Rschen7754 (talk | contribs) |
John Vandenberg (talk | contribs) →Request for disengagement: reply |
||
Line 137: | Line 137: | ||
:::::::That is why it should not be a problem to find one and agree upon this solution. The problem is miscommunication and tasks falling through the cracks. Once the task is given to an experienced editor, it will be straightforward. [[User:Racepacket|Racepacket]] ([[User talk:Racepacket|talk]]) 07:31, 4 April 2011 (UTC) |
:::::::That is why it should not be a problem to find one and agree upon this solution. The problem is miscommunication and tasks falling through the cracks. Once the task is given to an experienced editor, it will be straightforward. [[User:Racepacket|Racepacket]] ([[User talk:Racepacket|talk]]) 07:31, 4 April 2011 (UTC) |
||
::::::::The way [[WP:FAC]] works is that several very experienced editors go through the article. Something like the stuff you mention would be caught. Following this, the FAC director or delegate goes through the article and makes sure the article is good as well. You've got several eyes checking over the article (from within and outside the WikiProject or subject area) to make sure the article fully meets all applicable standards. --'''[[User:Rschen7754|Rs]][[User talk:Rschen7754|chen]][[Special:Contributions/Rschen7754|7754]]''' 07:37, 4 April 2011 (UTC) |
::::::::The way [[WP:FAC]] works is that several very experienced editors go through the article. Something like the stuff you mention would be caught. Following this, the FAC director or delegate goes through the article and makes sure the article is good as well. You've got several eyes checking over the article (from within and outside the WikiProject or subject area) to make sure the article fully meets all applicable standards. --'''[[User:Rschen7754|Rs]][[User talk:Rschen7754|chen]][[Special:Contributions/Rschen7754|7754]]''' 07:37, 4 April 2011 (UTC) |
||
::::::::The problem is you turning up all over the place, with baggage, blinkers and a bee in your bonnet. Not a good combo. Even in your post above you clearly indicate that you believe there are problems with these articles. You need to let go, and slowing down might be a good idea too. <span style="font-variant:small-caps">[[User:John Vandenberg|John Vandenberg]] <sup>'''([[User talk:John Vandenberg|chat]])'''</sup></span> 07:42, 4 April 2011 (UTC) |
Revision as of 07:42, 4 April 2011
Withdrawing nominations
I don't know where to add this sort of discussion, so I'm starting it here. I want to make a comparison here between a situation on-wiki and in real life. George W. Bush nominated Harriet Myers for a seat on the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS), which as president was his right and obligation. Editors on Wikipedia nominate articles for Good Article Status, which is also their right. Presidential appointees must be confirmed by the US Senate; GANs must be listed by uninvolved editors. If you liken the review stage of a GAN to the hearings in the Senate, I think we have a decent parallel. When Bush withdrew his nomination of Ms. Myers, the US Senate did not continue to consider the nomination. Rather the nomination process was over. So too when an editor who has nominated an article at GAN and then withdraws it, that review process should cease.
Racepacket has doggedly pursued a conclusion to reviews of articles on his terms, but he does not unilaterally control the review process. Back in January, I withdrew the nomination of U.S. Route 223 from GAN, and resubmitted it for review, as the GAN FAQs explicitly allow. He pursued the nomination further against my wishes. Had he dropped the article at that time, that would have been the end of the debate and we could have moved on. His determination, and even comments to "do the edits myself" to the article contrary to what the pertinent sources show demonstrated a lack of good faith on his part, and ownership of the review. (Additionally, I had withdrawn the second review completely when he signed up do the second review, and I had states at WT:GAN at that time that I no longer had any interest in pursuing a nomination of the article at that time.)
LauraHale has withdrawn Netball from further consideration, not once, but twice. Earlier, he pronounced the article "failed", which is a bit presumptuous of a pronouncement to make. The article had been withdrawn for a third time by that point. Racepacket has yet to understand that the GA system is binary: articles are either "listed" or "not listed" (i.e. passed or failed). If an article's nomination is withdrawn before a reviewer takes the review, then there's no record on the article's talk page, only in the history of the page. If it is withdrawn after a review has started, then it's "not listed". The reviewer should not seek to impose his will on the article in place of the nominator and assert some "right" to continue reviewing the article in that context. The reviewer should be free to offer constructive feedback, like any article anywhere, but the GAN process has been terminated.
In short, my goal is to see Racepacket learn that there comes a point when he needs to just walk away, no matter how many hours he's invested on an article and its review. That he's willing to do reviews is great, but in the case of an impasse, just move on. If the article truly meets the lightweight criteria for a GA, another editor can decide that. If there are articles passed that are not worthy of passage, they can and will be reassessed and delisted. Any editor that pursues a review in the manner he has alienates his fellow volunteers on this project. Imzadi 1979 → 06:10, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
- I noticed that Racepacket has included the GA review of Netball] among his accomplishments in an entry for the WikiCup competition. I think, given the issues under discussion here, this is not an appropriate inclusion. I don't know whether or not the effort to build a strong entry for that competition relates to Racepacket's insistence that he be the "closer" of the discussion, rather than permitting Laura to withdraw. But, I think it would be appropriate if he chose to remove that from his entry. I think it would be a good way to indicate acknowledgment and authentic engagement with the concerns raised in this RfC. -Pete (talk) 18:56, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
- He has also quick failed Talk:Netball_at_the_Olympics/GA1 (another article Laura is working on) and added it to the WikiCup list. John Vandenberg (chat) 19:21, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
Discounting others' opinions
Shortly before this RfC/U was filed, the article on Interstate 376 was nominated at GAN.The article was reviewed by Dough4872 and failed. A minimal amount of work was done to the article, but one of the key points of that review (reliable source vs. self-published sources) was left unaddressed. The article was renominated, and several editors expressed concerns over the condition of the article. Some of us even expressed these concerns on the GAN review page itself, relating how these concerns relate to both WP:USRD project standards and the Good Article Criteria. Additional editors are welcome to weigh in with comments on any article, its review, or both, at any time. However, these comments should not be disregarded out of hand completely when they are offered in good faith and directly relevant to the article meeting the criteria., even to the point of telling the nominator to ignore them in disparaging terms. When these project standards, which are only guidelines not absolutes, have been refined over the course of many successful Featured Article candidacies or Good Article nominations, then they should be regarded as persuasive and not discounted wholesale as has been done. Imzadi 1979 → 07:04, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
- On a break in my working through the diffs, I noticed this talk page and the above comment. This is exactly the problem we have with User:LauraHale who did three quick nominations of Netball in the Cook Islands, so I have seen both sides. As for Talk:Interstate 376/GA2, I saw the nomination, glanced at the article and did my review without looking at the talk page in detail or anywhere else, so the review was not a slight toward Doug. I will go back and read his review, which is not transcluded to the talk page. (Perhaps there should be a rule that transclusions stay for at least a month or until the next review is completed?) As I have said before, I do not mind other editors sharing their opinions and offering suggested improvements. But let's not chase away
reviewersnominators as we did in Talk:Grand Valley State University/GA1. People will do far more work if they feel a part of a happy team, than if they are in the middle of contradictory expectations. Racepacket (talk) 21:48, 24 March 2011 (UTC)- I don't know why you mentioned GVSU, since you were the reviewer and neither of us chased you away, and even if you ran into my biggest subject-matter pet peeve [non-Michiganders insisting they know better about how to (mis-)name our highways even though the names have been in place for 90+ years], the review was completed by you. Imzadi 1979 → 00:32, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
- In regards to the clarification previously made, is there any allegation that Pdcook (talk · contribs) was chased away? I see that he's still working on the Grand Valley article, and there's not really conflicting expectations when someone comments to explain that the reviewer is requesting an inaccuracy be added to an article. Seriously, all I did was point out that in the case of Michigan's highways, the "M" is not an abbreviation for anything, and it is an integral part of the highway's number. The rest of the review was your work, not mine, and I had nothing to do with it. Imzadi 1979 → 19:09, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
- I don't know why you mentioned GVSU, since you were the reviewer and neither of us chased you away, and even if you ran into my biggest subject-matter pet peeve [non-Michiganders insisting they know better about how to (mis-)name our highways even though the names have been in place for 90+ years], the review was completed by you. Imzadi 1979 → 00:32, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
- Although I removed the transclusions of the Good Article Reviews of Netball in the Cook Islands, they are still linked on the talk page, and were there until after the last review was concluded. The idea of keeping them transcluded for a period of time afterward seems impractical unless it could be done by a bot. Who would do it? Who would remind them that it needs to be done after a month or more has passed? Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:43, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Moved from the main page: LauraHale section
- Note Laura has closed it for the second time and once again Racepacket reopened it stating that, everyone should have a say, it's not upto her. When all others said it's a shame but accepted it as she is the nominator. So I closed it again.
- Here's the links: withdrawn for the second time reinstated by Racepacket again withdrawn by me KnowIG (talk) 21:58, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Here we go, still only thinks that the reviewer can fail it and then went round canvassing other users to get them to finish it as he didn't like the fact the I and Laura had closed the review. Even when an outsider said go to ANI if he keeps opening the article after you the nominator closed it. KnowIG (talk) 22:03, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
- WP:3RR Applies here. Any further attempt by racepacket will result in an block. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:23, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
- Comment I have followed this review (and the previous one) on and off for the duration. (For disclosure, I've had some side-discussion with Laura, who is the only participant I know.) Though I think there is plenty of opportunity for multiple parties to reexamine the approaches they took, this issue really stands out to me. I feel strongly that a GA nominator who becomes dissatisfied with the process should be able to withdraw the nomination with a minimum of drama. Racepacket's repeated reversion of that attempt is disturbing, and does carry the flavor of harassment in my opinion. No fact in an article, no process is so important that it should prevent us from treating each other in a respectful manner. -Pete (talk) 03:52, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
Moved from the main page: Bill william compton section
- She doesn't have to answer to you as this is about racepacket and not her. Plus and no offense when I say this. It's really hard to understand what you mean, cause what you wrote is really poor English. Perhaps you would like to rewrite your first comment. KnowIG (talk) 08:52, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
I wish to respond to extension of "Outside view by LauraHale" above. It is a positive sign that LauraHale is starting to take some responsibility for these difficulties with her reviewers, and I am pleased that she is finally including "diff links" to document her latest claims. However, she should go back and add "diff links" to her earlier accusations. She cannot provide "diff links", because her accusations are false. Her latest story is that her difficulties were caused by Racepacket's unfamiliarity with New Zealand English and with Netball. The answer is that LauraHale's User page says she grew up in the United States, so "New Zealand language" was not the problem between them. Racepacket and I both had difficulties dealing with her bullying, even with our different backgrounds. Hence, her proposal to block him from future GA reviewing of articles written in British English makes no sense and misses the problem. LauralHale also forgets that Racepacket offered to do research at the US Library of Congress, so her proposal to impose a mentor to help him access reference books is just being vindictive. Bill william comptonTalk 09:47, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Canvassing
Just a note to say that Racepacket has been directing people to this page. Many have declined. But I suspect that his targeting people who have something positive to say about him. Is canvassing in this was allowed? KnowIG (talk) 11:09, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
- Surprise surprise it's working. Canvassing and then the user appears with a positive comment. People should come here on their own free will like most of us have done. KnowIG (talk) 13:27, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
comment from Off2riorob Racepacket also left me a note, personally I don't see anything wrong with a few notes, mine was possible connected as he asked me to comment as a British person for an addition opinion in the GA netball review. It seems there has been a clash of personalities here and when I commented I did think the GA review would perhaps have been better off closed and reopened with fresh eyes. As for me experiences with Racepacket, in regard to edit style, no one is perfect and I have at least managed to come to compromises and consensus through discussions with him on the couple of times I have bumped into him, in regard to is GA reviewing I have only interacted on one or perhaps two, one was Margaret Thatcher recently and I was very grateful to him for his good work there. As I said, we all fall out sometimes but Racepacket is in my experience of him, a large net gain as an editor and as a GA reviewer. Off2riorob (talk) 13:54, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Outside view by North8000
We asked for a very thorough GA review of SS Edmund Fitzgerald by Racepacket and were thankful for receiving that. (it's going back up for FAC in 1-2 weeks. ) We have also received substantial expert help and advice on it from Imzadi 1979. These folks appear to be on opposite sides in this discussion here. I hope that this can be resolved amicably. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 10:54, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
- There is a behavioral problem by Racepacket at play here, which is the original focus of the RfC/U, netball-related issues notwithstanding. His actions have not permitted editors to withdraw their nominations in the face of unreasonable demands. (U.S. Route 223's review issues centered around details and information best left to the Interstate 73 article as undue weight in the US 223 article as well as issues surrounding future predictions not based in present-day certainty.) He has been unreasonable in disregarding the applicable project standards which do exist as a guideline on the structure and content of highway articles; they are not a "non-existent rule". Logical deviations from the standards are appropriate, but the standards have been created and refined based on nearly three dozen US highway FACs and over 500 GANs. The second behavioral issue that most concerns me is when he questioned the choices by DanTheMan474 (talk · contribs) over which articles were being nominated at GAN. No reviewer should ever tell a nominator anything along the lines of: "One must seriously question why you are nominating two short spur road for GA consideration, when the main OH 4 road, that this route connects, does not even have a route description. Wouldn't it make more sense to work on the major roads first, and leave the short (less than 2 miles) roads until the after the major roads are completed?" Nominators must be free to nominate the articles they want based on their own comfort or interest levels with the subjects.
- The rest of the RfC/U, outside of the additional issues that have been added about the netball articles, deals more with Racepacket's behavior relating to his treatment of an entire WikiProject. He has almost single-handedly reviewed all of the highway GANs that've been nominated recently from anyone else except myself. Most of the project has actually stopped nominating articles for Good Article status now because of his level of bullying and his attitudes in the reviews. We have two editors on wikibreaks that we haven't seen online at all in weeks, one that's moved over to railroad article editing and others that have just stopped nominating at GAN for fear that Racepacket will snag the reviews. The goal of the RfC/U is to amicably raise the issues with Racepacket's behavior that others are finding offensive and work out the solution. That he has made a few good reviews does not excuse harassment and other bad behavior. Imzadi 1979 → 17:33, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
- I didn't mean to give any impression of knowing or commenting on the overall situation. I was just providing a little info on my positive experiences with Racepacket and you, and on my first read of the "complaint" and links. When I said "non-existent rule", I meant that there is no wikipolicy that says that project recommendations must be folowed, and so failure to follow them is not a wiki-offense. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 19:20, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
- The problem is that your statement is only touching on a few of the issues that form the original basis for the RfC. The netball stuff is side drama that is sidetracking the core issues here. A few good GA interactions by Racepacket does not excuse his behavior on other issues. He has had an article nominated at GAN failed (VA-27). He did not address the substantive matters of the review and renominated it. It was failed again by a different reviewer with more detailed commentary on why the article did not meet the criteria. It was renominated 12 hours later without substantial work and failed a third time with additional detailed commentary on why the article did not meet the criteria for listing as a GA. Now, the first review was not the greatest. I can't completely fault him for renominating it for a different reviewer. However, when he was trying to impose additions to US 223 that violated policy and weren't supported by reliable sources, I withdrew the article. He should not have attempted to continue the review when I renominated it, but he did. If one editor makes comments in a review, we should be free to disagree with them. (Those points of disagreement though need a reason, not "I don't like that".) If two editors are making the same comments, there's probably some substance to them. If three editors are saying the same thing, then there is something to be addressed. VA-27 had three reviewers raising substantially the same concerns. He was the only one of almost a half-dozen editors pushing his POV on US 223, and policies and sources were not on his side in that discussion. That's WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT at its core.
- He's questioned an editor's choice of nominations at GAN. He's repeatedly tagged articles for improvements, even articles that have recently passed through FAC that appropriately address the content he's disputing (M-6's past controversies). He's attacked other editors in his comments about them. (WP:NPA) He's basically taken positions to oppose a group of editors for the sake of opposing that group of editors. (WP:POINT) We're supposed to discuss the merits and content of the articles when at WP:AFD, WP:GAN, WP:FAC, or on the talk pages of the articles, not the merits or character of the editors involved; that's saved for the dispute resolution forums like this RfC. These behaviors are the "wiki-offenses". WP:IAR provides a reason to allow logical deviations from project standards, where it improves the article. His requested/suggested deviations aren't necessarily improvements to the article though. The disputed behavior, if left unchecked, will be a detriment to the community in the long run. Imzadi 1979 → 20:51, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)Perhaps, but going against a well-established consensus, even after being pointed towards a guideline of that consensus by many editors, is an offence. That is WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, which has been used as grounds for an array of blocks. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 21:08, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
- Imzadi1979, again, I just gave my two cents and info on a couple of items, I was not commenting on the overall situation, nor am I in a position to. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 21:32, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
- "Yes but when you stated: "I don't see specific "charges" of wp:substance in this whole thing." you have commented on the overall situation. That's my concern. Imzadi 1979 → 21:37, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
- I did not intend that. I intended to be taken literally, e.g. just making comments on IMHO what was not on that page. Sorry if I was not clearer. North8000 (talk) 23:35, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
- "Yes but when you stated: "I don't see specific "charges" of wp:substance in this whole thing." you have commented on the overall situation. That's my concern. Imzadi 1979 → 21:37, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
- Imzadi1979, again, I just gave my two cents and info on a couple of items, I was not commenting on the overall situation, nor am I in a position to. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 21:32, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)Perhaps, but going against a well-established consensus, even after being pointed towards a guideline of that consensus by many editors, is an offence. That is WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, which has been used as grounds for an array of blocks. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 21:08, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
- I didn't mean to give any impression of knowing or commenting on the overall situation. I was just providing a little info on my positive experiences with Racepacket and you, and on my first read of the "complaint" and links. When I said "non-existent rule", I meant that there is no wikipolicy that says that project recommendations must be folowed, and so failure to follow them is not a wiki-offense. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 19:20, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Racepacket blocked for a week
It appears that Racepacket was blocked yesterday for disruptive editing. It is customary (but not absolutely required) that RFC/Us are informally suspended during such blocks, since the ultimate goal is agreement between all parties, and if one of the parties is unable to participate, then it's hard to make progress towards the goal. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:59, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
- Of course it bears noting that Racepacket also had several days to reply to this RfC/U before his block, and he basically ignored it even though he was aware of the discussion. The initial complaint was drafted in less than 24 hours in between other editing activities by the certifying parties, so five days' time to make some sort of initial reply seems like it was plenty for him to at least make a comment. Imzadi 1979 → 21:27, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
- Do you still stick to your assertion that Racepacket "basically ignored" this RFC? This is a good example of the assumption of bad faith which led to this whole mess. —Bill Price (nyb) 17:40, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
- He did for the better part of two weeks. I assume good faith, but one can only gather that he crafted his response during his block. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 17:49, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
- (ec) He did before the block. It is not bad faith to assert a fact borne out by the evidence. He acknowledged the filing of the RfC/U on March 24, 2011 yet was not blocked until March 27, 2011. From the time the RfC/U was created in user namespace until it was moved to Wikipedia namespace was was about eight hours (20:32, March 21, 2011 to 04:48, March 22, 2011). Those are the facts. Imzadi 1979 → 17:54, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
- Do you still stick to your assertion that Racepacket "basically ignored" this RFC? This is a good example of the assumption of bad faith which led to this whole mess. —Bill Price (nyb) 17:40, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
Possible block evasion by racepacket
I suspect this edit here was made by Racepacket in order to avoid the block. Wikipedia:DUCK may apply. Reasons for suspecting that this duck is Racepacket :
- IP address originates in Virginia, where Racepacket lives.
- Edit tone extremely similar to User:Racepacket
- Edit content extremely similar to User:Racepacket
- Only one person supported the position of Olympic's recognising federations, not sports
- User:Racepacket was blocked for actions directly pertaining to this page
- Timing of edit in relation to dispute
- No other IP address edits have been made to the article
- General topic is primarily of interest to people in Commonwealth countries
- Article has very few page views, limiting the potential number of contributors
- February edits coincide with previous block of contributor
- User:Racepacket has gotten into other disputes about what constitutes a sport
- Has a history of sockpuppeting: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Racepacket and Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Racepacket (2nd)
- User:158.59.127.249 contributed to Article for deletion request that Racepacket was involved with.
--LauraHale (talk) 04:38, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
- Please contact the blocking admin with this information. (I can't do anything with this, unfortunately). Racepacket has socked before during his extended blocks. --Rschen7754 04:42, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
- Done. User_talk:Ironholds#suspected_sockpuppeting. This led to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Racepacket. --LauraHale (talk) 06:17, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
- For the reasons stated on my talk page, LauraHale's argument does not make sense. It is just another example of her leaping to conclusions without a sufficient factual predicate. I was cleared and Ironholds withdrew his evasion block. Racepacket (talk) 15:18, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
- After having a look through the pages myself the block was withdrawn through lack of evidence and other users have stated that the evidence was fairly WP:DUCKy - so I don't think its fair to accuse LauraHale of jumping to conclusions. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 15:51, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
Questions for LauraHale
1) Am I correct that you are dropping your insistence on netball being described as an "Olympic sport"? 2) Going forward, are you willing to drop your efforts to recruit or line up your reviewer for GA reviews and just use the queue like everyone else? Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 15:18, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
- On the second question: Not everyone "just use[s] the queue". I've received requests from nominators, and I've advertised other people's nominations to both individuals and groups that I thought might be both interested and capable. There is no prohibition against this. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:55, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
- I expressed my views on picking your own reviewer in my response. We have a "Walled Garden" potential problem. We need more people reviewing highway articles who are not "highway buffs," and we need a wide variety of people reviewing the netball-related articles who have no connection to the nominator(s). I currently have a proposal that an article be at least 60 days old before it is eligible for a GA nomination. That might help solve some of the problems. More people would be able to edit and/or comment on the talk page before it reaches a review. Here, the nominator creates the first partial draft of an article, nominates it before it meets the GA criteria, has a co-editor "start" a review, and the two jointly develop the article for another week, and then the review is closed with minimal on-the-record comments between them. Since the stream of edits were not in response to comments made on the review page, how did the articles pass the stability criteria? Racepacket (talk) 07:19, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
Withdrawing from participation with this RFCU
Over the last week and a half, this Requests for comment/User conduct has been going on with continuous arguing and point and once again, another trip to WP:ANI. As an original supporter of this RFC/UC, I have now seen the error in that decision, a major error in that decision. I no longer feel, especially after reading Racepacket's response (thanks for finally posting one), that this RFC/UC has any merit. It has been obvious to me since it began that the form of this that we did nothing wrong as a project and all of this was on him. I've known and have participated in behavior that would prove otherwise. Do I apologize for my actions on Talk:Ohio State Route 369, and the ANI for U.S. Route 223? Definitely. However, I did it in a defense of two editors who I know in real life, and as a friend, I want to back him up. However, with the Maryland Route 200 drama, which I stayed out of and the other situations with different GANs, I no longer think that Racepacket is 100% at fault for everything, if even a majority percentage.
Watching the way this requests for comment has turned out, with all the trouble with User:LauraHale and Netball, the nitpicking over the movement of comments, the plausible effect that no one can agree over his work. I hate to have to be the Washington DC Whistle-blower, however, I do feel the obsession this project has taken over Racepacket is absolutely disgusting. I know actions on Internet Relay Chat are not very permissible anywhere else, but just watching the room and talking to other members of the roads project in private over email, I've grown damn tired of the topic being all about Racepacket. I mean users went to the trouble of using our bot for insulting him, something I went ahead and removed because it makes us look just as bad. Profanity has been used about him, something I definitely don't like happening. Also, if most of my project remembers, we got into some problems with that in our last Arbitration Committee case. I think the US Roads project, which I will always remain a member of, has taken this situation too far, including considering a third ArbCom ironically three years to the week of our last one. Now, I feel that if this has no merit, going to the Arbitration Committee will do less benefit than this has had.
Can my fellow projects members call me a hypocrite? If they feel that way, Sure. It doesn't change the fact that I am entitled to my rather upset opinion over this entire situation. I think honestly, User:Kumioko put it best of anyone on there, both sides have acted in the wrong, and I think as we keep going on the latter, us, have been doing more wrong than good. At this point, I probably will dump the moratorium on nominating articles at WP:GAN that I've been doing and I have been in the process of attempting to work things out. If I am to see any gains in this RFC/UC anymore, is that sanctions are needed on both sides, and personally, I'm just hoping we can put the experience aside and I can at least attempt to help improve your (Racepacket) articles quite a bit, since its obvious you can do the research, just needs some help. From this point, people can comment on my opinion, but I no longer wish to be part of this hunt and peck contest. The merit is gone. If my project dislikes my decision, then it's their opinion. Mine is that I just don't want to see this go on at this point.Mitch32(20 Years of Life: Wikipedia 5:33) 16:36, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
- I take Mitch's comments in the spirit that they were offered. In response, if I have said anything in my interaction with Mitch that caused offense, I apologize for that. I appreciated the help given on VA Route 27, but I will continue to hold off on nominating numbered road articles for GA, and put my efforts on other articles. Racepacket (talk) 17:31, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
- This comment doesn't quite get it right. However, the only way to defend ourselves would be to post channel logs online, which is not allowed on any English Wikipedia channel (not just the roads one). So, this puts us in between a rock and a hard place here. The expectation on a Wikipedia channel is privacy and confidentiality, and this has been broken, which is quite disappointing.
- I think there's a fine distinction between "bashing" a user, and complaining about their actions and figuring out how to combat them. The vast majority of comments (that I've seen anyway) were of the latter. --Rschen7754 19:53, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
- Mitchazenia's most specific allegation is that of a channel member "using [the IRC bot] for insulting [Racepacket]"; if true, that would be uncivil and unconstructive regardless of circumstances. I will grant, though, that this all amounts to hearsay, so I am reluctant to draw too many conclusions from it. —Bill Price (nyb) 22:50, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
An understanding
Apparently, although I did get my point across that the RFC needs to end, it seems things have massively spiraled out of control. My intention was to call out one situation, not the entire actions of the project. Since members of the project agree that taking a stand was right, I apparently went too far into arguing the fact that IRC behavior was involved. Re-reading and considering my post, I probably could've kept some of it quiet, but there comes a point where you've had it with the problems, and I'm not intentionally trying to censor the IRC room, but in the process, I've driven a fellow editor off the IRC room, something I definitely didn't see. I mean, I expected they'd be a bit annoyed, which I enlightened, not that I expected to spiral out the way it has. I would hope some here understand the channel isn't meant to do harm, I just felt there was some problems going on that needed to see the light of day.
Racepacket, not that I don't distrust your reviews, don't put me on your list, I think it just gets a bit too grating. It was the New Jersey Route 26 GAN that really got me annoyed, since I really haven't done much there since. Don't worry too much about it. Mitch32(20 Years of Life: Wikipedia 5:33) 03:41, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
- Just to cut through a double-negative (or even a triple-negative!), without commenting on the reason, I am offering to not review GA nominations from Mitch as well as the other three. I have confidence that all four can write GA quality articles and have them reviewed in the normal queue without my involvement, and my offer is not a commentary on any of them. Racepacket (talk) 07:28, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
Request for disengagement
There are several solutions to this problem, but perhaps the easiest one is as follows: disengagement. To be specific, that means:
- That Racepacket would not review road articles at GAN
- That Racepacket would disengage from doing any controversial actions with road articles such as tagging.
- In regards to the Netball situation, this would mean Racepacket would not review any more Netball articles, and stay away from LauraHale
- That Racepacket would allow the nominator to withdraw from a GAN that they are not pleased with, as has just been discussed at WT:GAN and per the GA rules.
- That the involved parties would refrain from pursuing further sanctions unless the above were broken.
If all the parties agreed to this, this would be the most peaceable solution. Is this something people would get behind? --Rschen7754 19:38, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose I find it strange that this proposed resolution reaches further than the originally stated desired outcome. To quote: "Preferably, that Racepacket would get along amicably with the rest of the project. However, if this is not possible, then that Racepacket would minimize disruptive interaction with the rest of the project." During this RFCU, a number of users have offered outside views expressing gratitude for Racepacket's efforts at GAN; some have made statements unambiguously supporting his efforts, especially in cases like this one (Savidan: "I think Racepacket does a good job at what is generally a thankless task…If a reviewer's conduct is going to be called into question in a forum like this every time they insist on changes that they believe, in good faith, will improve the article, then, in the end, it's the project that will suffer."), and of the users who originally complained, two have withdrawn their complaints, with Mitchazenia explicitly stating that "I no longer feel…that this RFC/UC has any merit." I can't reasonably support a resolution which assumes Racepacket to be guilty of all he was accused of, requires him to withdraw from areas in which he has been a prolific and productive editor, and which only makes reference to the original aggrieved party by promising them another chance at "pursuing further sanctions" if Racepacket doesn't do what they want him to do. —Bill Price (nyb) 23:04, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
- I have already agreed to stay away from reviewing articles nominated by Imzadi1979. I would be willing to stay away from articles nominated by Dough4872 and Rschen7754. I would also promise not to renominate VA 27 for GA. (If Mitchazenia believes that I would not be fair to him, I am willing to throw his GA nominations into the list as well.) To make a crude analogy, GA review is like going to a dentist. Although everyone tries to brush their own teeth, everyone needs a different person to do a cleaning for them. The dentist may make some patients feel uncomfortable while working on their teeth, but it is for the greater good. It helps if the dentist can put all patients at ease, and dentist should work on a charming chair-side manner. Just as a dentist wants all of his patients to have healthy teeth, I want all of my GA reviews to result in a "pass." I have learned that I will never earn the trust of Imzadi1979, Dough4872 and Rschen7754, and they are willing to sit in the queue longer due to absence of my services. I will work on my "chair-side manner" in all future GA reviews. It seems that is the best way to resolve the RFC/U for all involved. Racepacket (talk) 03:20, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
- It sounds like the concerns are bigger than merely the name of the official nominator. Are you willing to let noms for roads and netball sit in the queue, possibly for months and months? Are you willing to avoid LauraHale? (Is Laura willing to avoid you?)
- If so, then perhaps the other participants would consider whether a reasonably generous time limit might be appropriate. I'm sure we'd all think it silly to have such an agreement last for decades. Would one or two years' breathing room be enough? WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:08, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
- Well, I'd be willing to give him another chance in a year or two. It depends on what his reviews are like then. The thing is, at least for roads, there is no shortage of (good) reviewers. --Rschen7754 04:20, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
- Laura has stated at User_talk:John_Vandenberg#help_please? that she is willing to avoid Racepacket. --John Vandenberg (chat) 04:46, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you for sharing her comments. The LauraHale misunderstanding is very unfortunate. Since both LauraHale and I want the same things - namely that netball articles get promoted to GA and FA, I don't understand the basis for any difficulty. Could we appoint an experienced third party to go through the netball articles and fix any close paraphrasing, improper terminology, or NPOV concerns? It would speed their journey toward GA/FA and would eliminate any need for my further involvement in netball-related articles. Racepacket (talk) 06:30, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
- Another competent editor will catch any of those issues you mention. You're not the only editor capable of doing such. --Rschen7754 06:35, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
- That is why it should not be a problem to find one and agree upon this solution. The problem is miscommunication and tasks falling through the cracks. Once the task is given to an experienced editor, it will be straightforward. Racepacket (talk) 07:31, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
- The way WP:FAC works is that several very experienced editors go through the article. Something like the stuff you mention would be caught. Following this, the FAC director or delegate goes through the article and makes sure the article is good as well. You've got several eyes checking over the article (from within and outside the WikiProject or subject area) to make sure the article fully meets all applicable standards. --Rschen7754 07:37, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
- The problem is you turning up all over the place, with baggage, blinkers and a bee in your bonnet. Not a good combo. Even in your post above you clearly indicate that you believe there are problems with these articles. You need to let go, and slowing down might be a good idea too. John Vandenberg (chat) 07:42, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
- That is why it should not be a problem to find one and agree upon this solution. The problem is miscommunication and tasks falling through the cracks. Once the task is given to an experienced editor, it will be straightforward. Racepacket (talk) 07:31, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
- Another competent editor will catch any of those issues you mention. You're not the only editor capable of doing such. --Rschen7754 06:35, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you for sharing her comments. The LauraHale misunderstanding is very unfortunate. Since both LauraHale and I want the same things - namely that netball articles get promoted to GA and FA, I don't understand the basis for any difficulty. Could we appoint an experienced third party to go through the netball articles and fix any close paraphrasing, improper terminology, or NPOV concerns? It would speed their journey toward GA/FA and would eliminate any need for my further involvement in netball-related articles. Racepacket (talk) 06:30, 4 April 2011 (UTC)