| Revision as of 05:51, 23 October 2009 editRacepacket (talk | contribs)16,693 edits Consensus← Previous edit | Revision as of 05:59, 23 October 2009 edit undoRyulong (talk | contribs)218,132 edits →What is concensus?Next edit → | ||
| Line 57: | Line 57: | ||
| ==What is concensus?== | ==What is concensus?== | ||
| The complaint makes much of consensus and verbosity. I think there are valuable insights on WP:CONS: "Discussions should always be attempts to convince others, using reasons." This is true even if the discussions get precise or verbose. "The quality of an argument is more important than whether it comes from a minority or a majority." This is particularly true when the issue is whether a particular statement is POV-pushing and a majority of the active editors have connections to a college. Finally, "Consensus can only work among reasonable editors who make a good faith effort to work together in a civil manner. Developing consensus requires special attention to neutrality and verifiability in an effort to reach a compromise that everyone can agree on." The problem with the UM pages was unsufficient concern for neutrality and verifiability. ] (]) 05:51, 23 October 2009 (UTC) | The complaint makes much of consensus and verbosity. I think there are valuable insights on WP:CONS: "Discussions should always be attempts to convince others, using reasons." This is true even if the discussions get precise or verbose. "The quality of an argument is more important than whether it comes from a minority or a majority." This is particularly true when the issue is whether a particular statement is POV-pushing and a majority of the active editors have connections to a college. Finally, "Consensus can only work among reasonable editors who make a good faith effort to work together in a civil manner. Developing consensus requires special attention to neutrality and verifiability in an effort to reach a compromise that everyone can agree on." The problem with the UM pages was unsufficient concern for neutrality and verifiability. ] (]) 05:51, 23 October 2009 (UTC) | ||
| :You still fought against the consensus when the content was neutral and verifiable.—] (]) 05:59, 23 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 05:59, 23 October 2009
Agree with summary and suggested recourse
Having also been involved with periodic edits to University of Miami and related pages, I have found Racepacket's edits to often be done without reaching sufficient consensus with other editors. The edits have often been questionable and even controversial. Would be more constructive if Racepacket's changes are first addressed on discussion page, as proposed on this request for comment. MiamiDolphins3 (talk) 23:03, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
- You can support various things on this request for comment page in addition to making comments on its talk page, such as certifying or agreeing.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 23:16, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Question
Under which policies are "verbosity" and "lack of knowledge" considered violations of wikipedia policy? Soxwon (talk) 23:07, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
- Writing a hell of a lot to hide what is meant by the user was something that was brought up in Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abd-William M. Connolley#Abd’s style of discussion. It was found that it is disruptive to write so much that other users did not want to read it all to reply to it. And showing an utter lack of knowledge of an article's subject and acting disruptively on it is problematic. I also had no other place to list the AFD.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 23:11, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
- Acting disruptively and showing a "lack of knowledge" are two different things. Are those two things really necessary? Soxwon (talk) 23:16, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
- His writing way too much such that no one can understand his point of view is necessary to address, as is his disruption stemming from his lack of knowledge of the subject matter.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 23:19, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
- Acting disruptively and showing a "lack of knowledge" are two different things. Are those two things really necessary? Soxwon (talk) 23:16, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Reply to comment by Soxwon (from User talkpage)
The issue is not with the edits to the Miami football page but a general disruption with it and related articles as a whole. The peacock terms within the articles are generally stated by the references used to cite the statements being made.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 23:15, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
- The peacock terms should then be used with quotes so that it is clear that they are supported by neutral sources and aren't copyvios or editor hyperbole. The evidence listed at the the Miami U football page does seem to be legitimate, which is why I'm confused as to how this can be further "disruption." Glancing through the Miami talkpage, yes he did nitpick and edit war and that should be addressed, though I think some of his points were dismissed a little too out of hand. Soxwon (talk) 23:38, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
- Part of the problem is that on the few occasions when does voice a legitimate concern and that concern is subsequently addressed, he'll obstinately insist that the new edit is still not acceptable for some new, contrived reason. It's like playing whack-a-mole. The History section at Miami Hurricanes football has been completely rewritten from scratch (with the exception of the final three subsections), the article features over 60 different sources, and alleged "peacock" words and phrases like "whopping" and "one of the most historic" have been eliminated...and yet he's still starting fires about the most inane, trifling matters. He's impossible to work with, because he's not content and he won't stop unless he gets every...single...edit...he wants. On the talk pages, he disregards consensus, he deliberately mischaracterizes the substance of discussions and will claim someone agreed with him when they wrote the express opposite, and when a discussion doesn't turn out the way he wants, he simply adds another new section about the same issues that had been previously discussed and acts as if they are being broached anew. And, as Ryulong stated above, he is, either by calculation or nature, amazingly long-winded: after reading his lengthy communiques (which he often copies from an editor's talk page and re-pastes, word-for-word, to the article talk page), once is left even more confused than before about his "concerns" and what it will take to mollify him. What's more, he does all this at seemingly every University of Miami-related article on Misplaced Pages. It's all incredibly tiresome, and that seems to be the point: his strategy is one of attrition. He tries to make himself as big a nuisance as possible on as many pages as possible, hoping that those who oppose his edits lose interest and let him do as he wants.-PassionoftheDamon (talk) 03:46, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
- As a general practice, I leave comments about an article on the talk page of the article. In that manner, it allows all interested editors to follow the discussion. I have made an exception for User PassionoftheDamon, because when I posted comments or questions on the article talk page, he has ignored them and has not responded from the very start. So, I tried to post comments on his user talk page, (e.g. ) and he deleted them without response. So, I reposted the deleted ones on the article talk page.
- Part of the problem is that on the few occasions when does voice a legitimate concern and that concern is subsequently addressed, he'll obstinately insist that the new edit is still not acceptable for some new, contrived reason. It's like playing whack-a-mole. The History section at Miami Hurricanes football has been completely rewritten from scratch (with the exception of the final three subsections), the article features over 60 different sources, and alleged "peacock" words and phrases like "whopping" and "one of the most historic" have been eliminated...and yet he's still starting fires about the most inane, trifling matters. He's impossible to work with, because he's not content and he won't stop unless he gets every...single...edit...he wants. On the talk pages, he disregards consensus, he deliberately mischaracterizes the substance of discussions and will claim someone agreed with him when they wrote the express opposite, and when a discussion doesn't turn out the way he wants, he simply adds another new section about the same issues that had been previously discussed and acts as if they are being broached anew. And, as Ryulong stated above, he is, either by calculation or nature, amazingly long-winded: after reading his lengthy communiques (which he often copies from an editor's talk page and re-pastes, word-for-word, to the article talk page), once is left even more confused than before about his "concerns" and what it will take to mollify him. What's more, he does all this at seemingly every University of Miami-related article on Misplaced Pages. It's all incredibly tiresome, and that seems to be the point: his strategy is one of attrition. He tries to make himself as big a nuisance as possible on as many pages as possible, hoping that those who oppose his edits lose interest and let him do as he wants.-PassionoftheDamon (talk) 03:46, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
- If a peacock term is well-sourced, I generally phrase the sentence to attribute it to the source, rather than to Misplaced Pages. However, I do check the sources and have objected if the source does not support the claim.
- As to the history section, the October 1 version had severe WP:BOOSTERISM problems, which I tried to fix with edits that were immediately reverted. Several people had noted the copyright violation on the talk page. I finally checked it out and applied the {{copyvio}} template, which says we stop editing the page and use a subpage to develop a replacement. An administrator is then supposed to compare the two before authorizing moving the subpage back to the article. User PassionoftheDamon removed the template and the link to the subpage. I then spent an hour and a half salvaging the non-infringing portions of the history and writing a well sourced replacement, only to have User:PassionoftheDaman blank all of that out without comment or explanation. I do not want to get my way on "every...single...edit...I want." I want reasoned discussion and am trying to apply Misplaced Pages policies. User Ryulong and I talked through a number of differences on University of Miami, but User PassionoftheDamon refuses to discuss his edits with anyone. When I put a {{fact}} tag on a sentence, he will delete it without adding any source. When he does not respond on the talk page, I finally have to delete the unsourced sentence to get him to finally add a reference to the sentence. When he does go back to add sources, he not bother to note that he found the source in the talk page discussion about the lack of sources. I would like to have a respectful, civil dialog with User:PassionoftheDamon as I do with most other Misplaced Pages editors, but his style is to revert everything and perhaps go back later with his own changes. A search of the Miami Hurricanes football history and talk page shows that this has been a problem for some time before I even started editing that page. I want to encourage Misplaced Pages editors and have actively recruited people to edit Misplaced Pages. I suspect that User PassionoftheDamon is projecting his own tactics on me when he claims "It's all incredibly tiresome, and that seems to be the point: his strategy is one of attrition. He tries to make himself as big a nuisance as possible on as many pages as possible, hoping that those who oppose his edits lose interest and let him do as he wants." As to his other concerns, I will respond to them in my main response. Racepacket (talk) 16:01, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
Reply to Madcoverboy's view
There are users without any sort of conflict of interest who still oppose his edits. I've given this multiple opportunities for outside views to be given, but nothing was ever done. It's fine that he wants to make these articles neutral and provide better sources. It is just that when he is challenged and consensus is against him, he continues to push his point of view and edits, claiming that he has the consensus to make the changes. This is what has to end. The regular editors of University of Miami (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and its related articles are all tired of clarifying things to Racepacket when he is very clearly wrong, such as in the dispute over the inclusion of "The U" in the lead paragraph and then the subsequent dispute over how it should be referred to in the lead paragraph. He wouldn't take "commonly referred" for whatever reason, even though that text had been in the lead paragraph for years, especially when he stated he wanted to change the policy concerning the aliases in lead paragraphs of University articles. It has also been impossible to discuss things with him because he will leave comments three times longer than what I have written here, so it is impossible to respond all of his issues.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 18:58, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
- 1) Please clarify which editors actively editing the UM page have no connection to UM. (Do go be man has been a part of UM since 1968, Ryulong graduated recently, POTD is an alumnus) 2) I think the RFC/U process is inappropriate for addressing communication problems, mediation is much more productive. 3) There have been some cases where despite extensive research, I got an incomplete picture, but I continued to be very open to refinements from others. 4) I think the disputes on the UM page involved trying to get the nuisance and balance correct. In contrast, the problem on Miami Hurricanes football and associated articles stems from a basic misunderstanding of NPOV and encyclopedic language. 5) I think you misstated my comment as "wnat to chnage the policy concerning the aliases..." I said, " I welcome other views and hope that more people from Wikiproject Universities weigh in so we can develop a Misplaced Pages-wide approach to handling such 'common names.' If 'The U' can be acceptably listed as a common name for dozens of schools, why do it, because it is meaningless." That means that I didn't see any existing policy and wanted to get a WP:UNI-wide consensus on how to handle nicknames so that people from a number of campuses would be involved in the decision. 6) The issue was a subject of a back-and-forth between Ryulong and Do go be man before I came on the scene and my comments were added to end of that thread until they were later moved. Racepacket (talk) 03:31, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
- The issue was a back and forth between myself and Do go be man two years before you showed up (Droptone's comment is trivial, and the fact that it was made six months ago is your excuse to say the thread was not over), and reached a consensus until you showed up and started up a completely different conversation. Why do you keep ignoring that? The edit warring, the misuse of Misplaced Pages policies, etc. are all reasons why the RFC/U was chosen before mediation. This is what I was advised to do when contacting other users.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 03:59, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
- When you sought that advice, did you tell them that the UM article had reached consensus and that with your concurrence had reapplied for GA on September 25? Only to have you restart later adding in the Florida-only fundraising comparison? Racepacket (talk) 11:06, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
- Up to now, I've avoided comment for a couple of reasons - not sure where in this process to comment and not having the time to figure out the appropriate process or what to say. Perhaps I'm in error jumping in here, please forgive me. In most cases, I haven't really cared too much about the content of Racepacket's edits. Rather, the general tone of his approach and actions of boldly edit warring when clearly against consensus and discussion have caused me to develop a low level of respect for his contributions regardless of whatever potential merit they may have represented. As noted above, he came into a situation that had already been discussed, agreed upon, and cited without apparently considering the merits of earlier discussions. NPOV does not mean Negative Point of View, that is, articles do not have to maintain a perspective so devoid of favorable perspective as to become negative. Neutral also does not mean articles must lack any kind of positive comments regarding the topics. They also do not need to eliminate information that interests only completely disassociated readers. The local character of schools are important aspects of the information that articles can provide. Thus, issues such as whether UM is the only school in America known as "The U" are not especially relevant. The audience for articles includes those who have no specific connection to the subject, those actively involved, those with past involvement, and those considering a connection. Of those four audience segments, only those with no specific connection might not benefit or care about the self-identification of the subject. Racepacket writes of "consensus" in cases where he was the only editor consenting and in cases quickly reverted edits apparently without considering comments of other editors. From my perspective, Racepacket sacrificed his overall credibility as an editor by stubborning refusing to consider the consensus discussions and conducting edit wars. Do go be man (talk) 14:10, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
- When you sought that advice, did you tell them that the UM article had reached consensus and that with your concurrence had reapplied for GA on September 25? Only to have you restart later adding in the Florida-only fundraising comparison? Racepacket (talk) 11:06, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
- The issue was a back and forth between myself and Do go be man two years before you showed up (Droptone's comment is trivial, and the fact that it was made six months ago is your excuse to say the thread was not over), and reached a consensus until you showed up and started up a completely different conversation. Why do you keep ignoring that? The edit warring, the misuse of Misplaced Pages policies, etc. are all reasons why the RFC/U was chosen before mediation. This is what I was advised to do when contacting other users.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 03:59, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
OWNership issues
User Ryulong left a message on my talk page asking me if I was controlling user Baechter. The answer is I am not. I question whether it is appropriate for User Ryulong to revert edits to the project page. Racepacket (talk) 00:32, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
- Reverting the edit of a user who has only two other edits over the course of a year and a half is not a violation of WP:OWN.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:39, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
- I think your reaction here is very similar to your approach to editing the article page and even the formatting of other people's comments on the UM talk page. It is better to talk differences in viewpoint out than to revert everything. Racepacket (talk) 03:36, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
- The user has four edits, two of which are to this page. That is in no way similar to what happened at the articles.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 03:54, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
- My observation was that you acted unilaterally and reverted Baechter twice. If User:Do go be man had not stopped you, would you have continued to edit war with Baechter? That behavior is what I mean by 'OWNership issues.' Racepacket (talk) 04:58, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
- The user has four edits, two of which are to this page. That is in no way similar to what happened at the articles.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 03:54, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
- I think your reaction here is very similar to your approach to editing the article page and even the formatting of other people's comments on the UM talk page. It is better to talk differences in viewpoint out than to revert everything. Racepacket (talk) 03:36, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
Baechter
Ryulong, pardon my revert. I don't agree with Baechter either, but essentially censoring him does not seem appropriate. Your edit summary does not appear to justify the reversion, especially on a talk page like this one. Please consider letting it remain or explain why you think censorship is required. Do go be man (talk) 01:30, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
- This is not censorship. Baechter has four edits to the English Misplaced Pages, two of which are to Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Racepacket. This is either a sockpuppet account, a meatpuppet account, or some other type of tomfoolery.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 01:48, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
- Ryulong, Misplaced Pages encourages boldly editing articles. I don't think, however, that applies to editing other editors' talk. I understand your concern regarding sockpuppets. Perhaps that's a valid concern, perhaps not. Deleting someone's words in this context is censorship. You are capable of expressing your concerns and engaging in discussion as you feel motivated. I've noted that Racepacket undermined his credibility by approaching his edits in the manner that he did. I now caution you again that you have also sacrificed your credibility on more than one occasion. Issues such as this try patience and waste time. Do go be man (talk) 13:02, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
- This is not an article. This is an esoteric (sort of) project page where Racepacket's conduct is being examined. A user with a total of two edits off of this page is not a metric by which to say that Racepacket is good or bad. That is not censorship.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 19:56, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
- Sounds like we agree this is not an article and that different standards apply to a point. I have no issue with considering the validity of Baechter's opinion as suspect due to lack of experience and exposure to the discussion. I'm taking issue with your censoring his words in a manner that undermines your credibility as an editor. Considering that action in context with other edits could lead someone to believe you have an overdeveloped sense of ownership for the articles you edit. I thought about deleting part of what you wrote just to make a point, but that would not comply with my professional standards for myself. Do go be man (talk) 20:12, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
- It is not censorship. I am not censoring anyone. Baechter has no edits of which to speak, and his opinion on Racepacket (while he is allowed to have one) is not valid. Merely because I began this discussion does not mean I am not allowed to remove edits of a user who has been registered for nearly two years, made one edit on the day of registration, another edit six months ago, and two other edits yesterday.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 20:14, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
- Ryulong, I think you continue to undermine your cause by such insistence. Unless you can cite a policy that enables ownership of even a section of a public talk page, deleting the opinions expressed by any editor is censorship in my opinion. Perhaps that does not fit your definition of censorship or even the Misplaced Pages definition, but it is a denial of free speech. So long as he isn't shouting "Fire" in a crowded theater or using patently offensive language, he should be allowed his say. As I stated, I don't agree with Baechter and do not dispute the irrelevancy of his comments. It's not that important, but it is fascinating to watch. Do go be man (talk) 21:44, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
- This is not ownership or censorship in any sense of the terms. It is removing irrelevant commentary by a user with few edits and questionable motives.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 21:56, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
- Just to be clear, (1) you removed Baechter's words (2) you judged his words as irrelevant (3) you believe he had not edited enough (4) you judged his motives as questionable. Can you cite the Misplaced Pages policy that states a minimum qualification level for editing? Would it be okay with you for me, Racepacket, or anyone else to delete any of your comments we judge as irrelevant or based upon questionable motives? We are so far down the bunny trail, but I think your comments may illuminate some of your positions regarding other edits. Do go be man (talk) 22:09, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
- WP:SPA cover anything regarding Baechter, who only has four edits on that account, two of which are to Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Racepacket. Because you reverted my removal, again, I've properly tagged his comment with {{spa}}.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 22:13, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
- So, help me learn. How did deleting Baechter's comments comply with WP:SPA? I do not see anything regarding deleting SPA comments. I do not disagree he appears to be an SPA. As I keep saying, I also agree that his comments are likely irrelevant. Do go be man (talk) 23:02, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
- I give up. I can't tell what the hell you are talking about anymore. All I'm saying is that because he's got no history, his comments should not be here, which is what I intended with my initial removals. I merely found it extremely odd that an account with only two prior edits decided to say something here. That either means he's a sockpuppet or a meatpuppet. And considering that Racepacket had a history of such activity in the past, I figured it was something similar. In fact, he was blocked only four months ago for such activity.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 23:08, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
- I am not disagreeing the Baechter is likely a puppet of some sort providing an irrelevant opinion, but that is merely my opinion and I don't believe that gives either of us the right to delete his comment. If you question his relevancy or disagree, say so, but do not delete his comments unless you see something in WP:SPA that I missed. If I missed it, please show me my error. Providing the link to Racepacket's use of sockpuppets was useful. Even if there were clear evidence that Baechter and Racepacket are the same person, however, I think deleting the comment would be beyond our pay grades. You are arguing with someone who essentially agreed with your position other than changing the context and content of the discussion. Do go be man (talk) 23:53, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
- I give up. I can't tell what the hell you are talking about anymore. All I'm saying is that because he's got no history, his comments should not be here, which is what I intended with my initial removals. I merely found it extremely odd that an account with only two prior edits decided to say something here. That either means he's a sockpuppet or a meatpuppet. And considering that Racepacket had a history of such activity in the past, I figured it was something similar. In fact, he was blocked only four months ago for such activity.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 23:08, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
- So, help me learn. How did deleting Baechter's comments comply with WP:SPA? I do not see anything regarding deleting SPA comments. I do not disagree he appears to be an SPA. As I keep saying, I also agree that his comments are likely irrelevant. Do go be man (talk) 23:02, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
- WP:SPA cover anything regarding Baechter, who only has four edits on that account, two of which are to Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Racepacket. Because you reverted my removal, again, I've properly tagged his comment with {{spa}}.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 22:13, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
- Just to be clear, (1) you removed Baechter's words (2) you judged his words as irrelevant (3) you believe he had not edited enough (4) you judged his motives as questionable. Can you cite the Misplaced Pages policy that states a minimum qualification level for editing? Would it be okay with you for me, Racepacket, or anyone else to delete any of your comments we judge as irrelevant or based upon questionable motives? We are so far down the bunny trail, but I think your comments may illuminate some of your positions regarding other edits. Do go be man (talk) 22:09, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
- This is not ownership or censorship in any sense of the terms. It is removing irrelevant commentary by a user with few edits and questionable motives.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 21:56, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
- Ryulong, I think you continue to undermine your cause by such insistence. Unless you can cite a policy that enables ownership of even a section of a public talk page, deleting the opinions expressed by any editor is censorship in my opinion. Perhaps that does not fit your definition of censorship or even the Misplaced Pages definition, but it is a denial of free speech. So long as he isn't shouting "Fire" in a crowded theater or using patently offensive language, he should be allowed his say. As I stated, I don't agree with Baechter and do not dispute the irrelevancy of his comments. It's not that important, but it is fascinating to watch. Do go be man (talk) 21:44, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
- It is not censorship. I am not censoring anyone. Baechter has no edits of which to speak, and his opinion on Racepacket (while he is allowed to have one) is not valid. Merely because I began this discussion does not mean I am not allowed to remove edits of a user who has been registered for nearly two years, made one edit on the day of registration, another edit six months ago, and two other edits yesterday.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 20:14, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
- Sounds like we agree this is not an article and that different standards apply to a point. I have no issue with considering the validity of Baechter's opinion as suspect due to lack of experience and exposure to the discussion. I'm taking issue with your censoring his words in a manner that undermines your credibility as an editor. Considering that action in context with other edits could lead someone to believe you have an overdeveloped sense of ownership for the articles you edit. I thought about deleting part of what you wrote just to make a point, but that would not comply with my professional standards for myself. Do go be man (talk) 20:12, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
- This is not an article. This is an esoteric (sort of) project page where Racepacket's conduct is being examined. A user with a total of two edits off of this page is not a metric by which to say that Racepacket is good or bad. That is not censorship.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 19:56, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
- Ryulong, Misplaced Pages encourages boldly editing articles. I don't think, however, that applies to editing other editors' talk. I understand your concern regarding sockpuppets. Perhaps that's a valid concern, perhaps not. Deleting someone's words in this context is censorship. You are capable of expressing your concerns and engaging in discussion as you feel motivated. I've noted that Racepacket undermined his credibility by approaching his edits in the manner that he did. I now caution you again that you have also sacrificed your credibility on more than one occasion. Issues such as this try patience and waste time. Do go be man (talk) 13:02, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
:(undent) I see no record of Racepacket being blocked. Point us to a WP:ANI or WP:SPI or other formal administrative forum otherwise don't make weighty accusations such as that. Madcoverboy (talk) 23:18, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
- I am not making any such accusations. You are linking to what would be a log of blocks performed by Racepacket, which would be empty because he was never an administrator. For all of the blocks placed on Racepacket by administrators, you want this log. This shows a total of three individual times Racepacket was blocked for using sockpuppet accounts (the one second blocks are clerical clarifications).—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 23:22, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
- I stand corrected. Madcoverboy (talk) 23:34, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
- The check user showed that we were in the same metropolitan area, it did not show we were the same person. In fact, a half dozen members of the local running club held weekly discussions about the abuse of a particular autobiography article after each group run. At least, I tried to bring order to that mess by nominating that article for deletion, instead of joining in their edit wars with the subject of the article. But all of that is completely irrelevant here. What is relevant is the POV problems with the UM articles, whether I tried to improve the articles, and whether others resisted that effort out of a sense of personal OWNership. There has been some discussion of credibility here, but there has been little concern for Misplaced Pages's credibility. Misplaced Pages's credibility takes a hit when people post an autobiography with inflated credentials, when people write about their alma mater in boosterism terms, and when people unilaterally delete the views of others on a non-article page. Racepacket (talk) 05:51, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
- I stand corrected. Madcoverboy (talk) 23:34, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
- I am not making any such accusations. You are linking to what would be a log of blocks performed by Racepacket, which would be empty because he was never an administrator. For all of the blocks placed on Racepacket by administrators, you want this log. This shows a total of three individual times Racepacket was blocked for using sockpuppet accounts (the one second blocks are clerical clarifications).—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 23:22, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
What is concensus?
The complaint makes much of consensus and verbosity. I think there are valuable insights on WP:CONS: "Discussions should always be attempts to convince others, using reasons." This is true even if the discussions get precise or verbose. "The quality of an argument is more important than whether it comes from a minority or a majority." This is particularly true when the issue is whether a particular statement is POV-pushing and a majority of the active editors have connections to a college. Finally, "Consensus can only work among reasonable editors who make a good faith effort to work together in a civil manner. Developing consensus requires special attention to neutrality and verifiability in an effort to reach a compromise that everyone can agree on." The problem with the UM pages was unsufficient concern for neutrality and verifiability. Racepacket (talk) 05:51, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
- You still fought against the consensus when the content was neutral and verifiable.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 05:59, 23 October 2009 (UTC)