Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 05:40, 6 April 2011

Withdrawing nominations

I don't know where to add this sort of discussion, so I'm starting it here. I want to make a comparison here between a situation on-wiki and in real life. George W. Bush nominated Harriet Myers for a seat on the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS), which as president was his right and obligation. Editors on 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 (Additionally, I had withdrawn the second review completely when he signed up do the second review, and I had states at WT:GAN at that time that I no longer had any interest in pursuing a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LauraHale has withdrawn Netball from further consideration, not once, but twice.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 The article had been withdrawn for a third time by that point.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 If an article's nomination is withdrawn before a reviewer takes the review, then there's no record on the article's talk page, only in the history of the page. If it is withdrawn after a review has started, then it's "not listed".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)

I noticed that Racepacket has included the GA review of Netball] among his accomplishments in an entry for the WikiCup competition. I think, given the issues under discussion here, this is not an appropriate inclusion. I don't know whether or not the effort to build a strong entry for that competition relates to Racepacket's insistence that he be the "closer" of the discussion, rather than permitting Laura to withdraw. But, I think it would be appropriate if he chose to remove that from his entry. I think it would be a good way to indicate acknowledgment and authentic engagement with the concerns raised in this RfC. -Pete (talk) 18:56, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

He has also quick failed Talk:Netball_at_the_Olympics/GA1 (another article Laura is working on) and added it to the WikiCup list. John Vandenberg 19:21, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I saw that one too..but I suspect there is precedent for putting a "quick fail" in the list. Of the two, that one seems much more defensible to me. -Pete (talk) 20:04, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Discounting others' opinions

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

On a break in my working through the diffs, I noticed this talk page and the above comment. This is exactly the problem we have with User:LauraHale who did three quick nominations of Netball in the Cook Islands, so I have seen both sides. As for Talk:Interstate 376/GA2, I saw the nomination, glanced at the article and did my review without looking at the talk page in detail or anywhere else, so the review was not a slight toward Doug. I will go back and read his review, which is not transcluded to the talk page. (Perhaps there should be a rule that transclusions stay for at least a month or until the next review is completed?) As I have said before, I do not mind other editors sharing their opinions and offering suggested improvements. But let's not chase away 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 the clarification previously made, is there any allegation that Pdcook (talk · contribs) was chased away? I see that he's still working on the Grand Valley article, and there's not really conflicting expectations when someone comments to explain that the reviewer is requesting an inaccuracy be added to an article. Seriously, all I did was point out that in the case of Michigan's highways, the "M" is not an abbreviation for anything, and it is an integral part of the highway's number. The rest of the review was your work, not mine, and I had nothing to do with it. Imzadi 1979 → 19:09, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I was not chased away from the Grand Valley GA review, nor was the interaction between Racepacket and Imzadi particularly distressing or discouraging to me. I did find the lengthy review comments of a 4th party to be a little over-the-top. However, my lack of persistence with the GVSU article has more to do with off-wiki writing tasks that have been draining my desire to comb through references and write encyclopedic paragraphs. P. D. Cook 16:45, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

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

Moved from the main page: LauraHale section

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

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

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

• WP:3RR Applies here. Any further attempt by racepacket will result in an block. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:23, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
• Comment I have followed this review (and the previous one) on and off for the duration. (For disclosure, I've had some side-discussion with Laura, who is the only participant I know.) Though I think there is plenty of opportunity for multiple parties to reexamine the approaches they took, this issue really stands out to me. I feel strongly that a GA nominator who becomes dissatisfied with the process should be able to withdraw the nomination with a minimum of drama. Racepacket's repeated reversion of that attempt is disturbing, and does carry the flavor of harassment in my opinion. No fact in an article, no process is so important that it should prevent us from treating each other in a respectful manner. -Pete (talk) 03:52, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Moved from the main page: Bill william compton section

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

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

Canvassing

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

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

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

Outside view by North8000

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

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

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

I didn't mean to give any impression of knowing or commenting on the overall situation. I was just providing a little info on my positive experiences with Racepacket and you, and on my first read of the "complaint" and links. When I said "non-existent rule", I meant that there is no wikipolicy that says that project recommendations must be folowed, and so failure to follow them is not a wiki-offense. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 19:20, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that your statement is only touching on a few of the issues that form the original basis for the RfC. The netball stuff is side drama that is sidetracking the core issues here. A few good GA interactions by Racepacket does not excuse his behavior on other issues. He has had an article nominated at GAN failed (VA-27). He did not address the substantive matters of the review and renominated it. It was failed again by a different reviewer with more detailed commentary on why the article did not meet the criteria. It was renominated 12 hours later without substantial work and failed a third time with additional detailed commentary on why the article did not meet the criteria for listing as a GA. Now, the first review was not the greatest. I can't completely fault him for renominating it for a different reviewer. However, when he was trying to impose additions to US 223 that violated policy and weren't supported by reliable sources, I withdrew the article. He should not have attempted to continue the review when I renominated it, but he did. If one editor makes comments in a review, we should be free to disagree with them. (Those points of disagreement though need a reason, not "I don't like that".) If two editors are making the same comments, there's probably some substance to them. If three editors are saying the same thing, then there is something to be addressed. VA-27 had three reviewers raising substantially the same concerns. He was the only one of almost a half-dozen editors pushing his POV on US 223, and policies and sources were not on his side in that discussion. That's WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT at its core.

He's questioned an editor's choice of nominations at GAN. He's repeatedly tagged articles for improvements, even articles that have recently passed through FAC that appropriately address the content he's disputing (M-6's past controversies). He's attacked other editors in his comments about them. (WP:NPA) He's basically taken positions to oppose a group of editors for the sake of opposing that group of editors. (WP:POINT) We're supposed to discuss the merits and content of the articles when at WP:AFD, WP:GAN, WP:FAC, or on the talk pages of the articles, not the merits or character of the editors involved; that's saved for the dispute resolution forums like this RfC. These behaviors are the "wiki-offenses". WP:IAR provides a reason to allow logical deviations from project standards, where it improves the article. His requested/suggested deviations aren't necessarily improvements to the article though. The disputed behavior, if left unchecked, will be a detriment to the community in the long run. Imzadi 1979 → 20:51, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Perhaps, but going against a well-established consensus, even after being pointed towards a guideline of that consensus by many editors, is an offence. That is WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, which has been used as grounds for an array of blocks. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  _¢ 21:08, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Imzadi1979, again, I just gave my two cents and info on a couple of items, I was not commenting on the overall situation, nor am I in a position to. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 21:32, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

"Yes but when you stated: "I don't see specific "charges" of wp:substance in this whole thing." you have commented on the overall situation. That's my concern. Imzadi 1979 → 21:37, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I did not intend that. I intended to be taken literally, e.g. just making comments on IMHO what was not on that page. Sorry if I was not clearer. North8000 (talk) 23:35, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Racepacket blocked for a week

It appears that Racepacket was blocked yesterday for disruptive editing. It is customary (but not absolutely required) that RFC/Us are informally suspended during such blocks, since the ultimate goal is agreement between all parties, and if one of the parties is unable to participate, then it's hard to make progress towards the goal. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:59, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Of course it bears noting that Racepacket also had several days to reply to this RfC/U before his block, and he basically ignored it even though he was aware of the discussion. The initial complaint was drafted in less than 24 hours in between other editing activities by the certifying parties, so five days' time to make some sort of initial reply seems like it was plenty for him to at least make a comment. Imzadi 1979 → 21:27, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Do you still stick to your assertion that Racepacket "basically ignored" this RFC? This is a good example of the assumption of bad faith which led to this whole mess. —Bill Price (nyb) 17:40, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

He did for the better part of two weeks. I assume good faith, but one can only gather that he crafted his response during his block. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  _¢ 17:49, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

(ec) He did before the block. It is not bad faith to assert a fact borne out by the evidence. He acknowledged the filing of the RfC/U on March 24, 2011 yet was not blocked until March 27, 2011. From the time the RfC/U was created in user namespace until it was moved to Misplaced Pages namespace was was about eight hours (20:32, March 21, 2011 to 04:48, March 22, 2011). Those are the facts. Imzadi 1979 → 17:54, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Possible block evasion by racepacket

I suspect this edit here was made by Racepacket in order to avoid the block. Misplaced Pages:DUCK may apply. Reasons for suspecting that this duck is Racepacket :

1. IP address originates in Virginia, where Racepacket lives.
2. Edit tone extremely similar to User:Racepacket
3. Edit content extremely similar to User:Racepacket
4. Only one person supported the position of Olympic's recognising federations, not sports
5. User:Racepacket was blocked for actions directly pertaining to this page
6. Timing of edit in relation to dispute
7. No other IP address edits have been made to the article
8. General topic is primarily of interest to people in Commonwealth countries
9. Article has very few page views, limiting the potential number of contributors
10. February edits coincide with previous block of contributor
11. User:Racepacket has gotten into other disputes about what constitutes a sport
12. Has a history of sockpuppeting: Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Racepacket and Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets/Racepacket (2nd)
13. User:158.59.127.249 contributed to Article for deletion request that Racepacket was involved with.

--LauraHale (talk) 04:38, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Please contact the blocking admin with this information. (I can't do anything with this, unfortunately). Racepacket has socked before during his extended blocks. --Rschen7754 04:42, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Done. User_talk:Ironholds#suspected_sockpuppeting. This led to Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Racepacket‎. --LauraHale (talk) 06:17, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

For the reasons stated on my talk page, LauraHale's argument does not make sense. It is just another example of her leaping to conclusions without a sufficient factual predicate. I was cleared and Ironholds withdrew his evasion block. Racepacket (talk) 15:18, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

After having a look through the pages myself the block was withdrawn through lack of evidence and other users have stated that the evidence was fairly WP:DUCKy - so I don't think its fair to accuse LauraHale of jumping to conclusions. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 15:51, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Questions for LauraHale

1) Am I correct that you are dropping your insistence on netball being described as an "Olympic sport"? 2) Going forward, are you willing to drop your efforts to recruit or line up your reviewer for GA reviews and just use the queue like everyone else? Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 15:18, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

On the second question: Not everyone "just use the queue". I've received requests from nominators, and I've advertised other people's nominations to both individuals and groups that I thought might be both interested and capable. There is no prohibition against this. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:55, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I expressed my views on picking your own reviewer in my response. We have a "Walled Garden" potential problem. We need more people reviewing highway articles who are not "highway buffs," and we need a wide variety of people reviewing the netball-related articles who have no connection to the nominator(s). I currently have a proposal that an article be at least 60 days old before it is eligible for a GA nomination. That might help solve some of the problems. More people would be able to edit and/or comment on the talk page before it reaches a review. Here, the nominator creates the first partial draft of an article, nominates it before it meets the GA criteria, has a co-editor "start" a review, and the two jointly develop the article for another week, and then the review is closed with minimal on-the-record comments between them. Since the stream of edits were not in response to comments made on the review page, how did the articles pass the stability criteria? Racepacket (talk) 07:19, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm sure that everyone agrees that logrolling is undesirable, but it does not follow from there that either encouraging an individual to consider conducting the review or leaving a note about the nomination at a relevant WikiProject is forbidden. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:56, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Withdrawing from participation with this RFCU

Over the last week and a half, this Requests for comment/User conduct has been going on with continuous arguing and point and once again, another trip to WP:ANI. As an original supporter of this RFC/UC, I have now seen the error in that decision, a major error in that decision. I no longer feel, especially after reading Racepacket's response (thanks for finally posting one), that this RFC/UC has any merit. It has been obvious to me since it began that the form of this that we did nothing wrong as a project and all of this was on him. I've known and have participated in behavior that would prove otherwise. Do I apologize for my actions on Talk:Ohio State Route 369, and the ANI for U.S. Route 223? Definitely. However, I did it in a defense of two editors who I know in real life, and as a friend, I want to back him up. However, with the Maryland Route 200 drama, which I stayed out of and the other situations with different GANs, I no longer think that Racepacket is 100% at fault for everything, if even a majority percentage.

Watching the way this requests for comment has turned out, with all the trouble with User:LauraHale and Netball, the nitpicking over the movement of comments, the plausible effect that no one can agree over his work. I hate to have to be the Washington DC Whistle-blower, however, I do feel the obsession this project has taken over Racepacket is absolutely disgusting. I know actions on Internet Relay Chat are not very permissible anywhere else, but just watching the room and talking to other members of the roads project in private over email, I've grown damn tired of the topic being all about Racepacket. I mean users went to the trouble of using our bot for insulting him, something I went ahead and removed because it makes us look just as bad. Profanity has been used about him, something I definitely don't like happening. Also, if most of my project remembers, we got into some problems with that in our last Arbitration Committee case. I think the US Roads project, which I will always remain a member of, has taken this situation too far, including considering a third ArbCom ironically three years to the week of our last one. Now, I feel that if this has no merit, going to the Arbitration Committee will do less benefit than this has had.

Can my fellow projects members call me a hypocrite? If they feel that way, Sure. It doesn't change the fact that I am entitled to my rather upset opinion over this entire situation. I think honestly, User:Kumioko put it best of anyone on there, both sides have acted in the wrong, and I think as we keep going on the latter, us, have been doing more wrong than good. At this point, I probably will dump the moratorium on nominating articles at WP:GAN that I've been doing and I have been in the process of attempting to work things out. If I am to see any gains in this RFC/UC anymore, is that sanctions are needed on both sides, and personally, I'm just hoping we can put the experience aside and I can at least attempt to help improve your (Racepacket) articles quite a bit, since its obvious you can do the research, just needs some help. From this point, people can comment on my opinion, but I no longer wish to be part of this hunt and peck contest. The merit is gone. If my project dislikes my decision, then it's their opinion. Mine is that I just don't want to see this go on at this point.Mitch32 16:36, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

I take Mitch's comments in the spirit that they were offered. In response, if I have said anything in my interaction with Mitch that caused offense, I apologize for that. I appreciated the help given on VA Route 27, but I will continue to hold off on nominating numbered road articles for GA, and put my efforts on other articles. Racepacket (talk) 17:31, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

This comment doesn't quite get it right. However, the only way to defend ourselves would be to post channel logs online, which is not allowed on any English Misplaced Pages channel (not just the roads one). So, this puts us in between a rock and a hard place here. The expectation on a Misplaced Pages channel is privacy and confidentiality, and this has been broken, which is quite disappointing.

I think there's a fine distinction between "bashing" a user, and complaining about their actions and figuring out how to combat them. The vast majority of comments (that I've seen anyway) were of the latter. --Rschen7754 19:53, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Mitchazenia's most specific allegation is that of a channel member "using for insulting "; if true, that would be uncivil and unconstructive regardless of circumstances. I will grant, though, that this all amounts to hearsay, so I am reluctant to draw too many conclusions from it. —Bill Price (nyb) 22:50, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

An understanding

Apparently, although I did get my point across that the RFC needs to end, it seems things have massively spiraled out of control. My intention was to call out one situation, not the entire actions of the project. Since members of the project agree that taking a stand was right, I apparently went too far into arguing the fact that IRC behavior was involved. Re-reading and considering my post, I probably could've kept some of it quiet, but there comes a point where you've had it with the problems, and I'm not intentionally trying to censor the IRC room, but in the process, I've driven a fellow editor off the IRC room, something I definitely didn't see. I mean, I expected they'd be a bit annoyed, which I enlightened, not that I expected to spiral out the way it has. I would hope some here understand the channel isn't meant to do harm, I just felt there was some problems going on that needed to see the light of day.

Racepacket, not that I don't distrust your reviews, don't put me on your list, I think it just gets a bit too grating. It was the New Jersey Route 26 GAN that really got me annoyed, since I really haven't done much there since. Don't worry too much about it. Mitch32 03:41, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Just to cut through a double-negative (or even a triple-negative!), without commenting on the reason, I am offering to not review GA nominations from Mitch as well as the other three. I have confidence that all four can write GA quality articles and have them reviewed in the normal queue without my involvement, and my offer is not a commentary on any of them. Racepacket (talk) 07:28, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Request for disengagement

There are several solutions to this problem, but perhaps the easiest one is as follows: disengagement. To be specific, that means:

• That Racepacket would not review road articles at GAN
• That Racepacket would disengage from doing any controversial actions with road articles such as tagging.
• In regards to the Netball situation, this would mean Racepacket would not review any more Netball articles, and stay away from LauraHale
• That Racepacket would allow the nominator to withdraw from a GAN that they are not pleased with, as has just been discussed at WT:GAN and per the GA rules.
• That the involved parties would refrain from pursuing further sanctions unless the above were broken.

If all the parties agreed to this, this would be the most peaceable solution. Is this something people would get behind? --Rschen7754 19:38, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Oppose I find it strange that this proposed resolution reaches further than the originally stated desired outcome. To quote: "Preferably, that Racepacket would get along amicably with the rest of the project. However, if this is not possible, then that Racepacket would minimize disruptive interaction with the rest of the project." During this RFCU, a number of users have offered outside views expressing gratitude for Racepacket's efforts at GAN; some have made statements unambiguously supporting his efforts, especially in cases like this one (Savidan: "I think Racepacket does a good job at what is generally a thankless task…If a reviewer's conduct is going to be called into question in a forum like this every time they insist on changes that they believe, in good faith, will improve the article, then, in the end, it's the project that will suffer."), and of the users who originally complained, two have withdrawn their complaints, with Mitchazenia explicitly stating that "I no longer feel…that this RFC/UC has any merit." I can't reasonably support a resolution which assumes Racepacket to be guilty of all he was accused of, requires him to withdraw from areas in which he has been a prolific and productive editor, and which only makes reference to the original aggrieved party by promising them another chance at "pursuing further sanctions" if Racepacket doesn't do what they want him to do. —Bill Price (nyb) 23:04, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

I have already agreed to stay away from reviewing articles nominated by Imzadi1979. I would be willing to stay away from articles nominated by Dough4872 and Rschen7754. I would also promise not to renominate VA 27 for GA. (If Mitchazenia believes that I would not be fair to him, I am willing to throw his GA nominations into the list as well.) To make a crude analogy, GA review is like going to a dentist. Although everyone tries to brush their own teeth, everyone needs a different person to do a cleaning for them. The dentist may make some patients feel uncomfortable while working on their teeth, but it is for the greater good. It helps if the dentist can put all patients at ease, and dentist should work on a charming chair-side manner. Just as a dentist wants all of his patients to have healthy teeth, I want all of my GA reviews to result in a "pass." I have learned that I will never earn the trust of Imzadi1979, Dough4872 and Rschen7754, and they are willing to sit in the queue longer due to absence of my services. I will work on my "chair-side manner" in all future GA reviews. It seems that is the best way to resolve the RFC/U for all involved. Racepacket (talk) 03:20, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

It sounds like the concerns are bigger than merely the name of the official nominator. Are you willing to let noms for roads and netball sit in the queue, possibly for months and months? Are you willing to avoid LauraHale? (Is Laura willing to avoid you?)

If so, then perhaps the other participants would consider whether a reasonably generous time limit might be appropriate. I'm sure we'd all think it silly to have such an agreement last for decades. Would one or two years' breathing room be enough? WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:08, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, I'd be willing to give him another chance in a year or two. It depends on what his reviews are like then. The thing is, at least for roads, there is no shortage of (good) reviewers. --Rschen7754 04:20, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Laura has stated at User_talk:John_Vandenberg#help_please? that she is willing to avoid Racepacket. --John Vandenberg 04:46, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for sharing her comments. The LauraHale misunderstanding is very unfortunate. Since both LauraHale and I want the same things - namely that netball articles get promoted to GA and FA, I don't understand the basis for any difficulty. Could we appoint an experienced third party to go through the netball articles and fix any close paraphrasing, improper terminology, or NPOV concerns? It would speed their journey toward GA/FA and would eliminate any need for my further involvement in netball-related articles. Racepacket (talk) 06:30, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Another competent editor will catch any of those issues you mention. You're not the only editor capable of doing such. --Rschen7754 06:35, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

That is why it should not be a problem to find one and agree upon this solution. The problem is miscommunication and tasks falling through the cracks. Once the task is given to an experienced editor, it will be straightforward. Racepacket (talk) 07:31, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

The way WP:FAC works is that several very experienced editors go through the article. Something like the stuff you mention would be caught. Following this, the FAC director or delegate goes through the article and makes sure the article is good as well. You've got several eyes checking over the article (from within and outside the WikiProject or subject area) to make sure the article fully meets all applicable standards. --Rschen7754 07:37, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

The problem is you turning up all over the place, with baggage, blinkers and a bee in your bonnet. Not a good combo. Even in your post above you clearly indicate that you believe there are problems with these articles. You need to let go, and slowing down might be a good idea too. John Vandenberg 07:42, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

And meanwhile, this morning, Racepacket reviewed Talk:K-30 (Kansas highway)/GA1. Quite disappointing. --Rschen7754 16:01, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Bonjour à tous, Hello Everybody, I saw the conversation you were having. This is very sad, sad and sad. If I may interrupt please, this debate is a considerable cost: Misplaced Pages has a serious deficit of female readers and female editors, and that is a problem, and this sort of thing doesn't help (references Misplaced Pages: This is a man's world, Where Are the Women in Misplaced Pages?. It is necessary to preserve a better climat with women editors. Thanks for your support and Best regards, merci de votre support et bonne chance --Geneviève (talk) 10:22, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree completely. Women's role in sport is an interesting area to develop in that regard. That is why I was not only active in Title IX implmentation in the 1970s, but also have been working to assure accuracy at Misplaced Pages:

• Title IX
• University of Miami gender equity statistics and diff
• Amateur Sports Act of 1978
• GA review sought fair and accurate treatment of decision to drop Baseball team

The list can go on at length. The great thing about Misplaced Pages is that editors don't have to reveal their ages genders or educational backgrounds, and everyone can be treated without regard to any underlying prejudices. However, Misplaced Pages owes a duty to its readers and must maintain its credibility. So, it is important that we all work toward a common set of standards, such as no point of view, verifiability and no orginial research. To do that, every editor should be made to feel welcome to edit in every corner of Misplaced Pages, without any "walled gardens." Some areas, such as US roads, are exclusively male. This is perhaps cultural because while young US girls play with dolls, young boys are playing with toy bulldozers in the local sandbox. Later, road construction professions, such as civil engineering, attract a disproportionate number of men. While there are many women historians, women sociologists, and women political scientists, I question whether they would be welcomed to write about road issues on Misplaced Pages. I propose a test for Genevieve2: pick any US highway article and try to add some well-sourced history discussion to it or try to perform a GA review on a nominated road article. Racepacket (talk) 14:08, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

This is quite ridiculous to speculate upon, and is an accusation of sexism. --Rschen7754 16:01, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

As a roads editor, I would welcome women who wanted to write about roads, but I don't think there are any who want to. Please prove me wrong! –Fredddie™ 22:16, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Racepacket ,I thank you for your proposition of a test on highway US article but I shall not answer it because my intervention was on the human climate of the present discussion. This climate saddens me. Your requirements to the article of Laura seems to me very unpleasant. It has for result that myself, it is the total barn-owl dismay( en langue française nous parlions de la peur totale qui fige et qui immobilise. La peur de voir son travail constamment critiqué - sorry for my poor english) and dissuades me from presenting new articles for Misplaced Pages. The multiple debates inhibit the work of some women editors. To frighten them, or to discourage them from write. I support Laura with human compassion--Geneviève (talk) 15:47, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. I hope that editors of all genders and backgrounds will feel welcome to contribute to all areas of Misplaced Pages. Racepacket (talk) 18:15, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Racepacket, you have failed to answer my question. Are you willing to stop reviewing articles about roads and netball for the next year or two? WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:45, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Genevieve, your comment makes very little sense to me. You say: "Your requirements to the article of Laura seems to me very unpleasant…The multiple debates inhibit the work of some women editors. To frighten them, or to discourage them from write. I support Laura with human compassion". What does this mean? That women are incapable of collaborative debate? That women's work ought not be peer reviewed or checked over? That women should not be asked to do "unpleasant" tasks like revision? Look, I don't want to be a jerk, but we're here on Misplaced Pages to build a communal encyclopedia- one with no "ownership" of articles- and asserting that anyone's contribution is too precious or unimpeachable to be critically evaluated is inconsistent with the fundamental purpose of this project. —Bill Price (nyb) 18:18, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

You may not want to be but you are. The arguments that you are putting forward are sexist and have been historically used to slap down women, as you are doing now. Please try harder. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:45, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

What arguments am I putting forward, and how am I " down women"? Genevieve is the one who brought up gender in a very heavy-handed fashion and who stated that women require a "better climat" than Misplaced Pages and that "debates inhibit the work" of women. When I wrote my comment earlier, it was out of stunned astonishment. I am in an academic field in which women outnumber men, and the women I'm surrounded with certainly don't shrink from peer review and debate. Her comments looked (and still look) regressive to me, stating that women need special accommodation and treatment in order to contribute to this project. —Bill Price (nyb) 01:55, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

What you are saying is sexist. She asked for nothing more than a degree of civility that you are in fact required to show in any case. And your response was that people should put up with harassment and the general aura of unpleasantness that prevents many people from wanting to take part. You see being asked to be civil as trampling on the precious right to be a jerk. That sort of environment should not be tolerated. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:40, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

I reject your interpretation. Again, I was not the one who brought up gender, and my comments have been from a stance of incredulity at this notion that women "can't take the heat", as the idiom goes, since most of my own colleagues are women and aren't the frail caricatures Genevieve seemed to be sketching. I can see you wish to stick to your own reading and conclusion, though, so further discussion would be fruitless. —Bill Price (nyb) 04:23, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Genevieve says she is sad that Racepacket did not show kindness in his interactions with Laura. Evaluations can be friendly, collegial, pleasant, polite and hold a high academic standard. Rude comments are not automatically better, and rude comments may disproportionately discourage women editors, who (on average) are less likely to accept fighting as a type of conflict resolution.

For more information, you might like to see the article Tend and befriend. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:08, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Everyone agrees that collegial and polite interactions are desirable regardless of the gender of the people communicating. That is beyond debate here. The question is whether we can find a way to address certain problems without an editor taking offense by misinterpreting the motives as some form of personal attack? If we can come up with a detached way of examining the netball-related text without personalizing it, the entire problem will be solved, and I doubt that netball editors will ever hear from me again. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 19:35, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

To put this in perspective...

During the month of March alone, Racepacket reviewed and completed 11 road GANs. A twelfth is still on hold. Keep in mind that Racepacket was blocked during the last week of the month, so that decreases the amount of time he had to review. --Rschen7754 05:19, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

To the best of my knowledge, all eleven reviews were well received by the nominators. Each review included detailed scrutiny to ensure compliance with the GA criteria. And all of this during a period when (if you believe the comments above) there was some kind of boycott of GA nominations organized over the IRC. Overall, March marked the backlog elimination campaign which dropped the queue of unreviewed nominations from 291 to 100. The queue of transport articles was brought down to 5. So the backlog elimination drive was a big success and a higher than usual number of road articles were reviewed by non-USRD members. Racepacket (talk) 05:58, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Next set of statistics: Since September 27, 2010, Racepacket has reviewed 75 articles for GA. 29 of those are U.S. road articles. An additional 4 are Netball articles.

Since January 1, 2011, Racepacket has reviewed 52 articles for GA. 18 of those are U.S. road articles. --Rschen7754 06:50, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

The U.S. Roads WikiProject has nominated 78 articles to GAN in 2011. Of those, Racepacket reviewed 18. (Not counting the still incomplete second review of I-376). Note: Racepacket was blocked from February 4th to February 26th, and March 27th to April 2nd. --Rschen7754 07:51, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

29 USRD GANs passed while Racepacket was blocked. Subtracting those from the statistic above, we find that USRD nominated 49 articles to GAN in 2011 while Racepacket was unblocked. He reviewed 18 of them. This is roughly 40%. --Rschen7754 08:06, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

The final statistic I'm going to present is the following: Of the 29 reviews Racepacket has done, 14 were not received well. This is nearly half. (Since I suppose I'm going to be challenged on this assertion, the list is as follows: NY 414, I-81 MD, I-70 WV, I-705, M-152, M-6, M-66, MD 18, MD 24, NJ 26, NY 31F, OH 369, OH 372, US 223. Anyone is free to question me on my talk page about why I believe any review listed above was not well received). --Rschen7754 08:30, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Why would a simple agreement for Racepacket to not review mine, or Dough4872, or Imazadi1979's articles not suffice? Because over half of the reviews that Racepacket has done for USRD have been unsatisfactory and unpleasant. Several other nominators are represented above, including TwinsMetsFan, Dantheman474, Mitchazenia, viridiscalculus, and admrboltz. --Rschen7754 08:35, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

I believe that I have a working relationship with the editors other than the four listed in my offer. Is the problem that you really want to "control" the GA review process? The GA review process was never intended to be run from a secret USRD IRC chat room. GA Reviews by people from outside a WikiProject is beneficial. I admit that I (like any other GA reviewer) have made factual mistakes and misread a source on occassion, but I accept correction quickly and move on to finish the review. Again, GA reviews are intended to be a conversation between two peers, not a battle of egos. If someone has a problem with my review, they are free to say it to me directly or to ask for a second opinion. That is a much better course than to try to gripe off-wiki on IRC. I don't take personal offense at any feedback. By the way, although it may be outside the scope of the WikiProject, there have been other Transport articles about bridges, tunnels and bike paths that I have reviewed as well. For sake of transparency, a full list of my GA reviews is posted on my user page. Racepacket (talk) 10:43, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

No, I've talked to many of those editors, and they were quite annoyed with your review. As far as trying to control the GA process, you're just making baseless speculations. --Rschen7754 17:27, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Points raised by John Vandenberg

The following comment was left on the project page, and I am moving it here so that it can be discussed.

It was very unfortunate to see that Racepacket decided to do another GA review of Laura's articles, and quick fail it, given that she was so unhappy with the last one. poor John Vandenberg 19:17, 26 March 2011 (UTC) It just gets worse and worse. During a GAN of Netball_and_the_Olympic_Movement, when the page was being renamed, Racepacket created a new GAN page to quick fail it. One edit; create GAN page and fail it: Special:Undelete/Talk:Netball_and_the_Olympic_Movement/GA2. I'm sure that isnt in the rule book. There already was a active GAN and Racepacket had already contributed to it. John Vandenberg 06:18, 27 March 2011 (UTC) He added that review to his collection. And went out of his way to provide a peer review of another Netball article, using it as an opportunity to take a swipe at the GA pass it received earlier.

The review Special:Undelete/Talk:Netball_and_the_Olympic_Movement/GA2 was a result of the bots maintaining the various templates and lists showing that article as seeking a reviewer. I did not know that the prior review of Netball at the Olympics was not closed out. The reason why I list my reviews on my user page is for transparency, so that people will have some idea of what other articles I have reviewed. Since I have undertaken such a list, it would be odd if I excluded a review that I made in good faith.

I left the comment in the peer review of Netball in the Cook Islands based on the discussions here and at the WT:WikiProject Good articles suggesting that it was an appropriate way to follow up with remaining, concrete concerns. I believe that there are many subjective judgments involved in editing articles, and providing multiple points of view is helpful to editors creating and refining content. I certainly did not mean any offense, and waited an appropriate interval of time to allow things to cool off before responding to her request for peer comments on the article. I have stated several times that I am troubled by Talk:Netball in the Cook Islands/GA3 where no serious effort was made to address the deficiencies noted in the first two reviews or to document or discuss any critique of the article. Based on the edit summary, I misjudged the amount of cooling off time required. Perhaps the best way to resolve this is to appoint an experienced editor to review the netball articles to fix any close paraphrasing, improper terminology, or NPOV concerns. I would prefer to let someone else take that role, but I would not want any previous miscommunications between LauraHale and I to result in identified problems slipping through the quality control net. Any such review could focus on just improving the articles and stay away from who made what edit. There is no need to personalize the resolution of the situation. Everyone has the same goal here — we all want netball articles that are meet the GA and FA criteria. Racepacket (talk) 18:15, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

You have caused offense the entire time that you have been jumping in and reviewing Laura's articles. You have been causing mis-communications all along; and intentionally and repeatedly stirring up trouble, like your posts on meta. I cant understand why you would do that, given that there was an open RFC about you. It does seem that you cant take the hints given to you. And again now, in your post to this section, you are again making veiled accusations of close paraphrasing, POV issues, and even the legality of the word 'Olympics' (do you think the page 'WikiProject Olympics' is illegal??).

I dont care for your excuse that the bots are to blame. You failed GA1 (Talk:Netball and the Olympic Movement/GA1). That was your hand. You created the second GA page in order to fail it also (Special:Undelete/Talk:Netball_and_the_Olympic_Movement/GA2). Did you not even look at GA1 when you picked up GA2? Come off it ...

This RFC is about you. Don't worry about Laura's articles and who might review them. That isn't important for us here, excepting that you appear unable to let it go. With regards to wanting the same goals, I'm not convinced by your actions. It seems obvious to me that the WikiCup is your primary objective. John Vandenberg 19:06, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment, and I will address each of your points in turn: 1) Regarding the use of "Olympics", please read: User_talk:Racepacket#Background on "Olympic." 2) Please read Special:Undelete/Talk:Netball_and_the_Olympic_Movement/GA2, which politely failed the nomination on the grounds that the problems noted in Talk:Netball at the Olympics/GA1 were not addressed and I had suggested "waiting at least a month to see how these discussions settle down before renominating." Policy allows multiple reviews of an article by the same reviewer, but the bots did not know that Talk:Netball at the Olympics/GA2 was still open. 3) I believe that LauraHale wanted to drop out of this RFC/U and withdrew her proposed resolution. I agree that dropping the LauraHale/netball aspect is best, but I wanted to respond to your observations left on the project page. 4) As for questioning my motives, I have been an active editor since 2006 and am here to build a reliable encyclopedia. This is the first year that I have been in the WikiCup and I only entered it sometime in January 2011 on a spur of the moment decision. If my "primary objective" was the WikiCup, I would have quick failed the netball articles instead of working with the editors toward improving the articles. I have done GA reviews long before the WikiCup, and there are many other activities that provide more Cup points per time spent that doing GA reviews. So, I don't see how you can reach the conclusion that my volunteering to mentor is WikiCup related. Racepacket (talk) 19:56, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Road articles tend to be much shorter than other GANs. You've been reviewing road GAN after road GAN for the last few months, and it seems to me that this has been related to the Cup. --Rschen7754 20:26, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

1) Ohhh, so you did know about GA1? And the dastardly bots arn't to blame for you accidentally performing GA2? Thanks for clearing that up.

2) While policy may permit multiple reviews by the same reviewer, common sense says otherwise if the first experience was unfavourable.

John Vandenberg 20:31, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Please see above. I did the review of Talk:Netball at the Olympics/GA1 where I said that a day and a half old article was too unstable to be GA and recommended that the editors wait a month. At that point there were few edits to the page including six by Hawkeye7. Hawkeye7 then started a review called Talk:Netball at the Olympics/GA2. The article was then moved twice, 45 minutes apart, by Hawkeye7 and Andrwsc, with no discussion on the article talk page. Later the bots said that the article Netball and the Olympic Movement was nominated and looking for a reviewer and I started to review that. After I did a quick fail review, Hawkeye7 deleted my review, and moved his review from Talk:Netball and the Olympics/GA2 on top of my reivew, but did not merge in any of the comments that I had left there. Twenty-three minutes, you left comments on the moved review. About three days later, he finally left substantive comments on the review page. He was not the editor who had moved the underlying article to Netball and the Olympic Movement. Looking back on it, Andrwsc, the editor who moved the article, probably did not know that it was the subject of an ongoing GA review. Had I had known that the article was the subject of an open GA review, I would not have started a new one. I hope this clarifies what actually happened.

Some progress has been made. LauraHale now agrees that netball is not an "Olympic sport"; she no longer insists that the rules of grammar do not apply to her when writing in a New Zealand dialect; and she is starting to accept feedback from other editors and reviewers. She has dropped her outside views on the project page, and I believe that everyone can move on because we all want the same thing — for the netball articles to reach GA and FA. In turn, I am developing a Misplaced Pages article that explains the odd legal status of word "Olympic" in the United States and will share a link with you later. Racepacket (talk) 10:11, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

No progress has been made. You have continued your relentless POV pushing, advancing your POV that the world's most popular team game for women is an unimportant sport. I tried to engage you in discussion of the "Olympic sport" issue but you refused to entertain any discussion. Coming at it cold as someone whose expertise lies outside sports (unlike LauraHale who is an expert) it seemed to me that the issue should be discussed calmly and rationally, and a reasonable solutions arrived at. An editor coming at it without prejudice should be able to list four good reasons why netball should be called an Olympic sport and another four why it should not. It became apparent that no such outcome was likely. You just could not overcome or even acknowledge your preconceptions. Like other editors I had interaction with you before, when you also GA reviewed my article on Interim Committee, and I had no problems. You are welcome to review my articles. But in my mind you are now pigeon-holed as a copy editor. And I've reverted your latest edit to netball not because I disagree with you, but because you should not be touching the netball articles. Leave Laura alone. Stop stalking here. It's creepy. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:36, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Separating policy issues

I will repeat what I said in my response. I am trying to follow Misplaced Pages policy. If the policy is to apply only the GA criteria, that is what I will do. If the policy is to apply USRD standards, I am willing to do that as well. Could we organize an effort to get consensus on the policy, which will remove much of the differences between the RFC/U proponents and me? Thanks., Racepacket (talk) 13:20, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

The "policy" is to apply only the GA criteria. *However*, in the 557 USRD Good Articles, precedent has shown what the GA criteria looks like applied to U.S. road articles. That is the basis of WP:USRD/STDS and WP:RJL. So, the USRD standards are structured off the GA criteria and common sense says to apply them as well, since there's 557 other GAs that follow those standards. --Rschen7754 17:32, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

As a point of fact, compliance with USRD/STDS or RJL is not required for GA. If they were actually required, then they would be mentioned by name in the GA criteria. If those guidelines are well-written, then there will be no conflict between the actual requirements and the project guidelines, but GA reviewers are not required to consider such guidelines, or even know that they exist, and GA reviewers are not permitted to fail articles over non-compliance with non-required advice pages. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:51, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

And where they do not conflict, and even enhance each other, then they can and should be taken in concert. As an example, the project standards require a section on tolling for toll roads. Such a thing would be a "major aspect" of the subject, the absence of which would be a failure to meet the GA criteria. Imzadi 1979 → 18:02, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, exactly. A well-written WikiProject advice page is often the simplest method of determining completeness, particularly if you're not extremely familiar with the subject matter. It would officially be the non-compliance with the GA criteria that causes an incomplete article to fail, even if the reviewer discovered the fact that it was incomplete through reading USRD/STDS rather than through his or her own knowledge. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:21, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

As another example, an article Racepacket reviewed did not have the miles in the junction table. This is required by RJL (which is in the MOS, it is not just a project advice page. But, this causes the article to fail the comprehensive criterion for GA. --Rschen7754 18:28, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if it's in the MOS; compliance is only required for the five MOS pages specifically named in the GA criteria, and RJL isn't one of them. It would fail FA over this, but not GA, unless the reviewer believed that this statistic was a "main aspect" of the subject. GAs are not required to be comprehensive. The GA requirement of "main aspects" is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required of featured articles; it allows articles that do not cover every major fact or detail. Imzadi's example probably does count as a "main aspect"; the absence of a single number in a table probably doesn't. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:11, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

It explains how far apart the jcts are. But we are getting off topic. Our examples might be the same article in fact, I cant remember. --Rschen7754 19:23, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Some observations and a proposed solution

I wrote out some observations in an essay in my user space. It's too long to post here, and much of it is stuff that's already been covered ad nauseum in the RfC/U, its talk page and other locations. Some of it is more for my personal peace of mind by getting it all in one place and "on paper" so that I can move on from here.

I've outlined 7 specific outcomes of the RfC/U that I personally have. There are seven of them, and if he can agree to 1 and 7, and take 2–6 as advice, then I'm willing to have this RfC/U closed. In short, he needs to apologize to LauraHale in a manner that addresses the issues raised here, and he should do his best to avoid the editors and subject matters that have been the areas of conflict. As he is avoiding them, those editors will avoid him. In a year or so, the raw feelings and dramas will be historical fact and not constant reminders, and the parties could possibly work together again. I initially enjoyed external feedback on my nominations from him, but several minor annoyances in those reviews built up over a relatively short period of time. That culminated in a very contentious review of one article that was both not my finest hour, but at the same time, precipitated by the reviewer's insistence to include information that was misleading, inaccurate and unnecessary in the specific article. My attempt to disengage from the review and move on was met by stubbornness and Racepacket's refusal to likewise disengage. When something similar happened with another editor, LauraHale, I was truly saddened, especially to the lengths of Racepacket's actions after her attempts to disengage were repeatedly refused. I'm hoping that my proposed solution will benefit all parts and the greater community. Imzadi 1979 → 17:21, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

As this RfC/U unfolds, I'm seeing three patterns being repeated over-and-over. Can I get confirmation that I understand what the issue has evolved into? Can I get a correction if I do not understand the situation properly?

1. RacePacket can give a very thorough and proper review when things are going well, and many people have had good experiences with him as a reviewer.
2. When things go bad with a RacePacket review, things go bad fast. Racepacket's actions after an unfavorable or unfortunate incident give the appearance that he goes on a rampage to the point of borderline wikistalking. This rampage can include tagging and reviewing articles, where the motivation appears to be revenge more than an attempt to improve wikipedia.
3. Racepacket has responded to these criticisms of his behavior by citing policy and denigrating USRD's standards.

If I do understand this correctly, I would say that Racepacket does need to disengage. It is not appropriate to hide behind portions of wikipedia policy to justify aggressive behavior, especially when a whole host of other wikipedia policies are conveniently ignored in the process. Both wikipedia policy and project standards are intended to facilitate collaboration, not justify the lack of it. If a wikiproject standards standards are used to circumvent wikipedia policy, then a wet trout should be applied to the project standard pushers, and while that may need to be done, that is a tangent issue to the main point, IMO.Dave (talk) 18:22, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Exactly. The amount of good reviews doesn't matter if a few of them are hell for the nominator. --Rschen7754 18:35, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

I think that LauraHale removed her issue when she withdrew her comment. I have offered to not review GA nomination by the indicated editors above. I would like to hear a response to my proposal. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 21:36, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Her redaction was taken after you went to the Wikimedia Foundation in an attempt to have her face real-world consequences. I don't care how you try to spin it, at the time you acted, you thought she was either employed by, or directly benefited from a relationship with, the foundation. That you attempted to seek the imposition of some form of consequences based on a personal dispute over a review of a Misplaced Pages article is disgusting and shocking. That you continue the dispute over the netball articles is equally galling. I think your proposal has been rejected by most of the parties here. My current proposal is to have you issue a personal, sincere apology to her that acknowledges your understanding of what you did and why it is wrong. The second half of the proposal is to have you agree to avoid reviewing and participating on articles based on subject matter (US roads and netball currently). Please respond to that proposal. Imzadi 1979 → 21:59, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Racepacket: The answer to your proposal, as I have explained above, is no. --Rschen7754 22:41, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to see the following:

1. Racepacket needs to personally apologize to LauraHale. This apology needs to acknowledge that he has made accusations, overtly or not, that implied that she committed "academic dishonestly", "plagiarism" to "too close paraphrasing" that he could not support. The apology also needs to acknowledge the harm he caused by taking the matter over to meta, whether or not she is employed by or directly benefits from the Wikimedia Foundation. The net effect was still the same.
2. Racepacket should understand that while the majority of his reviews are good, and appreciated, that a disturbing minority of them are not. In the future, he should learn to walk away when interactions in a review get too heated. This could be as simple as stating, "Look, this discussion isn't getting either of us anywhere. How about we table this for a few days and come back with clear heads and re-evaluate it?" or even "Look, I'm going to withdraw here. Feel free to renominate this for another reviewer."
3. Racepacket should understand that nominators have the option to withdraw their nomination. After that point, he can continue to offer feedback, but the formal review process has ended. His participation is no longer required. He should respect the desire of the nominator to end the review.
4. Racepacket should acknowledge that if an article is renominated, even under a different title, it may not be beneficial to the community to pursue issues from the previous reviews he's given.
5. Racepacket should know that editors will work on the articles that interest them. Some articles may be perceived as "more important" and left alone, but ultimately, it is not his decision what articles editors edit or nominate.
6. Racepacket should understand that there is a fine balance between the standards a wikiproject sets and the review criteria the community as a whole has set. Wikiprojects deal in the specifics, and their opinions and standards should be reasonably accommodated where they don't explicitly conflict with review criteria. There will always be exceptions, which is why we have WP:IAR, or even just plain common sense. Where the two ideas don't conflict and can be shown to enhance each other, both should be followed on a reasonable basis.
7. Finally, Racepacket should voluntarily abstain from working on articles in subject areas that have been the source of past conflicts. The other parties are willing to avoid him if he is willing to do the same. I suggest that this agreement from both sides be honored for one year. Additional subject matters beyond US highways and Netball may be added should contentious review occur in the future. (Racepacket can voluntarily expand the first area to all highway and roadway articles if he wishes, however no similar articles outside of the US were the subject of the RfC/U although a WP:CRWP member has participated in the discussions.)

This is copied from the referenced essay above. Imzadi 1979 → 23:00, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Sidebar comment on project standards undercurrent here

As before, I am NOT NOT commenting on the main questions, but do take issue with an undercurrent of several of the discussions which is that project guidelines are "rules" which should generally be considered to be rules and followed. While I would generally consider them to be good and valued input and guidance to be taken into consideration to help improve the article, IMHO that's about it. Maybe I'm jaded because the one case where I really got involved with one of them I think that they were ham-handed and worked to the detriment of the article. North8000 (talk) 18:01, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

In the specific situation (Interstate 376), the article doesn't live up to the guidelines set forth in the project standards. It also does not live up to the GA criteria, in part, because it does not include information suggested in the standards, leaving a coverage gap in the information. Part of I-376 is a toll road, but the article on it doesn't have a section on how the tolls are collected or assessed. Surely, tolls on a toll road is a "major aspect" of the subject, and something a reader would expect to find in a Good Article about that toll road? Imzadi 1979 → 18:06, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

No argument that an article must meet GA criteria to become a GA. Actually, I read your entire excellent excellent user page summary. and had only one a minor quibble with one sentence in it, which is where you implied that one must invoke wp:iar in order to not follow a project guideline. North8000 (talk) 19:25, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

The WP:IAR reference isn't to project guidelines. There are always going to be exceptions to rules, which is why we have that "rule" and common sense to negotiate how to deal with the exceptions. Imzadi 1979 → 23:08, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

I think that the problem with I-376 was the way that the other editors express their views which came across as very confrontational to both the nominator and the reviewer. As a factual matter, the reviewer did not find that the article currently met the GA criteria. That is why the article was placed "on hold." But threatening to go to GAR before the review process really got very far just leaves a bad taste in everyone's mouth. The review asked for more of a treatment of the toll aspect. The basic point is that even a chemist has enough common sense to figure that out and that no expertise is required. If there are points that require WikiProject-specific expertise, they can be addressed at the A-Class stage. Of course, any editor is free to add material to any article at any time (either before or after the GA review.) But we need to end the impression that one must cow-tow to specific USRD deities in order to get a GA. GA review is a community-wide process implemented by a single pool of volunteer reviewers, and there is a benefit for subject-matter experts to have to explain their articles to complete strangers who bring a fresh pair of eyes. Racepacket (talk) 21:26, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Racepacket, you've indicated repeatedly that you only understand confrontation on this subject matter. Those of us that commented on I-376 did so in a friendly manner on the article's talk page before a GAN review was started in hopes that the nominator would withdraw the nomination until the issues were rectified. Why? Because the article fails to meet the GA criteria. Your actions by dominating the reviewer pool of USRD articles has set yourself up as the gatekeeper for GA status on roads articles. In one 2-month period, I had 8 articles nominated at GAN, of which you did 4 reviews. You've been asked to disengage, yet you refuse. Your inability to disengage is a major reason this RfC/U was opened. Imzadi 1979 → 22:05, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Proposals for resolution

• Imzadi and Rschen (and others?) have proposed that Racepacket stop reviewing articles about US roads or Netball for the next year. Racepacket has refused to directly accept or reject this proposal so far.
• Racepacket has proposed that he stop reviewing articles nominated by Imzadi1979, Dough4872, Rschen7754, and Mitchazenia. No one has directly accepted or rejected this proposal.

I assume that Racepacket's proposal is intended in the spirit of a counteroffer. Whether or not it is, I think it would be helpful if somebody would directly respond to the offer that has been made to him or her. If everyone keeps ignoring the offers that were made to them, while demanding that the other guy respond to theirs, we're never going to get anywhere. If you can live with what you've been offered, then we could be done already. If it's not good enough, then we actually need to know that.

As there are more people on the "WikiProject's side", perhaps one or more of you would do us all the favor of giving a plain answer, either way. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:48, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

I've rejected Racepacket's proposal twice now, I guess I'll reject it again. There are too many road editors who have had problems with Racepacket's reviews. It's easier to cordon off the whole project instead of a list of 8 editors. --Rschen7754 22:57, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

I've already made a detailed, 7-point proposal above to resolve this. I'm waiting on an answer. I have already rejected the "counterproposal" as there are other issues left unaddressed by it. Imzadi 1979 → 22:59, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Okay, Racepacket, you've got a pretty clear answer here: They can't live with your proposal. Can you live with theirs? If you can, then we could all get back to doing useful work soon. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:05, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't want to have to post here again, but I said you can review mine as you wish twice.Mitch32 02:20, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

I am sorry that I misread your response. Including you in the package or excluding you is up to you. I also offered not to renominate VA 27 for GA as a part of my package. Racepacket (talk) 03:33, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing: is your answer. --Rschen7754 04:59, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Seriously, Rschen7754, what possible issue could you have with the way that the review in Talk:Maryland Route 16/GA1 is being conducted? If I have made a mistake in the review, let me know, because I am open to correction. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 05:32, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

The problem is not the 50% of USRD reviews you did well, it's the 50% that were unpleasant. But even at that, how is Maryland Route 16 "far from GA standards"? You've only brought up a few minor issues. --Rschen7754 05:35, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

@Racepacket: Honestly, if you fixed VA 27 up per the reviews that we gave you and nominated it for GA, we wouldn't care. Of course, that's only if you want to. The sticking issue is your insisting on reviewing USRD articles as the "crusader" who will save GA from the "monster" of "inbred reviewing". --Rschen7754 04:59, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

The problem is more than just who conduct the GA reviews, the problem extends to the idea that a WikiProject can impose a prerequesite to nominating an article for GA, that a Wikiproject could adopt a policy against WP:SPLITing off a history daughter article, and that every highway that has a number must be per se notable, and alleged "overquoting.' What are you offering on those fronts? Perhaps we can put together a package.

You're distracting the issue. The question is, are you willing to stop reviewing GANs related to U.S. roads and netball? Why do you refuse to disengage? --Rschen7754 05:33, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

(ec) I understand the "climate inhibiting GA nominations" argument, but folks active in WikiProject Virginia have stopped nominating road articles for GA, and the climate has not been welcoming. From what I have seen with VA 27, I understand their viewpoint. I woiuld like to the three proponents of the RFC/U put together a comprehensive package. (If this page is too formal, maybe we should follow Barack Obama solution and hold a "beer summit.") Racepacket (talk) 05:40, 6 April 2011 (UTC)