Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Racepacket 2

The following discussion is an archived record of a user conduct request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

A summary of the debate may be found at the bottom of the page.

---

In order to remain listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with ~~~~. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: 00:32, 22 March 2011 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 09:04, 3 July 2025 (UTC).

---

• Racepacket (talk · contribs · logs)

---

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

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

Preferably, that Racepacket would get along amicably with the rest of the project. However, if this is not possible, then that Racepacket would minimize disruptive interaction with the rest of the project.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1. [15] - Questions GAN nominator for nominating an article about a short road.
2. [16] - Again asserts his point.
3. [17] - Asserted point on nominator's talk page.
4. [18] - Attacked editor who stepped in to tell him he should not question the length of the article's subject.
5. [19] - More attacks on editors.
6. [20] - Another attack on editor.

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

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

1. [27] - Tagged a road accepted to be notable per WP:USRD/NT as being non-notable. (these may be WP:POINT violations as well)
2. [28] - Tagged a road accepted to be notable per WP:USRD/NT as being non-notable.
3. [29] - Tagged a road accepted to be notable per WP:USRD/NT as being non-notable.
4. [30] - Tagged a road accepted to be notable per WP:USRD/NT as being non-notable.
5. [31] - Tagged Google Maps as not being an independent RS.
6. [32] - Again tagged article.
7. [33] - Stated in red type that USRD standards do not have any weight at GAN, even when comments about the article are related to project standards and impact criteria 1b, 2b, and 3a, of the Good Article Criteria
8. [34] - Comments about other editors on a nominator's talk page of a disparaging nature, failure to WP:AGF and making personal attacks (WP:NPA)

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

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

1. [35] attempted to discuss accusations of vandalism
2. [36] attempt to encourage Racepacket to disengage from situation

1. [37] attempted to contact Racepacket on adding tags to three articles because they supposedly did not have enough detail on the controversy.

1. [38]—attempted a discussion of the issues surrounding the GAN situation at WT:GAN, which was partially pre-empted by a posting by Racepacket to WP:ANI

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

1. [39] - shows no understanding of the issue

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

{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}

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

1. ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ - As an outsider to these incidents who edits the same category of article who has observed this unfold, I can attest to the patronizing and bad faith assumptions made on a routine basis by this editor. Behaviour such as this only stir up thoughts of the "exclusivity" of being a GAN/FAC reviewer and creates resentment towards those venues. 02:06, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
2. PCB I have refrained from participating in the Maryland Route 200 debate over WP:AFD and WP:GAN but have seen the disruptiveness of this user editing within this project. I agree with this argument. 02:30, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
3. Mitch32^{(Erie Railroad Information Hog)} 10:30, 22 March 2011 (UTC) – Honestly, and I won't go long-winded on this, but neither side has had perfect behavior. For the last 4-odd weeks, I've had a moratorium from going to GAN at all due to my worries of not getting a fair review or an argument that will stress my brain out, and also have many times screamed bloody hell in IRC about certain disputes. My behavior isn't exactly the smartest, but however, I have tried my hand at helping out at stuff like Orange Line (Washington Metro) with the disputed editor, since it falls in my area of focus. Personally, I've stopped attempting to get involved (stuff like MD 200), except for OH 369, where I thought the "boss-man attitude" was unneeded. If I really think there is anything to be gained out of this, its to attract some people to the blatant need for some interaction sanctions for both sides. Nothing more that we can really do.10:30, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
4. the part about adding on extra criteria seems to string through the diffs --Guerillero | My Talk 21:42, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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 actually involves four separate disputes that I will cover in four separate subsections. Again, I am open to resolving any misunderstanding through discussion, and if one looks at the diffs cited above, we have never had a serious exchange of views on these issues.

There are probably 1 million English Wikipedia articles that meet the GA criteria. The reason that only 11,669 articles are rated GA is a lack of reviewers. We need an environment that makes the process straightforward and drama-free to increase our reviewer corps.

I believe GA reviews are valuable because the process has an independent set of eyes double check the key aspects of an article. In many cases, only one or two editors have worked on an article, and hopefully they use the GA criteria as a checklist to make sure the article should pass before nominating the article (I do for my nominations). I understand that it is the duty of the reviewer to check the article, its sources, its images, its prose and its neutrality and its stability against the GA criteria. This level of review does not require expertise, and ideally chemists will be reviewing history articles, and visa versa so that we know that GA standards do not drift between subject areas and that a reader with little background information can easily understand articles. This will prevent any particular subject area becoming a "walled garden" within Wikipedia. When writing a review, I try to put the nominator at ease and to have a conversation as two equals about the article. (Some nominators are unaccustomed to having their work reviewed and get defensive or take constructive criticism as a "put down" or a claim of superiority. I try to negate that.) I do not want to be dictating mandatory changes, but rather to understand how the article's scope was decided and whether any important items were left out. If I have a suggestion that is not required by the GA criteria, I try to label it as a suggestion. Some of my comments are subjective, and I do not press the point if the nominator disagrees or can explain. But other GA criteria and Wikipedia policy are mandatory and really must be fixed whether the article becomes GA or not. As you can see from my talk page and other outside comments below, most nominators come away from my reviews pleased with the process.

It is important that the GA review process should be welcoming to the nominators, so that they will want to come back with other articles. The first time I met User:Imzadi1979 was when reviewing Talk:Grand Valley State University/GA1. The article made reference to M-45, and I suggested that it be rephrased for readers who do not understand that M-45 was a Michigan state road. The nominator complied, and Imzadi ordered, "Change it back." I believe the resulting back and forth was unsettling to the nominator who soon abandoned the GA process and has not returned. Communication without verbal and facial expressions is imperfect, but I have tried to be respectful and welcoming to the people editing these articles. But in many cases the proponents of this RFC/U have injected unnecessary tension into the reviews.

User:Jgera5 nominated Interstate 376 for a GA review, and I volunteered to review it. After I left my comments, three of the editors involved in this RFC/U left rather harsh comments (threatening to take the article to GA review if it does pass) based on matters unrelated to the GA criteria. Because I did not want a repeat of the GVSU review, I posted the following in red text, "GA criteria have nothing to do with any particular wikiproject, and you are free to ignore comments that imply otherwise. Your article will be judged only on the GA criteria." My remarks there and on User talk:Jgera5 were intended to encourage him to proceed with the review and not be chased away by the three commentators. But he has not edited the article or left a response on the review page since March 23.

This sort of stress has been the subject of a prior Arbitration Committee case:

The issues within this [USRD] case have spilled over beyond the immediate WikiProject, to cause concern and a degree of disruption at other processes, notably good articles, where they have had a potentially unhelpful discouraging impact in at least two good article assessment requests as well as causing additional stress for users involved in the Good Article processes.

While no sanctions were imposed in that case, the Arbitration Committee warned "not to see these issues raised again in respect of any member of the Roads WikiProject or the WikiProject itself." I agree. There is no reason for GA nominators to feel that they are caught between a GA reviewer and WikiProject representatives in a battle over what criteria to apply to evaluating an article. Under current policy only the GA criteria can be applied or enforced in a GA review.

I read the GA rules as saying the reviewer picks the article, rather than the nominator picking his own reviewer. This prevents the process becoming in-bred or an "I scratch your back, you scratch my back" situation. LauraHale unsuccessfully solicited User:Teinesavaii (who has never conducted a GA review) to review Netball in the Cook Islands.[40] Instead, the article was reviewed by User:Canadian Paul and then by me.

In the case of Netball, LauraHale actually solicited Bill to review her article. It appears that both parties did not know that was improper, and it resulted in an inexperienced nominator getting a review from someone who was unfamiliar with the process. Within a few days, LauraHale grew dissatisfied with Bill, and they agreed to seek a replacement reviewer. I volunteered and came to the article with an open mind. I find it strange that LauraHale believes that she has the right to switch reviewers an unlimited number of times. First, User:Canadian Paul failed Talk:Netball in the Cook Islands/GA1 and she quickly renominated it only to have POV and factual errors pointed out in Talk:Netball in the Cook Islands/GA2. After giving the nominator one last change to fix it, I failed the article, and three hours later she renominated it with her co-editor picking up the review fifteen minutes after that. The co-editor passed the article without any comments or suggestions on the review page. Having seen that result, LauraHale arrange to nominate a number of other netball-related articles to be quickly picked up for review by the same co-editor.

I believe that the GA review process will be most beneficial if the reviewers pick the articles rather than having the nominators pick the reviewers, and that is my understanding of the current rules. It also promotes fairness to other nominators waiting in the queue and promotes arms-length reviews.

I read the GA rules as saying that this decision rests with the reviewer. In Talk:U.S. Route 223/GA1, I took time to study the sources and other press accounts and discovered the Secretary of Transportation Ray LaHood making speeches trying to assemble a multi-state congressional coalition to fund a new Interstate 73 from South Carolina to Michigan. The article said that there were "no plans", but the highway was on the I-73 corridor and a lobbying group included Michigan businessmen and elected officials in their I-73 efforts.[41][42] So rather than resolve the question of how to reflect the current situation in the article, Imzadi failed the article as nominator. Given the work already invested in the review, I felt that Wikipedia would be better served if we finished the review and get second opinions on how to handle Ray LaHood's coalition plans. I certainly did not mean to cause Imzadi any discomfort, but the article explicitly said "no plans" existed when MDOT had long-standing plans, and the US Secretary of Transportation was giving speeches promoting the plans. That type of content dispute cannot be ignored when applying criteria 2 — accuracy.[43] In the case of I-73, we sought a second opinion, resolved the issue and passed the article. A similar situation came up with the review of Netball where LauraHale was one of five editors actively editing the article during the review. When LauraHale said that she no longer wanted to continue as nominator, I wanted to preserve the progress made to that point so I proposed that I canvass the other editors to see if they would step in. Instead, she edited the talk page to "fail" the article. I undid her "fail" until the other editors responded that they did not wish to continue. I believe that this is a practical solution and is consistent with WP:OWN. The decision to end a review should be made by a consensus of the editors working on the article, instead of unilaterally by the nominator. Again, there is nothing in the GA rules on this point, and I came to this conclusion after asking for input, and considering the many hours that I had spent reading the references and developing comments and suggested changes.

In general, if a possible factual inaccuracy, close paraphrasing situation, or unreliable source is uncovered during a review, it is best to resolve the matter consistent with Wikipedia policy. If necessary third parties can be invited to give their outside opinions, but editors have a duty to fix the problem whether the article passes or fails. I know it would be easier on the reviewer to turn a blind eye to the problem, but I believe that the reviewer has a duty to raise and resolve such problems. The nominator can't duck the situation by "failing" the review without consulting the reviewer or by pretending not to understand the questions raised by the reviewer.

I understand that GA reviews are governed only by the GA criteria. As I read the GA criteria, it is limited to only specific parts of the MOS and does not require infoboxes, or even notability. The RFC/U proponents read WP:USRD/STDS as somehow overriding or modifying the GA criteria. However, I read them as being completely consistent. First, WP:USRD/STDS says "the Wikipedia Manual of Style applies to USRD articles, and its provisions should be followed in any cases that conflict with these standards" and "These standards are not set in stone, however, and can be ignored if warranted for a particular highway article." So, under the current GA rules, I am to just apply the GA criteria, and not the WP:USRD/STDS, because if the nominators/editors chose not to follow WP:USRD/STDS for some reason, it is not up to me to question or second-guess their reasons. However, if WikiProject Good Articles changes the criteria or adopts a rule that says reviewers must enforce the WP:USRD/STDS as a part of a GA review, I will follow whatever ruling emerges on the question. But if the GA criteria have been repeatedly interpreted as not allowing reviewers to insist on the addition of an infobox, how can they require a junction list table to be added in the USRD format? I don't see that as consistent with the goal of having reviewers from every background tackle article outside their main subject area. Again, any change should be taken up with WikiProject Good Article rather than in an RFC/U. A decision by WikiProject GA to exclude road-specific criteria does not preclude applying WP:USRD/STDS at US Road's A-Class article assessment. It just makes the GA classification more universal, and less road-specific. This was summarized by User:Masem back in 2008:

Looking at what GA and A assessments are, GA is a WP-wide assessment, typically with the understanding of what is typical for an article of that type, but more looking at general criteria. A is a project-specific assessment, done by two or more people, to make sure the article meets all the goals of that specific Project, but typically with the assumption that the article is already a GA.[44]

Road reviews have resulted in conflicts before,[45] but I have not found a WikiProject Good articles decision on the question raised by the proponents of the RFC/U that reviewers are required to go beyond the GA criteria. In a prior arbitration case, the Arbitration Committee found:

All members of WikiProject U.S. Roads are advised that when asserting the existence of a prior consensus, it is necessary to refer to prior discussions or debates on Wikipedia where that consensus has been established.

Here, we have a claim that there is a consensus to apply WP:USRD/STDS as a part of the GA review. I have looked, but I can't find where such a consensus was established, and the proponents of the RFC/U have the burden of proving that such a rule exists.

The debate over building the InterCounty Connector lasted three decades and became a major issue in the campaign for Maryland Governor. Hence, the article grew quite long discussing the politics, litigation, environmental issues and history of the controversy. In May 2008, the article was renamed MD 200.[46] In July 2009, the history and opposition sections were split off into daughter articles. In November 2010, there was a proposed move to return it to the InterCounty Connector name, in part because of a concern that USRD may try to reconfigure the article into its numbered highway mold if the MD 200 name is retained. The proposed move failed, but the articles were left in peace until I nominated the History of Maryland Route 200 for GA. In turn, Dough4872 nominated it for deletion, and Rschen7754 argued, "We don't need a separate history article for a state highway article. No other highway article in the U.S. has this." They succeeded in merging Opposition to MD 200 back into the main article, but the separate History of MD 200 article was kept. This was probably the correct result. WP:USRD/STDS does not prohibit daughter articles or extensive coverage of the political, legal, sociological or historic aspects of highway projects. A number of editors expressed concern that the people who brought this RFC/U seek to truncate Wikipedia coverage of these important aspects of highways. The result may be a pro-highway bias that fails to discuss the environmental and socio-economic impacts of highway construction. I believe that if a highway has a long and notable history, it should be WP:SPLIT into a separate history article, and that article can be nominated for GA and judged by the GA criteria. The diffs quoted by the proponents are consistent with my reading of WP:USRD/STDS, "Any historical information known about the route should be noted." If members of the US Roads WikiProject do not want to take the time to write and maintain road history coverage, they should let others more interested in history or politics take the leadership in covering it. Again, I don't have a monopoly on the truth and was pleased to let the AfD process decide the fate of the two articles. In turn, Rschen7754 posted multiple tags on the main MD 200 article,[47] without engaging in reasoned discussion on the article talk page. I am willing to discuss the future development of these articles with the RFC/U proponents in good faith.

Having lost the effort to delete History of Maryland Route 200 at AfD, User:Rschen7754 proposes to amend WP:USRD/STDS.[48] I don't understand what is the point of the way this discussion was conducted. Although History of Maryland Route 200 was tagged as being in scope of WP:WikiProject Maryland and WP:WikiProject United States History, there was no effort to gain consensus from those groups or the editors active on History of Maryland Route 200 on his concern. Given WP:SIZE and WP:SPLIT, there is sufficient guidance on when to have a separate "History of..." article. By trying to make this a "USRD Standards" issue, it moved what could be a reasonable discussion into an "us versus them" posture. I want Wikipedia to provide the best possible coverage of local history and politics. If public policy disputes over roads grow into notable battles of epic proportions, editors writing about history, politics, public policy, environmental protection or law should be allowed to cover those matters without having it be viewed as an attack on the "standards" of USRD. Again, I will abide by the consensus. In the case of "History of Maryland Route 200" the AfD decided to keep the article, and I look forward to expanding it, consistent with Wikipedia policies. When I get the article to meet GA criteria, I will renominate it, not as an act of disrespect to the editors who wanted the article deleted, but rather as a confirmation that it meets the criteria. (I see no reason to agree to VC's proposal for a moratorium on GA nominations until 2012.)[49] Not all roads will receive the depth of history coverage that they deserve, but a quest for uniformity in road articles should not stop editors from offering a detailed history if they wish. Again, WP:USRD/STDS appears to set a suggest floor on coverage, not a ceiling on the depth or amount of Wikipedia coverage of road-related topics.

A major difference of opinion with the proponents of the RFC/U is the use of quotations. They claim that MD 200 and its daughter article had too many quotes. Rschen7754 repeatedly instructed me to paraphrase rather than quote. On December 11, 2010, User:Rschen7754 left the following comment for me on his review of VA 27:

It's just tacky to quote in the second sentence, when it's pretty easy to paraphrase it yourself.[50]

To which I replied, "I can't paraphrase it any better and don't want to be guilty of a close paraphrase." So, the people who were failing my GA nominations for failure to paraphrase went on to gleefully exploiting my subsequent block for close paraphrasing as an "opportunity." However, I believe that quotations are useful when describing the various sides in a past debate in order to avoid Wikipedia appearing to adopt the positions of one of the parties, or to distort legal arguments that turn of exact wording. Ultimately, these content differences will have to be worked out through consensus of the editors active on a particular page.

Similarly, there is an argument that Maryland Route 200 cannot have an in-depth treatment of the controversy and lawsuits surrounding its construction because California State Route 241, M-6 (Michigan highway), and Interstate 95 in New Jersey lack in depth treatment of their controversies. In response, I note that there will be uneven depth in Wikipedia's coverage because it depends on volunteer labor. However, the best approach is to encourage those three articles to be expanded rather than drastically cutting back the work already done on MD 200. If I expressed this in an undiplomatic fashion, I regret any error, and will try to be more encouraging in the future. Again, the community as a whole must decide whether these highway articles have a "pro-construction/pro-development/pro-sprawl" bias and the best way to handle road construction controversies.

Contrary to the claims made by the RFC/U proponents, I have not "attacked editors" over the GA nomination of articles covering very short roads. User:DanTheMan474 nominated Ohio State Route 372, a 0.68 mile-long driveway into the state forest for GA, and I cheerfully reviewed it. When he then nominated Ohio State Route 369 a 2.50 mile-long spur to connect a state road with an interchange to a parallel freeway, I also gave it a review. However, I made a gentle suggestion, "One must seriously question why you are nominating two short spur roads for GA consideration, when the main OH 4 road, that this route connects, does not even have a route description. Wouldn't it make more sense to work on the major roads first, and leave the short (less than 2 miles) roads until the after the major roads are completed?" I did not "tell a user what he can or can't work on" as alleged by User:Mitchazenia. In fact, I responded, "DanTheMan474 is a good editor and he should decide where his talents can be best deployed."[51][52] The facts are that Dan has nominated the only Ohio road articles for GA and all five are for very short roads totaling 11 miles.

All Five Ohio GA State Routes

Article	length	Oct 2010 hits[53]
Ohio State Route 253	0.56	127
Ohio State Route 319	0.56	102
Ohio State Route 369	2.5	29
Ohio State Route 372	0.68	41
Ohio State Route 716	6.70	123
Averages	2.2 mi	84.4

Dan has gone on to work on other Ohio highways in the 70-mile length range, but has not nominated them for GA. Again, I respect Dan and did not refuse to review his articles. I merely asked him to reexamine his own priorities.

The other alleged "attack" on Dan involved a footnote Dan wrote citing Yahoo maps as indicating that the route ended at the State Park boundary, when in fact, Yahoo maps mistakenly showed the opposite.[54] I thought the article needed a footnote to a source which backed up the statement. Dan argued that the statement did not require a footnote because Yahoo maps being wrong is not "counter-intuitive" and that route numbers are unlike statistics. User:Imzadi1979 weighed in, and I politely reminded him of our agreement to steer clear of each other in GA reviews. I decided not to pursue the lack of a footnote further and passed the article.

The RFC/U questioned my tagging other articles about short roads. I believe my actions are consistent with WP:USRD/NT, which states, "The fact that the road has been adopted into a major network of highways is the result of a road's notability, not the cause. Well before the article is nominated for Good Article the article should explain what makes this road notable. Specifically, the article should answer the question, "why was this road built in the first place?", and "why are the taxpayers asked to keep spending money to keep the road maintained?" If the article does not answer the question of why does this road exist, that is grounds for deletion of the article." It also suggests, "Highways that have very little to say about them (i.e. those that are extremely short and have no historical significance) are better suited to a list."

• Wyoming Highway 74 is a 0.13 mile-long portion of Bridge Street that crossed the North Platte River in Saratoga, Wyoming. It is unsigned, so that drivers who use the road do not know its number. A Google search could not locate reliable sources covering it (other than primary sources from WDOT or "fan" sites.) So, I have placed a notability tag on the article.
• Wyoming Highway 14 is a 0.36 mile-long entrance road that connects WYO 130 with the Laramie airport. I could not find reliable secondary sources with a Google search.
• Louisiana Highway 3220 is a 0.22 mile-long road across a bridge over Bayou Lafourche. I could not find reliable secondary sources with a Google search. One of the three external links in the article is dead. In January 2011, the article was viewed 28 times.[55]
• Louisiana Highway 3285 is a 0.80 mile-long road that was previously called "Spur Louisiana Highway 16." I could not find reliable secondary sources with a Google search. One of the three external links in the article is dead. In January 2011, the article was viewed 74 times.[56]
• Pennsylvania Route 760 is a 5.5 mile-long road that has sourcing problems. Most of the information comes from Penn DOT maps and exit number lists. So I tagged it with {{Primary sources}}. I agree that Google Maps is a secondary source. However, the article also contains statements such as "The road enters Hermitage and passes a mix of woods and industrial establishments." and "The PA 760 trailblazers were installed in May 2010." which are so specific as to require a source, but none is provided. Hence, I added {{fact}} tags.

Again, all of these edits are consistent with Wikipedia policy. If sources are found, they should be added to these articles and the tags removed.

After the initial RFC/U was certified, User:LauraHale raised certain issues in an "outside view" and then withdrew them. As a result, it is not clear whether those issues are within the scope of the RFC/U. Needless to say, many of her claims were undocumented and hard to believe. For example, when reviewing Netball in the Cook Islands she claimed that the rules of New Zealand grammar were different than American English. She never documented that there are recognized differences between the two dialects, and I doubt that claim. She repeatedly claimed that I accused her of plagiarism,[57] [58] when I did not and went to great lengths to explain to her why that is an incorrect claim. She then publicly attacked herself again, and I corrected her again.[59] Saying that I will check the article for close paraphrasing is just explaining the GA review process to someone without much GA review experience. I never said that she had added the close paraphrasing.

When she claimed that "Olympic sport" meant something different in Britain than what was stated in the Wikipedia article, I obtained an outside opinion from a British editor who confirmed that the Wikipedia article correctly reflected the British understanding of that term.

Although I proposed that any of the active editors scan in a sample of pages from sources that were not available to me, she misrepresented the request as a demand for entire books and failed to mention that I had offered to go to the Library of Congress to get the sources in light of the editors' refusal to scan the unavailable sample of pages. Her post hoc rationalization for her failure to assume good faith on my efforts to check sources is contorted.[60] As for her other harassment[61] and improper use of the term "Olympic sport"[62] I have already discussed those at length and will not copy the discussion here given that LauraHale dropped her outside view.

Users who endorse this summary (if endorsing some sections, please indicate which ones):

1. Racepacket (talk) 18:35, 3 April 2011 (UTC) (Since I wrote it, I probably should sign it.)[reply]
2. I don't see anything unreasonable here. Non-GA criteria ought not be insisted upon during a GA review, nor should the reviewer be expected to be read into (or follow) a specific wikiproject's practices; GA reviews ought to be open, transparent, and not conducted with prearranged nominator/reviewer relationships; and the use of maintenance tags here looks appropriate. I still have not seen any credible evidence that Racepacket has acted in bad faith or mistreated anyone—everything which has been offered as "proof" seems to rely on assumptions of bad faith or else an extension of his words beyond their literal meaning and into the realm of innuendo (another example of the assumption of bad faith). Mitch32's self-professed whistle-blowing reveals that considerable off-wiki time and effort have gone into negative discussions about Racepacket, and that over time, those involved have been "doing more wrong than good". In addition, I've been utterly disgusted at how a number of administrators have allowed themselves to get caught up in this witch-hunt; Racepacket has had two blocks overturned in the past week or so due to administrators acting inappropriately or else jumping to conclusions not supported by any evidence, and no one has had the courtesy to admit fault or to apologize in any way. Frankly, I can't understand how Racepacket hasn't lost the motivation to continue contributing to the project in the face of this much childish resistance and groupthink. —Bill Price (nyb) 17:34, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
3. Baechter (talk) 01:56, 10 April 2011 (UTC) This is Baechter's sixth total edit on Wikipedia. Two previous edits were to the last RfC/U related to Racepacket in 2009. Imzadi 1979 → 02:08, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Users who endorse this summary:

1. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LauraHale (talk • contribs)
2. I haven't read enough to endorse the NPOV accusations, but I certainly agree with the broad thrust of LauraHale's complaints. When I saw Talk:Netball/GA1, I was frankly gobsmacked by it. It went completely against what I believed GA reviewing was about, which is a simple and lightweight process. It has dragged on for weeks and some of the demands made by the reviewer of the nominator made my head spin. —Tom Morris (talk) 12:11, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
3. I was thinking about doing the second GA review for Netball in the Cook Islands, but was beaten to it by Racepacket, and decided against doing the third one after the way in which the second one unfolded. While I'm not saying that any specific comment was unfounded, I do not approve of the stick-over-carrot approach to GA reviews that I have seen. Reviewers should always go to second opinions if a nominator, acting in good faith, disagrees with the reviewer on a point that might affect the final decision. —WFC— 16:31, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
4. Laura withdrew the netball one. Racepacket reopened it saying she can't do that when she can and continued as before. KnowIG (talk) 17:39, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
5. LauraHale (talk · contribs) withdrew her nomination of Netball, but Racepacket reinstated the review, saying elsewhere that "only the review[er] can 'fail' the article", which is not the case here. Laura withdrew the nomination, which by definition in a pass/fail metric, "fails" the nomination. I endorse the issue of the GAN withdrawal/reinstatement situation only, as clarified by the evidence I've provided above. Imzadi 1979 → 18:52, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
6. I concur with the above. In this case we have to add WP:DONTBITE to the list of policies and guidelines above. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:34, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
7. It was very unfortunate to see that Racepacket decided to do another GA review of Laura's articles, and quick fail it, given that she was so unhappy with the last one. poor John Vandenberg ^(chat) 19:17, 26 March 2011 (UTC) It just gets worse and worse. During a GAN of Netball_and_the_Olympic_Movement, when the page was being renamed, Racepacket created a new GAN page to quick fail it. One edit; create GAN page and fail it: Special:Undelete/Talk:Netball_and_the_Olympic_Movement/GA2. I'm sure that isnt in the rule book. There already was a active GAN and Racepacket had already contributed to it. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 06:18, 27 March 2011 (UTC) He added that review to his collection.[64] And went out of his way to provide a peer review of another Netball article, using it as an opportunity to take a swipe at the GA pass it received earlier. [65] (discussion moved to talk page)[reply]
8. This seems all rather sad. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:54, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   What is really alarming is that, instead of answering Laura's post-GAN questions about plagiarism accusations directly, Racepacket has taken the course of undermining her credibility as an editor and as a scholar. –Fredddie™ 22:47, 26 March 2011 (UTC) redacted[reply]

9. I want to point out that GAC is not a FAC. And it should never be turned into one --Guerillero | My Talk 21:39, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's been a while since I participated in the GA process, but think this is a goal that is/should be attainable for everyone. The criteria shouldn't be crazy stringent (save that for FAC) and the review process should be cordial. I don't think anyone (hope not) wants wikidrama. I'm saddened if things are getting so heated at GA that it discourages people from participating. The Netball GA worries and saddens me especially... I know both Racepacket and Laura, and can't/don't believe either are looking for wikidrama and think they both mean well. Please remember to assume good faith, stay calm, courteous, don't nitpick, etc., and most importantly please remember that Wikipedia should be fun and enjoyable, including GA.

Users who endorse this summary:

1. --Aude (talk) 20:48, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
2. - Off2riorob (talk) 14:45, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
3. Stress and uncollegial behavior harm Wikipedia. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:51, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
4. Although I simply do not have much time nor energy to read all those disputes, edit diffs, whatever, and moreover, I don't have sufficient knowledge or skill to be able to ascertain whether one's (be it Racepacket, LauraHale's, or whoever's) actions are appropriate or not, but I want to say that I personally do know Racepacket in real life for some time, and although I don't know much of his personality, he doesn't strike me as the type to engage in sockpuppeting or something shady. It is possible that he could be rather abrasive or whatever one may characterize as really annoying, and I could see how that can easily tick someone off. But he certainly comes across as a nice guy to me. That's all I can say about him. That said, I agree with Aude. --TheBlueWizard (talk) 14:41, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
5. -- I agree with Aude and TheBlueWizard, though I'd also like to suggest that both users consider taking a self-imposed break from editing in that topic area. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 03:35, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

LauraHale, this is not a mandatory for reviewer to have access on all of your off-line references and its pretty much clear instead of you no one has access to all of these sources, which implies only you've a genuine right to review this article (?). The way you've presented these accusations, it would be better if you could provide differences where these alleged things happened, so that things become clear.Bill william compton^Talk 21:00, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

LauraHale's failure to respond to my last posting with "diff links" highlights the lack of a factual basis for her comments. I was the first reviewer of Netball and she treated me very poorly. It was my first review and jumped on it because of her request and tried my best, but I feel that she was trying to bully me into passing the article regardless of its obvious deficiencies. When she asked me to step aside as reviewer and recruit a replacement, Racepacket was the first to volunteer and I turned the review over to him, without ever having met him before. I believe that he did an excellent job maintaining a calm demeanor in the face of a continuation of her bullying. It is unfortunate that all of the hours of time that a number of volunteers have invested was lost by her insistence on shutting down the review prior to its completion. I believe that GA reviews should be a friendly process, and I don't understand why she treats her reviewers as if they were her bitter enemies.

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Bill william compton^Talk 08:14, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
2. Smallman12q (talk) 14:33, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
3. There are two sides to every story. IMO a RFC user for this spat is unnecessary. Off2riorob (talk) 14:39, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that a lot of this controversy would go away if both parties were a bit more reasonable. Of all the sample articles listed above, the one I studied to formulate this reply was Maryland Route 200. The issues with Maryland Route 200 could have been avoided had the litigants of this case compromised to use Racepacket's research and contributions to expand existing stub articles instead of creating new articles that go against WP:USRD's notability guidelines. For example, Washington Outer Beltway, the origin for Maryland Route 200 and a current stub article, is an ideal place to put most of the content that instead went into the controversial daughter articles. That way, Racepacket's research could have been put to good use to expand an article that is within WP:USRD's scope and guidelines and we wouldn't have had to fight about creating articles deemed by WP:USRD to be undue weight, un-notable, etc.

Adendum: I was asked by one of the initiators of this RfC to review Racepacket's actions involving GA nominations, stating that I chose one of the less important issues to examine in the paragraph above. So, I reviewed some of the alleged mis-tagging of articles and GA review issues. I was not-so-much concerned about the tagging of articles. While those articles may indeed have met notability guidelines, one would never know it from reading the articles in their current state. Most were very short stub articles, and would have been similarly tagged by any number of editors. However, I definitely agree the activity in regards to GAC nominations and reviews is concerning. I saw some unnecessarily snide comments, and the same stubbornness that led to the situation mentioned above with Maryland Route 200. The GAC issues of the Netball article were them most concerning. I'm not sure if what I saw was disrupting wikipedia to make a point, as claimed, or a simple case of tit-for-tat article critiquing, a "my-way-or-the-highway" attitude, or something else. But certainly this isn't a healthy situation for anybody and I would recommend that racepacket take a breather from GAC nominations and reviews for a while. If for no other reason, so everybody involved can breath a little and remember the larger purpose of us working together on this encyclopedia. Dave (talk) 06:29, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Dave (talk) 03:23, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
2. Certainly would allow everyone to move on and to destress. KnowIG (talk) 08:54, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
3. I don't believe that racepacket intentionally committed any wrongdoing...but rather that people are just getting stressed out. For what its worth, I found his review of the article iLoo to be a pleasant experience...Smallman12q (talk) 12:31, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
4. Endorse only a cooling off period for Racepacket to disengage with reviews for a time. Imzadi 1979 → 21:28, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
5. I concur with Imzadi1979. Jessy ^T/C 21:27, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

I don't see specific "charges" of wp:substance in this whole thing. It looks more like a collection of negative sounding things regarding Racepacket. Bringing up old blocks on a completely unrelated issue made lights go off for me regarding this. The least-vague complaint was that he had a vendetta against the road project, but every one of diffs I clicked on seemed to be just civilly making arguably good points. The other specific complaint (actually 7 of them) is for not following a non-existent rule, i.e. not following road project standards. Prject standards are not policies, nor is htere a policy that says that they must be followed. I saw a few things that I would have disagreed with Racepacket on.

Users who endorse this summary:

1. North8000 (talk) 13:57, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can't speak to any of the other reviews listed here, only my own experience. Racepacket has reviewed a few articles I have nominated (to wit): Talk:Aboriginal title in the Taney Court/GA1; Talk:Fellows v. Blacksmith/GA1; Talk:South Carolina v. Catawba Indian Tribe/GA1. In general, I've found that Racepacket gives the article a thorough read, makes largely meritorious suggestions, and is willing to discuss if the nominator needs clarification or doesn't agree. I think Racepacket does a good job at what is generally a thankless task. It's natural to be defensive about one's own articles and to resent anyone who offers constructive criticism. The GA notation will only be meaningful if reviewers are able to give robust and thorough reviews. If a reviewer's conduct is going to be called into question in a forum like this every time they insist on changes that they believe, in good faith, will improve the article, then, in the end, it's the project that will suffer. It's the easiest thing in the world to rubber stamp other good articles; it's a great way to make friends and collect barnstars. As a community, we should do everything possible not to discourage those who are willing to stand up for standards.

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Savidan 04:51, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
2. Bill william compton^Talk 05:07, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
3. I fully agree with the principle. In fact, Racepacket has done some good reviews. However, it's the small minority of reviews that have been proven to be disastrous. --Rschen7754 06:09, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
4. I agree with the principle, but even infrequent disasters can have wide-ranging impacts. After decades of complacency in the face of no major issues, one unfortunate disaster at a nuclear power plant has stoked public sentiment against a technology that statistics say is safer and less harmful to the environment than coal power plants. The point: the rare exceptions, when bad enough, can outweigh and overpower the good. Imzadi 1979 → 23:15, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
5. I've witnessed this a few times myself: Racepacket being met with defensiveness and hostility when he expresses legitimate concerns about an article. Maybe he could use more tact(?) but I've never known him to be unfair or disruptive. —Bill Price (nyb) 14:23, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
6. After having read through everything, it seems clear to me that racepacket is acting in good faith and within the scope of GA review. He sticks to his guns when he feels certain improvements need to be made; a fact which may frustrate some nominators. I personally I feel we need more GA reviewers like him, not less. Too many sub-standard articles get rubber stamped at GA as it is.4meter4 (talk) 17:20, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
7. -- if for nothing else other than the last line. We do a very poor job in this community of standing up for our fellow editors when they're under fire defending a policy, guideline, or other clear standard. I'm not saying that's what happened here, but it's something we need to address as a community. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 03:40, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I admit to having my own problems with Racepacket in the past and there are a couple of diffs above that are intersting however most of them have already been dealt with. Racepacket was blocked for a few weeks because of concerns about his editing and as far as I have seen hasn't displayed any of the problems noted since then. With that said I for one have also had serious problems with certain members of the US roads projects very very aggressive sense of ownership towards any editor who touches an article within that projects scope. IMO this discussion is without merit and is an assumption of bad faith about issues that have already been addressed and resolved.

My recommendation would be that Racepacket not review any articles from the US roads project and that someone inform the US roads project that they don't own the articles and they need to play nice with the other editors.

Users who endorse this summary:

1. --Kumioko (talk) 22:01, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
2. I agree with the first half of what Kumioko says. If having a WikiProject develop standards and its members enforce those standards is considered ownership, what good is the WikiProject? –Fredddie™ 22:48, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
3. I, too, agree with the first segment of the view above and the suggested voluntary moratorium by Racepacket, but dispute the remainder. Imzadi 1979 → 23:10, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
4. I actually, unlike my colleagues above, agree with the last part of the post, not because of WikiProject, but too much arguing can be a bad thing, see our last ArbCom case.Mitch32^{(Erie Railroad Information Hog)} 23:12, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
5. The last half, and if necessary, I am willing to have that discussion with the US roads group about how Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Guide#Advice_pages applies even to them. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:53, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
6. -- ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 03:37, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure where to put this, and I honestly am not going to go through all of the diffs. I did want to point out that the editor reviewed an article I put up for GA and it was fantastic. He was especially (and correctly) strict on an image issue which made the article better. So from my experience, he is already "get[s] along amicably with the rest of the project."

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Cptnono (talk) 21:41, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
2. Bill william compton^Talk 09:24, 25 March 2011 (UTC

I have only interacted with Racepacket regarding Talk:Oregon Ducks track and field/GA1, for which he was the reviewer. This view I am writing will focus solely on my interactions with him with this project. I can maybe see why some people would have a problem with him as a reviewer. He is demanding, speaks his mind, and has strict standards. But I don't see any of these as bad characteristics. I believe he has a genuine care for the quality of Wikipedia and if the nominee uses good faith, then I believe all the "problems" go away (not making any accusations here, I don't know anybody involved; I'm just stating a general opinion). For example, in my initial review, he made a statement saying "Notable athlete section is a big disappointment." I suppose a nominee could get offended that one of his/her article sections he/she thinks is good enough for GA status is a "big disappointment." But...that section I wrote was a big disappointment. Looking at what it is now and what it was before, I was missing a lot of stuff. Saying that it was a disappointment was not a personal attack in any way, it was his opinion on the state of the article; and an opinion I believe was correct. Another example was that some of his points of review demanded some effort. It required hours of research and lots of additional writing. While that may discourage some, I believe this level of standard is beneficial to the GA review process. I didn't see it then (of course I didn't; if I did, I wouldn't have nominated it) but looking back at the article before review, it definitely should not have been a GA due to lacking in some major aspects of the topic. One last point: Initially, he pushed for a section on rivalries, a subject that was quite difficult for the topic since the Ducks' natural rival hasn't had a T&F program for decades. He gave Oregon State and Stanford as examples of rivals to write about. When I inquired further, he helped out a bit on Oregon State and relinquished on Stanford saying he didn't have strong evidence for it. This showed me that he's likely not prone to suggesting something and sticking to it to unreasonable lengths. But his point was to look into a rivalry section more and with his encouragement, I explored and discovered a rival in UCLA that I never would have known about if he hadn't pushed me to do it.

In conclusion, I wanted to chime in and express my opinion that in my experience, Racepacket was fully within the guidelines of wp:civility: He did not offer any personal attacks, was cooperative, and was very patient with me (I had a week-long period in the middle of review where I couldn't find time for Wikipedia, and this was my first GA article nomination so I did have lots of questions). I think his reviews and standards are a valuable asset to Wikipedia.

Users who endorse this summary:

1. --Cluskillz (talk) 06:03, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Although the RFC was made coming from the U.S. Roads Wikiproject, the description of the dispute seems to be more about Racepacket's general approach to the GA process. This brings Racepacket's interactions with Netball into relevance. Because of this, I find it very disturbing that Racepacket has continued to participate in GA reviews in other WikiProjects, when he should have stopped the GANs entirely. It seems that he was told about his GANs in general at the time he was notified of this RFC two weeks ago.[66] At first I thought that Racepacket was only staying away from U.S. Roads due to a miscommunication or something, but this was clarified in his RFC notification, right at the start of all this. And even then, it looks like he just recently approved a U.S. Road article. [67] There are some serious communication problems here.

Whatever the end result is, I think Racepacket needs to completely stop his GA work until this RFC is sorted out.

Users who endorse this summary:

1. - Zero1328 _Talk? 23:22, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
2. While the USRD-specific issues are quite disturbing, if I were to redo this RFC, I would focus more on on Racepacket's "general approach to the GA process" as these issues have come to light through this RFC. --Rschen7754 23:25, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
3. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 00:45, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
4. --Guerillero | My Talk | Review Me 01:03, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
5. Dough4872 18:37, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
6. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 07:55, 9 April 2011 (UTC).[reply]

While I often work on articles within the USRD scope I am not very active as far as wide-ranging discussions on standards or the like are concerned. I don't recall any prior encounters with Racepacket (although I have seen him around) and I have never nominated an article for GA.

That said, looking through the dispute it seems pretty clear to me from the POINT-y edits that Racepacket is harboring some sort of grudge against USRD and/or a few of its editors and from what I can see it stems (at least partially) from USRD having set standards for article format and Racepacket disagreeing with those standards. I am not prepared to comment on the merits of them, however, it seems pretty clear that at minimum, Racepacket should voluntarily disengage from USRD and refrain from reviewing articles related to such, and perhaps even refrain from editing articles under its scope for a time.

However, that being said, I do take exception to some of the evidence presented. Under #Questioning the choice of articles nominated for GAN, three diffs are said to be "attacks" when I see nothing of the sort in those three instances. (There are a couple others elsewhere that could be attacks, I am not discounting those.) As for his advice to an editor to work on more significant roads rather than very short ones, I don't feel the suggestion itself was out of line; however, the GA review itself is not the proper place for that in my opinion.

Users who endorse this summary:

1. --Sable232 (talk) 20:42, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
2. Not sure what to say about "attack" versus "inappropriate remark" but I endorse the rest. --Rschen7754 22:07, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
3. Dough4872 00:51, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I interacted with Racepacket during Cal Poly Pomona's GA review, for which he was the reviewer. Racepacket's provided an objective and fair review which was thorough and constructive. It took a while, but that's what a GA-article is supposed to be like. Racepacket has a wide, and balanced, assortment of encyclopedic interest and has worked as both and editor and reviewer in articles that are varied and though-provoking such as: United Nations Headquarters, Afroyim v. Rusk, Syracuse University, Virginia State Lottery, History of Cornell University, among others. He's an asset and this public circus is a disgrace.

Users who endorse this summary:

1. -- Marco Guzman, Jr  Chat  03:38, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am uninvolved with the main dispute here, but I have interacted with Racepacket on several GAs. He was the reviewer for one of my GA nominations: Talk:Washington & Jefferson College/GA1. I found his comments on the state of the article to be extraordinarily thorough--perhaps the most in-depth review of any article I've ever seen. But I would agree that the detail of his GA reviews are more appropriate for FAC. I will also vigorously defend his review of Talk:Grand Valley State University/GA1, which was an article that was no where near GA level and it needed some very thorough work. The editors seemed game for a top-to-bottom review and I believe that the GA became more of a peer review. I wasn't quite sure what was transpiring at Cornell University, so I disengaged quickly.

Racepacket's dedication and attention to detail should be commended, but perhaps he should focus on FACs, where his attention to detail is needed and where there are more experienced editors. The bottom line is I respect his contributions and we need more editors like Racepacket.

Users who endorse this summary:

1. --GrapedApe (talk) 19:48, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
2. Bill william compton^Talk 21:58, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Users who endorse this summary:

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.

Although an arbitration request was filed [68], in order to resolve the roads part of the dispute, the involved parties agreed that:

1. Racepacket will not review any more road articles for GA or comment in their GA reviews for six months.
2. Imzadi, Rschen and Dough will not GA review articles that Racepacket nominates for six months.
3. Racepacket stays away from the roads projects for six months.
4. The normal dispute resolution processes may be followed if issues arise after the six months are up.
5. All parties are civil to each other just like other Wikipedia editors are required to be.

During the request, an arbitrator stated that Racepacket ought to agree to avoid netball articles too (without a lot of fuss or negotiation) and several editors, including the certifiers of this dispute, echoed this more recently on the talk page of this RfC/U. However, Racepacket failed to endorse proposals to this effect. Consequently, further dispute resolution may be pursued on those issues and any remaining conduct concerns. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:14, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.