Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Racepacket/Workshop

[[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/{{{case name}}}|Main case page]] ([[Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/{{{case name}}}|Talk]]) — [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/{{{case name}}}/Evidence|Evidence]] ([[Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/{{{case name}}}/Evidence|Talk]]) — [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/{{{case name}}}/Workshop|Workshop]] ([[Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/{{{case name}}}/Workshop|Talk]]) — [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/{{{case name}}}/Proposed decision|Proposed decision]] ([[Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/{{{case name}}}/Proposed decision|Talk]]) Case clerk: [[User:{{{clerk1}}}|{{{clerk1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{clerk1}}}|Talk]])  Drafting arbitrator: [[User:{{{draft arb}}}|{{{draft arb}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{draft arb}}}|Talk]])

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.

Motions and requests by the parties

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:

Proposed temporary injunctions

Temporary injunction against interaction

1) Racepacket is enjoined from commenting on or editing articles 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)

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)

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

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

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:

Template

4)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed final decision

Proposals by Chester Markel

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:

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), [1], 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:

Template

2) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed remedies

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

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)

Comment by parties:

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)

When Racepacket pleaded for the indefinite block placed on his account for copyright violations to be removed [2], 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)

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)

Comment by others:

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

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)

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:

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:

Comment by others:

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:

Proposals by User:Hasteur

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)

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)

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)

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:

Comment by others:

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

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)

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)

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)

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:

Comment by others:

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

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)

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)

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)

Comment by others:

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

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

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)

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)

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, [3], and [4] as "being in situations with difficult people who have WP:OWNERship issues"? Chester Markel (talk) 00:33, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

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)

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

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)

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)

Comment by others:

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

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)

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)

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)

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 [5]. 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)

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,[6] 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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

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:

Comment by parties:

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

Comment by others:

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

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).

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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

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)

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)

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:

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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:

Comment by others:

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

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:

Proposals by User:Geometry guy

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)

Comment by parties:

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

Comment by others:

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

Proposals by User:Guerillero

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)

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)

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

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 improvment, reviewes 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Proposals by User:PhilKnight

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:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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)

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)

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)

Outing

3) Posting another editor's personal information is unjustifiable, 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)

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)

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)

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)

Rschen7754, here is the diff from the evidence page that supports a claim of outing. [[7] A principle is needed to frame he finding of fact and remedies. This one works okay. --FloNight♥♥♥♥ 23:05, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

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)

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 [8], 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)

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)

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)

Sanctions and circumstances

4) 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)

Comment by parties:

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

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)

Proposed findings of fact

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed remedies

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

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposals by User:Rschen7754

Proposed principles

Template

1) {text of Proposed principle} (something about dispute resolution)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of Proposed principle} (something about canvassing)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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:

Comment by parties:

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

Comment by others:

Proposals by User:Example 3

Proposed principles

Template

1) {text of Proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of Proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed remedies

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

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Analysis of evidence

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

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

General discussion

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others: