| Revision as of 05:32, 26 October 2009 editNotyourbroom (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers5,473 edits →Canvassing← Previous edit | Revision as of 05:34, 26 October 2009 edit undoRyulong (talk | contribs)218,132 edits →CanvassingNext edit → | ||
| Line 115: | Line 115: | ||
| ::I was asking them to add onto the statement of the dispute. And that's much less in volume than all of the people you asked to save your ass.—] (]) 03:05, 26 October 2009 (UTC) | ::I was asking them to add onto the statement of the dispute. And that's much less in volume than all of the people you asked to save your ass.—] (]) 03:05, 26 October 2009 (UTC) | ||
| :::I take issue with both the tone and content of that comment. It has been established that Racepacket's notifications were very objective and sterile; your insinuation that he explicitly asked for support is factually incorrect. In addition, your use of borderline-vulgar—and certainly unprofessional—language is a clear break with ], which I'm sure I need not remind you is an integral part of the ]. I request that you withdraw that comment and—if you feel you cannot control your tone and language in the future—withdraw from further discussion here. —] (]) 05:32, 26 October 2009 (UTC) | :::I take issue with both the tone and content of that comment. It has been established that Racepacket's notifications were very objective and sterile; your insinuation that he explicitly asked for support is factually incorrect. In addition, your use of borderline-vulgar—and certainly unprofessional—language is a clear break with ], which I'm sure I need not remind you is an integral part of the ]. I request that you withdraw that comment and—if you feel you cannot control your tone and language in the future—withdraw from further discussion here. —] (]) 05:32, 26 October 2009 (UTC) | ||
| ::::I am not going to change how I say things, so perhaps you should just grow a thicker skin if the word "ass" bothers you that much.—] (]) 05:34, 26 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 05:34, 26 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)
- This is a backroom page that has no gravity in the credibility of Misplaced Pages. Your comment is just a bunch of fluff that has no bearing on anything. Baechter has a total of four edits, two of are to the Wikipdia page that this is the discussion page for. His views are irrelevant to how you or anyone else acts on Misplaced Pages.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 06:02, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
- Well, if I was in Baechter's shoes, and was treated that way, I would certainly get a very negative impression of Misplaced Pages from being summarily reverted twice by you. Misplaced Pages want the Baechters of this world (who take the first step of opening an account) to volunteer their time and to believe what they read in Misplaced Pages. Slapping a Baechter down with a pair of reverts and then insulting him is not the way to move Misplaced Pages forward. I don't understand why you chose to open this "bunch of fluff" rather than getting a mediator to help resolve the differences that remain on the Miami Hurricanes and related pages. Many people left messages on the UM talk page e.g.,, , , , for some time saying the page had POV problems. Nothing happened to fix them. I posted {{|POV]]]}} and nothing happened. I have offered edits to correct the POV problems, and they were instantly reverted without discussion. I posted "verbose" discussions on the talk pages explaining why the statements have POV problems, and nothing happened because my text as "far too plain." Only when I tagged and reported copyright violations (from a biased Athletics Dept. website) that serious steps started to be taken to improve the Miami Hurricanes football article. We can spend a month writing more "bunches of fluff," but that will not get people to resolve differences on the text. However, mediation will move the dispute forward to resolution. Racepacket (talk) 06:41, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
- It is impossible to get a clear enough understanding of your issues when you spend 500 words explaining it. And all four of those comments you point out are from nearly four years ago. And you are making a non-sequitur to the issue that Baechter is probably one of your friends, again. This page is not to discuss your ongoing issues with the articles. That's what the article talk pages are for. This page is for discussing this page and those who comment on it. And this particular section is discussing the fact that Baechter's comment is invalid as a user with only two edits outside of this project page and absolutely no interaction with you on Misplaced Pages.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 06:54, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
- Ryulong, how does your deleting of alleged sockpuppet Baechter's words comply with WP:SPA? Do go be man (talk) 12:23, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
- They were not and I was wrong.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 18:23, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you. Do go be man (talk) 20:13, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
- To be brief, a number of people came to the page and are no longer actively contributing to the page. I am guessing that they did not find the environment welcoming. Several encountered editor warriors and gave up. It is relevant here because the "hostile environment" existed long before I started editing the UM pages. (FYI, I ran the my last comment through MS Word and got only a 242 word count, citations included. Grin.) Racepacket (talk) 21:43, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you. Do go be man (talk) 20:13, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
- They were not and I was wrong.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 18:23, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
- Ryulong, how does your deleting of alleged sockpuppet Baechter's words comply with WP:SPA? Do go be man (talk) 12:23, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
- It is impossible to get a clear enough understanding of your issues when you spend 500 words explaining it. And all four of those comments you point out are from nearly four years ago. And you are making a non-sequitur to the issue that Baechter is probably one of your friends, again. This page is not to discuss your ongoing issues with the articles. That's what the article talk pages are for. This page is for discussing this page and those who comment on it. And this particular section is discussing the fact that Baechter's comment is invalid as a user with only two edits outside of this project page and absolutely no interaction with you on Misplaced Pages.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 06:54, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
- Well, if I was in Baechter's shoes, and was treated that way, I would certainly get a very negative impression of Misplaced Pages from being summarily reverted twice by you. Misplaced Pages want the Baechters of this world (who take the first step of opening an account) to volunteer their time and to believe what they read in Misplaced Pages. Slapping a Baechter down with a pair of reverts and then insulting him is not the way to move Misplaced Pages forward. I don't understand why you chose to open this "bunch of fluff" rather than getting a mediator to help resolve the differences that remain on the Miami Hurricanes and related pages. Many people left messages on the UM talk page e.g.,, , , , for some time saying the page had POV problems. Nothing happened to fix them. I posted {{|POV]]]}} and nothing happened. I have offered edits to correct the POV problems, and they were instantly reverted without discussion. I posted "verbose" discussions on the talk pages explaining why the statements have POV problems, and nothing happened because my text as "far too plain." Only when I tagged and reported copyright violations (from a biased Athletics Dept. website) that serious steps started to be taken to improve the Miami Hurricanes football article. We can spend a month writing more "bunches of fluff," but that will not get people to resolve differences on the text. However, mediation will move the dispute forward to resolution. Racepacket (talk) 06:41, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
- This is a backroom page that has no gravity in the credibility of Misplaced Pages. Your comment is just a bunch of fluff that has no bearing on anything. Baechter has a total of four edits, two of are to the Wikipdia page that this is the discussion page for. His views are irrelevant to how you or anyone else acts on Misplaced Pages.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 06:02, 23 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 insufficient concern for neutrality and verifiability.
For example, if an editor has concerns about the validity of Forbes Magazine rankings, he should discuss them in a general context, rather than worrying about whether it makes "his" college look bad, and should not removing it repeatedly from "his" college while at the same time adding it to the article about the other editor's alma mater. Misplaced Pages is not in the business of making any college look good or bad. It is in the business of reporting verifiable facts in a neutral manner. Racepacket (talk) 05:51, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
- You still fought against the consensus when the content was neutral and verifiable. And falsely referred to consensuses when there was none or one was against you.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 05:59, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
- None of the diffs on the project page support that claim. Misplaced Pages policy and guidelines reflect the consensus of a large number of people. If you make an edit that does not comply with those policies and guidelines, it is not consensus, no matter how many active editors on the page support the change. Racepacket (talk) 10:52, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
- Explain to me how your removals of "The U" and "Momentum" from University of Miami were consensus.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 18:23, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
- Just as important as consensus is policy and established convention—violations of copyright and BLP issues may certainly be reported and dealt with unilaterally, for example.
I am unfamiliar with its original context in the article, but I have difficulty imagining how the word "momentum" could be used in a neutral way—when used metaphorically, it injects an editorial view into whatever topic is being written about, which is something best avoided. Review WP:PEACOCK, particularly this sentence: "Stick to the facts and report them without the commentary; allow the reader to decide what to find interesting, ironic, surprising, or noteworthy." Show, don't tell. —Notyourbroom (talk) 20:40, 23 October 2009 (UTC) - I dug up the original usage of the word "Momentum". I see now that it's the branding of a capital campaign. That's a dicier situation, then, as far as neutrality is concerned, as we certainly cannot expect a university to be neutral about its own capital campaign. I would appreciate hearing more from Racepacket on his reasoning here. —Notyourbroom (talk) 20:49, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
- This is not removal of the content regarding the capital campaign, but merely its name. Why was its constant removal, when several other editors disagreed with it's removal, consensus? The same goes for the constant removal of the name "The U" from the lead paragraph. Consensus was against Racepacket, but he clearly continued to remove it and any references that supported it.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 22:23, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
- When I started, it was sourced to the Development Office press release and read:
- Just as important as consensus is policy and established convention—violations of copyright and BLP issues may certainly be reported and dealt with unilaterally, for example.
- Explain to me how your removals of "The U" and "Momentum" from University of Miami were consensus.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 18:23, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
- None of the diffs on the project page support that claim. Misplaced Pages policy and guidelines reflect the consensus of a large number of people. If you make an edit that does not comply with those policies and guidelines, it is not consensus, no matter how many active editors on the page support the change. Racepacket (talk) 10:52, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
"Momentum: The Campaign for the University of Miami" was a fundraising effort launched in 2003 with the goal of raising $1 billion to improve facilities, recruit world-renowned faculty and expand the number of endowed student scholarships. At the close of the campaign, UM became the youngest university in the nation and the first in Florida to reach the billion dollar mark, raising $1.4 billion as of February 2008. Of the 56 universities that have run billion dollar campaigns, UM is the only private institution and one of only four established in the 20th Century to achieve this milestone.
- My first problem was the source said "one of the youngest" and not "the youngest." I then discussed the fact that campaigns are arbitrary, and that half the money was pledged even before the campaign was publicly announced. Later I decided that the comparisons were not objective and changed it to read, "In 2003, the university lanuched a fund raising drive which grew its endowment to the point that it ranks 97th in size in the nation." The sentence remain that way for over a week, but after I thought that we had consensus on the UM article and submitted the GA renomination, Ryulong decided the article should say more about it, and the current version does contain a comparison to other colleges in Florida. I dropped the matter at that point. (The history for that talk page section shows further edits at later dates because Ryulong went back to reformat my comments.) I think that Misplaced Pages should be very careful in making comparisons between colleges on the size of fundraising compaigns. It is silly to claim that it is the biggest in Coral Gables, or the biggest in Florida, when experts in higher education know that it pales compared to Harvard et al. The $1.37 billion represents a period that was backdated to begin in 2002 and includes $854 million for the medical campus at the time that UM acquired its own teaching hospital. In general, a fair comparison would be dollars raised per year, size of endowment, size of physical plant investment or some other national fiscal ranking by NACUBO, the Chronicle of Philanthropy or the Chronical of Higher Education. Here UM issued a press release which was picked up by the local paper, who understandably printed the local comparison in its fluff piece. We have NACUBO saying UM has the 97th largest endowment in the nation. We have President Shalala writing that endowment income is only 2% of UMs annual budget. I think its boosterism to compare UM to just Florida colleges and go out of our way to quote the local paper saying it's #1. It deserves a sentence or two in the history section, but any comparison should be national from an RS and not arbitrary from a local source. Racepacket (talk) 22:15, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
- This is nothing to do with the content regarding the campaign but its name. Why was it so essential to remove the name when several editors disagreed with its removal?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 22:24, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
- The one sentence version removed the name because it was a mouthful, and really not significant in the history of the University. Every fund drive at every college has a name, which few remember after the campaign ends. But when you insisted on having the name, for the sake of accuracy, I insisted on having the full name stated, just as it was on September 1. We both should respond directly to Notyourbroom's question -- why the need to go beyond the facts and include comparisons between UM and other schools when discussing the campaign? I thought that a national comparison based on the resulting endowment increase was fair, why did you insist on a within-Florida comparison? Racepacket (talk) 02:29, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
- This is nothing to do with the content regarding the campaign but its name. Why was it so essential to remove the name when several editors disagreed with its removal?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 22:24, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
- My first problem was the source said "one of the youngest" and not "the youngest." I then discussed the fact that campaigns are arbitrary, and that half the money was pledged even before the campaign was publicly announced. Later I decided that the comparisons were not objective and changed it to read, "In 2003, the university lanuched a fund raising drive which grew its endowment to the point that it ranks 97th in size in the nation." The sentence remain that way for over a week, but after I thought that we had consensus on the UM article and submitted the GA renomination, Ryulong decided the article should say more about it, and the current version does contain a comparison to other colleges in Florida. I dropped the matter at that point. (The history for that talk page section shows further edits at later dates because Ryulong went back to reformat my comments.) I think that Misplaced Pages should be very careful in making comparisons between colleges on the size of fundraising compaigns. It is silly to claim that it is the biggest in Coral Gables, or the biggest in Florida, when experts in higher education know that it pales compared to Harvard et al. The $1.37 billion represents a period that was backdated to begin in 2002 and includes $854 million for the medical campus at the time that UM acquired its own teaching hospital. In general, a fair comparison would be dollars raised per year, size of endowment, size of physical plant investment or some other national fiscal ranking by NACUBO, the Chronicle of Philanthropy or the Chronical of Higher Education. Here UM issued a press release which was picked up by the local paper, who understandably printed the local comparison in its fluff piece. We have NACUBO saying UM has the 97th largest endowment in the nation. We have President Shalala writing that endowment income is only 2% of UMs annual budget. I think its boosterism to compare UM to just Florida colleges and go out of our way to quote the local paper saying it's #1. It deserves a sentence or two in the history section, but any comparison should be national from an RS and not arbitrary from a local source. Racepacket (talk) 22:15, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Returning to the basic question, "What is consensus?" Ryulong seems to say that consensus is based on a vote -- it is not. When two views are identified -- 'compare to Florida' or 'don't compare to Florida' -- the editors are supposed to discuss it until something is worked out. That is different from saying 'you are out voted.' I've been giving reasons on the talk page, but others have not reciprocated, particularly on the Miami Hurricanes football page. Racepacket (talk) 02:36, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
- I have never said "consensus is based on a vote". I am merely saying there was no consensus for some of your edits to these pages, particularly when they were reverted by multiple users.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 03:49, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
- Some items took some time to work out, others were resolved quickly. The basic problem with the Miami Hurricanes and Miami Hurricanes football was there are only three people actively editing the page, POTD, ObiWan353 and me. POTD does not use edit summaries and rarely uses the discussion page. ObiWan353 did use the discussion page. When I started to edit the football page, it had the following passage on the move from the Miami Orange Bowl stadium to the Dolphins stadium:
In the summer of 2007, Miami announced that, beginning with its 2008 season, its team would play its home games at Dolphin Stadium. 2007 marked UM's final season of football at the Orange Bowl. The move to Dolphin Stadium was approved by the university's Board of Trustees, on the recommendation of UM President Donna Shalala, on August 21, 2007. Due to the condition of the Orange Bowl, there had been much speculation in recent years over the venue's continued viability as Miami football's home stadium. With an on-campus stadium not practical due to substantial opposition from neighboring home owners in Coral Gables, the university was left with two options: move 12 miles north to Dolphin Stadium in Miami Gardens, which serves as home to the NFL's Miami Dolphins, or renovate the Orange Bowl, adding more restrooms and a video replay screen and making assorted repairs to the stadium infrastructure. One of the most historic stadiums in college football, the Orange Bowl stadium was destroyed following the University of Miami's decision not to renew its contract with the famed stadium.
This could be read as POV-pushing that tearing down the Orange Bowl was bad and it was Shalala's fault. I then posted the following question on the discussion page:
Regarding the Orange Bowl paragraph, consider these three alternative sentences:
1."One of the most historic stadiums in college football, the Orange Bowl stadium was destroyed following the University of Miami's decision not to renew its contract with the famed stadium."
2. "One of the most decrepit stadiums in college football, the Orange Bowl was retired following the University of Miami's decision not to renew its contract with the outdated stadium."
3. "The Orange Bowl was destroyed following the University of Miami's decision not to renew its contract with the stadium"Which of the three was written by an Orange Bowl fan, a Dolphins Stadium fan, or a neutral party? Racepacket (talk) 02:56, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
to which ObiWan353 replied: "Regarding the OB, it was both decrepit and historic. But your sentence is far too plain." I had replaced #1 with #3, and was reverted back to #1. I don't have a problem if an edit that I make gets reverted or further modified, so long as it is clear that everyone is moving an article along toward improvement. The problem arises when I remove some peacock words, and they get restored because the other editor thinks that the neutral language is "far too plain." Racepacket (talk) 15:47, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
- Why can't you state your opinion in around five sentences?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 20:00, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
- Perhaps Ryulong can respond to Notyourbroom's question about why the need to go beyond the facts and include comparisons between UM and other schools when discussing the fundraising campaign? Racepacket (talk) 21:00, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
- I've argued to include it because it is explicitly stated as fact in the reference that we use to source the statement regarding the campaign. And that reference is independent from the University (it's a website for a newspaper in the City of Miami). How is that so hard to understand?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 21:18, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
- Don't you think that a local paper can be just as prone to boosterism as the University's press release? When I re-read the story, it bristles with peacock phrases that I would not feel comfortable quoting: "promises to propel UM into a more elite league of schools," "Shalala ... wants UM to continue its ascent in national rankings." If the #1 in Florida fundraising campaign is such a well-known fact, why is it that it was not picked up by more media outlets? Racepacket (talk) 00:53, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
- That's journalism. It's not suspect to the guidelines and trappings of Misplaced Pages.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 01:07, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
- We simply disagree on what judgments are required to maintain an encyclopedic tone. Facts should certainly be included, but we should guard against automatically incorporating the opinions or bias of any particular source. Racepacket (talk) 09:58, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
- That's journalism. It's not suspect to the guidelines and trappings of Misplaced Pages.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 01:07, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
- Don't you think that a local paper can be just as prone to boosterism as the University's press release? When I re-read the story, it bristles with peacock phrases that I would not feel comfortable quoting: "promises to propel UM into a more elite league of schools," "Shalala ... wants UM to continue its ascent in national rankings." If the #1 in Florida fundraising campaign is such a well-known fact, why is it that it was not picked up by more media outlets? Racepacket (talk) 00:53, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
- I've argued to include it because it is explicitly stated as fact in the reference that we use to source the statement regarding the campaign. And that reference is independent from the University (it's a website for a newspaper in the City of Miami). How is that so hard to understand?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 21:18, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
- Perhaps Ryulong can respond to Notyourbroom's question about why the need to go beyond the facts and include comparisons between UM and other schools when discussing the fundraising campaign? Racepacket (talk) 21:00, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
- We now have the benefit of an independent, disinterested Misplaced Pages editor's review of the University of Miami article. Here is his review which found the article "Should avoid advertising the university - present facts neutrally, avoid generalizations and opinons." Racepacket (talk) 09:58, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
- What does that have to do with anything regarding your conduct?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 10:27, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
Cornell1890 & Baechter
With the second addition of an endorsement of Notyourbroom's statement by Cornell1890 (talk · contribs) (only 251 edits, barely any of which are to talk pages) and the confirmation that Baechter and Racepacket live in the same city, this is a hell of a lot of meatpuppetry and/or sockpuppetry surrounding this page. I have not requested a look into Cornell1890's edits, but considering that Racepacket has in the past requested assistance from his friends and has been blocked for it, I'm beginning to think that he's done this again and is trying to sway the argument in his favor.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 21:36, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
- Please substantiate these claims: (1) "Racepacket has in the past requested assistance from his friends" and (2) "...and has been blocked for it". Logs show that Racepacket's account has never been blocked, and in my experience, his notification of proceedings was a far cry from being a violation of WP:CANVASS. —Notyourbroom (talk) 22:21, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
- I am not making any claims. Everything I have said about Racepacket's actions is fact. And I am going to answer your second question first: that is not Racepacket's block log. That would be the log of blocks Racepacket performed. This is his block log (you go to his contributions page and then click "block log" instead of "log"). He has been blocked three times for violating alternate account policies. You are the second person on this page to not know which page logs blocks performed on a user, revealing your lack of knowledge of Misplaced Pages as a whole. And to answer your first question, Racepacket admits it right here. This is not asking people on Misplaced Pages to vouch for him but asking people he knows in real life to vouch for him on Misplaced Pages. I clarified this for Madcoverboy three days ago, as well.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 22:28, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
Actually, I see now that the first endorsement was by Cornell2010 (talk · contribs) while the second is by Cornell1890 (talk · contribs). And it is slightly confusing that Cornel1890 left a comment on Cornell2010's user talk here. I thought that the numbers were identical.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 22:39, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
Canvassing
And there are separate canvassing issues, considering that Racepacket contacted Cornellrockey (talk · contribs), Xtreambar (talk · contribs), Cornell010 (talk · contribs), Notyourbroom (talk · contribs), Madcoverboy (talk · contribs), Cornell1890 (talk · contribs), Vaudedoc (talk · contribs), Disavian (talk · contribs), and Anthony Krupp (talk · contribs) all to comment here. How Cornell2010 (talk · contribs) found the page is beyond me.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 22:42, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
- I trust that you are not implying that those messages are outside what is permitted by WP:CANVASS. Would you please disclose who you contacted in connection with this page? I have found: PassionoftheDamon, Do go be man, MiamiDolphins3, and ElKevbo. How is what you did any different than the neutral notices I gave? I realize that I am not as experienced in these WP:RFC/U matters as you are, but aren't you getting a bit inconsistent and non-productive with all of this? Racepacket (talk) 00:49, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
- I was asking them to add onto the statement of the dispute. And that's much less in volume than all of the people you asked to save your ass.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 03:05, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
- I take issue with both the tone and content of that comment. It has been established that Racepacket's notifications were very objective and sterile; your insinuation that he explicitly asked for support is factually incorrect. In addition, your use of borderline-vulgar—and certainly unprofessional—language is a clear break with civility, which I'm sure I need not remind you is an integral part of the five pillars. I request that you withdraw that comment and—if you feel you cannot control your tone and language in the future—withdraw from further discussion here. —Notyourbroom (talk) 05:32, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
- I am not going to change how I say things, so perhaps you should just grow a thicker skin if the word "ass" bothers you that much.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 05:34, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
- I take issue with both the tone and content of that comment. It has been established that Racepacket's notifications were very objective and sterile; your insinuation that he explicitly asked for support is factually incorrect. In addition, your use of borderline-vulgar—and certainly unprofessional—language is a clear break with civility, which I'm sure I need not remind you is an integral part of the five pillars. I request that you withdraw that comment and—if you feel you cannot control your tone and language in the future—withdraw from further discussion here. —Notyourbroom (talk) 05:32, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
- I was asking them to add onto the statement of the dispute. And that's much less in volume than all of the people you asked to save your ass.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 03:05, 26 October 2009 (UTC)