Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Racepacket

In order to remain listed at Requests for comment/User conduct, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126;. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: 17:57, 13 October 2009 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is:, 29 July 2024 (UTC).



Users should only edit one summary or view, other than to endorse.

Statement of the dispute
For the past month (September through October), Racepacket has been actively editing articles about and relating to. For this past month, Racepacket has obsessively put these articles under his scrutiny, stating certain statements are not complying with a neutral point of view, certain statements are not reliably sourced, and stating that specific revisions of the article are a consensus version.

Throughout this, Racepacket has also edit warred over the inclusions or exclusions of certain content he disagrees with, when the majority of the other editors working on these articles disagree with his viewpoints on the content. He has also edit warred over formatting of talk pages after restructured the talk pages to allow for better reading of Racepacket's overly verbose comments. Prior to an archiving at Talk:University of Miami/Archive 2, exceeded lengths of 150k worth of text. All but two threads currently on the talk page were initiated by Racepacket, consisting of over 100k of text. His verbosity and inability to summarize his points in a manner concise matter have made it difficult to work with an already stubborn editor.

Other articles and article talk pages not limited to the following have also been affected by Racepacket's strange campaign to improve articles relating to the University of Miami:

Desired outcome
Racepacket should state his issues with article content in a clear and concise manner that does not involve writing extensive essays that obfuscate his intentions. Racepacket should also not edit war on these articles when several other users have expressed a disagreement with his opinions on the content, while implying that the version he is reverting to is a consensus version despite its opposition. His ownership of the article needs to end.

Racepacket should also stop ignoring/discounting sources whenever they happen to support something that he finds inconveniently unpleasant and stop initiating petty semantical arguments that mainly serve to harass and distract.

Description
''{Add summary here, but you must use the section below to certify or endorse it. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries, other than to endorse them.}''

Evidence of disputed behavior

 * Edit warring
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 


 * Fighting consensus
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 


 * Falsely assuming a consensus exists
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 


 * Verbosity (Walls of text)
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 


 * POV
 * 
 * Neutral point of view/Noticeboard
 * 


 * Lack of knowledge about the topic
 * Articles for deletion/Iron Arrow Honor Society

Applicable policies and guidelines

 * WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT
 * WP:CONSENSUS
 * WP:EW
 * WP:BRD
 * WP:OWN
 * WP:STICK
 * Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abd-William M. Connolley

Evidence of trying to resolve the dispute

 * 5 September 2009 - Regarding the use of "The U" in the lead of University of Miami
 * 7 October 2009 - Regarding content in University of Miami
 * 12 October 2009 – Regarding various content in Miami Hurricanes football (ignoring sources, petty semantical issues, etc)
 * 12 October 2009 – Regarding various content in Miami Hurricanes football (ignoring sources, petty semantical issues, etc)
 * 12 October 2009 - Regarding use of multiple-sourced nickname "Quarterback U" in Miami Hurricanes football

Evidence of failing to resolve the dispute

 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 

Users certifying the basis for this dispute
{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}


 * — Ryūlóng ( 竜龙 ) 18:30, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * —PassionoftheDamon (talk) 18:46, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * —Do go be man (talk) 20:28, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * -ObiWan353 (talk) 22:20, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Other users who endorse this summary

 * I concur with the above analysis and particularly with Alansohn's comments below. I have also had some interaction with this user as an admin and find him to be overzealous in pursuing preferred content versions. Guy (Help!) 18:00, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

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

This case arose from my efforts to lend a hand to improve coverage of colleges that do not have their own Wikiprojects. I discovered that the University of Miami (UM)'s application for GA was rejected but the deficiencies noted in the review were not addressed. In particular, these pages are POV-pushing the merits of UM in comparison with other schools. I believe the four editors sponsoring this RFC are students or alumni of UM. 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. I have tried to bring in more viewpoints from Wikiproject Universities and raised the issues on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Universities, Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view and Neutral point of view/Noticeboard. I have also tried to apply WP:BOOSTERISM.

In the end, I worked productively with User:Ryulong to conform the UM page into the Wikiproject Universities guidelines and up to GA standards. However, we did have two disagreements. He insisted on claiming that UM was known as "The U," and he insisted that UM's most recent fundraising drive should be described as "the most money raised by any college in Florida as of February 8, 2008" while I preferred to use a national comparison. The first involved semantic issues, as I tried to explain how many students at many Universities call their campuses "The U." (This issue also received wider discussion at Articles for deletion/The U and then Articles for deletion/The U (University of Miami).) The later involved a debate as to whether Wikipedia should stick to objective national standards for ranking achievements or to reframe the achievement down to a statewide level so as to get a #1 label for the same achievement. (85 colleges have raised more than $1 billion nationwide, though UM is the first in Florida to do so.) I am willing to live with the current UM page and have not pursued these last two matters any further.

I twice offered to use mediation to resolve our differences over the UM article, but my suggestion was rejected. On October 27, I again proposed mediation to Ryulongand Do go be man and was again rejected, but I am keeping the door to mediation open. Because we were saving over each other's edits, I proposed that we set up a separate draft page and take turns editing the history section until we reach consensus, and posted a template inviting edits to that draft page. I misinterpreted Ryulong's removal of the template as agreement to the draft and posted it back to the article page only to learn that Ryulong was instead rejecting the procedure. Hence, the complaint that I claimed consensus prematurely. The dispute over Miami Hurricanes and Miami Hurricanes football was primarily with User:PassionoftheDamon (POTD), who does not use edit summaries and systematically reverts every edit made to these pages. I raised concerns at: ANI 1 and ANI 2.

Two other editors, and, noted on the Miami Hurricanes football talk page that history section of the article was copied from the UM Athletics Dept. Website over two years ago.  It was overwritten and full of peacock words. The fact that the word-for-word copying could remain in tact for two years instead of drifting apart is testimony to how vigorously these editors resisted changes to the text. When I was able to engage User:ObiWan353 into a discussion of the POV-pushing problems with the article, he rejected my proposed changes to remove POV as "far too plain."

Another content dispute example is POTD's objection to including gender equity data. When I first added it to the Athletics section of the University of Miami article, MiamiDolphins3 deleted it with an edit summary saying " unencyclopedic here (maybe on Hurricanes page)" However, when I added it to the Miami Hurricanes page and it was up for a week, POTD summarily deleted it ("rmv nonsense") and replaced it with POV-pushing claims that certain sports were dropped because of Title IX. He also deleted graduation rate data

I have tried to discuss POV concerns, and began by adding the POV to certain articles and leaving respectful messages on POTD's user talk page when he deleted fact tags. But he has generally not responded and has reverted both POV and fact tags. When he deleted my last list of concerns on his user talk page as an "unproductive missive", I moved the list to the article talk page.

On the UM page, POTD has been repeatedly deleting the Forbes Magazine rankings without explanation, , and since October 8,  while he added it to Cornell University.  He then bragged about his violation of WP:POINT on his talk page:.

Finally, in connection with the second ANI on POTD there was his groundless attacks and edit warring with User: Dædαlus claiming, without any basis that he is my sockpuppet.

In sum, I have tried to avoid edit warring and have used the talk pages to explain my views before reposting formulations to the article pages. It is very difficult to address these situations when the other editors delete fact tags and seem to disregard fundamental Wikipedia policies. My intentions was to improve the articles by removing POV-pushing content and by checking sources, and I did not intend to hurt anyone's feelings or otherwise to be disruptive. I think that we have reached NPOV on the University of Miami article, but the football article and the sub articles on the individual football seasons still read like they were written by the UM Sports marketing department.

Users who endorse this summary:
 * 1) Racepacket (talk) 23:15, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

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

Outside view by Soxwon
Just scanned the Miami football page and it does have issues with peacock terms. The use of such phrases as "whopping" and "demolished" are not encyclopedic. From the edits I saw, he appeared mostly to be rmving peacock terms. I don't think that this is the answer to the problem. After viewing the Miami talkpage there do seem to be some issues with stubbornness (and incidentally a candidate for WP:LAME for the whole U incident) that should be addressed. However, the filer of this report seems to have skipped a few steps in the dispute resolution process.

Users who endorse this summary:
 * 1) Soxwon (talk) 23:04, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) cOrneLlrOckEy (talk) 12:49, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * 3)  Them  From  Space  13:01, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Outside view by Notyourbroom
I have collaborated with Racepacket in the Cornell Wikiproject and have never found him difficult to work with. Scanning through some of the dispute diffs, I find myself agreeing with his points, especially with regard to issues surrounding peacock terms, unencyclopedic prose, and general boosterism. It is extremely difficult to remain objective about your own alma mater(s), and I have found healthy skepticism from third-party editors to be useful in keeping my own prose in check.

I will admit that this healthy skepticism has often provoked defensive instincts in me at first blush, but after I take some time to cool down and think matters over, I often change my mind. For example, Forbes ranked Cornell 207th (I think) in their 2009 rankings. Cornell is generally ranked in the top 15, so I downplayed and eventually cut out the Forbes ranking. A third-party editor warned of distortion and boosterism, and I now believe I was wrong to obfuscate the Forbes ranking. A reader can take note of the extreme discrepancy and decide on their own whether to trust Forbes' ranking methodology.

That was an anecdote to illustrate my developing attitude toward maintaining objectivity and taking care not to let passion blind judgement on matters of wording and content&mdash;an attitude which I believe Racepacket shares. I will clarify once more that I am not well versed in the history of this particular dispute. My statement today is based upon the dozen or so diffs I have examined as well as my prior collaborative history with Racepacket.

Users who endorse this summary:
 * 1) &mdash;Notyourbroom ( talk ) 21:40, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) Cornell2010 (talk) 20:30, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * 3) Cornell1890 (talk) 17:13, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
 * 4)    DGG ( talk ) 16:34, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Outside view by Madcoverboy
I was notified of this RfC by Racepacket on my talk page and (I believe) I have only previously interacted with him on the talk pages of WikiProject University and Talk:University of Miami. If I'm reading the RfC correctly, it appears to read thusly: "Racepacket invests a lot of his time making sure that articles that everyone knows have pervasive POV problems are neutral and verifiable as a disinterested third-party reader. When challenged by editors with likely COI problems, he provides lengthy and grounded justifications for his edits." If anything, Racepacket's dogged determination in engaging POV-pushers on the talk pages requires a level of verbosity to exhaustively demonstrate and dismantle the logical fallacies and inconsistencies being advocated by the non-neutral and unencyclopedic "consensus" of POV-pushing editors. I believe Racepacket's intentions and behavior are in keeping with the highest traditions of Wikipedia's mission and policies and are something that all Wikipedia editors should strive to emulate rather than something to be sanctioned and pilloried. I fully support Racepacket, his\her comments, edits, and behavior. Give this person a Barnstar, not a WP:RFCC.
 * I do not endorse meatpuppetry or sockpuppetry of which there is some circumstantial evidence that Racepacket engaged in said behavior in the past. Madcoverboy (talk) 21:14, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:
 * 1) Madcoverboy (talk) 15:11, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Outside View by Baechter
I can personally attest to the character of Racepacket who in this case, is a disinterested party, independently editing a College page for accuracy and perspective. Racepacket is a thoughtful, highly detailed individual who cares only for the quality of the information being reviewed.
 * — Baechter (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Users who endorse this summary:
 * 1) Baechter (talk) 00:50, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Outside view by DGG
Well, mostly outside view -- I've done a little work on the U of Miami article. I went back over the talk page now, most of which is subsequent to when I last looked at the article, and in my judgment, most of Racepacket's comments were appropriate, and reasonable responses to the puffery associated with the article. I think with respect to that article, he's been doing fine. I assume nobody will think that this makes me his puppet. Nobody notified me about this--I saw it mentioned at AN/I.

Users who endorse this summary:
 * 1)  DGG ( talk ) 00:04, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) Concur.  Jehochman Talk 12:58, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * 3)  Them  From  Space  13:02, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * 4) Agree from reading the Miami articles - not claiming to be an expert here--Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:20, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Outside view by Alansohn
I have not been involved with Racepacket regarding the articles currently in question and I have not interacted with him for several months, but I did have a rather lengthy problem with sockpuppetry and votestacking at the article Dane Rauschenberg (see Sockpuppet investigations/Racepacket and Suspected sock puppets/Racepacket (2nd)). At this article, Racepacket used many of the same strategies that appear to be popping up here, including abuse of Wikipedia process to blame others, ignoring sources that contradict his personal biases, adding material to push his opinion regardless of sourcing, etc., doing this all by making a tsunami of hundreds upon hundreds of edits to the articles and talk pages to push his position. Whether it's Dane Rauschenberg or University of Miami, 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. This is not a one-article, one-time probelm, but one that has covered many different articles over a period of years. As this is not a general problem with all articles he has edited, this may be best handled by a content ban on specific subjects.

Users who endorse this summary:
 * 1) Alansohn (talk) 20:09, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) — Ryūlóng  ( 竜龙 ) 20:46, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * 3) Yes, I think that sums it up well. Guy (Help!) 18:04, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 4) This seems accurate. Hipocrite (talk) 19:02, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

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