Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by KnowIG (talk | contribs) at 10:13, 25 March 2011 (→Moved from the main page: Bill william compton section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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 (Additionally, I had withdrawn the second review completely when he signed up do the second review, and I had states at WT:GAN at that time that I no longer had any interest in pursuing a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LauraHale has withdrawn Netball from further consideration, not once, but twice.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 The article had been withdrawn for a third time by that point.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 If an article's nomination is withdrawn before a reviewer takes the review, then there's no record on the article's talk page, only in the history of the page.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 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)

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