Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:39, 25 March 2011

Withdrawing nominations

I don't know where to add this sort of discussion, so I'm starting it here. I want to make a comparison here between a situation on-wiki and in real life. George W. Bush nominated Harriet Myers for a seat on the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS), which as president was his right and obligation. Editors on Misplaced Pages nominate articles for Good Article Status, which is also their right. Presidential appointees must be confirmed by the US Senate; GANs must be listed by uninvolved editors. If you liken the review stage of a GAN to the hearings in the Senate, I think we have a decent parallel. When Bush withdrew his nomination of Ms. Myers, the US Senate did not continue to consider the nomination. Rather the nomination process was over. So too when an editor who has nominated an article at GAN and then withdraws it, that review process should cease.

Racepacket has doggedly pursued a conclusion to reviews of articles on his terms, but he does not unilaterally control the review process. Back in January, I withdrew the nomination of U.S. Route 223 from GAN, and resubmitted it for review, as the GAN FAQs explicitly allow. He pursued the nomination further against my wishes. Had he dropped the article at that time, that would have been the end of the debate and we could have moved on. His determination, and even comments to "do the edits myself" to the article contrary to what the pertinent sources show demonstrated a lack of good faith on his part, and ownership of the review. (Additionally, I had withdrawn the second review completely when he signed up do the second review, and I had states at WT:GAN at that time that I no longer had any interest in pursuing a nomination of the article at that time.)

LauraHale has withdrawn Netball from further consideration, not once, but twice. Earlier, he pronounced the article "failed", which is a bit presumptuous of a pronouncement to make. The article had been withdrawn for a third time by that point. Racepacket has yet to understand that the GA system is binary: articles are either "listed" or "not listed" (i.e. passed or failed). If an article's nomination is withdrawn before a reviewer takes the review, then there's no record on the article's talk page, only in the history of the page. If it is withdrawn after a review has started, then it's "not listed". The reviewer should not seek to impose his will on the article in place of the nominator and assert some "right" to continue reviewing the article in that context. The reviewer should be free to offer constructive feedback, like any article anywhere, but the GAN process has been terminated.

In short, my goal is to see Racepacket learn that there comes a point when he needs to just walk away, no matter how many hours he's invested on an article and its review. That he's willing to do reviews is great, but in the case of an impasse, just move on. If the article truly meets the lightweight criteria for a GA, another editor can decide that. If there are articles passed that are not worthy of passage, they can and will be reassessed and delisted. Any editor that pursues a review in the manner he has alienates his fellow volunteers on this project. Imzadi 1979 → 06:10, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Discounting others' opinions

Shortly before this RfC/U was filed, the article on Interstate 376 was nominated at GAN.The article was reviewed by Dough4872 and failed. A minimal amount of work was done to the article, but one of the key points of that review (reliable source vs. self-published sources) was left unaddressed. The article was renominated, and several editors expressed concerns over the condition of the article. Some of us even expressed these concerns on the GAN review page itself, relating how these concerns relate to both WP:USRD project standards and the Good Article Criteria. Additional editors are welcome to weigh in with comments on any article, its review, or both, at any time. However, these comments should not be disregarded out of hand completely when they are offered in good faith and directly relevant to the article meeting the criteria., even to the point of telling the nominator to ignore them in disparaging terms. When these project standards, which are only guidelines not absolutes, have been refined over the course of many successful Featured Article candidacies or Good Article nominations, then they should be regarded as persuasive and not discounted wholesale as has been done. Imzadi 1979 → 07:04, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

On a break in my working through the diffs, I noticed this talk page and the above comment. This is exactly the problem we have with User:LauraHale who did three quick nominations of Netball in the Cook Islands, so I have seen both sides. As for Talk:Interstate 376/GA2, I saw the nomination, glanced at the article and did my review without looking at the talk page in detail or anywhere else, so the review was not a slight toward Doug. I will go back and read his review, which is not transcluded to the talk page. (Perhaps there should be a rule that transclusions stay for at least a month or until the next review is completed?) As I have said before, I do not mind other editors sharing their opinions and offering suggested improvements. But let's not chase away reviewers nominators as we did in Talk:Grand Valley State University/GA1. People will do far more work if they feel a part of a happy team, than if they are in the middle of contradictory expectations. Racepacket (talk) 21:48, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't know why you mentioned GVSU, since you were the reviewer and neither of us chased you away, and even if you ran into my biggest subject-matter pet peeve , the review was completed by you. Imzadi 1979 → 00:32, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

In regards to Netball in the Cook Islands, the first review was quick failed because the reviewer believed that it would take a long time to address the points he brought up. These points were addressed. A comment was left to state that the concerns had been addressed, including restructuring the article and trying to reach out to people to request that they upload pictures about netball in the Cook Islands or request that they change licenses on existing pictures so they could be used on article. (This was later followed up with by calling a Cook Islands newspaper and requesting them to upload pictures and calling the Cook Islands Netball Association on the phone and making a similar request.) The second review did not reference issues that were raised in the first GA. The only connecting point that I saw included the issue of pictures, a point that I had specifically addressed in GA1 as being unable to get. Beyond this, the reviewer has demonstrated no knowledge of netball, little knowledge of women's sport and has not made any article contributions to indicate that he was knowledgeable of Pacific Islands cultures. When there was conflict regarding these areas came up on the review, the reviewer did not appear to request a second opinion. Beyond that, immediately after he failed the article, he went to the netball article and created another large list of things to fix in the Netball article that had not appeared in his original review.

After the article was failed, I solicited people's opinion regarding the quality of the netball in the Cook Islands on IRC and via e-mail. I asked them if they felt the article, as it was and based on suggestions from GA1 and GA2 that had been incorporated into the article, was Good ARticle ready. I was given an affirmative answer. The third reviewer had access to the source materials, was familiar with netball and was familiar with Pacific Island cultures. They were better equipped to review the article. They passed it. I am not sure what the problem is here in terms of my actions. I would argue that the problem with this process demonstrates why having people review in their subject area is important. (Do I want Racepacket blocked? No. I just wanted a fair review of the article. My edits to address the changes made in GA1 on the Cook Islands demonstrate that.) --LauraHale (talk) 00:52, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Although I removed the transclusions of the Good Article Reviews of Netball in the Cook Islands, they are still linked on the talk page, and were there until after the last review was concluded. The idea of keeping them transcluded for a period of time afterward seems impractical unless it could be done by a bot. Who would do it? Who would remind them that it needs to be done after a month or more has passed? Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:43, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Moved from the main page: LauraHale section

• Note Laura has closed it for the second time and once again Racepacket reopened it stating that, everyone should have a say, it's not upto her. When all others said it's a shame but accepted it as she is the nominator. So I closed it again.

Here's the links: withdrawn for the second time reinstated by Racepacket again withdrawn by me KnowIG (talk) 21:58, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Here we go, still only thinks that the reviewer can fail it and then went round canvassing other users to get them to finish it as he didn't like the fact the I and Laura had closed the review. Even when an outsider said go to ANI if he keeps opening the article after you the nominator closed it. KnowIG (talk) 22:03, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

• WP:3RR Applies here. Any further attempt by racepacket will result in an block. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:23, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Moved from the main page: Bill william compton section

She doesn't have to answer to you as this is about racepacket and not her. Plus and no offense when I say this. It's really hard to understand what you mean, cause what you wrote is really poor English. Perhaps you would like to rewrite your first comment. KnowIG (talk) 08:52, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I wish to respond to extension of "Outside view by LauraHale" above. It is a positive sign that LauraHale is starting to take some responsibility for these difficulties with her reviewers, and I am pleased that she is finally including "diff links" to document her latest claims. However, she should go back and add "diff links" to her earlier accusations. She cannot provide "diff links", because her accusations are false. Her latest story is that her difficulties were caused by Racepacket's unfamiliarity with New Zealand English and with Netball. The answer is that LauraHale's User page says she grew up in the United States, so "New Zealand language" was not the problem between them. Racepacket and I both had difficulties dealing with her bullying, even with our different backgrounds. Hence, her proposal to block him from future GA reviewing of articles written in British English makes no sense and misses the problem. LauralHale also forgets that Racepacket offered to do research at the US Library of Congress, so her proposal to impose a mentor to help him access reference books is just being vindictive. Bill william compton 09:47, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

The issues were not New Zealand English. (I've worked in a school where I learned British English. I live in Australia. I currently have a supervisor who is a New Zealander and have sought help from New Zealanders to make sure I have used New Zealand English appropriately. I have seen no evidence to suggest that Racepacket has similar experiences using other forms of English or has reached out to people who speak other dialects to make sure his suggestions were compliant with the dialect the used in the article.) The issues went beyond the dialect and encompassed a number of other issues such as compliance with source information, credibility of sourcing, complying with consensus on the talk page, asking for popularity to be demonstrated while asking for information that does just that to be removed from the article, insisting the netball is not an Olympic sport, insisting information on a completely unrelated sport be included in the article, refusing to acknowledge that "women's basketball" is another name for netball, and making unfounded accusations of plagiarism. The last bit is a serious accusation that Racepacket still has failed to retract or substantiate.

As for the issue of sourcing, I was under the impression that Racepacket was based in Illinois. While I am willing to assume good faith, I just cannot believe that he would be willing to pay for a trip to Washington DC to verify sources for an article on Misplaced Pages. Even if he was willing to do that, I also find it hard to believe that he could do this in a timely manner. Lastly and most importantly, I checked the Library of Congress catalog for Women, Sport and the Media published in 1985 by Australian Sport Commission, Australian Netball Skills by Noeleen Dix and for Netball the greatest sport for women by Smith and Humberstone. None of these texts are available at the Library of Congress. These books are not printed in the United States. As I said in my comment, if Racepacket believes he needs to conduct plagiarism investigations into every article he reviews, then he needs to only review articles where he has access to the texts. Articles that are heavily dependent on books printed outside the USA are a problem as they are not available to him. People should not be subjected to unsubstantiated accusations of plagiarism and my solution will help prevent some of that by limiting his reviews only to articles where he can access the source. --LauraHale (talk) 11:10, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Canvassing

Just a note to say that Racepacket has been directing people to this page. Many have declined. But I suspect that his targeting people who have something positive to say about him. Is canvassing in this was allowed? KnowIG (talk) 11:09, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Surprise surprise it's working. Canvassing and then the user appears with a positive comment. People should come here on their own free will like most of us have done. KnowIG (talk) 13:27, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

comment from Off2riorob Racepacket also left me a note, personally I don't see anything wrong with a few notes, mine was possible connected as he asked me to comment as a British person for an addition opinion in the GA netball review. It seems there has been a clash of personalities here and when I commented I did think the GA review would perhaps have been better off closed and reopened with fresh eyes. As for me experiences with Racepacket, in regard to edit style, no one is perfect and I have at least managed to come to compromises and consensus through discussions with him on the couple of times I have bumped into him, in regard to is GA reviewing I have only interacted on one or perhaps two, one was Margaret Thatcher recently and I was very grateful to him for his good work there. As I said, we all fall out sometimes but Racepacket is in my experience of him, a large net gain as an editor and as a GA reviewer. Off2riorob (talk) 13:54, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Outside view by Cptnono

Not sure where to put this, and I honestly am not going to go through all of the diffs. I did want to point out that the editor reviewed an article I put up for GA and it was fantastic. He was especially (and correctly) strict on an image issue which made the article better. So from my experience, he is already "get along amicably with the rest of the project."Cptnono (talk) 21:41, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

1. Bill william compton 09:24, 25 March 2011 (UTC

Outside view by North8000

We asked for a very thorough GA review of SS Edmund Fitzgerald by Racepacket and were thankful for receiving that. (it's going back up for FAC in 1-2 weeks. ) We have also received substantial expert help and advice on it from Imzadi 1979. These folks appear to be on opposite sides in this discussion here. I hope that this can be resolved amicably. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 10:54, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

There is a behavioral problem by Racepacket at play here, which is the original focus of the RfC/U, netball-related issues notwithstanding. His actions have not permitted editors to withdraw their nominations in the face of unreasonable demands. (U.S. Route 223's review issues centered around details and information best left to the Interstate 73 article as undue weight in the US 223 article as well as issues surrounding future predictions not based in present-day certainty.) He has been unreasonable in disregarding the applicable project standards which do exist as a guideline on the structure and content of highway articles; they are not a "non-existent rule". Logical deviations from the standards are appropriate, but the standards have been created and refined based on nearly three dozen US highway FACs and over 500 GANs. The second behavioral issue that most concerns me is when he questioned the choices by DanTheMan474 (talk · contribs) over which articles were being nominated at GAN. No reviewer should ever tell a nominator anything along the lines of: "One must seriously question why you are nominating two short spur road for GA consideration, when the main OH 4 road, that this route connects, does not even have a route description. Wouldn't it make more sense to work on the major roads first, and leave the short (less than 2 miles) roads until the after the major roads are completed?" Nominators must be free to nominate the articles they want based on their own comfort or interest levels with the subjects.

The rest of the RfC/U, outside of the additional issues that have been added about the netball articles, deals more with Racepacket's behavior relating to his treatment of an entire WikiProject. He has almost single-handedly reviewed all of the highway GANs that've been nominated recently from anyone else except myself. Most of the project has actually stopped nominating articles for Good Article status now because of his level of bullying and his attitudes in the reviews. We have two editors on wikibreaks that we haven't seen online at all in weeks, one that's moved over to railroad article editing and others that have just stopped nominating at GAN for fear that Racepacket will snag the reviews. The goal of the RfC/U is to amicably raise the issues with Racepacket's behavior that others are finding offensive and work out the solution. That he has made a few good reviews does not excuse harassment and other bad behavior. Imzadi 1979 → 17:33, 25 March 2011 (UTC)