Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Racepacket

Case Opened on 06:30, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Case Closed on 21:36, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Case amended by motion on 20:18, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Watchlist all case pages: [/index.php?title=&action=watch 1], [/index.php?title=/Evidence&action=watch 2], [/index.php?title=/Workshop&action=watch 3], [/index.php?title=/Proposed_decision&action=watch 4]

Please do not edit this page directly unless you are either 1) an Arbitrator, 2) an Arbitration Clerk, or 3) adding yourself to this case. Statements on this page are original comments provided when the Committee was initially requested to Arbitrate this page (at Requests for arbitration), and serve as opening statements; as such, they should not be altered. Any evidence you wish to provide to the Arbitrators should go on the /Evidence subpage.

Arbitrators, the parties, and other editors may suggest proposed principles, findings, and remedies at /Workshop. That page may also be used for general comments on the evidence. Arbitrators will then vote on a final decision in the case at /Proposed decision.

Once the case is closed, editors may add to the as needed, but this page should not be edited otherwise. Please raise any questions at Requests for arbitration, and report violations of remedies at Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement.

Involved parties

 * , filing party

Prior dispute resolution

 * Requests for comment/Racepacket 2
 * Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Racepacket 2
 * User talk:Racepacket

Statement by LauraHale
I am bringing this situation to ArbCom because it was not resolved in the Request for Comment. During that Request for Comment, I made this resolution offer and would still be willing to honor it if Racepacket would agree to completely disengage from me and women's sport entoto (on all fronts including AfD, image deletion nominations, tangented policy pages, copyvios, sourcing, etc.) under his user name, any IP addresses he may use and from other socks.

To summarize this situation, I submited Netball for a good article review. This went south with the first reviewer. Both of us are equally to blame. I sought a second reviewer. Racepacket stepped in. Things went even further south. This situation has ended up involving five GAs, an RfC, an FAC, a peer review, multiple project pages,  a merge proposal, a notice board,, a project proposal,   a sock puppeting investigation, , multiple user pages, , Meta and Commons. Summarizing the problem interactions:


 * Outing of my real identity to employer,
 * Outing who I was employed by but had not stated publicly,
 * Attempts to get me in trouble by contacting my employer and misrepresenting my academic and professional work,
 * A block for disruptive editing and sock puppeting,
 * Sock puppeting on Wikipedia and Commons,
 * Repeated edits to a review I withdrew to claim he closed it while an active RfC mentioning this review was on going,
 * Article lock required,
 * Failed my GA after I withdrew it,
 * Canvassed others to nominate article so he could continue a review,
 * Repeatedly editing my talk page after requests not to,
 * Started GA reviews while active RfC about his women's sport reviews was happening,
 * Involved himself in women's sport GAN when not a reviewer,
 * Merge proposal for two unrelated topics,
 * Personal attacks,
 * Peer review involvement despite conflict with me,
 * Repeated unsubstantiated claims of inappropiate paraphrasing between March and April 21,
 * Requests for offline contact,
 * Harassment,
 * Source disputes,
 * Refusal to disengage from me and women's sport topics,
 * Ignoring sources when it doesn't help his cause.

''Edited to add more: Despite having been notified of the ArbCom request, Racepacket is continuing to engage in areas where I am involved AFTER he was notified including here and here. Can a temporary enforcement of disengagement be enforced until this is resovled? I am not disputing the legitimacy of the edits. They both appear to be fine. I'm just disputing the intentional continued engagement after he was notified of this ARC. ''

The issue with the GAN reviews is that a nominator can withdraw a review. By withdrawing a review, a review is automatically failed. Racepacket did not need to "close" it because withdraw automatically means failure. He over stepped in this regards because when the article was withdrawn, he removed the withdraw and then asked several other contributors to the article to take over the nomination in my stead. (They all said no.) I attempted to withdraw the article several times and was not allowed to do so. Despite the article having been withdrawn by me, Racepacket continued to edit Talk:Netball/GA1 to insist he closed it. This got so bad that the we were close to an edit war/3RR situation over a closed review. An admin eventually indefinetely locked the article. (Difs provided above.)
 * Response to Wehwalt

I promise not to say anything about Racepacket elsewhere until this is resolved. For the most part, since the original Request for Comment about Racepacket #2 was filed and I've commented, I've tried to avoid the interacting with Racepacket and to generally avoid commenting on it. (It became an issue on my talk page and on Talk:Netball recently because of Racepacket's filing where he questioned the verifiability of an image description, claiming the photographer could not be a verifiable source in terms of describing an image they took.
 * Response to Risker

I have no problem having my actions investigated. I know that at times during Talk:Netball, Talk:Netball/GA1, Talk:Netball in the Cook Islands/GA2 I may have been a tad aggressive and acted out of frustration. For that, I'm very sorry and I'm actively working on trying to improve how I interact (and knowing when to disengage and let others handle it) when confronted with situations I perceive as hostile.

The paraphrasing situation bothers me a lot. A huge amount. So much so that I have considered opening a Request for Comment on the Netball article and an examination of my own edits to check for inappropiate paraphrasing. The accusation has been made repeatedly. Racepacket has used my real name in connection with my (percieved) real job to make these accusations. These accusations have been continued to be made for a period of over a month. He has never offered any evidence. I can't easily prove my innocence as I don't know what I'm actually being accused of improperly paraphrasing. This accusation has potentially real life consequences. If I thought I was guilty, I'd be happy to accept them... but I don't think that. I'm in a catch 22: The accusation is made and I can't refute it. In order to have an investigation of this, I'd be risking drawing additional negative attention to it that I don't want because that it had to happened taints me further. (This type of situation has broader implications than my own as it could potentially further discourage academics from participating.)

Statement by Imzadi1979
I was one of the three parties that certified the RfC/U. During the course of that action, I first proposed a settlement that would have included the netball/women's sport(s) issues in a condition to disengage the parties. I later pushed to have the final settlement extended to cover that topic area. The RfC/U was closed without any agreement, however Racepacket has voluntarily stated that he would disengage from the roads topic area. It is quite disgusting to me the level of pursuit he has taken agains LauraHale, netball articles and related topics, especially given the numbers of editors at the RfC/U discussion page and elsewhere that indicated that he needs to just let matters drop and move on. At a bare minimum, Racepacket needs to stop what appears to be a campaign of harassment against another editor by disengaging from the topic area completely. He should also learn that once a nominator withdraws a nomination, his further participation on the article in question is no longer required; the action of withdrawing the nomination alone is sufficient to mark the article as "not listed".

Wikipedia is not the legal system; we are a community of volunteers. We should not attempt to pursue and police issues with other editors with the dogged determination of a lawyer using every motion in his arsenal to defeat an opponent. We do not engage in multi-front campaigns to assert a viewpoint that may or may not have the consensus of editors backing it or silence another editor. At a bare minimum, if Racepacket would just move on and stop editing in the areas of netball and other women's sport(s), most of this conflict would evaporate. The issue isn't his reviewing, per se, it's his behavior around that reviewing. He is a thorough and capable GAN reviewer, but it is disturbing how frequently he escalates the situation in a minority of cases. Racepacket needs to learn to let things drop and move on, that continuing to fight a campaign against (an)other editor(s) is not a productive exploit when if his issues are truly valid, they will be dealt with by the greater community in due time. Conflict and harassment are not the answers.

Note: I comment here because I was contacted as one of the parties by the RfAr filer. So long as Racepacket has disengaged from my area of editing, even though we have not agreed to any specific terms to settle the dispute from the RfC/U, I am attempting to steer a wide course away from him.  Imzadi 1979  →   19:15, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Thivierr
I'm only commenting because LauraHale added me as an involved party. I became involved after the GA stuff was done.
 * LauraHale is by far the main editor of Netball, and has been insisting on total and complete control of that article. She has refused to compromise on anything, and attacked those who challenge her ownership.  She has engaged in edit warring over content (I'm not guiltless).  If she could allow other editors to contribute to Netball articles, without reverting them, she would find many of the problems of the articles could be fixed, and there'd be a genuine consensus for GA status, and even FA status.
 * On looking at the history, my understanding is the LauraHale has tried to get GA status on an article that's not close to qualified. She tried one GA reviewer, didn't like the results; then went to the next, who's she's now complaining about; and then finally found somebody who would grant GA status with no discussion.  She then tried to get FA status almost immediately, and got shot down.  I do not think people should be able to achieve GA status by repeatedly getting new reviewers, until a satisfactory result occurs.
 * If two users are having a conflict, and both are at fault, it's unfair to ask just one of them to back away.
 * A number LauraHale's accusations are petty. The proposed merger was an entirely reasonable suggestion, right or wrong.  Basically, the merge suggested that there not be a separate Olympic article for a sport that's never been in the Olympics.  Generally, only sports in the Olympics have a "Sport in Olympics" article.
 * I've had trouble following evidence in this case, since several of the links given aren't diffs, and several don't really show anything to support any claim.
 * Of course, I may appear bias, for being blocked at the request of LauraHale (me, LauraHale, and the admin were all guilty of edit warring). I'm not sure I should be here at all.  So feel free to remove me..  --Rob (talk) 22:37, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I think it's misleading for LauraHale to complain of "Attempts to get me in trouble by contacting my employer... ". It would be a serious problem if somebody contacted an employer *outside* of WikiMedia, making an unwanted connection between an online persona, and real life professional identity.  But, surely, there are some cases where it is ok to contact the foundation about one of it's employees conduct here on Wikipedia.  In this case, she wasn't actually an employee, and the matter should have stayed entirely inside Wikipedia.  But, Racepacket's action is not equivilent to contacting an outside employer.  It was LauraHale who brought up the word "plagiarism" at meta, even though Racepacket tried hard to avoid the word.    --Rob (talk) 05:32, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Rschen7754
My statement remains the same as last time:. It is true that the roads side of the dispute has been settled. However, I hope that ArbCom examines the pattern of behavior that has led to this dispute and the netball dispute (and possibly others). The netball dispute is ongoing and the filing user is clearly feeling harassed by Racepacket. The primary issue here is Racepacket's behavior, and I hope that this issue is resolved, be it by motion or ArbCom case.

As the roads portion of the dispute is resolved, I'm an indirect party here; I'm willing to comment and/or submit evidence on Racepacket's behavior and how egerious it has been towards the road editors, but the focus is much larger than this. --Rschen7754 21:44, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

This fails to address the allegations that have arisen regarding your conduct. Also, I find it interesting that in both of these proposals, you have failed to try and resolve the dispute in an honest fashion until the arbitrators have decided to support the case. --Rschen7754 02:22, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Reply to Racepacket

Statement by Courcelles
I'm uninvolved here by the letter of WP:INVOLVED- my only contact with this case has been in an administrative capacity. After the RSN thread linked in the opening filing, I left Racepacket a fairly-strong request to cease bothering LauraHale,. This was the morning of 22 April. Instead of disengaging from the area, Racepacket has continued to go after LauraHale, most of the diffs having been provided in the filing. At Sockpuppet investigations/Racepacket/Archive, CheckUser confirmed that the IP 66.173.140.100 was under the control of Racepacket. This morning, that IP filed a DR on Commons against an image uploaded by LauraHale that, admittedly, did need about 30 seconds of licence clean-up. With the preponderance of the evidence (most provided by LauraHale), I had already decided before I saw this filing to place an indefinite block against Racepacket for serial harassment of another user. I still think that block would be justified, and am still considering it. Courcelles 22:19, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Eraserhead1
Racepacket, you're a good editor who has contributed positively to the project, and to some extent you have a point that LauraHale hasn't behaved perfectly either. However, and its a very big however, you have to learn to drop the stick sometimes and just move on. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 22:33, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Statement by John Vandenberg
I offered some review points at the first Netball GAN. Since then the Netball articles has been turned into a stressful area to work in by Racepacket's scattergun disruptions. I didn't provide a statement in the recent request urging acceptance as it seemed that arbitrators had given Racepacket good direction, and I hoped it would be sufficient to avoid a case. The situation continues to deteriorate. this recent RSN thread is odd enough, but somehow he continues to assert that he is not specifically targeting LauraHale.

The allegations of close paraphrasing, made over a month ago, is one I had hoped would be resolved promptly as these allegations are phrased and prosecuted as if there is a systemic close paraphrasing problem in the Netball articles. These articles have only a few dedicated contributors, one being Laura, so they are right to worry that they are being, or will be, publicly accused of close paraphrasing. So far Racepacket has only informed me about one instance of close paraphrasing, which I traced back to an Melbourne IP edit from ~12 months ago, and the text has been since been rewritten. However he says there are more. So many more that we need to get software to automate the detection of them. If he does have a decent list of examples, they need to be resolved promptly so that future editing is not tainted with the bad revisions. If Racepacket is unable to provide a decent list of examples of close paraphrasing, then he has wasted an enormous amount of community time over the last month, and he should be banned from GAN and peer review indefinitely as it would show a willingness to spread FUD rather than back down when he lacks evidence to support his claim—not a good quality in someone performing reviews of other peoples work. John Vandenberg (chat) 22:40, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

@Racepacket, this is a request for arbitration, not a request for the parties to resolve their dispute in front of the arbitrators. Your offer is too little, too late. Had you disengaged weeks ago, or days ago, this would have been unnecessary. You still haven't provided the data that I have requested; it should be a very simple task because you should already have the evidence of close paraphrasing at hand; if you dont already have it, then you've been using concerns of close paraphrasing without foundation. It is because of this lack of responsiveness, and what appears to be a FUD and harassment campaign, that I believe arbitration is necessary in order that arbitrators can decide whether this rises to the level of 'harassment', and whether or not Racepacket should be sanctioned to prevent it happening again. I urge the arbitrators to accept this case rather than trying a second time to act as mediators. John Vandenberg (chat) 03:16, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Zero1328
I gave a statement at the previous case request, too:.

I'm not involved in the articles, but decided to investigate the issue after I grew concerned with LauraHale's level of stress and learnt about Racepacket's RFC. I haven't been active lately, and didn't keep track of what was happening after making my statement at the last RFAR.

I've mostly been trying to point out that Racepacket's behaviour has repeatedly been unacknowledged by anyone at all, even though it seems to be the underlying source of these problems. I pointed it out right at the beginning, commenting at Racepacket's RFC. My RFAR statement reiterated this, and also explained part of LauraHale's situation, which also wasn't acknowledged at the time.

I'll just be blunt with what I found. There's a lot of miscommunication with Racepacket. He hasn't acknowledged issues of behaviour when it's raised. He speaks from the perspective of improving the article or Wikipedia's rules, even in response to his behaviour issues. I have the impression that he's essentially behaving like an autistic person. - Zero1328 Talk? 02:30, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Hawkeye7
Wikipedia is community of volunteers. We came together to create an encyclopaedia. All I ever wanted to do was create content. I do not enjoy conflict with other editors. At first it seemed like racepacket was merely pushing his POV that being a women's sport, and not played much in North America, that netball could not be an important sport. Then he decided that there must be close paraphrasing, although he did not know where. It escalated when he attempted to contact her employer. People should not have to face real world consequences for their editing. Although given plenty of chances to back away, he continues to pursue the same editor. It reflects badly on us all if we stand idly by and allow an editor to be harassed.

Furthermore, this nearly brought the whole GAN process down. We cannot allow a situation where editors deliberately avoid the review process in order to dodge a particular editor.

Statement by Lankiveil
I am one of the editors who has asked Racepacket to disengage from interacting with LauraHale. I am dismayed that he has chosen not to do so, and persisted in pursuing LauraHale, an action that clearly makes her feel uncomfortable. The community, rightly, views harassment as a very serious issue, and I find it hard to view Racepacket's recent behaviour as anything except a textbook case of that. I encourage the ArbCom to either accept the case or deal with it quickly via motion to stop this situation getting any more poisonous or unpleasant. I also note that Racepacket has a lengthy block log that includes multiple short-term blocks for harassment.

I will also note that at least one administrator has stated that they were willing to block Racepacket for harassment, an action that I would already have undertaken were I not already involved. Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:23, 27 April 2011 (UTC).

(Extra Note: In response to Risker, LauraHale has already expressed a wish to keep away from Racepacket, and if the harassment and hounding on Racepacket's part stops, I have no doubt that Laura will not move to provoke the issue.) Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:25, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Racepacket
My main concerns since taking over as GA reviewer in Netball has been to get the articles into compliance with the GA criteria. Wikipedia's standards should be maintained, regardless of whatever editors are involved. I also want to minimize the level of wikidrama associated with good faith efforts to improve the encyclopedia. Accordingly, I propose that LauraHale and I disengage on each other's editing activities on the condition that a disinterested, experienced editor be appointed to examine carefully the following articles that have been passed as GA and clean them up so that they meet GA standards: Netball, Netball and the Olympic Movement, and Netball in the Cook Islands. I will also provide John whatever data he still requires. If we can agree to this dispute resolution settlement, we can save everyone a lot of time and effort. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 02:08, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Bill william compton
I was asked by LauralHale to reviewer her GA nomination of Netball. This surprized me because I had never reviewed an article before and I told her of my inexperience but agreed to do my best. I found a very biased article that was full of POV. Changes were made at the start of the review process, but as she noted in large part by contributors other than LauraHale. March 10 diff I think that LauraHale may have a misconception about the GA review process. I view it as a non-adversarial discussion where everyone cooperates until the GA criteria are met. She in turn expects the GA reviewer to list a few specific examples and if those examples are cured, then the GA reviewer should be obligated to pass the article even if it is far from meeting the GA criteria. To quote Laura, "Most of the GA reviews I've seen have been really specific on what the reviewer wants fixed." I felt that an unhealthy gang had formed lead by LauraHale, but also including most notably User:KnowIG and User:Hawkeye7 who seemed to try to bully me into passing the article. By March 13, things had grown a bit adversarial, diff because LauraHale could not see the "unbalanced" nature of the article. We finally agreed on getting a replacement reviewer and User:Racepacket volunteered and I passed the batton to him. Just at that time, KnowIG tried to conduct his own mini-critique of the article. Of course KnowIG was not eligible to be the GA reviewer because he was an active editor of the article. Racepacket and I tried to clarify this with an official notice of the transition. This prompted KnowIG to call me a "stupid Indian." which after an ANI complaint got him indefinately blocked. Throughout this episode, KnowIG, LauraHale and Hawkeye7 went out of their way to be supportive of each other's positions, regardless of the merits. They soon turned their bullying toward Racepacket and asked him to seek a second opinion as well. They claimed that the term "Olympic sport" means something different in American English than in British English. Accordingly, 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.

Because a number of people were actively editing Netball, I believe Racepacket was correct in canvassing the active editors to see if they wanted to continue the GA review after LauraHale said that she wanted to leave as nominator. After all, if LauraHale had the privilege of substituting a second reviewer, it seems logical to allow other editors to work toward a GA for the article in her absence. We did not know at the time the LauraHale was not intending to withdraw from the scene but rather to arrange for a quick renomination and a quick review by Hawkeye7, who was ineligible to be the GA reviewer because of his substantial involvment in the article prior to his review. In my opinion, the article had too much POV to meet the GA criteria at the time I started my review and at the time that Racepacket reviewed it, and at the time that Hawkeye7 reviewed it. I do not see how it was passed by Hawkeye7 without addressing the remaining POV problems. A day and half later, LauraHale nominated Netball for FAC and it was quickly shot down for some of these same problems.

I believe that Racepacket has behavied as a gentleman throughout this matter, and if LauraHale, Hawkeye7 and KnowIG had made an effort to either meet the GA criteria before the nomination or to work with me as the first reviewer, he would have never become involved in this dispute. Hawkeye7, as an WP:INVOLVED administrator should have never blocked Racepacket or User:Thivierr. I hope that everyone can work out a way forward without a formal arbitration. -- undefinedBill william compton  Talk   02:44, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Aircorn
I do not really consider myself involved in this dispute, despite editing with both Racepacket and LauraHale since this broke. I have no complaints personally about either editor and have found them easy enough to work with. However, it is obvious from the Netball GA nomination debacle that they have a personality clash and the best solution would be a mutual agreement to stay away from each others edits. AIR corn (talk) 07:19, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Ironholds
I'm not involved in this by WP:INVOLVED, and have no idea why I was called in whatsoever. If someone wants to poke me with specific queries, I'll answer them, but I have no interest and no involvement. Ironholds (talk) 17:12, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (7/0/3/0)

 * Recuse. Kirill [talk] [prof] 18:45, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Wait, didn't we just go through all this? I seem to remember in the last case request Racepacket agreed to a partial resolving of the issues in the RfC, but didn't agree to the netball side of things. Is it that contentious? SirFozzie (talk) 19:01, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * After reviewing the close of the RfC, my memory is good, in that Racepacket agreed to not undertake Roads Good Article reviews and that he would stay away from the Roads project, but refused to stay away from Netball, despite the prodding from the Arbitrators here. I also have concerns about Racepacket's behavior here, it looks like John had attempted to work with him on his talk page with his concerns, but Racepacket did not provide the requisite material, and instead continued working on-Wikipedia against editors. I'm not sure this requires a full case, it may be able to handle it by motions. However, my review indicates the concerns here are real and justified, so I'm going to vote to Accept, with no prejudice to handling it by motion should my fellow Arbitrators feel that would be a better way to resolve this. SirFozzie (talk) 19:10, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Wait. He what, Hawkeye? SirFozzie (talk) 04:06, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I vehemently disagree, Thivierr. There is NO reason to go outside of en-wp for an editing dispute, close paraphrasing or not. THe fact that it was a mistaken identity by Racepacket does nothing to "soften the blow" in my eyes. SirFozzie (talk) 05:38, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Recuse John Vandenberg (chat) 21:33, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Accept - unless some other action makes this case moot. Some serious allegations going both ways that really need to be resolved. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:23, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Recuse. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:32, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Accept per Casliber. Jclemens (talk) 01:02, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Considering accepting, but it must be clear that we will look at the behaviour of *all* parties in this matter. Should this be accepted, I believe that an injunction on both Racepacket and Laura Hale to not comment on the other party, anywhere on a page or mailing list controlled by the WMF, may be required. Risker (talk) 08:14, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Accept, noting that this will likely review the behaviour of ALL parties involved in the GA processes involving netball articles. Risker (talk) 03:40, 28 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Accept per Risker --Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:23, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Accept per Risker. Shell  babelfish 09:02, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Accept. PhilKnight (talk) 12:20, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Temporary injunction (none)

 * There was no temporary injunction for this case.

= Final decision = All numbering based on /Proposed decision, where vote counts and comments are also available.

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.


 * Passed 12 to 0 at 21:22, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

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.


 * Passed 12 to 0 at 21:22, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

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


 * Passed 12 to 0 at 21:22, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

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


 * Passed 11 to 1 at 21:22, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

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


 * Passed 12 to 0 at 21:22, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

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


 * Passed 8 to 1 (with 3 abstentions) at 21:22, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Good article assessment
7) Good article assessment is a process by which nominated articles are reviewed against community-established criteria to ensure that a minimal level of quality has been attained. Nominators and other interested editors are encouraged to ensure that the article meets criteria prior to nomination, respond to concerns identified by the reviewer, and are required to assume good faith on the part of the reviewer and other participants. Reviewers are expected to assess the article against the community-established criteria, including but not limited to neutral point of view, the quality of article prose and organization, and the appropriate use of reliable sources as references including the absence of close paraphrasing. Editors are discouraged from reviewing articles in which they have had editorial involvement. While the involvement of Wikiprojects in the good article assessment process is encouraged, there is no obligation for articles to adhere to Wikiproject criteria in order to achieve good article status.


 * Passed 11 to 0 (with 1 abstention) at 21:22, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Administrator involvement
8) In general, editors should not act as administrators in cases in which they have been involved. This is because involved administrators may have, or may be seen as having, a conflict of interest in disputes they have been a party to or have strong feelings about. Involvement is generally construed very broadly by the community, to include current or past conflicts with an editor (or editors), and disputes on topics, regardless of the nature, age, or outcome of the dispute. (Excerpted directly from Administrators.)


 * Passed 9 to 1 (with 1 abstention) at 21:22, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia and eventualism
9) While continuous improvement of articles is an important goal of the project, this improvement does not necessarily take place according to the importance of the article or the preferred timing of editors who are involved in the article's development. Factors such as ability and Wikipedia-specific editorial skills of the individual editors, community discussion about factors relating to an article, availability and interest of reviewers, and unplanned or unexpected events external to Wikipedia on the part of individual editors or in relation to the subject matter, can all have an effect on the likelihood that an article can progress through the various stages of development, improvement and assessment, irrespective of the personal goals of the editor(s) involved.


 * Passed 5 to 3 (with 3 abstentions) at 21:22, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

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


 * Passed 12 to 0 at 21:26, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Racepacket's conduct
2) Racepacket's conduct in regard to has been contrary to the harassment policy.


 * Passed 10 to 1 (with 1 abstention) at 21:26, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

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


 * Passed 10 to 1 (with 1 abstention) at 21:26, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

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


 * Passed 12 to 0 at 21:26, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Hawkeye7
6) blocked both  and  despite his history of editorial disputes with these two editors. As well, Hawkeye7 carried out a good article review of the Netball article despite his involvement as an editor in both the prior review and in the interim between reviews.


 * Passed 11 to 0 at 21:26, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Interactions between LauraHale and Racepacket
9) Interactions between LauraHale and Racepacket have been problematic. For example, Racepacket said the Netball article contained close paraphrasing, LauraHale misinterpreted this to mean that she was responsible, and asked for evidence. Initially, Racepacket didn't explain there was a misunderstanding, and that LauraHale was not responsible for the close paraphrasing, or indicate where the close paraphrasing was. LauraHale repeatedly indicated that she believed Racepacket had in effect accused her of plagiarism.


 * Passed 8 to 0 (with 3 abstentions) at 21:26, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Hawkeye7 has a Conflict of Interest with regards to LauraHale
10) has a previously undisclosed conflict of interest with regards to  and should not be taking administrative actions on LauraHale, or at the behest of LauraHale.


 * Passed 10 to 0 at 21:26, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

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

Racepacket banned
1) is banned from Wikipedia for a period of one year.


 * Passed 9 to 2 at 21:31, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Hawkeye7 admonished
4) Hawkeye7 is admonished for blocking editors with whom he has had recent editorial disputes.


 * Passed 7 to 3 at 21:31, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

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


 * Passed 11 to 0 at 21:31, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Hawkeye7 restriction
8) is directed not to take any further administrative actions with regards to, or at the behest of.


 * Passed 11 to 0 at 21:31, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

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


 * Passed 11 to 0 at 21:32, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Modified by motion
The Arbitration Committee has determined that, as User:Racepacket has on two occasions on 4 February 2012 breached his interaction ban, he is indefinitely site banned from the English Wikipedia. The user may request that the site ban be reconsidered once a minimum of twelve months have elapsed from the date of this motion passing. In the event that Racepacket violates either the site ban, or the interaction ban, the minimum period before an appeal may be submitted will be reset to twelve months from the date of the violation.


 * Passed 10 to 0, with 1 abstention at 20:15, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Log of blocks, bans, and restrictions
Log any block, restriction, ban or extension under any remedy in this decision here. Minimum information includes name of administrator, date and time, what was done and the basis for doing it.


 * blocked for 1 year (account creation blocked) per . AGK  [&bull; ] 21:46, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * blocked indefinitely (account creation blocked) per . Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 20:24, 11 February 2012 (UTC)