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]

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 [50], justification for block explained [51]. 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

[52]

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

[53]

Another unsupported accusation by Racepacket against Laura Hale during this case

[54]

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).

• [55] 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.
• [56] 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.
• [57] A proposal by Racepacket to settle the dispute that did not address netball or LauraHale; the offer was rejected [58] because, in part, it omitted netball.
• [59] 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.
• [60] 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 [61], he and I never reached any formalized agreement to resolve our dispute. So long as he lives up to his comments here [62], 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.

• [63] 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.
• 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.

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.

• [64] 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.
• [65] 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.
• [66] Racepacket asks the other clerk to change the timeframe. This could be a case of asking the other parent.
• [67] 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. [68] He initially does not understand that I am referring to personal conduct. [69] After explicitly telling him, Racepacket only responded to my latter remark about personal credibility. [70][71] After reiterating and rewording what I said about behaviour, Racepacket instead talks about WP:OWN and interpretations of GA criteria. [72][73]

• 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. [74][75]

• 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. [76] 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. [77]

• Racepacket's opening statements and responses in both RFARs do not mention behaviour. [78][79] 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. [80]

Racepacket has canvassed for positive comments

• During the RFC he canvassed to editors who he gave positive GA reviews to. [81][82][83][84]

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 that includes a clause for WikiProject Good Articles to conduct an RFC to re-evaluate the GA criteria. [85]
• 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 [86] It was outright rejected. [87]

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. [88]

• The first arbitration request was filed on 10 April, 2011. [89]
• 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. [90]
• The second arbitration request was filed on 27 April. [91]

Stalling

As presented by Rschen7754, Racepacket's initial responses to the RFC and two RFARs were relatively late, halting 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. [92][93]
• Racepacket starts to make mentions about negotiating in good or bad faith. It was dismissed as stalling. [94][95][96]
• One of Racepacket's proposals was said to be mostly outside the scope of the core of the dispute, and stalling. [97][98]
• It is explicitly called out that Racepacket's proposals have been identical and constantly rejected, a red herring, and stalling a solution. [99][100]

• Racepacket states that he is intentionally being late in this arbitration case to wait for a response to another proposal. [101]

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 [102]
• Racepacket did not write a response to the RFC until April 3, 2011 [103]. During this time he continued his controversial actions, only stopping when he was blocked for one week.
• Disputed actions continued well into the RFC: [104]
• It wasn't until there were three support votes for the first RFAR request [105] that Racepacket began to honestly participate in resolving the roads dispute: [106]
• The second arbitration request was initiated April 26, 2011: [107] Racepacket did not respond until two days later after a ping from a clerk [108], and only with a settlement proposal to try and avoid ArbCom: [109]
• Additional diffs of Racepacket canvassing for positive support at his user conduct RFC: [110] [111] [112] [113] [114]

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: [115] and [116] LauraHale has been the only recent contributor.

Evidence presented by John Vandenberg

Timeline

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

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.[117] Three days later John reminded Racepacket that his list of concerns was still not evidenced.[118]

Racepacket's edits between April 22 (request to disengage) and April 27 (arbitration requested): [119]

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."[120]

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

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.