Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Racepacket/Proposed decision

Proposed motions
Arbitrators may place proposed motions affecting the case in this section for voting. Typical motions might be to close or dismiss a case without a full decision (a reason should normally be given), or to add an additional party (although this can also be done without a formal motion as long as the new party is on notice of the case). Suggestions by the parties or other non-arbitrators for motions or other requests should be placed on the /Workshop page for consideration and discussion. Motions have the same majority for passage as the final decision.


 * None.

Proposed temporary injunctions
A temporary injunction is a directive from the Arbitration Committee that parties to the case, or other editors notified of the injunction, do or refrain from doing something while the case is pending.

Four net "support" votes needed to pass (each "oppose" vote subtracts a "support") 24 hours from the first vote is normally the fastest an injunction will be imposed.


 * None.

=Proposed final decision=

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.


 * Support:
 * Thanks to everyone who took part in the workshop. I appreciate the feedback, and I've taken on-board at least some of the suggestions. PhilKnight (talk) 12:30, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 15:26, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * SirFozzie (talk) 22:19, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:09, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Jclemens (talk) 03:43, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Risker (talk) 06:58, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * &mdash; Coren (talk) 14:01, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
 * – iridescent  20:37, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
 * --Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:04, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Standard. Shell  babelfish 20:00, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Cool Hand Luke 03:13, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Standard,  Roger Davies  talk 04:07, 15 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

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.


 * Support:
 * PhilKnight (talk) 12:30, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 15:26, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * SirFozzie (talk) 22:19, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:09, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Jclemens (talk) 03:43, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Risker (talk) 06:58, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * &mdash; Coren (talk) 14:01, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
 * – iridescent  20:38, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
 * This is really the basis of how this site works. Shell  babelfish 20:00, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Cool Hand Luke 03:13, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * --Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:40, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Roger Davies talk 04:07, 15 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

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.


 * Support:
 * PhilKnight (talk) 12:30, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 15:26, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * SirFozzie (talk) 22:19, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:09, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Jclemens (talk) 03:43, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I believe this adequately covers the concerns. Risker (talk) 06:58, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * &mdash; Coren (talk) 14:01, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
 * – iridescent  20:38, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
 * It's important to be courteous to others concerns even when you disagree. Shell  babelfish 20:00, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Cool Hand Luke 03:13, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * As Shell says --Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:40, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Roger Davies talk 04:07, 15 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

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.


 * Support:
 * PhilKnight (talk) 12:30, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 16:03, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I do see the relevance. Racepacket did an end run around Wikipedia's norms and policies, going off en-WP in a retalitory way to harass another editor at a position Racepacket thought they held. SirFozzie (talk) 22:19, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:09, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Jclemens (talk) 03:43, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't see why the fact that an editor's employer would have been the Foundation makes a difference. Contacting an employer to fish for some sort of intervention because of an on-wiki dispute is very much inappropriate.  I can see the difficulty when one would be trying to inform the WMF of some problem because they are the WMF and not because they are the editor's employer, but I don't see that being the case here.  &mdash; Coren (talk) 14:01, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes as a general principle. – iridescent  20:40, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Had there been a concern over conflict between a (apparently non-existent) connection to the Foundation, it could have been handled privately and that would have been appropriate. The way this was done in public to win an argument was completely inappropriate. Shell   babelfish 20:00, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah. Agree with Coren here. Needs to be a wide net. Cool Hand Luke 03:13, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * It is a true statement even if the relevance is disputed by some. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:42, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Roger Davies talk 04:07, 15 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose:
 * Don't see the relevance. If there is no finding of outing, the principle is not needed here. Risker (talk) 15:38, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I will expand on this. As I have noted in the finding of fact below that I have added, contacting the WMF publicly with concerns about someone believed to be their employee is a common-place and widely accepted (if sub-optimal, in my opinion) method of communicating the concerns. Nobody actually said LauraHale was a WMF employee, but there have been plenty of hints that she has a close relationship with the WMF and/or her local chapter to the point that it would not be outrageous for someone to leap to the conclusion that she was actively employed in some form by one or the other. Risker (talk) 06:58, 25 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Abstain:

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.


 * Support:
 * Thanks to Roger for his advice regarding this principle. PhilKnight (talk) 12:30, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 15:26, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * SirFozzie (talk) 22:19, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:09, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Jclemens (talk) 03:43, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * This also include using off-wiki means to attempt to have an editor sanctioned, or to imply that an editor's actions are motivated by sexism or racism. Risker (talk) 06:58, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * &mdash; Coren (talk) 14:01, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Emphasis on may be subject to sanction. I wouldn't want this to become a set-in-stone principle; there are occasions when it's legitimate for information about a user's off-wiki activities to have an effect on how they're treated here. – iridescent  20:42, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Again with "may" being important. We're really concerned about stopping harm to the project here, not what someone can or can't do elsewhere. Shell   babelfish 20:00, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Cool Hand Luke 03:13, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:42, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Sure, off-wiki stuff is an aggravating factor.  Roger Davies  talk 04:07, 15 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

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.


 * Support:
 * PhilKnight (talk) 12:30, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 15:26, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * SirFozzie (talk) 22:19, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:09, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Jclemens (talk) 03:43, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Risker (talk) 06:58, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Our mission is to help improve the encyclopedia. While we don't grant licenses to break rules, this is and ought to be a consideration when we decide how severely to sanction a user. Cool Hand Luke 03:13, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, but only as mitigation (not exoneration) and only up to a point, and on that basis I can support it.  Roger Davies  talk 04:07, 15 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose:
 * No, I don't like this. It suggests that we might avoid such and such a sanction for X because it would affect his ability to do Y, and that is a dodgy precedent in mho. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:44, 14 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Abstain:
 * To a very limited extent, and I don't think that it is wise &mdash; or desirable &mdash; to enshrine this as a principle. I remain unconvinced that even stellar contributions in an area mitigate bad behavior elsewhere, or that giving anyone an expectation that it does is a good idea.  &mdash; Coren (talk) 14:01, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not really comfortable with this, but not uneasy enough to block it. Certainly common sense says that people with an exemplary record should be given the benefit of the doubt more than a new user who immediately starts causing problems, but I don't like officially recognizing an "in crowd" of power users. – iridescent  20:45, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm of two minds on this - while this does specifically say that prior contributions aren't an excuse, that bit seems to be ignored far too often. Shell  babelfish 20:00, 12 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.


 * Support:
 * As proposer. Since much of the activity that led to acceptance of this case arose from the good article assessment process, it is important to have a principle related to this. Risker (talk) 06:58, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Important as problems have arisen in the venue. Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:17, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * PhilKnight (talk) 15:13, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Jclemens (talk) 00:43, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 14:41, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Dispute over how the process works is at the core of the behavioral issue. &mdash; Coren (talk) 20:05, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, with particular emphasis on "no obligation to adhere to individual WikiProject standards". The principle that projects and cliques can't cut-and-run and set up their own policies independent of Wikipedia's own policies needs to be explicitly stated. – iridescent  20:47, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
 * As Coren says, inconsistency and disagreement over this process is a core behavioral issue in this case. Shell  babelfish 20:00, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Cool Hand Luke 03:13, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:45, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Roger Davies talk 04:07, 15 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:
 * Not germaine to this case. SirFozzie (talk) 07:24, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * SirFozzie, we have two three findings of fact specific to good article assessment. I fail to see how a principle involving good article assessment is not germane.  Risker (talk) 07:27, 25 May 2011 (UTC) correction made Risker (talk) 08:27, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I disagree. If you're pointing to what I think you're pointing to, we have two findings on user conduct in the area, not in GAA itself. SirFozzie (talk) 07:35, 25 May 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.)


 * Support:
 * As proposer. Risker (talk) 06:58, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes. Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:15, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * PhilKnight (talk) 15:13, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Hmm. That wording looks remarkably familiar. Jclemens (talk) 00:44, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 14:41, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Shell  babelfish 20:00, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Cool Hand Luke 03:13, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Is this not standard wording? --Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:46, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Boilerplate, no?  Roger Davies  talk 04:07, 15 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose:
 * I could support this without the habitual provision covering previous administrative action; and it's not clear that this would be needed for this case anyways. &mdash; Coren (talk) 14:01, 7 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Abstain:
 * Support principle, but not germaine to the basic issue behind this case. SirFozzie (talk) 07:24, 25 May 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.


 * Support:
 * As proposer. Risker (talk) 06:58, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Somewhat. I can see where Risker is coming from with this one. Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:18, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Contra PhilKnight, while goals are reasonable and appropriate--and I wish editors would set and hit more of them--the presence of goals does not create any obligation on anyone else to help them achieve that goal. Jclemens (talk) 00:47, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Goals are excellent; taking shortcuts or causing tension with other editors to reach a goal isn't. Shell  babelfish 20:00, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Support the principle in principle,  Roger Davies  talk 04:07, 15 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose:
 * A reasonable enough viewpoint, however I don't consider this to be a principle. In some circumstances, I think setting goals to improve articles in a specific time frame can be worthwhile. For example, although WP:1FA is almost inactive, I still support the underlying concept. PhilKnight (talk) 14:35, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose this one; I can think of plenty of occasions where efforts are specifically focused on a particular deadline (the annual rush to get material up to scratch for the April Fools main page springs to mind). I don't think it's arbcom's place to tell people where they should or shouldn't focus their efforts. – iridescent  20:51, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Put me down as one who disagrees. I see what you are getting at, but I don't think it rises to the level of a principle.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:50, 14 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Abstain:
 * Support principle, but not germaine to the basic issue behind this case. SirFozzie (talk) 07:24, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * LauraHale's press to have the Netball article on the main page in July is a factor in the press to get it through good article assessment quickly; you must remember that she proposed it as a featured article candidate the day after it passed GA. Risker (talk) 07:29, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Still not germaine to the basic issue behind this case, as to the conduct of Racepacket on and off-En-WP. SirFozzie (talk) 07:36, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Hmm. We generally take cases to look at the behaviour of all editors involved in them. I have certainly not narrowed my review to just one. Risker (talk) 08:29, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think this is sufficiently relevant to this case to deserve a principle. &mdash; Coren (talk) 14:01, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I tend to agree with this, but we're getting in the clouds in this principle. As Coren says, not sufficiently relevant. Cool Hand Luke 03:13, 13 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.


 * Support:
 * PhilKnight (talk) 12:30, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * SirFozzie (talk) 22:20, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:31, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 20:51, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Jclemens (talk) 01:06, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * &mdash; Coren (talk) 14:14, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
 * – iridescent  20:51, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Generally speaking, I find that the length of a block log is not a particularly useful metric in longterm contributors; however, I agree that there are many quite legitimate blocks in Racepacket's logs.Risker (talk) 16:46, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * This shows a pattern of trouble working with others on the project and respecting policies. Shell  babelfish 20:17, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Cool Hand Luke 03:14, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * One or two have been dodgy, but the overall trend is there. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:51, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Roger Davies talk 07:35, 15 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

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


 * Support:
 * PhilKnight (talk) 12:30, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * SirFozzie (talk) 22:20, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:57, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 20:51, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Second choice to 2a. &mdash; Coren (talk) 14:14, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
 * – iridescent  20:52, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
 * This conduct was over the line in several ways. Shell  babelfish 20:17, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Second choice. Cool Hand Luke 03:15, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * --Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:53, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Roger Davies talk 07:35, 15 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose:
 * Prefer 2.1) to ensure clarity in exactly what behaviours were inappropriate, and why. Risker (talk) 07:00, 25 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Abstain:
 * Prefer 2.1 Jclemens (talk) 01:06, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Racepacket's conduct (alt)
2.1) continued to pursue issues related to both  and the topic area of Netball despite requests from several editors including administrators to refrain from doing so, leading to a widely held perception that Racepacket was harassing her.


 * Support:
 * Proposed as an alternate to 2; more descriptive of the actions that lead to this finding. I believe it is of greater benefit to all of the participants in this matter that the reasons for the perception of harassment was so widespread. Risker (talk) 06:44, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Jclemens (talk) 01:06, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * &mdash; Coren (talk) 14:14, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
 * First choice. Harassment is a Wikipedia term of art, and I don't think we need to directly apply the label to resolve the dispute. Cool Hand Luke 03:16, 13 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose:
 * It's not a widely held perception. He did. SirFozzie (talk) 07:14, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I think this sets up an artificial dichotomy between appearance and reality. Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:21, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Agree with SirFozzie and Casliber. PhilKnight (talk) 14:44, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * PhilKnight, perhaps we could merge the two? I can understand Casliber's point about the use of the word "perception", but I believe it would be more valuable to include specifics in the finding (what he did despite the requests of others). The harassment policy is one of our more inclusive ones, so pointing to the actual violations is more likely to be useful. Risker (talk) 15:22, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Sure, in which case, I suggest you propose another alternative. I think you could be correct that providing some more detail could be useful. PhilKnight (talk) 15:29, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Don't like that "perception". I don't think there's any dispute that his actions constituted harassment, regardless of potential provocation, justification and intention. – iridescent  20:53, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Description here is good, but frankly this behavior, especially the public attempt to contact an employer was clearly way too far. Shell  babelfish 20:17, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Like everyone else has said Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:53, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Roger Davies talk 07:35, 15 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Abstain:

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.


 * Support:
 * PhilKnight (talk) 12:30, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * SirFozzie (talk) 22:20, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:44, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * While the roads wikiproject may have issues of its own, only Racepacket's involvement is really within the scope of this case. Other folks involved in the GA review of roads articles should be notified of the concerns raised here. Jclemens (talk) 01:05, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I can understand Risker's objection, but I don't think that the fact that other editors might have been culpable or that the topic area was particularly problematic to exclude the fact that Racepacket's participation had issues. &mdash; Coren (talk) 14:14, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Agree with J.C. here. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 16:47, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Clearly. That other editors are also a problem doesn't mitigate Racepacket's behavior in this area. Shell   babelfish 20:17, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Cool Hand Luke 03:24, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Do we not regularly make the point that "bob did it too" is not a defence. Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:54, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Roger Davies talk 07:35, 15 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose:
 * Moving to Oppose. The behaviour of a significant number of editors with relation to road-related GARs has been problematic, and many of the issues raised in the RFC/U were inflated, inaccurate or rebutted. This topic area has already been the subject of two requests for arbitration, and I believe it is far too complex to be singling out Racepacket individually for the problems in this area. It should be noted that Racepacket himself has brought articles in this topic area to Good Article status, and the majority of his GARs in this area have not been problematic. Risker (talk) 07:04, 25 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Abstain:
 * Needs diffs to illustrate why the problem was Racepacket rather than the person submitting the article(s) for assessment. Risker (talk) 15:36, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Refer to Requests for comment/Racepacket 2 and Arbitration/Requests/Case/Racepacket/Evidence. PhilKnight (talk) 15:52, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * That doesn't work for me, it's a shopping list, many of which were addressed in the RFC/U and several others of which were disputed by other parties at the RFC/U. For example, do you believe that the series of edits identified as attacks against editors are really attacks?  Risker (talk) 16:13, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Moving to oppose. Risker (talk) 07:05, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Abstaining in all sections relating to the road project. – iridescent  20:54, 10 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.


 * Support:
 * PhilKnight (talk) 12:30, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * SirFozzie (talk) 22:20, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:26, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Jclemens (talk) 01:03, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * &mdash; Coren (talk) 14:14, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 16:47, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Racepacket's conduct has been problematic, regardless of whether or not anyone else's was also a problem. – iridescent  20:55, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
 * While I continue to be concerned about the fact that problematic behaviour was multilateral (and indeed there were problems before Racepacket had even initiated his reviews), Iridescent is correct that Racepacket's conduct has been problematic. Risker (talk) 16:50, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Shell  babelfish 20:17, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Cool Hand Luke 03:25, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:55, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Roger Davies talk 07:35, 15 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:
 * Needs diffs to show why the problematic behaviour was Racepacket's rather than the person submitting the article(s) for assessment. Risker (talk) 15:36, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Refer to Arbitration/Requests/Case/Racepacket/Evidence. PhilKnight (talk) 15:55, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Again, this is a shopping list. There are good reasons to question, for example, whether or not Flickr is a reliable source or how the project addresses the Olympics issue that transcend the netball articles; these are project-wide issues (as are short footnotes) which are not specific to LauraHale or netball articles. Risker (talk) 16:25, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I've re-reviewed the evidence now, as well as my initial reasons for accepting this case, and come to the conclusion that the "problematic interactions" were multilateral. I would support this finding of fact without the last sentence, and with a parallel finding for LauraHale. Risker (talk) 07:13, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I've re-reviewed again, and take note of Iridescent's comments. Will move to support. Risker (talk) 16:50, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Racepacket's communication
5) failed to take into consideration the extent that his concerns about the possibility of close paraphrasing with respect to the Netball and related articles was being widely misinterpreted by both  and other members of the community, and did not adjust his method of communication sufficiently to make it immediately clear that his concern was with the article in general rather than with LauraHale's contributions in particular. This has led to potential harm to LauraHale's reputation as an editor and an academic, as well as Racepacket's reputation as a reviewer of articles.


 * Support:
 * As proposer. I believe that Racepacket's failure to be able to clearly get across his message that his concern was the article in general, rather than LauraHale's edits, was the crux of the problem here. The absence in any venue that I could find of a statement that read "LauraHale, I do not think you were close paraphrasing" only perpetuated the perception that Racepacket believed LauraHale had in fact used sources improperly. Risker (talk) 07:09, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Jclemens (talk) 01:02, 28 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose:
 * He wasn't going to the WMF wiki because he had concerns about in general. It was targeted at LauraHale. SirFozzie (talk) 07:15, 25 May 2011 (UTC)\
 * He didn't go to the WMF wiki because of his concerns about close paraphrasing, he went there because she claimed her supervisor said her editing was okay. Risker (talk) 07:30, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * So that would pretty much sink the "Not going after LauraHale" part of your other findings, wouldn't it? SirFozzie (talk) 07:33, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, traditionally speaking, WMF "supervisors" don't make content decisions and don't advise the fellows on how to put forward their content positions, particularly in disputes. That appeal to authority on LauraHale's part may have seemed irrelevant, except for Hawkeye7's post of two days before. To this day, I am unclear as to who Hawkeye7 was referring to when he said that LauraHale was commissioned to write about "the Wikipedia" and decided to write a featured article as part of the exercise, but given that the sentence before he says that, he says that LauraHale has done a lot of work with the WMF, I can understand where Racepacket got the idea that the WMF had commissioned her, and that her "supervisor" was someone at the WMF. Risker (talk) 08:40, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * It's really not clear to me that Racepacket's concerns were general rather that specifically directed at LauraHale; and if they were, why were they expressed to the Foundation which Racepacket (erroneously) believed employed her. &mdash; Coren (talk) 14:14, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
 * No, this is a stretch - to me it reads like casting aspersions on an editor, and very specifically so. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:11, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
 * While I agree that Racepacket seems to have had broader concerns, he specifically targeted Laura Hale. Perhaps this was only because she responded to him, but it wasn't a productive way to resolve his concerns about the article in general. Shell  babelfish 20:17, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Sounds too much like apologetics.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:38, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Roger Davies talk 07:35, 15 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Abstain:
 * I essentially agree with this finding, however in the context of supporting a finding that says Racepacket's conduct was contrary to the harassment policy, this probably isn't necessary. PhilKnight (talk) 14:47, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Since the "harassment" motion is mathematically certain to pass, this one is moot. – iridescent  20:57, 10 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.


 * Support:
 * Blocking a user with whom one has had recent editorial disputes has been a longstanding indication of administrator involvement, and is not acceptable; in fact, the administrator who reviewed the block of Racepacket lifted it specifically because of this issue (and subsequently applied a different sanction). Of more concern, though, is the GAR of the Netball article, which brings the entire sphere of good article assessment into question, and has a more significant impact to adversely affect the project as a whole.  Risker (talk) 07:17, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Although his contrition markedly mitigates this. Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:23, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Per Casliber. PhilKnight (talk) 15:11, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Jclemens (talk) 01:02, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * &mdash; Coren (talk) 14:14, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 16:47, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * SirFozzie (talk) 02:33, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
 * – iridescent  20:57, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
 * This does seem to be a one-off mistake rather than a pattern, but it was a bad call. Shell  babelfish 20:17, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * --Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:41, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Roger Davies talk 07:35, 15 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose:
 * #Not germaine to this case. SirFozzie (talk) 07:22, 25 May 2011 (UTC) Striking vote, and moving to support after further evidence that came in. SirFozzie (talk) 02:33, 10 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Abstain:

LauraHale
7) has also continued to pursue issues related to, including both off-wiki attempts to have Racepacket sanctioned (rebuffed by administrators) and continuation of the meme that Racepacket had accused her personally of close paraphrasing, despite repeated assertions by Racepacket that his concern was focused on the article in general rather than any particular editor. This behaviour could be perceived as harassment.


 * Support:
 * I have reviewed several times over all of the statements by Racepacket and LauraHale on the topic of close paraphrasing. Not once has Racepacket identified LauraHale as being personally responsible for the examples of close paraphrasing that he identified in the Netball article; despite repeated requests, nobody has been able to pull up an example of where he did so. SirFozzie, can you pull up a specific quote?  Risker (talk) 07:20, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Jclemens (talk) 01:01, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Weakly support (I hate the word "meme" in this context, though) – iridescent  20:58, 10 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose:
 * A meme? No. The truth? Yes. SirFozzie (talk) 07:16, 25 May 2011 (UTC) As to your response, the whole issue was targeted at Laura. Did he go to the WMF to complain that the article on Netball had "close paraphraising"? No. It was targeted at Laura. To think otherwise strains credulity to an unacceptable level. SirFozzie (talk) 07:32, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Seems to me he went to the WMF to figure out why someone he thought was commissioned by the WMF to write about Wikipedia was getting advice from her "supervisor" on content disputes. See further explanation below above. Risker (talk) 08:53, 25 May 2011 (UTC) corrected Risker (talk) 14:39, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I could accept a finding that indicates there has been problematic communications between Racepacket and LauraHale, however this goes too far. PhilKnight (talk) 14:50, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * PhilKnight, the first mention of close paraphrasing is here, where Racepacket identifies a specific matter, and suggests alternatives. The next is a post by LauraHale here, where she introduces the term "plagiarism". I have not found a single edit after that point where Racepacket suggests that LauraHale plagiarized or edited in any close paraphrasing, whereas I have found plenty of edits where LauraHale and others have stated categorically that Racepacket has accused her of such. Now, it's possible that I've missed something, but nobody else seems to have come up with any edit of Racepacket that makes that allegation either. Please correct me if I have missed something.  Risker (talk) 15:14, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I've said much the same thing on the workshop page. However, in my humble opinion, the last sentence still goes too far. PhilKnight (talk) 15:22, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * LauraHale seems to have managed to persuade several editors, administrators and at least one (recused) arbitrator that Racepacket alleged she plagiarized. She has repeated this in multiple venues both on and off this project. I've characterized this as "could be perceived as harassment", but perhaps it is closer to a personal attack that has been repeated to the point that it has been taken as true. Risker (talk) 15:34, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I think a personal attack is when one editors calls another something like an 'ass-hat', while this is more of a genuine misunderstanding. PhilKnight (talk) 15:50, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 16:47, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * While Laura could have been more collaborative early on, the conduct of racepacket would have required an uncommon degree of patience to put up with. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:13, 10 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Abstain:
 * I think that the specific allegation that "plagiarism" has been thrown around is in error. Nevertheless, LauraHale was clearly feeling harassed and pursued over the article, and it's clear that Racepacket's objection to the articles were very specifically directed at her contributions (even if the issue wasn't plagiarism).  &mdash; Coren (talk) 14:14, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I think I would have supported something like this because Laura Hale did go a bit far, though I think she legitimately felt harassed, but this goes too far towards excusing RacePacket's behavior which was also quite poor. Shell  babelfish 20:17, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Shell says it for me. Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:42, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Per Shell,  Roger Davies  talk 07:35, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

The Wikimedia Foundation as an employer
8) The Wikimedia Foundation (and its affiliated chapters) is the employer of between 60 and 100 individuals (full-time, part-time, and contract), many of whom have been drawn from the various editing communities of associated projects; many other community members have been or continue to be employed on a contract basis from time to time. The relationship of individual employees, particularly contract employees or those employed or contracted by affiliated chapters, may not always be immediately apparent to the general community, although the WMF has taken steps to increase the clarity of these relationships. Concerns and criticisms of the actions or statements of individual employees of the WMF are regularly discussed in public forums such as WMF-hosted mailing lists, various pages at Metawiki, certain pages in project space of various projects, and individual user talk pages on various projects. There is longstanding community acceptance of such discussions, and it is acceptable (if perhaps sub-optimal) for a user to express concerns about a WMF employee in such forums.


 * Support:
 * This is a somewhat sensitive topic. The open culture of the WMF projects is such that public discussion of all concerns is encouraged; however, given the size and the verbosity of the WMF community, any criticism (justified or not) can be exaggerated.  Over the past year, I am aware of at least four cases where it was unclear whether an individual was or was not a WMF employee (and if so, in what capacity), and whether or not they were speaking in their personal or employee capacity.  It is even less clear when individuals are employed/contracted by, or carrying out specifically designated Chapter-related functions, as there is even less need for disclosure of such roles.  Risker (talk) 07:25, 25 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose:
 * Oppose. In my mind You have problems with En-WP editing, you resolve it on En-WP. This did not need to happen, and the fact that Racepacket misunderstood LauraHale's lack of employment with WMF does not excuse it. If she HAD been a WMF employee, I would still find the action to be harassment. SirFozzie (talk) 07:22, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Per SirFozzie. PhilKnight (talk) 14:51, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Contacting or exposing an employer because of an editing dispute is completely unacceptable regardless of who the employer is or is thought to be. &mdash; Coren (talk) 14:14, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 16:47, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * per SirFozzie essentially, just not on. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:33, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Per SirFozzie. It's OK to contact the WMF to discuss someone's actions as a WMF employee, but if the problem is on a particular wiki it should be resolved there. – iridescent  21:00, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Agree with the other opposes; if it's a problem with their work for the Foundation, contact the Foundation (or talk about it) but en-wp problems aren't something the Foundation (or any other employer) can fix. Shell  babelfish 20:17, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Not appropriate as a finding of fact. Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:44, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Per SirFozzie,  Roger Davies  talk 07:35, 15 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Abstain:
 * I think that this needs some more thought and deliberation. While I think Racepacket's actions in this instance were indefensible, I'm not sure this particular case is the right place to set future expectations regarding such matters.  I'd rather the community held an RfC on it. Jclemens (talk) 01:00, 28 May 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.


 * Support:
 * Covers much the same ground as Finding 7, without accusing LauraHale of harassment. PhilKnight (talk) 19:28, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok, I can go with this. SirFozzie (talk) 22:00, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * This is almost certainly understating the problems, but should be entirely uncontroversial. Jclemens (talk) 04:13, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
 * This works, even if it is a bit oversimplified. &mdash; Coren (talk) 14:14, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:30, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Simplified, but correct. – iridescent  21:01, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
 * This covers the mutual issues much better than the others, but like David Fuchs and Risker, it does seem to leave bits out. Shell  babelfish 20:17, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Per Shell,  Roger Davies  talk 07:35, 15 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:
 * Feel the summary is a bit too simple and glosses over issues on Laura's side. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 16:47, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Per David Fuchs, I think this is a bit too over-simplified; however, as it is essentially correct, I do not oppose. Risker (talk) 17:08, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * too simplistic Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:45, 14 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.


 * Support:
 * Per information supplied privately to the Committee. SirFozzie (talk) 02:41, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:29, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
 * – iridescent  21:02, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 14:35, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
 * PhilKnight (talk) 14:46, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Risker (talk) 17:10, 12 June 2011 (UTC) Note: copyedited without change of meaning to remove the "their". Risker (talk) 17:11, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Jclemens (talk) 19:12, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Shell  babelfish 20:17, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:45, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Roger Davies talk 12:40, 15 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

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

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


 * Support:
 * PhilKnight (talk) 12:30, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * SirFozzie (talk) 22:21, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Reluctantly support, I would have preferred a topic ban but the issues are a bit more widespread. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 16:45, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Jclemens (talk) 00:58, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * &mdash; Coren (talk) 14:25, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
 * second choice. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:15, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Shell  babelfish 20:25, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * --Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:52, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Roger Davies talk 12:54, 15 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose:
 * Not prepared to support this. Would be happy to consider a "final warning" that any further substantiated episodes of harassment-like behaviour will result in a ban, and would support an enforcement provision in relation to it. Risker (talk) 07:32, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I've reviewed this and will support a 3-month ban, but believe a full year is excessive. Risker (talk) 17:13, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I think too harsh – iridescent  21:03, 10 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Abstain:
 * Not sure here. Could be swayed either way to get consensus. Prefer 3 month ban below. Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:56, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Racepacket banned (3 months)
1.1) is banned from Wikipedia for a period of three months.


 * Support:
 * Takes into account zeal in other areas of wikipedia. Maybe a break and a rethink is enough for a change of attitude in editing. Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:49, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * IFF remedy 1 does not pass. Jclemens (talk) 00:59, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Strongly prefer 3 months to a full year, with the proviso that any problems after returning lead to the block being reimposed. – iridescent  21:04, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Per Iridescent. Risker (talk) 17:13, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Prefer 1. Shell  babelfish 20:25, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * second choice--Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:52, 14 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose:
 * Doesn't take into account history. SirFozzie (talk) 07:52, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * This is not a first issues, nor does good work elsewhere excuse trying to get an editor in trouble with their employer over an editing dispute. &mdash; Coren (talk) 14:25, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Roger Davies talk 12:54, 15 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Abstain:
 * Given the lengthy block log and the serious misconduct, I consider a year to be more appropriate. PhilKnight (talk) 14:53, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Racepacket topic banned (roads)
2) Racepacket is topic banned from articles about roads, their associated talk pages, and any process discussion about same, widely construed, for one year. This ban is consecutive to any editing ban.


 * Support:
 * PhilKnight (talk) 12:30, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * SirFozzie (talk) 22:21, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Jclemens (talk) 00:57, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * If is banned for less than a year, I think this is prudent. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:11, 28 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose:
 * I don't really see the need for a topic ban after a sitewide ban. Either the user has learned or they haven't, in which case an indefinite ban makes more sense. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 20:53, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
 * per David, the behaviour is not subject-specific Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:28, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Generally speaking, I do not support consecutive editing bans. My read of the RFC/U and various other topic-related disputes is that the issues with the US Roads project is much more complex than can be addressed by banning someone who has fallen afoul of the Wikiproject, but who has successfully written quality work in this topic area. Risker (talk) 07:38, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The problem is behavioral, not with a particular topic. I see no indication that things would be significantly different in other areas.  &mdash; Coren (talk) 14:25, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The problem isn't going to be solved by limiting topics; this is a widespread issue of continuing problems working on the project. Shell  babelfish 20:25, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * the issue isn't with the topic area - he got into fights editing articles on Miami and I'm sure he could get into fights editing articles on teapots. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:52, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Per Shell and Elen, so this one is a bit of a stretch.  Roger Davies  talk 12:54, 15 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Abstain:
 * Generally speaking, I do not support consecutive editing bans. Either a year is enough or the editor needs to be indefinitely banned. Risker (talk) 15:43, 21 May 2011 (UTC) Moved to oppose. Risker (talk) 07:38, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Abstain from anything relating to the roads project. – iridescent  21:05, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Racepacket topic banned (netball, 12 months)
3) Racepacket is topic banned from articles about netball, their associated talk pages, and any process discussion about same, widely construed, for one year. This ban is consecutive to any editing ban.


 * Support:
 * PhilKnight (talk) 12:30, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * SirFozzie (talk) 22:21, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Double coverage on sanctions isn't necessarily a bad thing. Jclemens (talk) 00:57, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * In case not banned (or unbanned) before 12 months. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:14, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Grudgingly. I don't like topic bans, but otherwise this will just re-escalate. – iridescent  21:05, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Now this one isn't a stretch, and a site-ban isn't a cure all for all future conduct isues.  Roger Davies  talk 12:54, 15 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose:
 * I don't really see the need for a topic ban after a sitewide ban. Either the user has learned or they haven't, in which case an indefinite ban makes more sense. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 20:53, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
 * per David, the behaviour is not subject-specific Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:28, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Per my opposition to 2. &mdash; Coren (talk) 14:25, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Per my oppose on 2. Shell  babelfish 20:25, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * as above --Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:52, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Generally speaking, I do not support consecutive editing bans. Either a year is enough or the editor needs to be indefinitely banned. Risker (talk) 02:47, 15 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Abstain:
 * Generally speaking, I do not support consecutive editing bans. Either a year is enough or the editor needs to be indefinitely banned. Risker (talk) 15:43, 21 May 2011 (UTC) Move to oppose. Risker (talk) 02:47, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Racepacket topic banned (netball, 6 months)
3.1) Racepacket is banned from editing or commenting upon articles related to the topic of netball, their associated talk pages, and any process discussion about same, widely construed, for six months.


 * Support:
 * I think this is necessary; Racepacket has become too involved in this area and needs to take time out. Risker (talk) 08:13, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Per Risker, and also if it turns out Racepacket ends up with a shorter (or no) ban overall. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:17, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Support per above, but prefer a full year. – iridescent  21:06, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Jclemens (talk) 19:13, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * No problems with this.  Roger Davies  talk 12:54, 15 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose:
 * Per my opposition to 2. &mdash; Coren (talk) 14:25, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Per above. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 16:59, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Per my oppose on 2. Shell  babelfish 20:25, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * As above --Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:52, 14 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Abstain:
 * If consecutive with siteban, support, if not, oppose as pointless. SirFozzie (talk) 07:19, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * If Remedy 1 passes, this won't achieve anything. I guess if remedy 1 doesn't pass this would be better than nothing, in which case I'll review my vote. PhilKnight (talk) 19:56, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

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


 * Support:
 * Once might be poor judgment, but after having the Racepacket block overturned because of his involvement, he really should have known better than to make the Thieverr block. Risker (talk) 08:16, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * First choice. Jclemens (talk) 00:56, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * First Choice. SirFozzie (talk) 02:35, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Support although I loathe the word "admonish". – iridescent  21:07, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Second choice. Shell  babelfish 20:25, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * First choice --Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:52, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * First choice,  Roger Davies  talk 12:54, 15 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose:
 * Does not rise to the level of requiring a finding. Wrist slap, and don't let it happen again SirFozzie (talk) 07:19, 25 May 2011 (UTC) Striking vote, and moving to support after further evidence was provided. SirFozzie (talk) 02:35, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Prefer 4.1. PhilKnight (talk) 14:55, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The trout at 4.1 should suffice. &mdash; Coren (talk) 14:25, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
 * His contrition softens the remedy Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:32, 17 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Abstain:
 * Not sure here. His contrition softens the remedy I think. Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:54, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Hawkeye7 reminded (alt)
4.1) Hawkeye7 is reminded not to block editors with whom he has had recent editorial disputes (the remedy being downgraded due to his acknowledgement of error on his part).


 * Support:
 * I think this just needs to be documented as an example/precedent. I commend Hawkeye7 for his prompt acknowledgement that it was in error. Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:54, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Second choice. Risker (talk) 14:42, 25 May 2011 (UTC) move to procedural oppose
 * PhilKnight (talk) 14:55, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Second choice. Jclemens (talk) 00:56, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * &mdash; Coren (talk) 14:25, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 16:59, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Second choice – iridescent  21:08, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
 * First choice. Shell  babelfish 20:25, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * second choice --Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:52, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Second Choice. SirFozzie (talk) 22:00, 30 May 2011 (UTC) Striking vote proceedurally to allow case to complete quicker. SirFozzie (talk) 19:29, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose:
 * Procedural,  Roger Davies  talk 12:54, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Proceedural Oppose SirFozzie (talk) 19:29, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Procedural oppose. Risker (talk) 03:18, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
 * procedural oppose to clarify matters Elen of the Roads (talk) 09:54, 18 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Abstain:

Hawkeye7 cautioned (another alternative)
4.2) Hawkeye7 is cautioned not to block editors with whom he has had recent editorial disputes.


 * Support
 * Equal first choice. Proposed as a compromise between 4 and 4.1. PhilKnight (talk) 15:28, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Whichever... Jclemens (talk) 03:22, 18 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose:
 * Proceedural, looks like 4 has a bit of a gap over 4.1 (First Choices over seconds).. this case needs to close soon. SirFozzie (talk) 18:13, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Procedural, per SF.  Roger Davies  talk 04:55, 18 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Abstain:

Hawkeye7 banned from reviewing Good article nominees
5) Hawkeye7 is banned from reviewing good article nominees for six months. He is indefinitely banned from reviewing good article nominees from the topic area relating to netball; this sanction may be reviewed at Hawkeye7's request after 3 months, and every 3 months subsequent to that.


 * Support:
 * It is critically important for the community's perception of neutrality and objectivity of the good article assessment project that editors who have made substantial edits (as in edits of substance) to an article not perform the review of that article. Risker (talk) 08:19, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The GA process could use a break, as could the editor, I suspect. Jclemens (talk) 00:53, 28 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose:
 * Does not rise to the level of requiring a finding. Wrist slap, and don't let it happen again. SirFozzie (talk) 07:19, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm somewhat surprised at this - I didn't think anyone would propose a longer ban for Hawkeye than for Racepacket. Anyway, oppose per SirFozzie. PhilKnight (talk) 14:57, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 16:59, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * – iridescent  21:09, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I think the reminder will be enough here; this doesn't seem to be a long term or repeated problem. Shell  babelfish 20:25, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Hit him with a trout and be done with it. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:52, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Roger Davies talk 12:54, 15 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Abstain:
 * Placeholder. Need to think about this one in more depth. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:59, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The error has been acknowledge, I see no reason to go beyond the reminder above. &mdash; Coren (talk) 14:25, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

LauraHale reminded
6) LauraHale is reminded to assume good faith about fellow editors, particularly with respect to the use of variants of English usage and their personal opinions about subjects such as race and gender. LauraHale is also recommended to take into consideration the widely held community philosophy that there is no deadline when working within the article assessment process, and to remain open-minded that concerns that may be expressed about content or editorial processes she has used may be reflective of concerns that extend into other areas of the project, or even the project as a whole.


 * Support:
 * Most of issues all arose during the first article review and before the requests for samples of off-line reference sources for routine close paraphrasing check, which touched off this firestorm. Risker (talk) 09:07, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't see a finding of dual fault as inappropriate, given the facts of this case. The remedies and their relative support amongst the committee clearly spell out where the relative blame is assessed. Jclemens (talk) 00:49, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Not a case of "both as bad as each other", but it ought to be recognized that neither party's conduct is great. – iridescent  21:10, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
 * yes. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:17, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Even when someone else is behaving badly, it's important not to go there as well. Shell  babelfish 20:25, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * yes, there should be something. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:52, 14 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose:
 * File this under Not Proven. AGF is not a suicide pact, and when someone has attempted to get someone sanctioned at their (perceived) real life position, AGF can go right out the window. SirFozzie (talk) 07:19, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Please go back and read the first GA review, in which LauraHale alleged that Racepacket was misunderstanding "New Zealand" English and that certain phrases meant something different in "British" English; and refer also to the WMF Gendergap mailing list posts with respect to this topic area. The example of "other areas of the project" was in relation to a discussion about citations, in which he refers to "short footnotes", a style used by a large number of experienced editors including LauraHale, who is not mentioned in any way in his post. Risker (talk) 09:07, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * In the context of Racepacket's conduct, I don't think we should be criticizing LauraHale for not assuming good faith. PhilKnight (talk) 14:59, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * "Assume good faith" does not translate to "Turn the other cheek". &mdash; Coren (talk) 14:25, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Doesn't warrant a finding on this occasion.  Roger Davies  talk 12:54, 15 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Abstain:

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.


 * Support:
 * Only because I dislike one way bans. Too open for gaming. SirFozzie (talk) 07:19, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Helps both move on. Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:50, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * As proposer. Risker (talk) 08:19, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Jclemens (talk) 00:51, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, one-way bans seldom work. PhilKnight (talk) 19:29, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't mind that the ban is in two directions: there is no need for parting shots, or for continuing commentary. The issue should be put to rest.  &mdash; Coren (talk) 14:25, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 16:59, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * – iridescent  21:11, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately appears necessary. Shell  babelfish 20:25, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Do these things really work? --Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:52, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Per SirFozzie,  Roger Davies  talk 12:54, 15 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

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


 * Support:
 * After additional information has been provided to the Committee, I support this. I will add the finding shortly. SirFozzie (talk) 02:38, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:32, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
 * – iridescent  21:11, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
 * PhilKnight (talk) 14:50, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
 * &mdash; Coren (talk) 14:57, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 16:45, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Risker (talk) 18:17, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Jclemens (talk) 19:14, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Shell  babelfish 20:25, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Or else --Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:52, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Roger Davies talk 04:56, 18 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

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.


 * Support:
 * PhilKnight (talk) 12:30, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * SirFozzie (talk) 22:20, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * although is moot if banned for one year. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:29, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * We will need to expand the wording if any sanctions on LauraHale pass. Jclemens (talk) 00:50, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I've modified the wording to 'any user' instead of 'Racepacket'. PhilKnight (talk) 19:37, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * With the edit. I don't think it's a good idea as a matter of principle to include specific editors' names in enforcement even in simple cases if only because we never know what amendments may occur in the future.  &mdash; Coren (talk) 14:27, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Agree with Coren. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 19:33, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * – iridescent  21:12, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Risker (talk) 18:17, 12 June 2011 (UTC) Note: I have copy-edited the proposal by adding the words "ban or" before "topic ban", to cover both the currently passing remedies and the possibility that at some point in the future a topic ban may be applied to an editor sanctioned in this decision. Any of my colleagues may revert me, and I will notify the Committee that I have made this copy edit. Risker (talk) 03:24, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Shell  babelfish 20:26, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:53, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Fine with CE,  Roger Davies  talk 04:57, 18 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

Implementation notes
''Clerks and Arbitrators should use this section to clarify their understanding of the final decision--at a minimum, a list of items that have passed. Additionally, a list of which remedies are conditional on others (for instance a ban that should only be implemented if a mentorship should fail), and so on. Arbitrators should not pass the motion until they are satisfied with the implementation notes.''


 * Proposals which pass
 * Passing principles: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9
 * Passing findings: 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 9, 10
 * Passing remedies: 1, 4.0, 7, 8
 * Passing enforcement provisions: 1
 * Proposals which do not pass
 * Failing principles: None
 * Failing findings: 2.1, 5, 7, 8
 * Failing remedies: 1.1, 2, 3, 3.1, 4.1, 4.2, 5, 6
 * Failing enforcement provisions: None
 * Last updated: NW ( Talk ) 14:21, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks NW. Now that Shell has voted, remedy 1 is passing. PhilKnight (talk) 23:05, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Updated. NW ( Talk ) 23:47, 12 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Note on remedies 4 and 4.1: The Committee is currently discussing whether remedy 4 or 4.1 have passed, because the result of the voting is ambiguous. AGK  [&bull; ] 23:10, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Updated once more. NW ( Talk ) 14:21, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Vote
Important: Please ask the case clerk to author the implementation notes before initiating a motion to close, so that the final decision is clear.

''Four net "support" votes needed to close case (each "oppose" vote subtracts a "support"). 24 hours from the first motion is normally the fastest a case will close. The Clerks will close the case either immediately, or 24 hours after the fourth net support vote has been cast, depending on whether the arbitrators have voted unanimously on the entirety of the case's proposed decision or not.''


 * Support
 * I'm done. Others will follow when they are too. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:16, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Jclemens (talk) 19:14, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * PhilKnight (talk) 23:08, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Barring a miraculous (and unlikely) last-second reversal, this is a good as it's going to get. &mdash; Coren (talk) 14:22, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I think I've brought up the rear --Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:54, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Support, and start the 24 hour clock for closure. SirFozzie (talk) 22:00, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose
 * Much as I wish this was over, we have not heard anything from at least two unrecused/active arbitrators and a third has not completed voting, and there are several proposals whose resolution could change significantly depending on additional votes. Nonetheless, I support asking the case clerk to begin drafting the closing notes to determine what proposals require further consideration. Risker (talk) 19:30, 12 June 2011 (UTC) Can now close with the clarifications of the decision. Risker (talk) 14:43, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Half way thru voting, will finish in couple of hours but have to go to a meeting. Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:57, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Don't close it yet please (and apologies for doing this at the fifty-ninth minute of the eleventh hour) as there's something I want to review.  Roger Davies  talk 04:30, 15 June 2011 (UTC) Done voting now,   Roger Davies  talk 13:09, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment