Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Racepacket

Agree with summary and suggested recourse

Having also been involved with periodic edits to University of Miami and related pages, I have found Racepacket's edits to often be done without reaching sufficient consensus with other editors. The edits have often been questionable and even controversial. Would be more constructive if Racepacket's changes are first addressed on discussion page, as proposed on this request for comment. MiamiDolphins3 (talk) 23:03, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

You can support various things on this request for comment page in addition to making comments on its talk page, such as certifying or agreeing.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 23:16, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Question

Under which policies are "verbosity" and "lack of knowledge" considered violations of wikipedia policy? Soxwon (talk) 23:07, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Writing a hell of a lot to hide what is meant by the user was something that was brought up in Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abd-William M. Connolley#Abd’s style of discussion. It was found that it is disruptive to write so much that other users did not want to read it all to reply to it. And showing an utter lack of knowledge of an article's subject and acting disruptively on it is problematic. I also had no other place to list the AFD.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 23:11, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Acting disruptively and showing a "lack of knowledge" are two different things. Are those two things really necessary? Soxwon (talk) 23:16, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

His writing way too much such that no one can understand his point of view is necessary to address, as is his disruption stemming from his lack of knowledge of the subject matter.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 23:19, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Reply to comment by Soxwon (from User talkpage)

The issue is not with the edits to the Miami football page but a general disruption with it and related articles as a whole. The peacock terms within the articles are generally stated by the references used to cite the statements being made.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 23:15, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

The peacock terms should then be used with quotes so that it is clear that they are supported by neutral sources and aren't copyvios or editor hyperbole. The evidence listed at the the Miami U football page does seem to be legitimate, which is why I'm confused as to how this can be further "disruption." Glancing through the Miami talkpage, yes he did nitpick and edit war and that should be addressed, though I think some of his points were dismissed a little too out of hand. Soxwon (talk) 23:38, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Part of the problem is that on the few occasions when does voice a legitimate concern and that concern is subsequently addressed, he'll obstinately insist that the new edit is still not acceptable for some new, contrived reason. It's like playing whack-a-mole. The History section at Miami Hurricanes football has been completely rewritten from scratch (with the exception of the final three subsections), the article features over 60 different sources, and alleged "peacock" words and phrases like "whopping" and "one of the most historic" have been eliminated...and yet he's still starting fires about the most inane, trifling matters. He's impossible to work with, because he's not content and he won't stop unless he gets every...single...edit...he wants. On the talk pages, he disregards consensus, he deliberately mischaracterizes the substance of discussions and will claim someone agreed with him when they wrote the express opposite, and when a discussion doesn't turn out the way he wants, he simply adds another new section about the same issues that had been previously discussed and acts as if they are being broached anew. And, as Ryulong stated above, he is, either by calculation or nature, amazingly long-winded: after reading his lengthy communiques (which he often copies from an editor's talk page and re-pastes, word-for-word, to the article talk page), once is left even more confused than before about his "concerns" and what it will take to mollify him. What's more, he does all this at seemingly every University of Miami-related article on Wikipedia. It's all incredibly tiresome, and that seems to be the point: his strategy is one of attrition. He tries to make himself as big a nuisance as possible on as many pages as possible, hoping that those who oppose his edits lose interest and let him do as he wants.-PassionoftheDamon (talk) 03:46, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

As a general practice, I leave comments about an article on the talk page of the article. In that manner, it allows all interested editors to follow the discussion. I have made an exception for User PassionoftheDamon, because when I posted comments or questions on the article talk page, he has ignored them and has not responded from the very start. So, I tried to post comments on his user talk page, (e.g. [1]) and he deleted them without response. So, I reposted the deleted ones on the article talk page.

If a peacock term is well-sourced, I generally phrase the sentence to attribute it to the source, rather than to Wikipedia. However, I do check the sources and have objected if the source does not support the claim.

As to the history section, the October 1 version had severe WP:BOOSTERISM problems, which I tried to fix with edits that were immediately reverted. Several people had noted the copyright violation on the talk page. I finally checked it out and applied the {{copyvio}} template, which says we stop editing the page and use a subpage to develop a replacement. An administrator is then supposed to compare the two before authorizing moving the subpage back to the article. User PassionoftheDamon removed the template and the link to the subpage. I then spent an hour and a half salvaging the non-infringing portions of the history and writing a well sourced replacement, only to have User:PassionoftheDaman blank all of that out without comment or explanation. I do not want to get my way on "every...single...edit...I want." I want reasoned discussion and am trying to apply Wikipedia policies. User Ryulong and I talked through a number of differences on University of Miami, but User PassionoftheDamon refuses to discuss his edits with anyone. When I put a {{fact}} tag on a sentence, he will delete it without adding any source. When he does not respond on the talk page, I finally have to delete the unsourced sentence to get him to finally add a reference to the sentence. When he does go back to add sources, he not bother to note that he found the source in the talk page discussion about the lack of sources. I would like to have a respectful, civil dialog with User:PassionoftheDamon as I do with most other Wikipedia editors, but his style is to revert everything and perhaps go back later with his own changes. A search of the Miami Hurricanes football history and talk page shows that this has been a problem for some time before I even started editing that page. I want to encourage Wikipedia editors and have actively recruited people to edit Wikipedia. I suspect that User PassionoftheDamon is projecting his own tactics on me when he claims "It's all incredibly tiresome, and that seems to be the point: his strategy is one of attrition. He tries to make himself as big a nuisance as possible on as many pages as possible, hoping that those who oppose his edits lose interest and let him do as he wants." As to his other concerns, I will respond to them in my main response. Racepacket (talk) 16:01, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Reply to Madcoverboy's view

There are users without any sort of conflict of interest who still oppose his edits. I've given this multiple opportunities for outside views to be given, but nothing was ever done. It's fine that he wants to make these articles neutral and provide better sources. It is just that when he is challenged and consensus is against him, he continues to push his point of view and edits, claiming that he has the consensus to make the changes. This is what has to end. The regular editors of University of Miami (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and its related articles are all tired of clarifying things to Racepacket when he is very clearly wrong, such as in the dispute over the inclusion of "The U" in the lead paragraph and then the subsequent dispute over how it should be referred to in the lead paragraph. He wouldn't take "commonly referred" for whatever reason, even though that text had been in the lead paragraph for years, especially when he stated he wanted to change the policy concerning the aliases in lead paragraphs of University articles. It has also been impossible to discuss things with him because he will leave comments three times longer than what I have written here, so it is impossible to respond all of his issues.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 18:58, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

1) Please clarify which editors actively editing the UM page have no connection to UM. (Do go be man has been a part of UM since 1968, Ryulong graduated recently, POTD is an alumnus) 2) I think the RFC/U process is inappropriate for addressing communication problems, mediation is much more productive. 3) There have been some cases where despite extensive research, I got an incomplete picture, but I continued to be very open to refinements from others. 4) I think the disputes on the UM page involved trying to get the nuisance and balance correct. In contrast, the problem on Miami Hurricanes football and associated articles stems from a basic misunderstanding of NPOV and encyclopedic language. 5) I think you misstated my comment as "wnat to chnage the policy concerning the aliases..." I said, " I welcome other views and hope that more people from Wikiproject Universities weigh in so we can develop a Wikipedia-wide approach to handling such 'common names.' If 'The U' can be acceptably listed as a common name for dozens of schools, why do it, because it is meaningless." That means that I didn't see any existing policy and wanted to get a WP:UNI-wide consensus on how to handle nicknames so that people from a number of campuses would be involved in the decision. 6) The issue was a subject of a back-and-forth between Ryulong and Do go be man before I came on the scene and my comments were added to end of that thread until they were later moved. Racepacket (talk) 03:31, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

The issue was a back and forth between myself and Do go be man two years before you showed up (Droptone's comment is trivial, and the fact that it was made six months ago is your excuse to say the thread was not over), and reached a consensus until you showed up and started up a completely different conversation. Why do you keep ignoring that? The edit warring, the misuse of Wikipedia policies, etc. are all reasons why the RFC/U was chosen before mediation. This is what I was advised to do when contacting other users.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 03:59, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

When you sought that advice, did you tell them that the UM article had reached consensus and that with your concurrence had reapplied for GA on September 25? Only to have you restart later adding in the Florida-only fundraising comparison? Racepacket (talk) 11:06, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Up to now, I've avoided comment for a couple of reasons - not sure where in this process to comment and not having the time to figure out the appropriate process or what to say. Perhaps I'm in error jumping in here, please forgive me. In most cases, I haven't really cared too much about the content of Racepacket's edits. Rather, the general tone of his approach and actions of boldly edit warring when clearly against consensus and discussion have caused me to develop a low level of respect for his contributions regardless of whatever potential merit they may have represented. As noted above, he came into a situation that had already been discussed, agreed upon, and cited without apparently considering the merits of earlier discussions. NPOV does not mean Negative Point of View, that is, articles do not have to maintain a perspective so devoid of favorable perspective as to become negative. Neutral also does not mean articles must lack any kind of positive comments regarding the topics. They also do not need to eliminate information that interests only completely disassociated readers. The local character of schools are important aspects of the information that articles can provide. Thus, issues such as whether UM is the only school in America known as "The U" are not especially relevant. The audience for articles includes those who have no specific connection to the subject, those actively involved, those with past involvement, and those considering a connection. Of those four audience segments, only those with no specific connection might not benefit or care about the self-identification of the subject. Racepacket writes of "consensus" in cases where he was the only editor consenting and in cases quickly reverted edits apparently without considering comments of other editors. From my perspective, Racepacket sacrificed his overall credibility as an editor by stubborning refusing to consider the consensus discussions and conducting edit wars. Do go be man (talk) 14:10, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Do go be man, you state here that "[t]he audience for articles includes those who have no specific connection to the subject, those actively involved, those with past involvement, and those considering a connection." Contrary to your assertion that "[t]he local character of schools are important aspects of the information that articles can provide", please review the policies on boosterism, particularly this statement: "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia to summarize and contextualize information about these complex institutions, not an admissions brochure to convince readers of the quality of the school. Allow the facts to speak for themselves and let the reader decide" (emphasis original). The goal is always to report facts, not to provide "local flavor"—I feel there is a common misconception on that point. —Notyourbroom (talk) 21:46, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Notyourbroom, you quoted me correctly, but induced an incorrect conclusion. As you noted, I said, "[t]he local character of schools are important aspects of the information that articles can provide". I did not say, "excessively positive statements intended to boost the reputation of schools are important aspects of the information that articles can provide". "Go Canes!" or any form of that statement has no place in the article. I also do not believe NPOV means Negative Point of View, so properly cited, I believe "Miami won four national football championships under four different head coaches" might be appropriate (I have no desire to waste time, however, trying to deal with that in the current feeding frenzy). I actually had in mind discussion such as the unique character and repute of Miami as "Suntan U" and "The Cardboard College". Both represent significant periods in the development of the school regarding its national reputation. Along the same line somewhat is the mention in St. George's University that the U.S. Administration of Ronald Reagan justified the invasion of Grenada as a rescue of American medical students. Whether you agree with the justification or not, it is an important part of the school's attributed history. The article on Kent State University includes mentions of being in the national spotlight and its library moving to the tallest building in the county. Would you suggest edits there? Do go be man (talk) 22:24, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

OWNership issues

User Ryulong left a message on my talk page asking me if I was controlling user Baechter. The answer is I am not. I question whether it is appropriate for User Ryulong to revert edits to the project page. Racepacket (talk) 00:32, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Reverting the edit of a user who has only two other edits over the course of a year and a half is not a violation of WP:OWN.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:39, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I think your reaction here is very similar to your approach to editing the article page and even the formatting of other people's comments on the UM talk page. It is better to talk differences in viewpoint out than to revert everything. Racepacket (talk) 03:36, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

The user has four edits, two of which are to this page. That is in no way similar to what happened at the articles.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 03:54, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

My observation was that you acted unilaterally and reverted Baechter twice. If User:Do go be man had not stopped you, would you have continued to edit war with Baechter? That behavior is what I mean by 'OWNership issues.' Racepacket (talk) 04:58, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Baechter

Ryulong, pardon my revert. I don't agree with Baechter either, but essentially censoring him does not seem appropriate. Your edit summary does not appear to justify the reversion, especially on a talk page like this one. Please consider letting it remain or explain why you think censorship is required. Do go be man (talk) 01:30, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

This is not censorship. Baechter has four edits to the English Wikipedia, two of which are to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Racepacket. This is either a sockpuppet account, a meatpuppet account, or some other type of tomfoolery.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 01:48, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Ryulong, Wikipedia encourages boldly editing articles. I don't think, however, that applies to editing other editors' talk. I understand your concern regarding sockpuppets. Perhaps that's a valid concern, perhaps not. Deleting someone's words in this context is censorship. You are capable of expressing your concerns and engaging in discussion as you feel motivated. I've noted that Racepacket undermined his credibility by approaching his edits in the manner that he did. I now caution you again that you have also sacrificed your credibility on more than one occasion. Issues such as this try patience and waste time. Do go be man (talk) 13:02, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

This is not an article. This is an esoteric (sort of) project page where Racepacket's conduct is being examined. A user with a total of two edits off of this page is not a metric by which to say that Racepacket is good or bad. That is not censorship.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 19:56, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like we agree this is not an article and that different standards apply to a point. I have no issue with considering the validity of Baechter's opinion as suspect due to lack of experience and exposure to the discussion. I'm taking issue with your censoring his words in a manner that undermines your credibility as an editor. Considering that action in context with other edits could lead someone to believe you have an overdeveloped sense of ownership for the articles you edit. I thought about deleting part of what you wrote just to make a point, but that would not comply with my professional standards for myself. Do go be man (talk) 20:12, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

It is not censorship. I am not censoring anyone. Baechter has no edits of which to speak, and his opinion on Racepacket (while he is allowed to have one) is not valid. Merely because I began this discussion does not mean I am not allowed to remove edits of a user who has been registered for nearly two years, made one edit on the day of registration, another edit six months ago, and two other edits yesterday.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 20:14, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Ryulong, I think you continue to undermine your cause by such insistence. Unless you can cite a policy that enables ownership of even a section of a public talk page, deleting the opinions expressed by any editor is censorship in my opinion. Perhaps that does not fit your definition of censorship or even the Wikipedia definition, but it is a denial of free speech. So long as he isn't shouting "Fire" in a crowded theater or using patently offensive language, he should be allowed his say. As I stated, I don't agree with Baechter and do not dispute the irrelevancy of his comments. It's not that important, but it is fascinating to watch. Do go be man (talk) 21:44, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

This is not ownership or censorship in any sense of the terms. It is removing irrelevant commentary by a user with few edits and questionable motives.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 21:56, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Just to be clear, (1) you removed Baechter's words (2) you judged his words as irrelevant (3) you believe he had not edited enough (4) you judged his motives as questionable. Can you cite the Wikipedia policy that states a minimum qualification level for editing? Would it be okay with you for me, Racepacket, or anyone else to delete any of your comments we judge as irrelevant or based upon questionable motives? We are so far down the bunny trail, but I think your comments may illuminate some of your positions regarding other edits. Do go be man (talk) 22:09, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

WP:SPA cover anything regarding Baechter, who only has four edits on that account, two of which are to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Racepacket. Because you reverted my removal, again, I've properly tagged his comment with {{spa}}.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 22:13, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

So, help me learn. How did deleting Baechter's comments comply with WP:SPA? I do not see anything regarding deleting SPA comments. I do not disagree he appears to be an SPA. As I keep saying, I also agree that his comments are likely irrelevant. Do go be man (talk) 23:02, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I give up. I can't tell what the hell you are talking about anymore. All I'm saying is that because he's got no history, his comments should not be here, which is what I intended with my initial removals. I merely found it extremely odd that an account with only two prior edits decided to say something here. That either means he's a sockpuppet or a meatpuppet. And considering that Racepacket had a history of such activity in the past, I figured it was something similar. In fact, he was blocked only four months ago for such activity.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 23:08, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I am not disagreeing the Baechter is likely a puppet of some sort providing an irrelevant opinion, but that is merely my opinion and I don't believe that gives either of us the right to delete his comment. If you question his relevancy or disagree, say so, but do not delete his comments unless you see something in WP:SPA that I missed. If I missed it, please show me my error. Providing the link to Racepacket's use of sockpuppets was useful. Even if there were clear evidence that Baechter and Racepacket are the same person, however, I think deleting the comment would be beyond our pay grades. You are arguing with someone who essentially agreed with your position other than changing the context and content of the discussion. Do go be man (talk) 23:53, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

:(undent) I see no record of Racepacket being blocked. [2] Point us to a WP:ANI or WP:SPI or other formal administrative forum otherwise don't make weighty accusations such as that. Madcoverboy (talk) 23:18, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I am not making any such accusations. You are linking to what would be a log of blocks performed by Racepacket, which would be empty because he was never an administrator. For all of the blocks placed on Racepacket by administrators, you want this log. This shows a total of three individual times Racepacket was blocked for using sockpuppet accounts (the one second blocks are clerical clarifications).—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 23:22, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I stand corrected. Madcoverboy (talk) 23:34, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

The check user showed that we were in the same metropolitan area, it did not show we were the same person. In fact, a half dozen members of the local running club held weekly discussions about the abuse of a particular autobiography article after each group run. At least, I tried to bring order to that mess by nominating that article for deletion, instead of joining in their edit wars with the subject of the article. But all of that is completely irrelevant here. What is relevant is the POV problems with the UM articles, whether I tried to improve the articles, and whether others resisted that effort out of a sense of personal OWNership. There has been some discussion of credibility here, but there has been little concern for Wikipedia's credibility. Wikipedia's credibility takes a hit when people post an autobiography with inflated credentials, when people write about their alma mater in boosterism terms, and when people unilaterally delete the views of others on a non-article page. Racepacket (talk) 05:51, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

This is a backroom page that has no gravity in the credibility of Wikipedia. Your comment is just a bunch of fluff that has no bearing on anything. Baechter has a total of four edits, two of are to the Wikipdia page that this is the discussion page for. His views are irrelevant to how you or anyone else acts on Wikipedia.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 06:02, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, if I was in Baechter's shoes, and was treated that way, I would certainly get a very negative impression of Wikipedia from being summarily reverted twice by you. Wikipedia want the Baechters of this world (who take the first step of opening an account) to volunteer their time and to believe what they read in Wikipedia. Slapping a Baechter down with a pair of reverts and then insulting him is not the way to move Wikipedia forward. I don't understand why you chose to open this "bunch of fluff" rather than getting a mediator to help resolve the differences that remain on the Miami Hurricanes and related pages. Many people left messages on the UM talk page e.g.,[3], [4], [5], [6], for some time saying the page had POV problems. Nothing happened to fix them. I posted {{[[Template:POV]|POV]]]}} and nothing happened. I have offered edits to correct the POV problems, and they were instantly reverted without discussion. I posted "verbose" discussions on the talk pages explaining why the statements have POV problems, and nothing happened because my text as "far too plain." Only when I tagged and reported copyright violations (from a biased Athletics Dept. website) that serious steps started to be taken to improve the Miami Hurricanes football article. We can spend a month writing more "bunches of fluff," but that will not get people to resolve differences on the text. However, mediation will move the dispute forward to resolution. Racepacket (talk) 06:41, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

It is impossible to get a clear enough understanding of your issues when you spend 500 words explaining it. And all four of those comments you point out are from nearly four years ago. And you are making a non-sequitur to the issue that Baechter is probably one of your friends, again. This page is not to discuss your ongoing issues with the articles. That's what the article talk pages are for. This page is for discussing this page and those who comment on it. And this particular section is discussing the fact that Baechter's comment is invalid as a user with only two edits outside of this project page and absolutely no interaction with you on Wikipedia.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 06:54, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Ryulong, how does your deleting of alleged sockpuppet Baechter's words comply with WP:SPA? Do go be man (talk) 12:23, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

They were not and I was wrong.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 18:23, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Do go be man (talk) 20:13, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

To be brief, a number of people came to the page and are no longer actively contributing to the page. I am guessing that they did not find the environment welcoming. Several encountered editor warriors and gave up. It is relevant here because the "hostile environment" existed long before I started editing the UM pages. (FYI, I ran the my last comment through MS Word and got only a 242 word count, citations included. Grin.) Racepacket (talk) 21:43, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

That is not the same case as Baechter who has a total of two edits that are not to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Racepacket, which brings his total edit count to four. It was also proven that you and Baechter live in the same city. Given your history of sockpuppetry and meatpuppetry, you offhandedly mentioned this page to one of your friends in real life, gave him a link, and it just so happened he had an account from over a year ago that he used to make the comment and then revert me.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 06:01, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

What is concensus?

The complaint makes much of consensus and verbosity. I think there are valuable insights on WP:CONS: "Discussions should always be attempts to convince others, using reasons." This is true even if the discussions get precise or verbose. "The quality of an argument is more important than whether it comes from a minority or a majority." This is particularly true when the issue is whether a particular statement is POV-pushing and a majority of the active editors have connections to a college. Finally, "Consensus can only work among reasonable editors who make a good faith effort to work together in a civil manner. Developing consensus requires special attention to neutrality and verifiability in an effort to reach a compromise that everyone can agree on." The problem with the UM pages was insufficient concern for neutrality and verifiability.

For example, if an editor has concerns about the validity of Forbes Magazine rankings, he should discuss them in a general context, rather than worrying about whether it makes "his" college look bad, and should not removing it repeatedly from "his" college while at the same time adding it to the article about the other editor's alma mater. Wikipedia is not in the business of making any college look good or bad. It is in the business of reporting verifiable facts in a neutral manner. Racepacket (talk) 05:51, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

You still fought against the consensus when the content was neutral and verifiable. And falsely referred to consensuses when there was none or one was against you.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 05:59, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

None of the diffs on the project page support that claim. Wikipedia policy and guidelines reflect the consensus of a large number of people. If you make an edit that does not comply with those policies and guidelines, it is not consensus, no matter how many active editors on the page support the change. Racepacket (talk) 10:52, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Explain to me how your removals of "The U" and "Momentum" from University of Miami were consensus.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 18:23, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Just as important as consensus is policy and established convention—violations of copyright and BLP issues may certainly be reported and dealt with unilaterally, for example. I am unfamiliar with its original context in the article, but I have difficulty imagining how the word "momentum" could be used in a neutral way—when used metaphorically, it injects an editorial view into whatever topic is being written about, which is something best avoided. Review WP:PEACOCK, particularly this sentence: "Stick to the facts and report them without the commentary; allow the reader to decide what to find interesting, ironic, surprising, or noteworthy." Show, don't tell. —Notyourbroom (talk) 20:40, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I dug up the original usage of the word "Momentum". I see now that it's the branding of a capital campaign. That's a dicier situation, then, as far as neutrality is concerned, as we certainly cannot expect a university to be neutral about its own capital campaign. I would appreciate hearing more from Racepacket on his reasoning here. —Notyourbroom (talk) 20:49, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

This is not removal of the content regarding the capital campaign, but merely its name. Why was its constant removal, when several other editors disagreed with it's removal, consensus? The same goes for the constant removal of the name "The U" from the lead paragraph. Consensus was against Racepacket, but he clearly continued to remove it and any references that supported it.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 22:23, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

When I started, it was sourced to the Development Office press release and read:

"Momentum: The Campaign for the University of Miami" was a fundraising effort launched in 2003 with the goal of raising $1 billion to improve facilities, recruit world-renowned faculty and expand the number of endowed student scholarships. At the close of the campaign, UM became the youngest university in the nation and the first in Florida to reach the billion dollar mark, raising $1.4 billion as of February 2008. Of the 56 universities that have run billion dollar campaigns, UM is the only private institution and one of only four established in the 20th Century to achieve this milestone.[7]

My first problem was the source said "one of the youngest" and not "the youngest." I then discussed the fact that campaigns are arbitrary, and that half the money was pledged even before the campaign was publicly announced. Later I decided that the comparisons were not objective and changed it to read, "In 2003, the university lanuched a fund raising drive which grew its endowment to the point that it ranks 97th in size in the nation.[1]" The sentence remain that way for over a week, but after I thought that we had consensus on the UM article and submitted the GA renomination, Ryulong decided the article should say more about it, and the current version does contain a comparison to other colleges in Florida. I dropped the matter at that point. (The history for that talk page section shows further edits at later dates because Ryulong went back to reformat my comments.) I think that Wikipedia should be very careful in making comparisons between colleges on the size of fundraising compaigns. It is silly to claim that it is the biggest in Coral Gables, or the biggest in Florida, when experts in higher education know that it pales compared to Harvard et al. The $1.37 billion represents a period that was backdated to begin in 2002 and includes $854 million for the medical campus at the time that UM acquired its own teaching hospital. In general, a fair comparison would be dollars raised per year, size of endowment, size of physical plant investment or some other national fiscal ranking by NACUBO, the Chronicle of Philanthropy or the Chronical of Higher Education. Here UM issued a press release which was picked up by the local paper, who understandably printed the local comparison in its fluff piece. We have NACUBO saying UM has the 97th largest endowment in the nation. We have President Shalala writing that endowment income is only 2% of UMs annual budget. I think its boosterism to compare UM to just Florida colleges and go out of our way to quote the local paper saying it's #1. It deserves a sentence or two in the history section, but any comparison should be national from an RS and not arbitrary from a local source. Racepacket (talk) 22:15, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

This is nothing to do with the content regarding the campaign but its name. Why was it so essential to remove the name when several editors disagreed with its removal?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 22:24, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

The one sentence version removed the name because it was a mouthful, and really not significant in the history of the University. Every fund drive at every college has a name, which few remember after the campaign ends. But when you insisted on having the name, for the sake of accuracy, I insisted on having the full name stated, just as it was on September 1. We both should respond directly to Notyourbroom's question -- why the need to go beyond the facts and include comparisons between UM and other schools when discussing the campaign? I thought that a national comparison based on the resulting endowment increase was fair, why did you insist on a within-Florida comparison? Racepacket (talk) 02:29, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Returning to the basic question, "What is consensus?" Ryulong seems to say that consensus is based on a vote -- it is not. When two views are identified -- 'compare to Florida' or 'don't compare to Florida' -- the editors are supposed to discuss it until something is worked out. That is different from saying 'you are out voted.' I've been giving reasons on the talk page, but others have not reciprocated, particularly on the Miami Hurricanes football page. Racepacket (talk) 02:36, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I have never said "consensus is based on a vote". I am merely saying there was no consensus for some of your edits to these pages, particularly when they were reverted by multiple users.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 03:49, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Some items took some time to work out, others were resolved quickly. The basic problem with the Miami Hurricanes and Miami Hurricanes football was there are only three people actively editing the page, POTD, ObiWan353 and me. POTD does not use edit summaries and rarely uses the discussion page. ObiWan353 did use the discussion page. When I started to edit the football page, it had the following passage on the move from the Miami Orange Bowl stadium to the Dolphins stadium:

In the summer of 2007, Miami announced that, beginning with its 2008 season, its team would play its home games at Dolphin Stadium. 2007 marked UM's final season of football at the Orange Bowl. The move to Dolphin Stadium was approved by the university's Board of Trustees, on the recommendation of UM President Donna Shalala, on August 21, 2007.[22] Due to the condition of the Orange Bowl, there had been much speculation in recent years over the venue's continued viability as Miami football's home stadium. With an on-campus stadium not practical due to substantial opposition from neighboring home owners in Coral Gables, the university was left with two options: move 12 miles north to Dolphin Stadium in Miami Gardens, which serves as home to the NFL's Miami Dolphins, or renovate the Orange Bowl, adding more restrooms and a video replay screen and making assorted repairs to the stadium infrastructure. One of the most historic stadiums in college football, the Orange Bowl stadium was destroyed following the University of Miami's decision not to renew its contract with the famed stadium.

This could be read as POV-pushing that tearing down the Orange Bowl was bad and it was Shalala's fault. I then posted the following question on the discussion page:

Regarding the Orange Bowl paragraph, consider these three alternative sentences:
1.

"One of the most historic stadiums in college football, the Orange Bowl stadium was destroyed following the University of Miami's decision not to renew its contract with the famed stadium."
2. "One of the most decrepit stadiums in college football, the Orange Bowl was retired following the University of Miami's decision not to renew its contract with the outdated stadium."
3. "The Orange Bowl was destroyed following the University of Miami's decision not to renew its contract with the stadium"

Which of the three was written by an Orange Bowl fan, a Dolphins Stadium fan, or a neutral party? Racepacket (talk) 02:56, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

to which ObiWan353 replied: "Regarding the OB, it was both decrepit and historic. But your sentence is far too plain." I had replaced #1 with #3, and was reverted back to #1. I don't have a problem if an edit that I make gets reverted or further modified, so long as it is clear that everyone is moving an article along toward improvement. The problem arises when I remove some peacock words, and they get restored because the other editor thinks that the neutral language is "far too plain." Racepacket (talk) 15:47, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Why can't you state your opinion in around five sentences?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 20:00, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps Ryulong can respond to Notyourbroom's question about why the need to go beyond the facts and include comparisons between UM and other schools when discussing the fundraising campaign? Racepacket (talk) 21:00, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I've argued to include it because it is explicitly stated as fact in the reference that we use to source the statement regarding the campaign. And that reference is independent from the University (it's a website for a newspaper in the City of Miami). How is that so hard to understand?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 21:18, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Don't you think that a local paper can be just as prone to boosterism as the University's press release? When I re-read the story,[7] it bristles with peacock phrases that I would not feel comfortable quoting: "promises to propel UM into a more elite league of schools," "Shalala ... wants UM to continue its ascent in national rankings." If the #1 in Florida fundraising campaign is such a well-known fact, why is it that it was not picked up by more media outlets? Racepacket (talk) 00:53, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

That's journalism. It's not suspect to the guidelines and trappings of Wikipedia.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 01:07, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

We simply disagree on what judgments are required to maintain an encyclopedic tone. Facts should certainly be included, but we should guard against automatically incorporating the opinions or bias of any particular source. Racepacket (talk) 09:58, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

• We now have the benefit of an independent, disinterested Wikipedia editor's review of the University of Miami article. Here is his review which found the article "Should avoid advertising the university - present facts neutrally, avoid generalizations and opinons." Racepacket (talk) 09:58, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

  What does that have to do with anything regarding your conduct?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 10:27, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Cornell1890 & Baechter

With the second addition of an endorsement of Notyourbroom's statement by Cornell1890 (talk · contribs) (only 251 edits, barely any of which are to talk pages) and the confirmation that Baechter and Racepacket live in the same city, this is a hell of a lot of meatpuppetry and/or sockpuppetry surrounding this page. I have not requested a look into Cornell1890's edits, but considering that Racepacket has in the past requested assistance from his friends and has been blocked for it, I'm beginning to think that he's done this again and is trying to sway the argument in his favor.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 21:36, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Please substantiate these claims: (1) "Racepacket has in the past requested assistance from his friends" and (2) "...and has been blocked for it". Logs show that Racepacket's account has never been blocked, and in my experience, his notification of proceedings was a far cry from being a violation of WP:CANVASS. —Notyourbroom (talk) 22:21, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I am not making any claims. Everything I have said about Racepacket's actions is fact. And I am going to answer your second question first: that is not Racepacket's block log. That would be the log of blocks Racepacket performed. This is his block log (you go to his contributions page and then click "block log" instead of "log"). He has been blocked three times for violating alternate account policies. You are the second person on this page to not know which page logs blocks performed on a user, revealing your lack of knowledge of Wikipedia as a whole. And to answer your first question, Racepacket admits it right here. This is not asking people on Wikipedia to vouch for him but asking people he knows in real life to vouch for him on Wikipedia. I clarified this for Madcoverboy three days ago, as well.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 22:28, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I see now that the first endorsement was by Cornell2010 (talk · contribs) while the second is by Cornell1890 (talk · contribs). And it is slightly confusing that Cornel1890 left a comment on Cornell2010's user talk here. I thought that the numbers were identical.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 22:39, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Canvassing

And there are separate canvassing issues, considering that Racepacket contacted Cornellrockey (talk · contribs), Xtreambar (talk · contribs), Cornell010 (talk · contribs), Notyourbroom (talk · contribs), Madcoverboy (talk · contribs), Cornell1890 (talk · contribs), Vaudedoc (talk · contribs), Disavian (talk · contribs), and Anthony Krupp (talk · contribs) all to comment here. How Cornell2010 (talk · contribs) found the page is beyond me.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 22:42, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I trust that you are not implying that those messages are outside what is permitted by WP:CANVASS. Would you please disclose who you contacted in connection with this page? I have found: PassionoftheDamon, Do go be man, MiamiDolphins3, and ElKevbo. How is what you did any different than the neutral notices I gave? I realize that I am not as experienced in these WP:RFC/U matters as you are, but aren't you getting a bit inconsistent and non-productive with all of this? Racepacket (talk) 00:49, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I was asking them to add onto the statement of the dispute. And that's much less in volume than all of the people you asked to save your ass.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 03:05, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I take issue with both the tone and content of that comment. It has been established that Racepacket's notifications were very objective and sterile; your insinuation that he explicitly asked for support is factually incorrect. In addition, your use of borderline-vulgar—and certainly unprofessional—language is a clear break with civility, which I'm sure I need not remind you is an integral part of the five pillars. I request that you withdraw that comment and—if you feel you cannot control your tone and language in the future—withdraw from further discussion here. —Notyourbroom (talk) 05:32, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I am not going to change how I say things, so perhaps you should just grow a thicker skin if the word "ass" bothers you that much.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 05:34, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Ryulong, you have been admonished on this sort of point in the past. I quote from User:Newyorkbrad, 23 March 2009: "Ryulong is a dedicated administrator with some well-known sharp edges. I remember writing one of my long posts about Ryulong and his critics, urging him to work on various aspects of his tone and use of tools, a year and a half ago." (source) I do not believe that the problem is the thin skin you ascribe to me; rather, I believe that the issue is that you, as a trusted pillar of the community, have an inherent responsibility to speak and act in a manner as impartial and professional as you are able. This subject ought not to derail the discussion of User:Racepacket's behavior, though, so I will let it rest at that—I made my specific complaint above and you have chosen to reject its premise, so I believe there is nothing more productive to discuss in this thread.—Notyourbroom (talk) 20:17, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Do not dismiss this just because I used a mildly abrasive word. There is still the major issue of Racepacket having contacted nearly a dozen users to comment here, thereby removing any possible outside views as everyone knows Racepacket already.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 21:36, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

9=12? Again, I sent a neutral notice of this proceeding to a small group of editors. I have no idea which way they would comment or if they were interested in commenting at all. I think that this entire RFC/U is going off track. Judging from the RFC/U pages, the purpose is for the editors that start the process and the subject editor to try to work toward a better understanding of the problem. Two of the endorsing editors really have not said anything since endorsing the page. Both appear to be on a wikibreak (since Oct 18 and Oct 22). The third endorsing editor, User:Do go be man has exchanged views via user talk pages and most of his comments here since have been directed toward Ryulong's conduct. The last endorsing editor, Ryulong does not seem open to any discussion, resisting inputs as "walls of text" and "verbosity." The fact is that a large number of disinterested and separate people have found boosterism problems in the UM articles. I want to solve that with a minimum of discord or hurt feelings. Perhaps if Ryulong can get past how people came to the RFC/U page, he will accept that there are serious problems with the UM articles, and he can suggest how those problems can be fixed. If Ryulong wants to take the lead in rewriting the article, I am willing to take a back seat to his effort, so long as the result is neutral and well-sourced. But canvassing discussions here and at ANI do not advance the UM articles. Is Ryulong willing to have a mediator work out the boosterism problem? Racepacket (talk) 22:17, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

The "walls of text" argument is that other users do not want to read through the 13 lines or more of text that you tend to post in order to fully understand your point of view. I know it would be easier to work on article content if I did not have to read an essay every time. And stop changing the subject.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 22:33, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I am confused by your request to "stop changing the subject." I am repeatedly proposing that we bring in a mediator to help us work toward NPOV articles. You are changing the subject, by starting this RFC/U, by canvassing for it, followed by accusing me of improper canvassing. Just like User:PassionoftheDamon who edit warred and accused User:Daedalus of being a sockpuppet, changed the subject from the need to fix Miami Hurricanes. Other than a mediator, what other avenues are their to get people moving forward toward an NPOV article? Racepacket (talk) 02:07, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

This section is about the fact that you contacted nine people to speak on your behalf. It is not about getting a mediator and it is not about giving the articles any more of a neutral POV. Stop talking about mediators.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 02:27, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Racepacket, WP:Canvassing#Friendly notices says "Neutrally worded notifications sent to a few editors are considered "friendly notices" if they seem intended to improve rather than to influence a discussion (while keeping in mind excessive excessive cross-posting below). For example, to editors who have substantively edited or discussed an article related to the discussion; or perhaps to a Wikipedian known for being an expert in a related field and who's shown interest in participating in related discussions. A template such as {{Please see}} may help in leaving these notices." Racepacket message looks like a friendly notice and he did not say for them to "speak on his behalf" he said "For your information, four University of Miami editors have started Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Racepacket." I think it would have been better if he used the please see template. I would like to note that this is not the first time Ryulong said a user asked for other users to do something that the user did not asked other users to do, as 3 weeks ago I asked User:Black Kite "What do you think about this?" about a disagreement me and Ryulong were having, and then Ryulong said "And now you got Black Kite to revert for you." and "You indirectly asked him to revert." when I did not ask Black Kite to revert his edit. Powergate92Talk 05:38, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Stop throwing in more non-sequiturs Powergate92. The only way you found this page was by investigating my edits, again.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 05:54, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I did not find this page by investigating your edits, I found this page by looking at AN/I. Powergate92Talk 06:47, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

What outcome is expected from this process now that several editors who are clearly not sock\meatpuppets have issued generally favorable opinions of Racepacket's edits? This is becoming an increasingly incoherent and acrimonious debate. Specifically, what does Ryulong expect to happen now if not mediation? Madcoverboy (talk) 05:41, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Racepacket is suggesting mediation to take place other than this page and suggesting actions take place which are not what this thread was meant to discuss. What should happen from this page is that Racepacket sees that other editors have issues with his editing practices, and opinions outside of those in the dispute, and possibly change his actions. All that has happened is that a sockpuppet showed up and he contacted several users who have dealt with him in the past to make favorable statements about him.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 05:54, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Is it possible that reading this, I see a large number of editors who agree that there are NPOV problems in the articles, but there are editors who misread sources, who are blind to the NPOV issue, are incivil and who have very strong opinions? These make mediation the best way forward. Racepacket (talk) 13:26, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Ryulong, you started the process and it's becoming increasingly transparent that you're unhappy with other editors expressing anything other than a negative opinion of Racepacket. Unfortunately, you can't weight the scales by canvassing editors to back your perspective up but not provide the same opportunity to the counterparty. As I noted in my comment, this RFCC was predicated on the flimsiest of user conduct rationales (writing "long" responses in discussion) and it's becoming increasingly apparent (to me at least) that Ryulong had envisioned that this process would have an entirely different outcome (Ryulong leads other downtrodden editors to free Wikipedia from the tyranny of Racepacket's verbosity and literate use of policy!!!) but Ryulong still would like to engage in some sort of axe-grinding campaign against Racepacket. I recommend winding this RFCC down and pursuing alternative dispute resolution means. Madcoverboy (talk) 14:02, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Not to become the civility police here, but Madcoverboy, I believe you have also crossed a line here: your parenthetical comment is an over-the-top and demeaning characterization of your view of these proceedings, and your use of phrases like "axe-grinding campaign" is also unnecessarily confrontational and posits underlying motives which we, as a matter of policy, must assume do not apply. I understand both parties are frustrated, but these are clearly not attitudes which will lead to any amicable resolution—which, I believe, is the outcome we are all hoping for. —Notyourbroom (talk) 20:24, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Madcoverboy, I have no problem with users saying "I think Racepacket is doing the right thing". I do have a problem that he went to contact nine different users to make this comment for him. The point of the RFC/U is that one party says what they feel is the issue, the other party responds, and then third parties comment either way. Contacting 9 users that one has worked favorably with is more or less skewing the process. I contacted users to add onto the statement of the dispute because I only have one opinion on the issues. PassionoftheDamon had others, and I'm sure Miamidolphins3 and Obiwan whatever did as well.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 20:30, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Racepacket, stop changing the subject to suggest that mediation take place. My use of the word "ass", my choice not to redact my statement because I used the word "ass", and my misreading of two very similar usernames are not the issue here. On mediation, I have left a more clear comment on your talk page.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 20:34, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I was never contacted by anyone, I have merely done a little prior editing on the page. My impression from the discussion so far is that the result of an RfC, like other processes such as AN/I is not always what the party bringing the case one expects it to be. In a dispute, it is understandably the party who finds their view not supported that brings the case, but it sometimes happens the reason their view is not supported is not because of prejudice against it, but rather because it is not supportable. DGG ( talk ) 16:55, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Reply to Alansohn's view

Alansohn states: "...the problem seems to be that Racepacket cannot work collaboratively in situations where he feels too close to the subject to allow other opinions to be recognized." But Racepacket has stated: "I have absolutely no attachments to, or opinions about, UM. My goal is to produce articles that are so balanced and NPOV that a reader could not tell what school the author(s) attended." If anything, then, I would posit that Racepacket has the opposite "problem"; he is sufficiently detached from the specific subject (i.e., UM) and well-versed enough in the goals and standards of WikiProject Universities that he is able to remain dispassionate in the face of understandably-defensive reactions by student and alumni editors of the UM article who may feel that an outsider is causing disruption by overhauling existing prose. —Notyourbroom (talk) 20:27, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Mediation

I do not know how to make myself any clearer to Racepacket concerning his constant requests that we get a mediator to resolve NPOV issues. I have stated MANY times to him that I do not have an issue with his edits to make pages comform to WP:NPOV and have a neutral point of view. There is no need for a mediator to work on this issue. I am fine with his edits to this effect. But Racepacket seems to be completely oblivious to my opinion on this matter and instead keeps suggesting that we get a mediator.

I have ABSOLUTELY NO ISSUE with WP:NPOV for these articles, but Racepacket cannot or will not take that from what I have said to him ([8], [9], [10]). My issues with his editing practices are non-existant when it comes to making neutrally written articles. Alansohn's outside view clearly expresses my issues with Racepacket's editing practices when he experienced it on another article. Racepacket is being unbelievably stubborn and oblivious to other's opinions.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 20:48, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

This whole thing has spun out of control. If I were King (and I'm not), I would decree that nobody who has contributed to this mess (including me and any sockpuppets and meatpuppets) would be allowed to touch any of the disputed pages for at least six months. In the meantime, please take a look at Ad hominem and consider eliminating such arguments. Do go be man (talk) 20:59, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I'd be happy if you could point out the ad hominem arguments I've put into the above statement.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 21:16, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Proposed closure

I suggest this RFC has run it's course and can be closed. I suggest the following:

"There are obviously problems here. Racepacket is asked to try to avoid becoming too emotionally attached to his edits, regardless of their correctness. At the same time, the edits Racepacket was making to the University of Miami articles should be carefully considered, as multiple individuals commented that there are some peacocky terms. All participants are reminded that Wikipedia is a collaborative exercise, and to seek consensus as opposed to attempting to win via wikilawyering, edit warring, or browbeating other contributors."

Any objections? I'll enact the close in 24 hours give or take unless there is strong disagreement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hipocrite (talk • contribs)

I think it's ready to be delisted due to inactivity; given that it's a relatively small RfC/U, not sure if a summary is needed here. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:26, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Support: I agree with the broad strokes here, though perhaps not every detail. In the interest of moving on, I would accept that as written. —Notyourbroom (talk) 18:39, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Support struck because it was originally given "in the interest of moving on," something which has clearly not happened here. —Notyourbroom (talk) 18:41, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Closing this is a good idea. The summary about emotional attachment, consensus, and wikilawyering is quite relevant. This issue was not really about the content from my perspective. Do go be man (talk) 20:50, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree with closing this. I think that problems were revealed on all sides, and that two of the four complainants have been on wikibreak since this started. Perhaps closing without any summary statement would be best. Racepacket (talk) 00:04, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Racepacket, perhaps you could present your reasons for proposing to close this without a summary statement. Do go be man (talk) 01:09, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate your asking. I don't want to reopen healing wounds or to criticize people on wikibreak, but I think that noone is without fault here, and that the proposed summary does not represent a fair analysis of what was discussed here. For example, the dynamic on the University of Miami page was very different from the Miami Hurricanes or Miami Hurricanes football pages. Rather than debate how it should be phrased, we would be better off ending this without any comment as suggested by User:Ncmvocalist.

Just because people are not active now does not mean something should not be stated.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 04:37, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

From my perspective, the majority of the issues involved Racepacket and Ryulong who both seem active at this time. Pardon my ignorance, how does Racepacket and others know that other relevant editors are on wikibreak? Who are the other relevant editors who should contribute to the discussion before it's closed? Seems like the proposed summary statement would provide some closure. What would Racepacket or Ryulong change? Do go be man (talk) 17:49, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

• I would prefer no statement, but if there must be a summary, how about "All of the editors working on Category:University of Miami articles are asked to treat each other with civility, to respectfully consider the viewpoint and contributions of others, to avoid POV-pushing, to assume good faith, to edit without emotion, and to work together toward consensus." Racepacket (talk) 23:30, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

A comment that I anticipate will be unappreciated and perhaps misunderstood... the rush to close on assumptions of wikibreaks, without an appropriate statement of consensus, and without addressing specific questions such as why the assumption and relevancy of wikibreaks feels a lot like what caused this issue in the first place. I'm not entirely sure anything has been accomplished. If I understand the response, Racepacket wants to avoid a closure statement, has no opinion on the relevancy of wikibreaks, and if a statement is developed wants to avoid specific admonitions to specific editors. I don't mean to put words in his mouth, only seeking validation of my understanding. I am quite willing to have my misunderstanding corrected. Hipocrite's proposed closure statement seems reasonable to me. Do go be man (talk) 03:53, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I think you are misinterpreting my efforts at being diplomatic. Please go back and re-read the project page including the diffs and keeping in mind the chronology of events. Remember, that this RFC was filed on Oct 13 after the rewrite of University of Miami was completed and the GA nomination was refiled on Sept 25. At that point, I believed that Ryulong and I had resolved our content differences, and I was surprised that one content difference emerged after that. I had turned the revision efforts to other UM articles and encountered the two other editors active on Miami Hurricanes football which Ryulong did not actively edit. I tried to communicate with the two editors, for example on Oct. 12 and Oct 8, and even filed the Oct 13 ANI and Oct 16 ANI regarding one of them. The filing of this RFC/U quickly followed the first ANI. They have been on wikibreak since Oct 18 and Oct 22, respectively. My experiences have been not been unique.[11][12][13][14][15] Again, since the two editors are on wikibreak, it is best if we end this without any summary. Thanks. Racepacket (talk) 11:45, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Racepacket, perhaps I'm in the minority or even alone, however, I'm not clear on what has been accomplished. You still appear to be wikilawyering, avoiding consensus, and seem emotionally attached to your edits. This RFC is named, "Requests for comment/Racepacket", regarding your actions. Perhaps some note could or should be included regarding other editors, but I think this page is about you. If you and Ryulong resolved your differences, that's great and a testament to effective discussion and consensus building that should be documented including the lessons learned. I agree with the proposed statement. There are/were obvious problems. I believe you do become emotionally attached to your edits. That is not necessarily a bad thing because it reflects your passion and commitment, however, needs to be tempered with respect for other editors. Bold edits are encouraged, however, you made edits in the manner of an edit warrior that clearly did not consider the expressed consensus. I'm sure you agree that wikilawyering, edit warring, and browbeating are inappropriate tools for editors. The issue I see is that you do not acknowledge even the perception that you engaged in those practices. If all of that is in the past, let's document it and move on. I'll be offline for a couple of days. I've had my say and will see what resolved when I get back. Do go be man (talk) 14:30, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps everyone can re-read the project page as well as Talk:University of Miami/GA2 over the holidays. We could also read Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct/Closing, which does not require any summary statement and states that these matters can end through inactivity. I realize that Do go be man was one of the four complainants, but I think that Ncmvocalist's proposal to end it without a summary is the best approach. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 15:11, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Let's be clear that I certainly was not singling out Racepacket for abusive behavior in my closing summary, as the RFC does not show consensus that he alone was abusive. His content edits, for example, were basically blessed by the RFC, and, after all, the encyclopedia is about content (to first order). Individuals who were reinserting peackocky terms calmly are, in the opinion of the RFC, at fault as well. If Racepacket was taking my summary as in indictment of his conduct alone, he would be wrong. Consider the reasonably well-endorsed views by Soxwon, Notyourbroom and DGG. Hipocrite (talk) 12:03, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Specifically, Racepacket is uniquely asked to be less emotionally attached per Outside view by Alansohn, while every one of the participants in the dispute is reminded what wikipedia is - because none of you covered yourselves in glory per the RFC, per the Soxwon et. al. comments. Hipocrite (talk) 12:05, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

This was opened not because of peacock terms or POV issues raised by Racepacket. It was his behavior in acting against the consensuses that he disagreed with, edit warring over minor NPOV and reliably sourced content that he did not feel was good for the article, and then edit warring over the structure of the article, stating that a version he forked off and changed some things to was the consensus, or referring to an older version as consensus or vetted. Alansohn's summary is exactly what happened at University of Miami. The fact that Racepacket for several weeks simply stopped editing the article is the only reason that this has been quiet until you suggested closure.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 12:13, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Ok, but the consensus at the RFC dosen't demonstrate that. Hipocrite (talk) 14:49, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

With all due respect, the statement, "Racepacket for several weeks simply stopped editing" is the opposite of the truth. I have been editing the Category UM articles constantly over the past month (being its most active editor during that time), and yesterday resubmitted the University of Miami article for GA. Rather, the difference is that two of the complaining editors have gone of wikibreak since Oct 18 and Oct 22, respectively. As for changing the structure of the University of Miami article, I was trying to reflect the Wikiproject University Guidelines and the recommendations of the first GA review by creating "Campus" and "Research" sections, and I think we quickly arrived at consensus on those points as well as most others. The other UM articles, which drew most of the diffs on the project page, were much more fractious, with PassionoftheDamon and ObiWan353 reverting absolutely every edit, regardless of merit. They would blanket revert even over a simple issue like expanding the contraction 'Canes to Hurricanes. Finally, I respectfully disagree with Ryulong's claim that I am too emotionally attached to the subject. I think that Notyourbroom's reply to Alansohn is a more accurate analysis. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 15:56, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

"I respectfully disagree with Ryulong's claim that I am too emotionally attached to the subject."

I have NEVER said this.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:25, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Ryūlóng, I would like to remind you that it is not necessary to use combinations of bolding, italics, capslock, color changes, or other text markup for emphasis, as I have several times seen in your talk-page prose (example). Simple italics will suffice in almost every case. Our focus here should be on remaining objective and reaching consensus, not on shouting. Thank you. —Notyourbroom (talk) 00:43, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't care. I can emphasize text however I want.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 01:22, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

And I will clarify my opinion on Racepacket now. I do not care what the final result is of Racepacket's edits to any page. I don't care if he makes it better or worse or if his edits get the page to featured status. My problem is how he reaches his goal: by edit warring, ignoring the opinions of other users, nitpicking at neutral and reliably sourced content that he personally does not think will work well with the article, and other disruptive editing practices. This RFC was meant to bring up my qualms with his editing practices and the qualms other editors have had. Alansohn's statement puts these issues in prose. I do not think that Racepacket becomes emotionally attached. I have never said this and I never will.

I want the following to be used as a statement in some form:

Racepacket is asked to work collaboratively with other editors of the project when he begins to work extensively in a subject area. If opposition is brought to his changes to article content, Racepacket should bring discussion to the talk page and state his opinions in terse and clear points, rather than writing several paragraphs. At no point should either side of the debate resort to edit warring, wikilawyering, canvassing, sockpuppetry, meatpuppetry, or any other unconstructive means (whether to the article or the project as a whole) to reach their goal.

—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 01:40, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

On November 21, Ryulong appeared to make two claims: 1) that the Category UM articles have been edited with little contention since the RFC/U was filed because I stopped editing them and 2) that I am too emotionally attached to the subject (by incorporating Alansohn's argument). I responded that I have continued to edit the articles, but that two other editors have been on wikibreak in the meantime and that I agreed with Notyourbroom's reply to Alansohn in that I have no emotional stake in the University of Miami, its football team, etc. On November 24, Ryulong replied, "I have NEVER said this." meaning that he does not think that I am too emotionally attached to the UM articles. So on the second point, Ryulong and I are in agreement that attachment to the subject matter is not the concern (which is the opposite of what Alansohn was trying to argue.) Ryulong, may I assume that we are also in agreement that I have continued to edit in the Category UM articles and that POTD and ObiWan353 have not? Finally, as to Ryulong's proposed statement, it implies that I did not bring the disputes to the talk page, when in fact, I did, but was ignored. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 17:12, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Neither Alansohn nor I state you have any sort of emotional attachment. We both merely come across the same disruptive behaviors that we think you should change. You brought the disputes to the talk page, but you did so in a method that it was difficult for anyone else to comprehend your issues.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 18:28, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Once again, we read the sources differently. Alansohn's comment was about "situations where [Racepacket] feels too close to the subject to allow other opinions to be recognized." This prompted Hipocrite to propose a closing that included "Racepacket is asked to try to avoid becoming too emotionally attached to his edits, regardless of their correctness." You now agree that emotional attachment is not the problem, and I agree. So you are now proposing a closing summary based on the way that I express myself on the article talk pages. I think that if you re-read, for example Talk:Miami Hurricanes football, you will see that I have been concise and to the point. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 02:59, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Fine. Then that is the only aspect of Alansohn's statement that I disagree with. You may not feel too close to the subject, but you certainly do not allow other opinions to be recognized. You dismissed structural changes I made and then brought these minor things against me in one of the Wikilawyering discussions you began.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 03:09, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

What leads you to believe that the discussion on the project page is directed at you to the exclusion of POTD and ObiWan353? Racepacket (talk) 04:13, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Ryulong's proposed statement specifically includes "sockpuppetry, meatpuppetry". In this regard, the only two examples on the Category UM articles that I could locate were a user who has not actively edited UM coming out of the blue to concur in Ryulong's views and a user whose only edit ever was to vote to keep an article that I had proposed for deletion. I don' think it is productive to recite every single form of conduct that is against policy in any closing summary, and suggest instead that we close this without any statement. Racepacket (talk) 23:36, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I oppose the no closure statement proposal. Too much time has been wasted on this whole matter to leave it without summation. Fact of the matter is that, once closed, the statement will unlikely ever be read again. There are certain elements of the proposed closure statement, however, I feel should be left behind for whatever lessons learned "Requests for comment/Racepacket" may represent: "Racepacket is asked to avoid becoming emotionally attached to his edits, regardless of their correctness. All participants are reminded that Wikipedia is a collaborative exercise, and to seek consensus as opposed to attempting to win via wikilawyering, edit warring, or browbeating other contributors." Do go be man (talk) 00:05, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

• I don't think that Do go be man's proposal reflects the consensus of what has been presented. Ryulong has agreed that the problem has not been emotional involvement in the subject matter. I feel that my responses have been a reasoned response to excessive wikibullying by the other editors on the Category UM articles, particularly Miami Hurricanes and Miami Hurricanes football. You make an excellent point about wasting time, but how much time have we wasted over debating the closure statement? Racepacket (talk) 15:09, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

• Let's move on. There is no requirement for a closing statement, and we are not getting anywhere, particularly with two key people on wikibreak. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 02:01, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

There is a necessity for a closing statement because I still don't want you to act as you did. Even if your goals are beneficial, the methods you use are detrimental to the project.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 02:05, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

With all due respect, I find your tone objectionable: your convictions do not automatically override WP:CONSENSUS. Perhaps you meant to say something like this: "There is a necessity for a closing statement because a consensus of most involved parties holds that we write one. Now, we must reach a consensus on what the statement should say." —Notyourbroom (talk) 04:19, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

This is beyond the border of silly. I don't think Racepacket learned anything from this experience, but I'm just one editor. Did I miss the part where he explained how he knew "two key people" are on wikibreak and how that is relevant? This is the first and hopefully only RFC in which I've been involved. What is the usual practice? Do those who were found to have engaged in poor behaviour generally decide how the RFC is closed? He suggests we move on because he thinks we should move on. If that's the standard for RFCs, then I've learned something about the irrelevancy of the wikiprocess and we should move on. Is there someone responsible for arbitrating this? Do go be man (talk) 02:21, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

"Do those who were found to have engaged in poor behaviour generally decide how the RFC is closed?" I dispute the premise of this circular argument. No consensus (i.e., a closing statement) has yet been reached regarding whether anyone has "engaged in poor behaviour." On the contrary, a number of editors have expressed views that Racepacket has minimal culpability in the conduct ascribed to him in this RFC. —Notyourbroom (talk) 04:19, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

The "culpability" is that myself and other editors involved with the Miami articles want Racepacket to change how he acts when he edits pages. Not what he edits. Several times now I have plainly and clearly stated that I found Racepacket's editing practices (writing excessive comments on the talk page, wikilawyering, edit warring) incompatible with the collaborative nature of Wikipedia, and Racepacket was not treating Wikipedia as a collaborative effort when improving the articles. I have never stated that he had an emotional attachment to anything. I am perfectly fine with his changes to remove peacock words. I was not fine with some of the edits he made with what I thought was neutral and reliably sourced content that he persistantly removed, despite consensus being against him (removing the nickname "The U" from the lead paragraph and throwing out any reference provided that showed the use of that nickname, removing the name of a fundraising campaign for no clearly defined reason when it was neutral and reliably sourced, removing a sourced statement that the particular campaign was described to as a superlative in a reliable source referenced).

If anything, I want Racepacket to take this away from the RFC is that he should not utilize deleterious and tendentious editing practices when editing pages when he faces opposition to his edits (including edit warring, wikilawyering, stubbornness, etc.). He should also try to make himself clear and concise when it comes to communicating to other users (I do not have the patience to sit through and read this; since Racepacket began editing the page, the length of the talk page expanded fourfold until I archived discussions that Racepacket didn't start, adding 80k). While his goals are beneficial, the end does not justify the means when it comes to working collaboratively.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 04:48, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

It's taken about a fortnight and the participants here have still not come to an agreed wording. However, there is broad agreement that this should be closed, so it has been closed as if it's been delisted due to inactivity. The RfC/U has accomplished all that it can in the recommended timeframe (actually longer than that); should the dispute remain unresolved after say...a week or 2, and the issues appear to be ongoing, then parties would need to use the next step in dispute resolution. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:13, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh come on. I've given a clear wording, but neither you nor Racepacket (the subject) thinks anything needs to be stated.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 05:19, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

The participants at this RfC/U are you (Ryulong), Alansohn, Racepacket, Guy, Hipocrite, DGG, Jehochman, Themfromspace, Elen of the Roads, Baechter, Madcoverboy, Cornell, Notyourbroom, Cornlrioy, Soxwon, PassionoftheDamon, Obiwan, and Dogobeman - that is, not me. Hipocrite proposed a summary; my response should not be misconstrued as an objection - merely what is possibly the inevitable outcome. Notyourbroom and Racepacket did not support Hipocrite's summary, while Dogobeman did agree with that. You made a comment at 12:13, 21 November 2009 (UTC) which Hipocrite noted did not reflect the consensus of the RfC/U. The proposal by you and Dogobeman did not receive much input except from Racepacket who objected. Notyourbroom even tried to give you a clue over your own approach at 04:19, 1 December 2009 (UTC) but you have not picked up on the hint. Until or unless there is an agreement to a wording, there is no summary. But as there was broad agreement for closing the RfC/U as serving its inherent purpose, you really should be endeavouring to come to an agreed wording rather than trying to inappropriately reopen a closed RfC/U that was filed by you. Ncmvocalist (talk) 11:27, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Something in my opinion needs to be stated about the conduct of any and all parties to the dispute. Racepacket's only reasoning against that is because PassionoftheDamon (talk · contribs) and PassionoftheDamon (talk · contribs) have not edited in over a month. And no one commenting here anymore seems to be giving any possible statement any sort of consideration. I will repeat myself again so maybe you can read it and determine as to whether it is a possible summary.

Racepacket is asked to not use edit warring, wikilawyering, and other disruptive editing practices when it comes to improving articles. He is asked to make his arguments clear and concise and take into consideration others' opinions when discussing changes on article talk pages. Overall, other users should welcome Racepacket's attention to articles, as he writes in a neutral tone with reliable sources to back up his edits. His contributions as a whole are beneficial, and works to bring articles to good and featured status.

There. I have not used "emotional attachment" because there is none as far as I can tell, despite multiple other users using that wording. I have acknowledged that there are issues with Racepacket's conduct but not his contributions to the project.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 02:20, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

It's of course possible, but as the closer, I'm not going to arbitrarily put any summary, unless: 1/ there is no disagreement for the summary by participants, or; 2/ there is agreement for that summary by participants. If just 1 or 2 can be satisfied, then I'll put the closing summary in. It may be preferrable to create a separate subsection requesting any objections/endorsements raised within the next say...48 hours, but as the subject may object to a summary, the most important point is to gain views from participants (listed above) who were uninvolved in the underlying dispute. Remember, a summary does not replace the views of the RfC/U; it's just a very brief summary to reflect what happened and how the RfC/U ended. Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:14, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, the various uninvolved participants merely said "There are peacock terms, Racepacket should not be punished for fixing that" and did not talk about the actions taken by Racepacket when that was not the issue. Soxwon and Alansohn are the only uninvolved participants who focused on his behavior which is what the RFC was intended to discuss.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 06:22, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps other uninvolved participants considered that this should not have been escalated to RfC/U at the point at which it was? You have to remember that it is not just the subject's conduct who is under scrutiny, but the filing party's too, even in how they went about attempting to resolve their dispute. I'm not saying I agree or disagree with what's been expressed on any of this, but I am saying that it is relevant uninvolved input.

The "uninvolved" community consensus primarily rests in DGG's view, followed by Notyourbroom's view, Soxwon's view, and Alansohn's view. DGG's view threw a lot of hints in the filing party's direction (which makes sense when reviewed alongside the comments on this page), while explicitly noting "in my judgment, most of Racepacket's comments were appropriate". In his view, he did not elaborate on the inappropriate ones (if any, in his judgement), but that in itself makes another statement. Notyourbroom's view seemed to add some context, background and what might be moving towards a mitigating circumstance; some of these was related, some not so much. Soxwon, like DGG, also threw hints in the filing party's direction (though more plainly), and did touch on edit-warring and stubbornness. Finally, Alansohn's view commented on what was largely history, however, did point out that the conduct was similar here, while touching also on stubbornness and hinting that it was disruptive, but noted that this issue was limited to particular articles/subject (those he was attached to). So how does this weigh up against your summary? There was no finding or reminder on the point of wikilawyering; the comments he makes held up to scrutiny (that is, the reminder about conciseness would be wrong to touch on in this case); the rest seems to go in an odd direction.

So to express a more accurate summary.

Racepacket's removal of peacock terms is considered appropriate, and most of his responses are reasonable. His work with respect to the article, and many other subjects, is considered fine. However, some of Racepacket's responses can provoke others with defensive instincts. Racepacket is accordingly urged to review his approach and find ways that he can give more consideration towards (and express this consideration of) others opinions. Racepacket is also reminded to avoid edit warring and other disruptive editing practices. Ryulong/[the filing party] is reminded that steps in the dispute resolution process should not be skipped, that users who respond in a discussion are not necessarily canvassed or puppets, and to avoid edit warring.

An alternate summary is to put

Mixed responses and views; delisted by agreement and due to inactivity.

If the involved participants can come to an agreement (which is kind of the point of an RfC/U - making agreements), I'd say this RfC/U has been at least a bit useful to addressing any stubbornness issues on either side. I leave it others to decide on the summary, or the parties to come to an agreement, if there is to be a summary. Noting also that no summary neither favours nor disfavours parties - it can be used both ways. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:34, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I've yet to hear of the steps that I've skipped.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 15:40, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, did you ask Soxwon to be more specific? Or perhaps the other users who endorsed that summary? Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:12, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I can support the first proposed summary of Ncmvocalist above. I think we can all agree that policy for policy's sake never trumps basic civility, and that it is much too easy to unintentionally provoke negative reactions in others if one is not always mindful of that truth. To clarify, I am not accusing Racepacket of "biting." Rather, I am pointing out that the spirit behind anti-biting policies is closely related to the spirit of some of the closing statement prose, which points to an ideal of patience, accomodation, and civility which none of us ever quite reach, but which we all benefit from being reminded of. —Notyourbroom (talk) 19:31, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

From my perspective, I think we should take into account the statements left by the other complaining editors falsely accusing me of anti-UM bias. Consider these examples from Talk:Miami Hurricanes football:

• "your concerns have been imaginary and tinged with your own well-recorded bias regarding UM, and that is a conclusion made not just by myself, but by others on this page as well. " -- POTD
• "You do have a well-recorded bias regarding UM-related articles ... as evidenced by the repeated run-ins documented on your talk page and the talk pages of the relevant articles. You also have no understanding of what NPOV means; Wikipedia does not prohibit adjectives or descriptive writing." -- POTD
• "I understand that for some odd reason you seem to bear hostility towards the university, but that can't and won't be allowed to seep into the article." -- POTD
• "Deny it all you want, but your record speaks for itself, a record of starting fires on one UM-related article after another with a plethora of unconstructive, POV-tinged edits. And yes, the question is whether anyone here shares your concerns. Wikipedia operates by consensus (a concept you don't seem capable of grasping), and the consensus is that your edits are by-and-large unconstructive and your stated concerns unfounded" -- POTD
• "There's no fundamental difference; there's only you obstinately refusing to accept what NPOV is and what it is not (amongst a host of other Wikipedia policies), and repeatedly trying to inject edits into the article that have been considered and rejected by others on this talk page." -- POTD
• "I don't know what you have against descriptive writing. What I do know is that you don't have consensus, and your edits are unnecessary." -- ObiWan353
• "More and more I am seeing a bias against Miami in your edits...." -- Ryulong Talk:University of Miami

I think that the RFC/U has made clear that in fact, I have never had a bias against UM, I just had a motivation to remove the POV-pushing phrasing. I hope that I have been reasonable in responding to such reactions and certainly did not deliberately try to be verbose or disrepectful. Either of User:Ncmvocalist's proposals reflect the context in which I tried to be constructive on the Category UM articles. Racepacket (talk) 22:28, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

---

Racepacket will not concede his shortcomings about which this RfC was opened. With the requirement that all participants agree to a closing statement if applied, it's unlikely further discussion will bear fruit. The following essence of the proposed closing statement remain apparent whether applied to Racepacket, Ryulong, or other participants:

Wikipedia is a collaborative exercise not a competition. All contributors are cautioned to seek consensus rather than wikilawyering, edit warring, or browbeating other contributors.

At this point, I am reconciled to the fact this continues to be merely an academic exercise providing the opportunity to learn more about Wikipedia and to test its relevancy and integrity. The process should have long ago resolved this. In that regard Wikipedia's integrity has been compromised. My guess is that there are only so many thinly stretched administrators that are objective, qualified, and authorized to address such issues.

I see two major issues under contention:

• Quality of Racepacket's edits
• Racepacket's behavior as an editor

As I understand it, the RfC was not opened as a result of the quality of Racepacket's edits. Wikipedia presents three cornerstones for editing:

• Neutral Point of View
• Verifiability
• No Original Research

Racepacket's bias appeared for the most part to be to neutralize positive statements regarding the University in terms of how he understands NPOV. I do not have any particular recollection regarding the verifiability of Rackpacket's edits and he did not appear to introduce original research. Thus, I think any comments regarding the quality of Racepacket's can be disregarded.

This RfC was about behavior. Wikipedia behavioral policies address:

• Civility
• Edit warring
• No personal attacks
• No legal threats
• Ownership of articles
• Sock-puppetry

I do not recall any legal threats, but believe each of the other policies was or appeared to be violated during the course of the discussions and editing under consideration. A lot of wasted time and effort could have been avoided had the Wikipedia behavioral guidelines been followed:

• Assume good faith
• Etiquette
• Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point
• Please do not bite the newcomers
• Gaming the system

Assumptions of good faith were not apparent. Etiquette seemed merely optional. Wikipedia, at least the UM articles, was decidedly disrupted. Newcomers and others were bitten and the system continues to be gamed. Do go be man (talk) 23:10, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Second RFC on Racepacket

Some editors have taken the step of opening a second RFC on Racepacket; I notice some similarities in the policies cited. Your comments would be much appreciated. --Rschen7754 08:58, 22 March 2011 (UTC)