in their reviews. Generally, the nominator is also from USRD and makes the (usually) minor changes without ordeal. I see no problem with this practice; it's just like mentioning disambiguation links. The USRD articles Racepacket nominated failed to comply with the GA criteria. However, no GAN review has ever been failed for a failure to comply with solely the USRD standards. If you find one, please let me know.
  • As far as "to isolate and neutralize those who work on topics the Wikiproject takes on without agreeing to the Wikiproject's expectations" - I think this isn't the best wording. I see no problem with talking to editors and encouraging them to follow WikiProject standards (that in many cases they just weren't aware of). If the WikiProject can't do that, then why don't we delete all of them? They're pointless if that's true.
  • I don't see any problem with venting. No public logging is there for a reason. I do believe that there is a difference between venting and bashing, however. I find it impossible to believe that you don't discuss specific editors on the ArbCom mailing list. --Rschen7754 04:58, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Given that LH's ArbCom complaint was developed on Rschen's talk page, the comments above are not surprising. Take a look at Talk:Interstate 376/GA2 where three USRD editors invoked WP:USRD/STDS and promised a GA reassessment if I passed the article without enforcing those standards. To quote User:Floydian, "The USRD guidelines require an exit table BEFORE an article is nominated for GA. An article without one will immediately be placed up for GA review and likely removed on the basis of not following WP:RJL." The roads people did not need to go to all of this effort to get me "banned." I have always said that I would follow directions. If the consensus is to incorporate the WP:USRD/STDS into the GA criteria, I would apply them, but since they are not incorporated now, I could not. I leave it to others to resolve the matter on an objective basis. Racepacket (talk) 13:50, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding "The USRD guidelines require an exit table BEFORE an article is nominated for GA. An article without one will immediately be placed up for GA review and likely removed on the basis of not following WP:RJL." - this would fail criterion 3a of WP:WIAGA. An article can't be missing an entire section and pass GA. --Rschen7754 18:09, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rschen's comment above illustrates the toxic atmosphere at USRD. If the GA criteria have been repeatedly interpreted to not even require an infobox, at the present time they do not require an exit list either. The issue is currently being played out with another editor.[12] If there is a disagreement between editors as to whether an article would be better with an infobox or an exit list, discuss it politely rather than invoke an never-approved policy. Risker is correct. Racepacket (talk) 10:15, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As far as the link you mention, this is ridiculous. We've got a non-USRD editor agreeing with us, and the issues in question have nothing to do with WP:USRD/STDS. --Rschen7754 01:50, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that I communicated to LauraHale in a clear fashion about the "close paraphrasing" problem,[13] (her response) the merger notice problem[14], and her misunderstanding about the WikiCup points criteria.[15] I left a "Miscommunications?" talk page message on March 26 saying, "I am available to answer any questions that you may have or the clear up any misunderstandings."

As for the collusion to quickly pass Netball after the first GA review fails, we have this as early as March 13 while Bill was the reviewer.

Finally, I note that on May 18, I asked Hawkeye7 who asked him to become involved in the first Netball GA review and how did he see his role, but he has not responded. Respectfully submitted, Racepacket (talk) 12:15, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

8) LauraHale (talk · contribs) and Racepacket (talk · contribs) are directed to immediately cease commenting about each other directly or indirectly in any forum related directly or indirectly with Wikipedia or the Wikimedia Foundation. This includes mailing lists, IRC channels that use the word "wikipedia" or "wikimedia" in their name, or any WMF-hosted project. They are also directed not to seek sanctions on each other either publicly or privately through any means, except through arbitration enforcement processes. Administrators who receive any such requests for sanctions are requested to inform the Arbitration Committee.

Probably good advice, but I don't believe that ArbCom has proper jurisdiction on this matter... NW (Talk) 23:43, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure the foundation has jurisdiction over IRC... --Guerillero | My Talk 23:55, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If off-wiki activities are demonstrably disruptive on-wiki, then on-wiki sanctions are reasonable. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:39, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

True. But these are off-enwiki sanctions. NW (Talk) 01:14, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Administrators who receive any such requests for sanctions are requested to inform the Arbitration Committee." is not very enforceable. --Rschen7754 03:07, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

They're asking nicely. For most administrators, that should be enough. Put it this way: how can a party be sure that their off-wiki communications with a particular admin won't be forwarded to arbcom? Chester Markel (talk) 03:14, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

However, most admins wouldn't be aware of this case. --Rschen7754 03:18, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

They will be when it closes, and Racepacket's account is blocked. Block log entries are seldom removed, though revdel could be used in truly extraordinary cases. Chester Markel (talk) 03:51, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I received an email from Racepacket (through Wikipedia) linking to this page, and also giving links related to LH. I considered it to be very inappropriate, and basically confirming the worst views about him. If an Arb feels it is relevant, I can relay it on, but it may be a privacy violation to repost here. --Rob (talk) 00:24, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you think it's relevant yourself, then go ahead and send it to the arbcom mailing list. If you do, I'd suggest sending the raw email. - Zero1328 _Talk? 00:34, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for bringing this to our attention. While the email shouldn't be posted on-wiki for all sorts of reasons, you can forward it to arbcom-llists.wikimedia.org. It's my understanding that checkusers have access to a pen register with regard to Wikipedia emails, so they should at least be able to confirm that Racepacket actually sent you an email, rather than someone else forging his address. As you were previously associated with a somewhat favorable position with respect to Racepacket, this new evidence should have a very high level of credibility. Once arbcom confirms that this happened, I would suggest passing an emergency motion to suspend Racepacket's editing and email privileges for the duration of the case. Chester Markel (talk) 00:42, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Concur with the above recommendation (but not necessarily the commentary) - email to arbcom. --Rschen7754 00:45, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have emailed it to User:Arbitration Committee, which goes to the same place. I was hesitant at first, because it's normally inappropriate to have off-wiki communication with the Arbs, but I think it's basically necessary here. --Rob (talk) 00:57, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Thivierr. I will check the moderation queue to ensure it is seen promptly. Risker (talk) 01:12, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The point behind the mailing list is for when privacy is required, really. So there's nothing wrong with that. - Zero1328 _Talk? 01:22, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Zero1328 is correct. There is provision made for situations where it would be inappropriate to post evidence onwiki (emails being one of the main examples), and thus we have the "Email this user" enabled on User:Arbitration Committee that goes directly to the Arbcom-L mailbox. (The email address is also posted in several places, including Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee.) Your email has cleared moderation, and you should receive a verification of receipt shortly. Risker (talk) 01:27, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Will there ever be any sort of public comment from arbcom members regarding this issue? I understand not posting the actual message Rob claims to have received, but about a week has passed without any further public comment. Was there actual misconduct committed here or not? —Bill Price (nyb) 15:39, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A response, any response would be great. It should be easy for one person to verify the email, and report what can be confirmed about it. In general, it would be greatly appreciated if Arbs would give some explanation for the general delay of the whole case. Are they just busy with other stuff, or is there some major disagreement, or some other issue? --Rob (talk) 17:16, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell, it is mostly that we are all very busy, both with the juggling of multiple Arbcom-related matters, but also several of the arbitrators active on this case have been very busy IRL. Myself, I've spent maybe 1.5 hours total onwiki since Monday, which is abnormally little time for me. I have just reminded myself that it will be the weekend in a few hours... Risker (talk) 17:49, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for explaining. --Rob (talk) 19:51, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for not replying earlier. I agree with Rob's assessment of the email, that it is 'basically confirming the worst views about him'. From my perspective, it confirms that sanctions such as a 1-year block are reasonable. PhilKnight (talk) 22:35, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In view of the lack of votes on this so far, and the voice of concern, I thought it would be helpful to comment.

I appreciate that GA assessment has been a forum for several disputes related to this case. I therefore appreciate the wish to draft a principle related to GA assessment. I also appreciate that some care has been taken in the proposed principle to follow good article guidelines and GA advice on best practice.

However, whereas principles should (in my view) be grounded in well-established policy, the proposed principle relies upon two essays and an FAQ (used three times). These form advice to nominators and reviewers on getting the best out of the GA process. They have nothing like the status of the five pillars, or core policies such as WP:NPOV and WP:V. For example...

• Nominators are not expected to read the WP:Guide for nominating good articles, which, although very useful, was drafted by a couple of editors and has not been substantially updated for over 2 years.
• Nominators are not required to respond to reviewer comments (but should not then be surprised if the nomination is not listed as GA).
• WP:Close paraphrasing is an essay, not a good article criterion. Even the essay states: "In some limited cases, close paraphrase may be an acceptable way of writing an article" and "It is also permitted when there are only a limited number of ways to say the same thing". It is incorrect to state that close paraphrasing should be absent from all articles, or that this is a good article criterion. (I say this as an editor who has dealt with inappropriate close paraphrasing on multiple occasions, which I thought of adding as evidence to the case.)

An important principle of Arbitration, in my understanding, is that it primarily concerns user conduct, and is not a vehicle for creating new policy. Hence principles should be firmly grounded in existing policy. In the context of an essay or an FAQ it is helpful to "encourage" editors to do things, but it is a different matter for Arbcom to encourage them to do so as a matter of principle.

Consequently, even though I am sympathetic to the proposed principle in many respects, I oppose it. If editors have abused the GA process here, that is a user conduct issue, and any principle should address abuses of the good article process, not the nature of the process itself. Discussion of improvements to GA processes and guidelines (e.g., to encourage better interactions between nominators and reviewers) is a matter for the wider community of interested editors, not Arbcom. Geometry guy 23:12, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't feel strongly about the proposed principle. However, I interpreted the various links as definitions or explanations (in the case of WP:Close paraphrasing) or as evidence for why ArbCom believes something to be true (the FAQ), not as an endorsement of the pages' contents.

(I'm also not convinced that there's all that much difference between guidelines and essays, since many 'mere essays', like WP:Five pillars, WP:Use common sense, and WP:Bold, revert, discuss, are more highly regarded than the average official guideline.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:48, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think that principle 7 is central to the dispute and helps future readers understand the case. WP:Reviewing good articles is a guideline which I rely upon to understand the scope of a GA review. It says,

At a bare minimum, check that the sources used are reliable (for example, blogs are not usually reliable sources) and that those you can access support the content of the article (for example, inline citations lead to sources which agree with what the article says) and are not plagiarized (for example, close paraphrasing of source material should only be used where appropriate, with in text attribution if necessary).

I spend considerable time in each review reading the sources and checking for whether they are properly supporting the statements made in the article and whether the article closely paraphrase the sources. I have never claimed to have done a computerized copyright check of the articles that I have reviewed, but I have discovered problems in four articles that I have sought to resolve in as low key manner as possible. I did two steps in the Netball review: 1) I recommended quotation marks for the position table descriptions and 2) I said that after we finalize the text, I would check the entire article for close paraphrasing before passing it as GA. Neither was intended as a personal attack or harassment. I was just following the instructions for GA reviews. The ArbCom has a simple choice: if the decision reaffirms that checking the article against the sources is a proper step, it will reduced the discomfort that nominators may feel during future GA reviews, and it will make clear to the world that LauraHale was never accused by anyone of plagiarism. However, if the decision is silent on the question or suggests that my netball review was "problematic" for considering the possibility of close paraphrasing, then the ArbCom will deter future GA reviewers from checking articles, and will stigmatize nominators whose existing reviews discuss the possibility of copying/close paraphrasing. The best policy is for all GA reviewers to check, but not make "Nominator X is guilty" judgments. Racepacket (talk) 05:27, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright review of good article candidates is important. But rather than spreading "I think the article might contain copyright violations!!!" claims throughout the GA review and beyond, you should have simply checked the copyright status of the text, only noting actual problems on-wiki in the review. Had you done this, any comments regarding copyright concerns wouldn't have been construed as accusations against anyone except the editor(s) who introduced the offending text. In any case, given your own extended history of copyright violations, and current restriction on adding text directly to articles without third-party copyright review, your claim to have been conducting a good faith copyright investigation is less than persuasive. Instead of rehashing the GA review for the nth time, it would be helpful if you actually responded to the new issues that have been brought forward regarding your email to Thivierr, which was apparently so offensive that it caused him to turn against you. This sort of continued disruption is primarily what the case is all about. Chester Markel (talk) 07:53, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's not an invitation to post contents from the email on-wiki, for obvious reasons. But some response is appropriate, i.e., "I apologize, and won't do it again", "I believe the email was perfectly acceptable, and I intend to send more just like it", "I never sent Thivierr an email", etc. Chester Markel (talk) 08:06, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Chester, why don't you just give it a rest. Stop taking shots. Stop leaving messages on his talk pages, hoping to provoke. Also, stop suggesting I ever was on anybody else's side. Just because I debunked specific falsehoods, and gave my honest perspective, doesn't mean I was ever on Racepacket's side (or anybody's). Stop reducing this to a "your with us or against us" kind of attitutde. Stop pursuing a war. Stop making accusations with no evidence (like with the vandalizing incident). We have arbitrators for a reason. They are independent people, who can look at the overall case, and not be guided by their personal involvements and biases (which both you and I have, but which you won't admit to). If the Arbs need input from Racepacket, they will ask for it, without your "help". Nothing you've said on this talk page has been helpful. And finally, I am sorry for adding to this, but don't what else to do when I get a side swipe like this. Perhaps full protection, while we wait the results, would be a good idea. --Rob (talk) 14:16, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If Racepacket sent you a disturbing email about Laura Hale, he may have sent it to other editors as well, and may be continuing to spread the material. Aggressively and forcefully stopping Racepacket's ongoing anti-Laura Hale campaign, before a majority of arbitrators are able to agree on what to do about it, is more important than being nice to Racepacket, or any regrettable ineloquence in my characterization of users' positions. Chester Markel (talk) 17:01, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Chester, please re-read the netball review and user talk pages to understand the context. This was LauraHale's first GA nomination, but in the interim, she had already had problems with Bill, had a quick-fail from Canadian Paul, and had posted off-wiki seeking advice. To clarify the remaining work, I tried to pull everything together on March 20. I did specifically identify the sources of my close paraphrasing concerns.[16][17] LauraHale invoked advice from an unnamed "supervisor" on March 22,[18] and I contacted someone I trusted as an expert of Wikipedia policy to get an independent opinion.[19] But we could not find anyone to help as the issue escallated.[20]

I always do a second reading of each reviewed article once the editors finalize the text. When I explained that this would happen, and asked for assistance with some hard-to-obtain sources. It drew charges of "harassment"[21] as well as a personal attack.[22] LauraHale responded by telling me to go get the sources on my own and claimed that my source review exceeded the permissible scope of a GA review.[23] When emotionality took over, I tried to explain the facts and keep the conversation constructive,[24] and scheduled a trip to the Library of Congress to obtain the sources. Racepacket (talk) 15:22, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it's just me, but surely there would have been a better way to gain access to offline sources than telling Laura Hale you suspected the article contained a copyright violation from reference material that she was probably the only editor to use[25]. If the sources were so hard to obtain, then exactly who would have improperly copied from them? Perhaps it's a matter of perspective: you seem to be assuming that other editors have as many problems with copyright as you do[26]. Chester Markel (talk) 17:01, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Um, guys, I think that's probably enough. If you've got a concern directly about the specific principle proposed (e.g., which pages it links to), then please add it, but if you're inclined to re-hash the dispute, then please don't bother. For example, I'm still waiting for someone to say, "What do you mean, 5P is only an essay that describes policies, rather than an official policy itself?! My world is falling apart!" (See Wikipedia_talk:Five_pillars/FAQ.) Even that sort of comment would be more productive than picking at each other about who said what months ago. Let's leave that sort of thing to the poor Arbs. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:45, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh. It might help if editors read what I wrote again and ask the following question: how can it be that I both agree with most of what is written in this principle, yet also find the principle inappropriate and inaccurate in its current formulation? If it is inappropriate for Arbcom to rule on content, is it appropriate to rule on how a content review process should function? Geometry guy 21:54, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I fully agree. A more watered-down version of this principle might be appropriate, but I think this goes too far. --Rschen7754 21:57, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, the discussion "is not about you". If you feel misrepresented or misunderstood, you need to direct your concerns more directly towards Arbcom.

You could start a new section, post on an arbitrator's talk page (e.g. PhilNight's) or email the arbcom list. Geometry guy 20:12, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In archiving my talk page recently I was reminded of a a conversation I had with User:Elen of the Roads about another case. We agreed upon an Arbcom modus operandi along the following lines: "Try to say less rather than more; Arbcom does not need to rule on everything, as long as it provides sufficient support for its resolution of the dispute".

Less is more. Geometry guy 00:51, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Geometry guy, thank you very much for raising your concerns here. I was working on a response to you, but my fatigue has overtaken me and I will have to return to it tomorrow. I did want to reassure you that I am not insensitive to the points you're raising. I will say quickly, however, that a principle describing a well-established community process (as opposed to, for example, a formal policy) is not a particular departure within Arbcom decisions, and as these processes are often fairly well described and understood within the community, departure from the norms of these processes may be considered a behavioural issue. Thanks for your patience. Risker (talk) 05:00, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Risker, and please take your time. I'm not set against having a principle describing a community process and can already see the sensitivity with which you drafted the current wording - most of its contents I would broadly agree with.

I would caution, though, that there are delicate issues and widespread misunderstandings associated with GA processes. For example, a common misunderstanding is that GA status is decided by one reviewer, when in fact it is a community decision. Of course, it is impractical to poll the entire community about every article (even the FA process does not do this), so GA adopts a pragmatic approach, starting with the presumption that if at least two editors (a nominator and a reviewer) agree that an article meets the GA criteria, then maybe it does.

It occurred to me to bring this up at the workshop, where you wrote

• 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.

Although I note that you have been careful to use the word "primarily", I disagree with this assertion. GA is actually less susceptible to this charge because an inappropriate review can easily be overturned. Some of the problems that have arisen in this case would have been far less vexing if editors tried to be a little less precious about each individual review. No individual editor is responsible for eliminating inappropriate close paraphrasing in all our articles (the problem is widespread, going back many years), or ensuring they are all free of bias towards or against women's sports. It is a collaborative endeavor, with no fixed endpoint. Geometry guy 20:12, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Sorry, but this discussion has nothing to do with you. This page is only for discussing improvements to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Racepacket/Proposed decision. If your post is about a specific problem you have, please ask for help at the Helpdesk or the New Contributors' Help Page. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:25, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  I have struck comments of mine which may have prompted this response. My user talk page is available should you wish to discuss the matter further. Thanks, Geometry guy 21:44, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Again, I apologize to the editors in this section, especially Geometry guy, for not being more promptly responsive here. There are a couple of key points that I want to make. The first is that Hawkeye7's conflict of interest in this case is quite widely known (as a rule of thumb, if information has got as far as the Arbitration Committee, one can be fairly certain that a non-negligible segment of the community is also aware of it). On the whole, I believe that Hawkeye7's behaviour in this issue is out of character; he has a long and admirable history of excellent contributions (in content, collaboration and collegiality) to the project. His actions with respect to the netball articles, however, did indeed cast a pall on the impartiality of the Good Article process. You say that any editor can ask for a reassessment of any GA at any time; however, I note that the reassessment of the article at the heart of this matter was put on hold because of the case. And realistically, who would want to ask for a reassessment of an article whose review process was so contentious? Only fairly courageous editors will voluntarily put themselves in the line of fire that way. I do believe that, without indicating that the process here was seriously flawed, there will be people who take away the Wrong Message from this decision.
• As an aside to all else, I genuinely wish that LauraHale's fellow Wikimedia Australia editors would have been as supportive in helping her develop the netball-related articles as they were in dealing with the fall-out. I'm personally impressed with the solid work that she put into improving a poorly written and organized survey article on an important and encyclopedic topic; even before the GA review, her efforts significantly improved the article. I'm of the impression that she did ask for some help from various people, including fellow chapter members. It would have been helpful if someone had given her some guidance about the genuine difficulty, even for very experienced Wikipedia editors, to take a survey article through the GA and FA processes, and perhaps have helped her to find a suitable daughter article to start out with for the experiential value. It would have been helpful if someone had helped her to find an experienced GA reviewer, preferably someone with a reputation to being helpful to first-time GA nominators. Without speaking ill of the first GA reviewer, he had no experience with that end of the process, and putting an inexperienced reviewer together with an inexperienced nominator just seems like a recipe for disaster; it is no wonder that both of them became increasingly frustrated. Hawkeye7's work in helping LauraHale strive toward a successful GA review was the kind of support she needed; however, passing her articles when things hit the fan did her (and the articles) a disservice. It's long been thought that a key role for chapters in bringing new editors to the project is their ability to provide some good support to new Wikipedians so that they can successfully acclimate to the culture of the project; while LauraHale is very experienced at wiki-editing, she remained a relative newbie when it came to the standards and sometimes convoluted expectations of Wikipedia-style quality assessment processes. For any new editor, this sort of experience is a net negative.
• There were serious communication issues between Racepacket and LauraHale almost from the beginning; if nothing else, I hope Racepacket comes away with the knowledge that a poor connection between reviewer and nominator is genuinely harmful to the process, and that perhaps he should have withdrawn from the process much earlier. Around the point that LauraHale was adding edit comments about the use of New Zealand English might have been a good indication that things were not progressing optimally. I get that Racepacket had serious (and in one or two examples, likely reasonable) concerns about the Netball article; however, it was also clear that he was not really the right person to help settle LauraHale's already-ruffled feathers after the first part of the GAN went off the rails, and certainly was not the right person to review further articles by LauraHale in this topic area. Most particularly, once LauraHale had withdrawn the nomination, this should have given Racepacket the message that he was probably the wrong person to raise any further concerns about the article or the editor. One could almost argue that he had developed a conflict of interest in relation to the matter.
• I hope this clarifies some of the issues that people have brought up to me, here and elsewhere. Risker (talk) 06:24, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I had understood that as the reviewer who failed Talk:Netball/GA1 I could not do a GA reassessment of Hawkeye's later review. As a result, I left a clarifying note on the recent events and also refrained from filing specific comments in the Netball FAC.
• Rereading the materials, because the harassment claims were started by Hawkeye7 on March 22 during the middle of the Talk:Netball/GA1 review, there appears to be a goal of disqualifying me from commenting on their anticipated and prompt FAC. This is also reinforced by LH's workshop comments here seeking to topic ban other editors who have found fault with her work.
• Hawkeye7's failure to disclose his COI extends beyond just his administrative actions to his conduct in both his reviews and the earlier reviews. It is impossible to believe that Hawkeye7 truely had the faulty understanding of LauralHale's relationship with the WMF that sent me to the WMF and resulted in the meta thread. If he had been more forthright, a lot of this could have been avoided.
• I fully accept Risker's criticism of my communication style in the review. I thought that I came in to the netball reviews as supportive, and try to be in all GA reviews because I view them as a collaboration between the nominator and the reviewer. However, here when I would make a comment and LauraHale would respond in a manner that reflected a fundamental misunderstanding of the process, KnowIG and Hawkeye7 would quickly step in with a comment saying that they agree with LH before I could discuss the situation. LH's misconception of the GA process was impossible to correct. She believed that having quick failed Talk:Netball in the Cook Islands/GA1 that all she had to do was change the few items noted by Canadian Paul and that I would be obligated to pass it without raising further concerns. She viewed my suggested changes to remove POV as POV-pushing to the point that within 2 days she was complaining about them at RFC/U. (Her RFC/U comments were filed a day before she withdrew her GA nomination in Netball, although I did not read them until days later because I was busy responding to her March 22 "worklist" of tasks and questions for me.) Instead of providing supporting guidance to LH about the process, some roads editors and KnowIG started using her as a guided missile to launch a major wikidrama attack upon me.Racepacket (talk) 13:07, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Risker, for coming back to this thread. I'd like to respond simply by recommending that all editors involved in this case read the comments you have made here. I followed the events surrounding the Netball articles and their reviews as they unfolded, and your summary of key events and lessons to be learned concurs very closely with my own view, with the additional insight of an outside view. It is enormously helpful that an arbitrator has taken the trouble to look into the matter so carefully, as you evidently have, and I hope your efforts will not be lost in the "headline news" of the "outcome", which can only ever tell a part of the story. Geometry guy 22:40, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Good Article review criteria say that articles may be reviewed by any registered user who has not contributed significantly to the article. I have never contributed significantly to any netball article. All I have done is review three of them and do some copy editing. What I have done is written 12 featured articles, 20 A-class and 29 good articles. I have reviewed about as many good articles. Most have been military history articles, but a few have been scientific, music or sports. Several have been quick passes; the last of these was of a Kylie Minogue album. Most of these quick passed articles have gone on to be featured articles. None of my own good articles or my reviewed article been overturned by a Good Article Review. Unlike racepacket, I have not had any trouble with reviewees. However, also unlike racepacket, I now face an indefinite ban from reviewing good articles. This is manifestly unfair, unreasonable and unjust. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:54, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that an indefinite ban on reviewing good articles is not appropriate here, particularly in view of my position that we should not be so precious about individual GANs. I would go further and say that I do not believe that any sanctions against Hawkeye7 are necessary. However, I do think an appropriately worded admonishment should be considered: the evidence shows Hawkeye7 responding too hastily to events and making errors of judgment as a result; more care should be expected from an administrator. Geometry guy 21:58, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I do agree that Hawkeye7 made some "involved" blocks that he shouldn't have, however. --Rschen7754 21:59, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As do I. But it seems to be a stretch from there to a lifetime ban on reviewing good articles. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:09, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hawkeye7, your casual usage of the GAN policies as evidenced by the first and second GA Assesments of Netball are a serious problem. The fact that you were actively helping and fixing in the first GA Assessment (with the 3 different Reviewers) and then rubberstamping a GA assessment through only a few days later without making any note of the previous GA assessment demonstrates a significant failure in the duties as an editor, reviewer, and administrator. Hasteur (talk) 23:13, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps. However in a Good article review if a problem is easy to resolve, you [reviewers] are encouraged (but not required) to be bold and fix it yourself. I have been known to take a substandard article and do a substantial amount of work to bring it up to standard. I have also done many things to help the nominators such as supplying additional references. I think that you may be confusing bureaucratic forms with substance. I feel that the objective of the project is best served by high quality articles. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:09, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hawkeye7 has never answered the workshop questions, "Who asked you to take a part in the GA review? How did you see your role in the review?" It was clearly something other than produce a "high quality article," and involved echoing every position taken by KnowIG and LauraHale, including demonstrably false ones that Netball is an Olympic sport that is played at the Olympic Games. Racepacket (talk) 09:17, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is the proposed interaction ban meant to be permanent? I didn't see a length noted. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:07, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Committee has started to move toward not establishing specific time limits for certain behavioural issues (interaction bans being an example) because they are so dependent upon evidence of changes in behaviour of the affected editors. If, at some point, either editor can present a reasonable case why they should be permitted to comment on the other editor, it can be addressed as an amendment to the case. Risker (talk) 03:54, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In the typical ArbCom case, both parties have been around for a while and wish to remain active in Wikipedia for the foreseeable future. However, here one of the parties became active in February 2011 and had the limited goal of learning about Wikipedia by bringing an article to FA status. Would it be reasonable for the ArbCom to privately canvass the parties by email to learn their long-term plans, so as to avoid an extended debate on what may be a moot point? Racepacket (talk) 04:11, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No. Considering the toxic environment here, I don't think setting an absolute artificial expiration of the restriction here is a good idea. If one editor leaves, we can probably drop it as moot, otherwise I think it is the thought of the committee that no good can come of further interactions between the two without time and or a reasonable case. SirFozzie (talk) 04:22, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with SirFozzie. I can't foresee Arbcom initiating private discussions with parties on this sort of issue in a case that is being publicly addressed. Risker (talk) 04:39, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why would you oppose an interaction ban unless you wish to have continued interaction? --Rob (talk) 00:49, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the small note about "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" should be expanded to say "All remedies are indefinite unless otherwise stated." WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:19, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed finding 9 departs significantly from the evidence presented by myself and others when it concludes: "Initially, Racepacket didn't explain there was a misunderstanding, and that LauraHale was not responsible for the close paraphrasing, or indicate where the close paraphrasing was. LauraHale repeatedly indicated that she believed Racepacket had in effect accused her of plagiarism." First, Racepacket explained that LauraHale's concern was internal to her and not coming from Racepacket. To drive this point home, Racepacket even asked her on March 22 to provide him with a diff where he accused her. LauraHale was not able to do so, for obvious reasons. Second, Racepacket did "indicate where" the close paraphrasing had been found—the position description table. It's right there in the original note about possible close paraphrasing—no digging through obscure diffs necessary—so I cannot rightly apprehend how three arbitrators failed to catch this fundamental error. Here you go: "Need to assure that there are no close paraphrase problems, particularly in the position descriptions". He repeated this specific concern on March 22nd. Finally, LauraHale falsely stated—repeatedly, despite multiple editors' corrections—that Racepacket had accused her of plagiarism. She did not qualify this language using "in effect" or any other modification. All of this happened after LauraHale's harsh exchanges with Bill william compton regarding the netball review and after LauraHale's postings about both his netball review and Erik Möller on the WMF Gendergap mailing list. So the "problematic communications" predated Racepacket's entry into the Netball review. I do not believe the proposed finding accurately captures the facts. —Bill Price (nyb) 00:54, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Update: Another arbitrator has voted to support this factually-incorrect "finding of fact". No one has addressed the objectively inaccurate and misleading wording of the proposed finding. —Bill Price (nyb) 15:19, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Update 2: Another day has passed, and proposed finding 9 still stands as originally written, despite its factual errors. To be extremely clear, we are looking at matters of fact, not matters of opinion or interpretation. Proposed finding 9 is factually incorrect, as I have demonstrated with objective documentation above, most (or all?) of which was already submitted as evidence before the deadline. None of the four supporting arbitrators have chosen to respond to these issues, though I am pleased to see that the most recent vote was an abstention due to the proposed finding being "too simple" and "gloss[ing] over" issues. —Bill Price (nyb) 18:40, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Update 3: Another day with no acknowledgement from any arbitrator of the issues raised above. I have considered asking the supporting arbitrators directly whether they acknowledge the factual errors present in the proposed finding of fact, but have been holding off in hopes that revisions would be made in due time. —Bill Price (nyb) 02:42, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Update 4: Another day without acknowledgement of the factual errors in the proposed wording. No one has explained why the proposal is worded the way it is, and no one has made any attempt to provide support for the chosen wording. No one has made an attempt to address the relevant evidence I cited above which demonstrates that the proposed finding of fact is simply inaccurate. Even the supporting arbitrators seem to sense that it's inaccurate: some relevant statements include "I can go with this", "it is a bit oversimplified", and "[s]implified". This is my first time monitoring an arbcom case, so maybe this is normal? Is the standard for a "finding of fact" just "good enough" or "I can go with this" rather than objective, factual truth? I know that that question sounds snarky- perhaps unavoidably- but I honestly don't understand why I am being ignored. —Bill Price (nyb) 21:58, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Response from Calisber

• Bill, see [27], [28] are examples of casting aspersions, and this is fairly non-standard practice unless there was a really firm proven case prior, for starters. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:02, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Additionally - this - casting aspersions as "questions" long enough is tantamount to accusing. Bill/Notyourbroom if you can't process the subtleties of that then I don't know what else to say. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:09, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Calisber, the prose of this finding of fact is focused on initial miscommunications which occurred in March. As such, two of the sources you have offered are irrelevant—they are from late April—and the supposed relevance of the other sources is that they "cast aspersions", which is not a phrase mentioned in the proposed finding of fact. I'm not trying to be difficult, but please explain exactly how these sources support the prose of the proposed finding of fact. Iridescent has done an excellent breakdown of the proposed finding below.—Bill Price (nyb) 14:59, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • To address one of your diffs, though: LauraHale, persisting in her demonstrably false narrative, made the demand that Racepacket make "a retraction of the accusation [of plagiarism] and an acknowledgement that it was inappropiate to make this accusation without evidence." What you posted above was Racepacket's response, in which he (admirably, I think) declined to fight LauraHale on her inaccuracies and accusations, but rather offered a plan in which neither party had to "acknowledge" or "admit" anything, but would rather pledge to set the dispute aside and agree to review and abide by Wikipedia policy then and in the future. Racepacket further stated, "I am also willing to split the netball portion off for a separate, complete dispute resolution because there are a lot of concerns that we have not had a quiet opportuity to discuss." Everything here is consistent with a strategy of disengaging from personal accusations, cooling off, and re-engaging productively with encyclopedic content—a mature and admirable strategy in the spirit of WP:COOL. I'll wager that if you re-read it with an open mind, you will at least see this perspective. —Bill Price (nyb) 15:14, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Response from Iridescent

I stand by my comment of "Simplified, but correct". To break proposed finding 9 down:

1. Interactions between LauraHale and Racepacket have been problematic.

   Not in dispute, or it wouldn't be at Arbcom;

2. For example

   Note the "for example"; this is not purporting to be a definitive summary of the incident;

3. Racepacket said the Netball article contained close paraphrasing

   Demonstrable fact;

4. LauraHale misinterpreted this to mean that she was responsible, and asked for evidence.

   Not in dispute;

5. Initially, Racepacket didn't explain there was a misunderstanding, and that LauraHale was not responsible for the close paraphrasing, or indicate where the close paraphrasing was.

   Not in dispute, unless you're challenging the word "initially";

6. LauraHale repeatedly indicated that she believed Racepacket had in effect accused her of plagiarism

   Demonstrably true.

I'm not clear what the issue is here. – iridescent 22:33, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The statement which is most clearly false is #5. Racepacket's initial message regarding close paraphrasing did not explain there was a misunderstanding, of course, because LauraHale had not read it yet. but as soon as LauraHale made it clear she did not understand Racepacket's intent—i.e., about 24 hours after his very first mention of "close paraphrasing"—he made it painstakingly clear 1) that he had never accused her of plagiarism, 2) that even if problematic prose exists, it "[may] have been inserted by one of a dozen possible editors", and that 3) "We are in agreement as to what the Wikipedia guidelines are, the question is how to apply it to the article. I am certainly not imposing any duty on you to finish the review, but let's not stand in the way if others want to finish it". In other words, Racepacket extended his hand to her, wiped the slate clean of anything construable as an accusation, states his respect for her understanding of Wikipedia guidelines, and offered her the chance to exit the GA review if she would rather that another editor take over for her.

The last part of statement 5- "[didn't] indicate where the close paraphrasing was"— is also demonstrably false. As I showed above, this was not even a point which required clarification. The very first time Racepacket mentioned close paraphrasing was in this sentence: "Need to assure that there are no close paraphrase problems, particularly in the position descriptions". He immediately and specifically indicated the problem spot in the article.

Statement 6 is poorly worded to the point of being factually incorrect. LauraHale did not indicate that she had "in effect" been accused of plagiarism. There was no such nuance. Instead, repeatedly, stridently, and despite multiple corrections from myself and other editors, LauraHale persisted in the narrative that Racepacket had accused her of plagiarism, period. She never provided any evidence of this, but a number of other editors- such as those from the Roads project- began to echo her accusations. I want to assume good faith here, but as I continued to observe, I was utterly dumbstruck at how these accusations persisted despite clear evidence that they were unfounded. It began to look like a loosely-coordinated shouting campaign to bring Racepacket's character into disrepute during the course of what were originally content-related disputes. It was only after this arbitration case had picked up steam that Laura finally stopped voicing the wrongful claim that she had been accused of plagiarism. My point is that it is inaccurate to provide a qualifier such as "in effect", because LauraHale showed no interest in such a nuance in her repeated false statements made over the course of months. —Bill Price (nyb)

Only seven arbs accepted this case. Six is the most to vote on any resolution. However, the "Proposed decision" page says that there are 12 arbs (excluding recusals and inactives), which requires seven to be a majority. This doesn't make sense to me. Logically, only seven arbs count, and only four are needed to be a majority. Rob (talk) 23:10, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The number of arbitrators who accept a case does not have any effect on the number of arbitrators who can vote on a case; unless an arbitrator actively identifies as being inactive or recused, all of us are responsible for voting on the case. That is at least in part because a case can be opened at net-four acceptances, which may be sooner than all arbitrators have an opportunity to accept/decline the case. (Even arbitrators are allowed the occasional long weekend or other break.) I did send out a reminder about 24 hours ago to those who've not yet voted to please do so, and I hope to see more participating in the coming days. Risker (talk) 23:22, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Two brief notes that I hope can be sorted out before the close. FF 10 seems slightly clunky with its use of the singular they immediately after a named particular antecedent. Change to "her" or "his or her"?

Secondly, right now neither remedy banning Racepacket is passing by my count. Seven votes are needed for a majority and the votes are 6-2 and 3-2-1. However, a clear majority of arbiters support at least some ban. Arbs should probably review their votes before voting to close. Eluchil404 (talk) 08:56, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would ask the Arbcom to review my Workshop summary statement and consider the facts in light of the recent disclosure of the COI between Hawkeye7 and LH. In late March, despite by explanations LH was making false claims in a variety of fora that "Racepacket accused me of plagiarism" and Hawkeye7 was claiming that LH had been commissioned by Wikipedia and that Hawkeye7 was acting out of concern that LH would would write "a scathing indictment of the Wikipedia...." Based on the information supplied by Hawkeye7, it was reasonable for me to contact the WMF and was consistent with by WMF's open door policy as well as Wikipedia:Harassment#Off-wiki_harassment which applies to "forums not controlled by the Wikimedia Foundation." I believe that this policy is being applied as if my posting to meta was a "forum not controlled by the Wikimedia Foundation" when in fact to date I have only posted on a forum controlled by the Wikimedia Foundation.

In terms of the "lengthy" block log - the 2008-09 blocks related to my use of an alternate account to avoid Real Life consequences when addressing an editor who was trying to use a Wikipedia autobiography to promote the chances that his book proposal would be accepted by a publisher. The 19 December 2010 block was a violation of WP:INVOLVED and quickly withdrawn. The 4 February 2011 block regarding questions about improper paraphrasing was resolved by having a volunteer check by contributions for inadvertent close copying and lifted. The fourth and final set of entries on the log on 27 March 2011 were triggered by an WP:INVOLVED block by Hawkeye7. Instead of allowing a disinterested admin respond to the unblock template, he recruited Ironhold and misinformed him that the dispute involved my falsely accusing LH of plagiarism to prejudice the situation. I believe if Hawkeye7 had taken the matter to ANI and both sides were aired the block for conducting a GA review as an act of "harassment" would not have been made. In sum, I respectfully submit that the "length" of the block log is not properly captured in Finding 1 and the conduct reflected there would not show a need to "ban" me in order to protect the project.

I appreciate the time that the ArbCom has devoted to this matter. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 21:21, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Regarding the block log: a large part of my own 3rd-party involvement in these proceedings was prompted by the poor conduct displayed by Hawkeye7 (talk · contribs) and Ironholds (talk · contribs) in the improper blocks given to Racepacket in March 2011. It has been my duty as a Wikipedian to make sure the record is kept straight in the face of the errors of those administrators, and the revelation of Hawkeye7's conflict of interest- which gave him motive to act in a manner inconsistent with his duties as an administrator- has only strengthened my conviction that Racepacket was treated with intentional malice during that episode. Even worse, that improper administrative behaviour has made it easier for new sets of eyeballs to assume Racepacket is inherently a "problem editor", despite the fact that the vast majority of editors Racepacket has interacted with have never had a problem with his conduct. See my comments here and here, followed by my comments in this arbitration case here. Racepacket is a productive and prolific editor whose deep knowledge of Wikimedia policy and careful attention to detail has brought great benefits to the project. It is regrettable that he has been treated with malice due to a conflict of interest, and I hope the arbitrators will give special attention to this aspect of the case. —Bill Price (nyb) 21:35, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not certain what the timeline is for ArbCom's decision here, but it would be nice if you guys would hold off for the next couple of days so I can finish this GA nom with Racepacket, which should take two or three days. I will expedite matters as much as I can, but it is a long article and I try to be comprehensive about reviews. If not, then I will take over the nomination without credit and ask someone else to do the review.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:39, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry Wehwalt, but I don't think you'd find much support for that proposal. I see where you come from, and I can understand why that seems like a good idea, but historically such exceptions and delays have only contributed to hurt feelings and strained departures in the past. Few people do well with the sword of Damocles hanging over them, and I think it's more than a little cruel to place them in that position. — Coren ^(talk) 01:31, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Very well, we should be wrapping up today.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:22, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I may be incorrect, but it appears that through attrition Remedy 4 (Hawkeye 7 is admonished) has passed (6 for + 1 Abstain). Could the clerks and arbitrators please clarify this as the implementation currently shows Remedy 4 as not passing at this time. Hasteur (talk) 01:20, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It would pass in isolation, but it is superseded by 4.1. I think that the clerks usually note the difference in the implementation notes, but the net effect is the same: given that the remedies are exclusive to each other the one with the most support is the one that passes. — Coren ^(talk) 01:26, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't read it that way as a significant portion of the arbitrators that joined the majority for 4.1 expressed that as their second choice. Could the arbitrators who voted yes to both remedies please clarify their desires for the 2 remedies. Hasteur (talk) 02:12, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I read it as 4.1 passing over 4, because while both have 5 "first" or only choices, 4.1 has more second choice votes. This would change if another administrator arbitrator selected 4 as their first choice. Risker (talk) 02:50, 15 June 2011 (UTC) Corrected myself. Risker (talk) 05:42, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

With the endorsement of Remedy 4 by Rudger Davies as their first choice, this appears to have now firmly have passed and met the requirements of it being the prefered remedy. Am I incorrect? Hasteur (talk) 18:18, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, looks like 4 is favored over 4.1 as the first choice by 6 to 5 arbitrators in the current tally. CHL hasn't expressed a preference.

Principle 9 is now passing, with 5 Yeas and 3 abstentions.

Remedies 3, 3.1, and 6 are each half a vote from passing. Both the abstainers in 3.1 have comments indicating they may reconsider.

Finally, should this case be moved to the "Motion to close or dismiss" category on the case template? --Noren (talk) 22:39, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Please note my response to Rschen7754 below; we are currently working to ensure that there is a clear result with respect to this remedy, as the matter is ambiguous right now. From that perspective, the case won't be closed quite yet so there is no purpose in moving it to another category. Risker (talk) 23:00, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are there plans to close the case shortly? --Rschen7754 21:53, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Right now, we are trying to identify the best solution to the fact that both remedy 4 and remedy 4.1 are passing; the result is currently ambiguous, and we recognize that a clear decision is required. Thus, the delay in closing this case as we consider alternatives. Risker (talk) 22:56, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The wording makes no sense for violations during the editing ban, which may last 3 or 12 months, and editing bans are the only remedies in the proposed decision. Currently it says that if Racepacket violates the editing ban (i.e. uses socks or edits anonymously), he will be blocked (he already is blocked) and the topic ban will be restarted at the end of the block (there is no topic ban passing, and "at the end of the block" is silly if he is still banned). Topic bans should not run concurrently to editing bans. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 01:57, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the observation, John. I have made a copy edit that should address your concern, and have notified my colleagues in case anyone feels the original wording needs to be reinstated. Risker (talk) 03:34, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lovely. That change works for me. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 03:57, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting discussion that may or may not be related to this case: Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations#Shopping for GA.3F --Rschen7754 01:43, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't the time of the arbitrators be better spent dealing with the wording problem pointed out in the preceding section, rather than trying to answer your question of whether that discussion is related to this case or not? When a case is on the verge of closing, pointing out something like you have here isn't at all helpful. It has an air of "look at his last few edits" as the door starts to close behind him. The case is essentially finished, so the best thing to do is be patient and let the last few wrinkles be ironed out, and then the case will close. Though preferably sooner rather than later, as it will save you having to leave a running commentary here on whatever other edits take place that "may or may not" be related to this case (some arbitrators do follow such edits without prompting). Carcharoth (talk) 02:08, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It does not appear to have anything to do with this case; throughout the case, as far as I can tell, all of the parties to this case have continued to work on content and content assessment processes. I do wonder, however, why someone who'd reviewed and not passed the article before has decided to do an individual rather than community reassessment, as it appears to go against at least the spirit if not the letter of Wikipedia:Good article reassessment. I'll leave the answer to that question to editors who spend more time in the GA review process. Risker (talk) 02:23, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

:::I can answer that here. If not appropriate you may remove it at your discretion. I checked the guide lines and it stated that: If you have delisted the same article before, or are a major contributor to the article, please ask another editor to reassess the article, or request a community reassessment. (I had not de-listed the article before, as it had not been listed until after my review) it also states:A community reassessment is used when there has been a breakdown in the processes of nomination, review, and an individual's assessment. I had completed my review, he didn't accept it and another reviewer quick passed it. That editor did not follow procedure and was wrong with his comments but also finished his review and I simply fell on it three months later. I don't see it as a breakdown. I see it as misuse. That doesn't mean I am right for doing the reassement myself just that it was not against guide lines as written. Otherwise what I take from it is that it review may be more geared to letting GA pass for nearly no reason and I as the editor who's review was the most detailed was simply bashed for not listing in the first place. And my review wasn't the first fail. As far as whether or not this has to do with you arbitration is up to editors here but I reviewed in good faith and followed procedure and I was the one being accused of bad faith editing, pressured to complete the review in a set time frame and having my last block brought up in casual yet incivil manner. I feel I kinda feel like I have been dragged into this and am having my work questioned for backing away, as is my right, but I am more than willing to stand up and defend myself. Sorry if this is not the place, but I really did feel like racepacket was being manipulative.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:39, 18 June 2011 (UTC) Just spent a few moments to review this arbitration....and I want nothing to do with it. Sorry, but this seems to me to be something you guys are having trouble closing and this just looks like a wedge in the door. I was unaware of how close this current situation is to others and I am not happy to have had anything to do with any of this. I feel a little soiled. Any questions or concerns can be directed to my talk page if needed and I apologise for adding to this mountain.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:58, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This was a simple miscommunication between Amadscientist and me regarding Talk:Getty Foundation/GA1, and as soon as the misunderstanding arose, I immedately appologized. I have not been "shopping for a GA", but I am trying to wrap up all threads in an orderly and respectful manner. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 10:31, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]