Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Racepacket 2

In order to remain listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with ~~~~. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: 00:32, 22 March 2011 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 14:41, 11 July 2024 (UTC).

---

• Racepacket (talk · contribs · logs)

---

Users should not edit other people's summaries or views, except to endorse them. All signed comments other than your own view or an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page.

Statement of the dispute

This is a summary written by users who are concerned by this user's conduct. Users signing other sections ("Response" or "Outside views") should not edit the "Statement of the dispute" section.

Desired outcome

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.

Description

Racepacket appears to have a personal vendetta against the U.S. Roads WikiProject, specifically its nominations to WP:GAN. This stems from his misinterpretation of what a decent article is, and refusal to adhere to the GA standards (which refer back to the Manual of Style) as well as the project standards. This applies in both ways: his continual nomination of articles that do not meet standards, and his forcing his own standards on USRD GANs that are not part of the GA criteria.

Background which may or may not be relevant: Racepacket has been indefinitely blocked for copyright violations and is on an enforced mentorship for this. This could be relevant to his insisting on using quotes rather than paraphrasing; this use of excessive quotes is one of the issues relevant to this situation.

• There is a past RFC on Racepacket: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Racepacket. The technical issues are unrelated, but there are some similar policies cited.

Evidence of disputed behavior

(Provide diffs. Links to entire articles aren't helpful unless the editor created the entire article. Edit histories also aren't helpful as they change as new edits are performed.)

U.S. Route 223

1. [1]—Started a second GAN review of an article after nominator withdrew and renominated the article. (WT:Good article nominations/FAQ specifically allows a nominator to withdraw a nomination so it can be reviewed by a different editor)
2. [2] - Accusation of vandalism
3. [3]—WP:CANVASSed an opinion related to an WP:ANI discussion related to that GAN review situation
4. [4]—Reinserted edits to another's comments in a discussion forum after they were removed.
5. [5]—insinuated a GAN nominator was attempting to pick his nomination's reviewer, in the absence of any evidence to support that claim
6. In both review pages, GA1 and GA2 advocated for the inclusion of information into an article that was not borne out by the sources. The requested additions violate WP:CRYSTAL as it attempted (through WP:OR) to state that Michigan or Ohio would receive money in highway funding legislation in a Congress that had not yet convened at the time. He also based his opinions on a advocacy group's membership to extrapolate the policy position of a state to the contrary of what the secondary sources actually state or don't state in the absence of media coverage over the last decade.

Virginia State Route 27

1. Talk:Virginia State Route 27 - where Racepacket nominated the same article for GAN 3 times in 2 weeks, with the second two GANs twelve hours apart, and with minimal changes after each failed GAN - WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT
2. [6] - forum shopping (WP:CANVASS, assuming bad faith)

Maryland Route 200 and subarticles

1. [7] - Renominated article at GAN because reviewer who failed it allegedly had issues with him - refusal to AGF
2. [8] - Removed cleanup tags.
3. [9] - Removed cleanup tags and claimed a "WikiProject wikiturf war".
4. [10] - Reverted removal of excess information.
5. [11] - Claimed USRD cannot enforce its standards on articles.
6. [12] - Again questions USRD enforcing its standards on articles.
7. [13] - Makes personal attacks against the members of USRD.
8. [14] - Pleads to expand the article when there is excess information.

Questioning the choice of articles nominated for GAN

1. [15] - Questions GAN nominator for nominating an article about a short road.
2. [16] - Again asserts his point.
3. [17] - Asserted point on nominator's talk page.
4. [18] - Attacked editor who stepped in to tell him he should not question the length of the article's subject.

1. [19] - More attacks on editors.
2. [20] - Another attack on editor.

Inappropriate tagging of articles (potential WP:POINT)

1. [21] - Encouraged the addition of original research to an article.
2. [22] - Added tag because article was supposedly not comprehensive. ([23] puts this in context, showing how this is a borderline violation of WP:POINT).
3. [24] - Readded tag after reverted.
4. [25] - Added tag because article was supposedly not comprehensive.
5. [26] - Readded tag after reverted.

Disregard of project standards, and/or possible WP:POINT violations

(This relates to WP:POINT because these follow the AFDing of the MD 200 articles on grounds of notability)

1. [27] - Tagged a road accepted to be notable per WP:USRD/NT as being non-notable. (these may be WP:POINT violations as well)
2. [28] - Tagged a road accepted to be notable per WP:USRD/NT as being non-notable.
3. [29] - Tagged a road accepted to be notable per WP:USRD/NT as being non-notable.
4. [30] - Tagged a road accepted to be notable per WP:USRD/NT as being non-notable.
5. [31] - Tagged Google Maps as not being an independent RS.
6. [32] - Again tagged article.

Applicable policies and guidelines

1. WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT (perhaps the key one)
2. WP:NPA
3. WP:NOR
4. WP:AGF
5. WP:POINT
6. WP:CRYSTAL
7. WP:CANVASS
8. WP:TALK (relating to editing someone else's comments)
9. WP:CIVIL
10. WP:NPOV
11. WP:RS
12. WP:CONSENSUS
13. WP:VANDAL (understanding of what vandalism is not)
14. WP:BRD (granted, this isn't a guideline per se)

Evidence of trying to resolve the dispute

(Provide diffs of the comments. As with anywhere else on this RfC/U, links to entire articles aren't helpful unless the editor created the entire article. Edit histories also aren't helpful as they change as new edits are performed.)

Attempts by Rschen7754

1. [33] attempted to discuss accusations of vandalism
2. [34] attempt to encourage Racepacket to disengage from situation

Attempts by Dough4872

1. [35] attempted to contact Racepacket on adding tags to three articles because they supposedly did not have enough detail on the controversy.

Attempts by Imzadi1979

1. [36]—attempted a discussion of the issues surrounding the GAN situation at WT:GAN, which was partially pre-empted by a posting by Racepacket to WP:ANI

Evidence of failing to resolve the dispute

(Provide diffs to demonstrate that the disputed behavior continued after trying to resolve the dispute. As with anywhere else on this RfC/U, links to entire articles aren't helpful unless the editor created the entire article. Edit histories also aren't helpful as they change as new edits are performed.)

1. [37] - shows no understanding of the issue

The disputed behavior continues after the diffs listed above attempting to resolve the dispute.

Users certifying the basis for this dispute

{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}

1. Rschen7754 01:50, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
2. Imzadi 1979 → 01:50, 22 March 2011 (UTC), certifying for GAN dispute issues related to U.S. Route 223
3. Dough4872 02:08, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Other users who endorse this summary

1. ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ - As an outsider to these incidents who edits the same category of article who has observed this unfold, I can attest to the patronizing and bad faith assumptions made on a routine basis by this editor. Behaviour such as this only stir up thoughts of the "exclusivity" of being a GAN/FAC reviewer and creates resentment towards those venues. 02:06, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
2. PCB I have refrained from participating in the Maryland Route 200 debate over WP:AFD and WP:GAN but have seen the disruptiveness of this user editing within this project. I agree with this argument. 02:30, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
3. Mitch32^{(Erie Railroad Information Hog)} 10:30, 22 March 2011 (UTC) – Honestly, and I won't go long-winded on this, but neither side has had perfect behavior. For the last 4-odd weeks, I've had a moratorium from going to GAN at all due to my worries of not getting a fair review or an argument that will stress my brain out, and also have many times screamed bloody hell in IRC about certain disputes. My behavior isn't exactly the smartest, but however, I have tried my hand at helping out at stuff like Orange Line (Washington Metro) with the disputed editor, since it falls in my area of focus. Personally, I've stopped attempting to get involved (stuff like MD 200), except for OH 369, where I thought the "boss-man attitude" was unneeded. If I really think there is anything to be gained out of this, its to attract some people to the blatant need for some interaction sanctions for both sides. Nothing more that we can really do.10:30, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Response

This is a summary written by the user whose conduct is disputed, or by other users who think that the dispute is unjustified and that the above summary is biased or incomplete. Users signing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Outside Views") should not edit the "Response" section.

{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.}

Users who endorse this summary:

Outside views

This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Response") should not edit the "Outside Views" section, except to endorse an outside view.

Outside view by LauraHale

Not involved in the current dispute. I'm having an issue with RacePacket at Talk:Netball/GA1, where on a GA review, he implied plagiarism and then asked me to scan and e-mail him copies of all the source texts used in the article he was reviewing. The article has 212 references and over 100 unique texts listed in the bibliography. There really is no cause for an accusation of plagiarism in this case, especially when he has been blocked for that himself. He said red links could be in the article, added them in and then said they had to be taken away. He said that imperial had to be used because of consensus that agreed for just the opposite. He also wanted things changed from meters to centimeters and then wanted an explanation as to why the imperial measures changed. (Because the precision changed when it went from meters to centimeters.) He failed Talk:Netball in the Cook Islands/GA2, despite the points in Talk:Netball in the Cook Islands/GA1 having all been addressed. When Talk:Netball in the Cook Islands/GA3 was created, he did a transclusion of his review and the earlier one. He questioned sources, commented to say that there were no differences between American and New Zealand grammar. It was a mini version of what he was doing on [[Talk:Netball/GA1 with out the buffer of a large number of other contributors.

Users who endorse this summary:

Outside view by ExampleUsername

{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.}

Users who endorse this summary:

Reminder to use the talk page for discussion

All signed comments and talk not related to an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page. Discussion should not be added below. Discussion should be posted on the talk page. Threaded replies to another user's vote, endorsement, evidence, response, or comment should be posted to the talk page.