Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Racepacket/Evidence

[[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]])

Anyone, whether directly involved or not, may add evidence to this page. Create your own section and do not edit in anybody else's section. Please limit your evidence to a maximum of 500 words and 50 diffs. Giving a short, concise presentation will be more effective; posting evidence longer than 500 words will not help you make your point. Over-long evidence that is not exceptionally easy to understand (like tables) will be trimmed to size or, in extreme cases, simply removed by the Clerks without warning - this could result in your important points being lost, so don't let it happen. Stay focused on the issues raised in the initial statements and on diffs which illustrate relevant behavior.

It is extremely important that you use the prescribed format. Submitted evidence should include a link to the actual page diff in question, or to a short page section; links to the page itself are insufficient. Never link to a page history, an editor's contributions, or a log for all actions of an editor (as those will have changed by the time people click on your links), although a link to a log for a specific article or a specific block log can be useful. Please make sure any page section links are permanent. See simple diff and link guide.

This page is not for general discussion - for that, see the talk page. If you think another editor's evidence is a misrepresentation of the facts, cite the evidence and explain how it is incorrect within your own section. Please do not try to refactor the page or remove evidence presented by others. If something is put in the wrong place, leave it for the Arbitrators or Clerks to move.

Arbitrators may analyze evidence and other assertions at /Workshop. /Workshop provides for comment by parties and others as well as Arbitrators. After arriving at proposed principles, findings of fact or remedies, Arbitrators vote at /Proposed decision. Only Arbitrators (and clerks, when clarification on votes is needed) may edit the proposed decision page.

Evidence presented by Laura Hale

Outed my employer and real identity

Racepacket outed me in two ways: He identified my (believed to be) employer that I had not ever mentioned or made any public disclosure about. He also outed my real life identity to my (believed to be) employer. [1] It does not matter that I do no work for WMF and that WMF employees are held to a higher standard. He still tried to get me in trouble with an organisation he believed was my employer for on wiki edits.

Engaged in harassment

Racepacket engaged in harassment. This harassment started when the Netball Good Article review became highly antagonistic.

It involved attempts to get me in trouble with my employer and misrepresenting of my academic and professional work, [2][3] asked for offline contact, [4] disruptive editing leading to a block and additional edits that led to an extended sock puppet block, [5][6][7] repeated edits to a review I had withdrawn/self failed/was closed [8][9] to the point the review required locking, and [10][11] repeatedly edited my user talk page despite being asked by me to leave me alone. [12][13][14]

Racepacket started GA reviews and got involved with for other netball articles[15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25] despite ongoing dispute on Talk:Netball/GA1 and having been told on the review that he was engaging in harrassment by asking for offling contact. [26]

He also personally attacked me, [27] insisted on doing a peer review of an article of mine despite conflict and having been informed interactions with him stressed me out and I could not non-disassociate things like his actions on meta and his valid comments. [28][29][30]

Other examples of general harassment: [31][32][33][34] [35]

The day after the first ArbCom request was delisted, on April 21, he created a dispute over an image I imported from Flickr that would have require a site wide RfC regarding images for his point to be effective, possibly resulting in the removal of 99.9% of all images on Wikipedia. [36](Is the photographer a reliable source when it comes to describing non-obvious content in their own work?) This brought people to the article where an edit war took place, a contributor got blocked, the article was temporarily locked, and Racepacket stepped in to support the blocked contributor in a situation that he basically created to further his harassment of me.

After having been requested on the RfC and by members of ArbCom to disengage with me and my content, he submitted one of my images for deletion on Commons on April 26. [37][38] The Flickr situation, where he was continuing to comment as late as April 26[39] and this event made me believe he was unable to disengage even when he had been repeatedly asked to disengage and prove his claims. [40]

After ArbCom was filed, he continued to engage by editing in places he had previously not engaged in where I was actively involved. [41][42]After ArbCom was filed, he continued to engage by editing in places he had previously not engaged in where I was actively involved. [43][44]

Unsubstantiated claims that inappropriate paraphrasing was done on netball articles

Racepacket was aware that I am a PhD student and the serious consequences for people working in academia related to being accused of plagiarism, of which inappropriate paraphrasing is a type. Despite this, he has repeatedly made unsubstantiated accusations of inappropriate paraphrasing over the course of several weeks regarding netball articles in general that I have been a major contributor to and in relation my contributions to these articles.[45][46][47][48][49][50][51]

Evidence presented by Chester Markel

Racepacket has a long history of prior disruption, which justifies his ejection from the project upon discovery of further significant malfeasance

Racepacket has engaged in extensive abusive sockpuppetry

Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Racepacket, Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Racepacket (2nd), Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Racepacket/Archive

Racepacket has embarked upon a systematic, multi-year campaign of copyright violations

Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Racepacket, indefinitely blocked for further copyright violations after first CCI was opened [52], justification for block explained [53]. See also Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Racepacket 2 (subpage of first investigation) and Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Racepacket 3 (investigation of infringements occurring after first case was opened).

Three administrators, including two holders of advanced permissions, and one (recused) member of the Arbitration Committee, have requested that Racepacket cease his harassment of Laura Hale

[54]

During this case, Racepacket insinuated that Laura Hale was guilty of a crime, stalking, without providing any evidence to support the accusation

[55]

Another unsupported accusation by Racepacket against Laura Hale during this case

[56]

Racepacket has threatened Laura Hale's employment in retaliation for his dispute with her

After attempting to provide the Wikimedia Foundation, which Racepacket believed to be Laura Hale's employer, with negative information about her[57], Racepacket wrote Laura Hale a talk page message referring to her purported "problems at work"[58], an issue which she had not mentioned on-wiki.

Half of all blocks placed by Hawkeye7 were improper due to involvement precluding administrative action

Hawkeye7 has made a total of four blocks[59] since receiving adminship on 17 November 2009. Two blocks were placed against vandals, and two against Racepacket and Thivierr. At the time of blocking Racepacket on 27 March 2011, Hawkeye7 was engaged in a dispute[60] with him over Talk:Netball/GA1. Hawkeye7 blocked Thivierr after edit warring[61] [62] with him on Netball on 24 April 2011.

Evidence presented by Imzadi1979

Racepacket refused to consider disengagement on these issues previously

My participation in this case will be limited because essentially I'm not an involved party, despite being named so. My previous interactions with Racepacket on the core issues/dispute that form the basis of this case relate to attempts to broker a settlement from the RfC/U that included disengagement by Racepacket from LauraHale, et al., from netball-related articles (later including women's sport(s) as well).

• [63] My original proposed solution to the RfC/U included netball in addition to US highways as the two topic areas he would leave alone to disengage from the other disputants from the RfC. He never replied to the proposal directly.
• [64] After a period of discussion, WhatamIdoing summarized that "my" side offered a by-topic disengagement, but Racepacket only offered to ignore GA nominations by specific highway project editors. Netball and LauraHale were not included in any offer by Racepacket.
• [65] A proposal by Racepacket to settle the dispute that did not address netball or LauraHale; the offer was rejected [66] because, in part, it omitted netball.
• [67] Even as late as April 20, I was still attempting to broker a deal that included netball/women's sport(s) in addition to highways to end the RfC/U.
• [68] The RfC/U was closed without reaching any agreement to settle the netball-related issues, and only partial agreement on the highways issues. Contrary to the comments Racepacket made here [69], he and I never reached any formalized agreement to resolve our dispute. So long as he lives up to his comments here [70], I personally want absolutely nothing to do with him outside of any mediated or arbitrated discussion forum.

Racepacket is unable to disengage

Racepacket cannot seem to leave a topic of editing alone while dispute resolution related to that topic moves forward.

• [71] During the course of the RfC/U, which originally started with highway article GANs and other issues, Racepacket continued to engage in GAN reviews of highway articles.
• [72] Racepacket followed Netball from GAN to its FAC nomination. In full disclosure, I offered a friendly suggestion to withdraw the FAC because it didn't meet the criteria at the time of the nomination.
• [73][74] Racepacket followed Netball in the Cook Islands to Peer Review as well.
• [75] This edit to User talk:Aircorn from earlier today just shows that he can't leave a topic alone, even once a case before the Arbitration Committee was opened.
• [76] This is a post to WP:RSN where Racepacket questioned policy about a photo.
• [77][78] Racepacket's continued focus on all things netball spilled over to a request to delete and image off Commons. (Note, 66.173.140.100 (talk) is the IP from which Racepacket edited meta, and the IP was blocked on en.wp for block evasion.)
  • In the above two cases, both images were uploaded to Commons by or on behalf of LauraHale (image 1, image 2). Contrary to this evidence, Racepacket claimed (on May 12) [79] to have "have disengaged a while ago", yet these postings date to April 21 and April 26, respectively.

Racepacket is a master of stalling

Zero1328 (talk · contribs) has detailed cases from the previous RfC/U, but Racepacket's stalling tactics have been used in the course of this case as well.

• [80] Racepacket asked AlexandrDmitri (talk · contribs), one of the clerks in this case, why the evidence phase deadline was a week after opening. This query came on May 6.
• [81] The original notice that the case was accepted by the committee and opened stated on April 30: "Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible." The guidelines on case timeframes states "The target times may be lengthened or shortened by initiative of the Committee, at the discretion of the drafting arbitrator(s), or at the request of one of the parties."
• Special:Contributions/Racepacket In looking at Racepacket's contribution history, he found ample time during the first several days of this case to make updates to his WikiCup submissions, archive talk page discussions, nominate an article at DYK, and nominate another at GAN.
• [82] Racepacket asks the other clerk to change the timeframe. This could be a case of asking the other parent.
• [83] Racepacket's first edits to a case page were more about four days after the case was opened. He has yet to submit any evidence, even though he's been requested to do so by several editors on the Workshop page.

Evidence presented by Zero1328

Racepacket does not acknowledge issues with his behaviour

Racepacket either does not understand or actively ignores issues with his behaviour.

• I repeatedly tried to tell Racepacket that the RFC discussion was also about his personal behaviour, and that he should stop and think about it. [84] He initially does not understand that I am referring to personal conduct. [85] After explicitly telling him, Racepacket only responded to my latter remark about personal credibility. [86][87] After reiterating and rewording what I said about behaviour, Racepacket instead talks about WP:OWN and interpretations of GA criteria. [88][89]

• Racepacket's offer for a solution at Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Racepacket_2#Counter-offer was quickly rejected on the grounds that it did not address most of the raised problems, including his behaviour. [90][91]

• In the area of RSMAS, User:Ryulong explicitly stated that Racepacket's behaviour is a problem "seen by the community" and that he is difficult to work with. [92] This line of discussion was about Ryulong's strong dislike and uncivility towards Racepacket. Racepacket replies to this statement, but it is purely in regards to the related article. [93]

• Racepacket's opening statements and responses in both RFARs do not mention behaviour. [94][95] His current statement is about article content.

Racepacket continued GA Reviews to illustrate a point

• Racepacket said that he believes that continuing the disputed behaviour is helping him. [96]

Racepacket has canvassed for positive comments

• During the RFC he canvassed to editors who he gave positive GA reviews to. [97][98][99][100]

Racepacket requests a re-evaluation of GA criteria

Hawkeye7's opening statement mentions that something nearly brought down the GAN process:

• On 10 April, Racepacket proposes a solution which introduces a clause for WikiProject Good Articles to conduct an RFC to re-evaluate the GA criteria. [101]
• The validity of this clause continued to be questioned for the remainder of the RFC. (Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Racepacket_2#Additional_discussion/negotiation)
• Racepacket continued to push this clause in his proposals. Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Racepacket_2#April_20_proposal [102] It was outright rejected. [103]

Arbitration was requested prior to this case

For clear posterity, as the first arbitration request is occasionally mentioned.

Both RFARs were made in regards to Racepacket, thus the first case request contains statements, comments and diffs that are relevant to this case. [104]

• The first arbitration request was filed on 10 April, 2011. [105]
• There was no agreement for acceptance, as there was a belief that progress was being made. It passed the 10 day limit and was removed on 20 April. [106]
• The second arbitration request was filed on 27 April. [107]

Stalling

As presented by Rschen7754, Racepacket's initial responses to the RFC and two RFARs were relatively late, slowing progress.

Racepacket was also called out on stalling the RFC several times.

• Racepacket continued to push an already rejected proposal. It was thought to be a stalling tactic. [108][109]
• Racepacket starts to make mentions about negotiating in good or bad faith. It was dismissed as stalling. [110][111][112]
• One of Racepacket's proposals was said to be mostly outside the scope of the core of the dispute, and stalling. [113][114]
• It is explicitly called out that Racepacket's proposals have been identical and constantly rejected, a red herring, and stalling a solution. [115][116]

Racepacket has also stalled this arbitration case.

• On 6 May - six days into the opening of this case - Racepacket states that he is intentionally being late in submitting anything to wait for a response to another proposal. [117]
• Racepacket then proceeds to inquire about the evidence submission deadline. [118]
• On 9 May, Racepacket continues to push his proposal, and implies that we are currently not at the stage for submitting evidence and contributing to the workshop. [119]

Poor Communication

There have been instances of misinterpretation, leading to incorrect conclusions.

Racepacket has also: been vague or ambiguous; has given conflicting comments; not properly responded to queries; removed queries; not properly notified LauraHale.

Semantics and the root of a conflict

Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Racepacket_2#Close_paraphrasing.2C_plagiarism.2C_copyright_problems_.26_the_best_interests_of_the_project

• During the RFC, User:Moonriddengirl starts a meta-discussion on the terminology of "close-paraphrasing" and "plagiarism", copyrights, and the confusion and levels of seriousness between the different terms.

• There is also a summary of how the "claims of close-paraphrasing" conflict began, with several diffs.

Misinterpretations, contacting the Wikimedia Foundation

• On 23 March, Racepacket contacts the Wikimedia Foundation and requests the staff to assist LauraHale. He is told that LauraHale is not an employee. [120]

• In the aforementioned meta-discussion, discussion on this contact also occurs. Racepacket provides the diffs that made him think LauraHale was a WMF Fellow.[121] The diffs are: [122][123]
• There is no indication that LauraHale was notified.

• LauraHale's response at meta-wiki was made two days later. [124]
• LauraHale showed activity in the interim, participating in the RFC. [125]
• After responding at meta-wiki, LauraHale shortly withdraws her comments from the RFC, citing the WMF thread. [126]

Ambiguity

• Racepacket agrees with the concept that off-wiki contact is inappropriate, and says that there was "one party that has been harassing both on-wiki and off-wiki by making false acusations" [sic]. [127]

• The comment does not reference names, and is met with confusion as to who he is talking about. [128]

Conflicting comments

• In Racepacket's RFC/U, Racepacket dismisses the relevance of LauraHale's comments on the belief that she "removed her issue when she withdrew her comment", and a lack of "advocacy". [129][130]

• In the first RFAR, Racepacket says he was aware of LauraHale's stress and "allowed her to withdraw". [131]

• On 12 May, Racepacket states that he has disengaged from netball articles with one exception in Early April. [132]

• In Late April, Racepacket starts a thread at WP:RSN questioning a netball photo, and nominates a netball image for deletion on Commons. [133][134]

Lack of proper response

Connected to the Stalling evidence.

• In the RFC, It is noted that Racepacket's first counter-offer does not contain actual feedback. [135]

Comment deletion

• User:Genevieve2 attempted to confront Racepacket about his behaviour and constant excuses. [136][137]

• Racepacket deleted the comments from his talk page, saying it does not belong there, or not understanding it and telling her to speak to LauraHale. [138][139][140]

Possible stalking

• On 21 April, Racepacket contacts LauraHale and expresses condolence that she is having trouble at work. [141]

• An on-wiki source that explicitly states this trouble has not been found.

Sockpuppet notes

Some evidence provided (particularly Racepacket's contact of the WMF) actually refers to comments made by an IP signing with Racepacket's name, rather than Racepacket's actual account.

This is to note that a sockpuppet investigation in 2009 showed that Racepacket has previously used this IP address:

66.173.140.100 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Evidence presented by Rschen7754

Racepacket has not made the dispute resolution process a priority

• The second RFC for Racepacket was opened on March 22, 2011 [142]
• Racepacket did not write a response to the RFC until April 3, 2011 [143]. During this time he continued his controversial actions, only stopping when he was blocked for one week.
• Disputed actions continued well into the RFC: [144]
• It wasn't until there were three support votes for the first RFAR request [145] that Racepacket began to honestly participate in resolving the roads dispute: [146]
• The second arbitration request was initiated April 26, 2011: [147] Racepacket did not respond until two days later after a ping from a clerk [148], and only with a settlement proposal to try and avoid ArbCom: [149]
• Additional diffs of Racepacket canvassing for positive support at his user conduct RFC: [150] [151] [152] [153] [154]
• Racepacket continues reviewing GANs well into the case: [155]

Evidence presented by Hawkeye7

The reason for bringing Netball up to featured status by July

User:Liveste was seeking to bring Netball up to featured status so it could appear on the front page during the upcoming 2011 Netball World Championships in July. See User_talk:LauraHale#Eager, aren't we

Racepacket asks for sweeping changes to images policy

• Racepacket asks for sweeping changes to the policy on images based upon FUD. One editor notes that "to argue that it should be removed because of the reliable source policy serves no better purpose than to be an annoyance, & at worse is being disruptive". See Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 95#Is Flickr a reliable source as to photo contents

Racepacket continues making edits to articles where LauraHale is the major contributor

• User:Racepacket has just made edits to two more articles in which User:LauraHale has been a major contributor: [156] and [157] LauraHale has been the only recent contributor.

Good article criteria

• Wikipedia:Good article criteria
• Wikipedia:What the Good article criteria are not
• Wikipedia:Compare Criteria Good v. Featured

Good article nomination withdrawal procedure

• Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations/FAQ

Good article Reassessment procedure

• Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment

Regional bias

• Racepacket pushes for changes to minimise the popularity of the sport and make it see less credible: [158] opposes women's sport proposal: [159]
• Erases comments by another sports editor on his talk page: [160] and [161]
• Regional perspective: [162] considers Jamaica, the Cook Islands and Samoa as "exotic islands": [163]
• Other editors express regional bias: [164] [165] or fears of the same: [166] and experience of same: [167] in comments on images: [168]
• Wikipedia's historical problems with female participation: [169] [170]

Racepacket provides conflicting advice/has communications problems

• User:Naraht complains to User:Racepacket about conflicting advice on an article: [171]

Racepacket starts a new Good Article review

• 9 May 2011 Talk:Pensacola Dam/GA1 [172]
• 12 May 2011 Talk:Georgia_Tech_Research_Institute/GA1

Racepacket stalks LauraHale

• Violates privacy by sharing private information about LauraHale's job that she never disclosed: Racepacket comments on LauraHale's employment situation [173]
• Reveals information that LauraHale never revealed in her edit history: [174]
• Engages LauraHale on her talk page despite a request from an ArbCom member to disengage and requests from others to disengage from her on an RfC: [175][176]
• General creepiness: [177][178]
• Still at it on 8 May 2011: calls to amend the short footnote MOS to prohibit a style of footnoting which by coincidence looks a lot like the style preferred by User:LauraHale in [179]

[180][181] [182][183][184] [185][186] [187][188][189]

LauraHale was known to WMF

• User:LauraHale was known to WMF as she uploaded pictures she took to commons [190]. participated in a WMF project [191], contributed to a grant proposal submitted to WMF [192], and posted a case study about WMF.[193]. I never said that she was a WMF fellow. I was only reminding Racepacket of WP:BITE. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:03, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Evidence presented by John Vandenberg

Timeline

User:Fluffernutter has constructed a timeline at User:Fluffernutter/Sandbox

Racepacket accused Laura of DYK cheating while reviewing her articles

At Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know/Archive_65#Netball_articles (18 March 2011), Racepacket claims that Laura "nominates [articles] for DYK without a five-fold expansion." Note that Racepacket had started to participate in the Netball GA five days earlier[194], and Racepacket did not notify Laura of this discussion at DYK. He initiated this DYK discussion immediately after reviewing one the articles in question.[195]

I've used Dr pda's prose size tool for the stats below.

Cook Islands

The first revision (2011-03-04) of Netball in the Cook Islands is at least a 2x expansion on the text on Netball at the time. The section on Netball had a readable prose size of 544 characters.

It was submitted to DYK at 02:49, 6 March 2011[196], then the article looked like this, and the new article had 6240 characters of readable prose. Compared with the original text, that is a 11x expansion. If we go back 5 days from the nom, to 02:49, 1 March 2011, there is no Cook Islands section - instead there is 133 characters about the Cook Islands in the Oceania section. This was a 46x expansion.

South Africa

The first revision (2011-03-04) of Netball in South Africa is a copy and paste of the text on Netball. The section on Netball had a readable prose size of 3613 characters.

It was submitted to DYK at 09:45, 7 March 2011[197], when the article looked like this, and the new article was 15 kB characters of readable prose. Thats not quite a 5x expansion, however if we go back five days from the nomination date, to 09:45 2 March 2011, the South Africa section of Netball consisted of 240 characters of readable prose. This was a 62x expansion.

Racepacket has alleged problems and not provided evidence

After the RFC, Courcelles requested that Racketpacket disengage from LauraHale, however Racepacket continued to assert at User talk:Racepacket#Request to disengage that there were serious legal and conduct issues with the Netball article. The following quotes all appear after the Request to disengage:

• "I had also found a number of close paraphrasing of other sources particularly in the position table"
• "So, the GA review uncovered a number of concerns which were left unaddressed at the time that LauraHale withdrew. A month has passed and it may be time to address these issue dispassionately."
• "there are serious policy issues involving [the Netball article]"
• "I have given two examples, but there are more."
• "I only want to protect Wikipedia and enforce existing policy"
• "This exercise is only intended for the sole purpose of making Wikipedia content freely reusable and is in no way an indication of copyright infringement or a failure to properly credit or cite sources."

On 22 April 2011 John noted that he had only been able to find one instance of Racepacket explicitly describing a case of close paraphrasing (in actual fact, it was a copyright violation by an anon that had been in the article for a year) and John asked Racepacket to prepare a more complete list in order that he could disengage and someone else could ensure they are addressed.[198] Three days later John reminded Racepacket that his list of concerns was still not evidenced.[199]

Racepacket's edits between April 22 (request to disengage) and April 27 (arbitration requested): [200]

Rather than provide a list of problems and allow someone else to investigate and address them, he comment three more times at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Is_Flickr_a_reliable_source_as_to_photo_contents after Courcelles asked him to disengage days earlier, and started a new discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Olympics#Respect_for_Olympic_trademarks_and_nomenclature.

Once arbitration had been requested, Racepacket again said he was working on providing the list of close paraphrase examples:

• "John, I have been assembling the close paraphrase examples, but it seems that LauraHale has chosen to go a different route."[201]

As of May 7, no such list has been provided.

Evidence presented by thivierr

LauraHale with assistance of Hawkeye7 have edit warred on Netball

• LauraHale edit wars to place an a picture in Netball that's completely unrelated to Netball except for an unsupported claim that the people happen to play the game. She simultaneously threatens[202] to report me for 3RR, while herself engaging in an edit war.[203]. Her attempts extend to related articles[204].
• Hawkeye7 aids LauraHale by blocking me [205] and promptly doing the same revert LauraHale did[206] just six minutes later. Hawkeye7 has been an active of editor of Netball[207] and was the same person who gave a speedy pass to the second GAR [208]. Even though both me and LauraHale edit warred, and neither violated 3RR, Hawkeye7 only blocked me.
• Prior to blocking me as an involved editor, Hawkeye7 had previously blocked Racepacket, also for Netball, which he was involved in a content dispute, and also involving LauraHale.

LauraHale continues to seek conflict over GA discussions

• In order to get fresh input Chester Markel has opened a new (3rd) Good article discussion of Netball to hopefully get a fresh review from new editors. Before newcomers could take part LauraHale had to chime in, to rehash her blanket defence of the article. Worse she attacked Racepacket calling him "a problem reviewer who has intentionally created problems.", linking to this case. This is an obvious bait for Racepacket to chime in on, which would cause him to be accused of Wiki Stalking if he dares to defend himself. --Rob (talk) 21:05, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Evidence presented by Notyourbroom

Racepacket has never accused LauraHale of close paraphrasing or plagiarism

Racepacket (talk · contribs) has never accused LauraHale (talk · contribs) of close paraphrasing or plagiarism. In his GA review of Netball, Racepacket brought up the issue of possible close paraphrasing in the article, but never suggested that the nominator, LauraHale, was responsible. [209][210][211][212][213][214][215]

LauraHale has tacitly admitted that Racepacket never accused her personally of anything

Although LauraHale several times claimed that Racepacket accused her of plagiarism or close paraphrasing,[216][217][218] she has since "refactored" this claim into the passive voice—"Unsubstantiated claims that I inappropriately paraphrased" to "Unsubstantiated claims that inappropriate paraphrasing was done on netball articles"—suggesting that she no longer disputes the fact that no personal accusations were made against her.[219]

Hawkeye7's outing of LauraHale

I had not seen this diff until Racepacket posted it. My mind is blown. Racepacket is being castigated for purported "outing", while Hawkeye7 had already posted these details:

1. LauraHale's status as a student
2. LauraHale's specific subfield
3. LauraHale's nationality
4. LauraHale's status as someone who "work[s] with Wikimedia" and who has been "commissioned to write about the Wikipedia" and is "creat[ing] a featured article" in preparation for that writing project.
   1. Hawkeye7 must have chosen his words poorly, because the only coherent way to read this is that LauraHale has been commissioned by Wikimedia to work on a Wikipedia article as part of a general larger writing project about the encyclopedia. I can easily see how Racepacket interpreted this message the way he did.

Racepacket's purported "outing" was only an echo of information other editors had posted.

He did not "out" anything except claims which a Wikipedia administrator had already publicly disclosed.[220] If any "outing" occurred, it was Hawkeye7's and LauraHale's own doing, not Racepacket's. The only information Racepacket repeated came from public information volunteered by those editors—he did not have a privileged supply of off-wiki information.

Evidence presented by Lankiveil

In this evidence, I will concentrate on the accusations of stalking and harassment leveled at Racepacket, rather than any events that may or may not have occurred during the GA process. To my mind, continuing harassment and attempts to cause "real world" trouble for an editor are significantly more serious and troubling than disputes over article content.

Harassment in the GA process

Racepacket repeatedly reopened and edited the GA review for Netball, even after Laura had asked for it to be withdrawn [221], and even after other editors confirmed this and asked Racepacket to desist ([222], [223]).

Attempts to contact LauraHale's employer

Racepacket attempted to contact the WMF, in the mistaken belief that LauraHale was a WMF employee ([224]). The fact that Racepacket did not do their research and contacted the wrong party does not diminish the seriousness of this. According to Wikipedia:Harassment, "Do not treat incorrect attempts at outing any differently from correct attempts", and "Off-wiki harassment will be regarded as an aggravating factor by administrators and is admissible evidence in the dispute-resolution process, including Arbitration cases."

Wikihouding at Commons

An IP user attempted to have a netball-related graphic uploaded by LauraHale deleted from Commons ([225]). It seems awfully suspicious that at the same time LauraHale was in a dispute with Racepacket, that an anonymous user would start a deletion discussion on a media file on the same topic. Using the WP:DUCK test, I believe this user to be Racepacket. Again, Wikipedia:Harassment has guidance on these sorts of situations, "Wikihounding is the singling out of one or more editors, and joining discussions on multiple pages or topics they may edit or multiple debates where they contribute, in order to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work."

Harassment elsewhere

While there are many examples I could provide, this peculiar edit where Racepacket posts on WikiProject South Africa where LauraHale was involved. To my knowledge, Racepacket had not previously shown any interest in this topic, so one is forced to wonder how he happened to stumble across that particular topic without an undue interest in LauraHale's every move.

Racepacket has form

Racepacket has quite a colourful history, including previous blocks for harassment, sockpuppeting, and deliberately introducing copyvios ([226]. At this point, Racepacket ought to know better.

Evidence presented by Bill william compton

LauraHale (LH) bullied her GA reviewers

• GA criteria 3(b) requires the article to be focused, but LH resisted.[227] Immediately after moving my reference to 3(b), she demanded to know the basis of the focus concern and a list of "concrete examples".[228]
• I summarized my concerns after a week of back and forth, but she fought rather than addressed them.[229]
• Rather than being courteous and polite, LH was so controlling that she moved my summary score sheet from the bottom of the review to the top.[230] She also composed a "worklist" of tasks that Racepacket as reviewer must do for her[231] Racepacket responded politely on the merits.[232]
• On May 12, after I was busy for two days, I extended the 7 day hold for 2 additional days. LH complained that I hadn't been "time responsive" and demanded a substitute reviewer to "fail" the article.
• LH bullies me on my talk page. [233] while Hawkeye7 called me clueless and KnowIG threatened to have be banned from doing GA reviews in the future and an IP called me "just blind and retarded".[234]
• LH demands that the GA reviewer clean up and edit the article rather than reach consensus on how the article should be fixed, with the active editors fixing all occurences of the problem.[235] LH finally harassed me as reviewer into doing the article editors' trimming task.[236]
• LH expects a GA review to generate a finite list of tasks, not realizing that Netball was deficient beyond a simple list.[237][238]
• I offered to pass the article, if LH could explain how I was wrong in interpreting the GA criteria.[239] She refused.
• My official notice of the transition drew hostility from KnowIG, although everyone eventually agreed that Racepacket would take over the review from

me on March 21.[240]

• LH rejected the consensus meaning of Olympic sport as reflected in that article. User:Off2riorob was brought in and confirmed that the British meaning was the same as that stated in the Wikipedia article, but LauraHale continued to push her view for some time after the GA review concluded. LH shows passive-aggressive behavior of indicating agreement when really intending the opposite. [241]
• Although the article explained the common evolution of Women's basketball and netball into separate games, and I and everyone else discussed these terms with their separate meanings for some time, suddenly, on March 20, LH unilaterally deletes all references to Women's basketball claiming its synonymous with netball. Even Liveste objects that the terms have not been synonymous for 40 years.
• Although LH admits that she is "still not that knowledgeable" about netball, she stubbornly resists the suggestions of others.
• LH struggles to defend existing POV text based on allegations of inaccuracies and ignoring the problems and solutions offered.[242]
• LH preempts meanfull discussion of what paraphrasing is permitted by Wikipedia by citing to advice from an unnamed "supervisor."[243] Backed by KnowIG who viewed adding quote marks as "POV pushing."

LH is at least sloppy in complying with standards and procedures

• LH deletes and refactors talk and review pages in violation of WP:TPO

South Africa,Peer Review April 8 Netball review and RFC/U discussions[244]

• LH mistakenly believes that only members of WikiProject Netball are eligible to conduct a peer review of Netball.
• LH recruited me to GA review the article, which I later learned was not a good

practice.[245]

• LH did not correct her Netball links until March 12.[246] and March 22[247]
• LH uses inappropriate langauge in edit summaries"crappy lede"
• LH improperly claimed that two were new articles, by using wrong

template[248][249][250] and introduced POV/disputed "Olympic recognized sport" content into her hook on March 25 after she knew it was contoversial.[251]

• LH battles to defend a sentence as grammatical in New Zealand English,[252] although WP:VNE requires the use of a sentence that would be grammatical in both American and New Zealand usage.

LH does not take responsibility for her conduct in the GA reviews

• LH looks to discredit Racepacket as creating the problems that were evident in my Netball review and in Canadian Paul review, and the advice from Geometry guy, so LH together with the article's team concoct accusation that I was racist[253] and that Racepacket was culturally imperialistic. and anti-netball and a problematic reviewer. LH nurtured this climate of attack, until she seized upon the "plagiarism" accusation.
• LH turned a blind eye to the inappropriate conduct of her coeditors and to possibility that the articles did not actually meet the GA criteria, despite many editors expressing concerns. Wikipedia:Peer review/Netball in the Cook Islands/archive1, Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Netball/archive1 and Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Netball/1.
• Falsely canvassing for sympathy outside the article reviews on WT:GAN 3/23, User talk page.
• Using the false plagiarism accussation as an "outside view" to expand and recast an ongoing RFC/U regarding whether Racepacket was too lax in reviewing road articles.

LH colludes off-wiki

• LH admits to discussing with four others the timing of her FAC of Netball, in part to preempt a GA Reassessment to reverse Hawkeye7's passing it.[254]

Racepacket responded to the attacks appropriately

He assumed good faith and explained to LH why her complaints were wrong. explained no plagiarism allegation, again, explained WikiCup scoring, and asked why she deleted talk page comments and edited GA sweeps statistics page.

Evidence submitted by Racepacket

Hawkeye7 (H7) "Outed" LauraHale (LH)

H7 outed LH and suggested that both he and everyone else should give her special treatment out of a concern that she would write "a scathing indictment of the Wikipedia...." LH identity is also clearly posted on her User page and its links.

H7 violated WP:INVOLVED

• H7 blocked me for "disruptive editing". (06:12, 27 March 2011) H7 blocked Rob for edit warring. (20:34, 24 April 2011)
• H7 deleted my GA review page "Talk:Netball and the Olympic Movement/GA2" rather than PRODing it for a disinterested admin so that he could move his review page on top of it. (06:10, 27 March 2011)
• Having blocked me, H7 contacted three disinterested admins and falsely told Ironholds that "He falsely accused her of plagiarism knowing that this was a serious charge to level at a PhD student." to try to prejudice him in processing my unblock request.[255]

H7 improperly GA reviewed 3 of LH's nominations

• H7 admits that his opening reviews were directed toward me.[256]
• H7 had made substantive edits to the articles before the reviews.[257], [258] and [259]
• H7 did not leave any substantive comments in two of the reviews.[260][261] He left superficial comments in the third. That H7 proposed adding a column to the table shows that even H7, as reviewer, did not realize that the entire table was intended to be a quote.[262] None of the reviews had affirmative statements that H7 had checked the sources or checked for close paraphrasing.
• H7's review missed key sourcing mistakes.[263]

H7 shows bias and a quick temper

• H7 using inflamatory phrases like utter crap.
• Even LH thought that H7's edits "sounded like an angry person made this edits to appease another person."
• H7 deliberately misstates the arguments of people he is arguing with. For example, when Racepacket said he wanted to correct the copyright advice given by the WMF "supervisor", Hawkeye7 shifted it to "academic supervisors."[264]
• H7 aggressively took the offensive an accused me of POV and "stalking", "pigeon-holed as a copy editor" and being "creepy."
• I (Racepacket) reviewed two GAs nominated by H7 [without a problem and he would not object to further reviews by me.

H7 violates WP:GNL

• H7 resisted clarify Netball in terms of when the first women's tournament was played on the grounds of it being a "tautology," when the article discussed male teams and mixed-gender teams.

H7 violates WP:POINT and trademark rights

• H7 added information to an article that he knew was wrong.[265] As indicated by the email from the IOC Legal Dept., the IOC does not consider Netball to be an "Olympic sport." The IOC/USOC controls the special trademark rights in "Olympic."[266]

LH has been wikihounding Racepacket

LH has made edits with no purpose other than to vex Racepacket: which deleted an item from the list of GA reviews closed during the month., article talk page comment and others.

Racepacket lists all of his GA reviews for transparency

There are over 90 reviews and I stand by all of them. I claimed WP:CUP points for only a subset and did not claim points for Netball at the Olympics.

Evidence presented by {your user name}

before using the last evidence template, please make a copy for the next person

{Write your assertion here}

Place argument and diffs which support your assertion; for example, your first assertion might be "So-and-so engages in edit warring", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits to specific articles which show So-and-so engaging in edit warring.

{Write your assertion here}

Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion; for example, your second assertion might be "So-and-so makes personal attacks", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits where So-and-so made personal attacks.