Wikipedia:Requests for comment/UCRGrad

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In order to remain listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment, 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: ~~~~), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 01:13, 14 June 2008 (UTC).

---

• UCRGrad (talk • contribs • logs)

---

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

Contents 1 Statement of the dispute 1.1 Description 1.2 Evidence of disputed behavior 1.2.1 Violating WP:STALK 1.2.2 Violating WP:OWN 1.2.3 Violating WP:CIVIL 1.2.4 Violating WP:NPA 1.2.5 Violating WP:NLT 1.2.6 Violating WP:AGF 1.2.7 Joint Meat/Sockpuppet Activities Influencing POV Issues 1.2.7.1 UCRGrad's meatpuppet activities in support of Insert-Belltower 1.3 Applicable policies and guidelines 1.4 Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute 1.5 Users certifying the basis for this dispute 1.6 Other users who endorse this summary 2 Response 2.1 RESPONSE TO: Evidence of disputed behavior 2.1.1 RESPONSE TO: Violating WP:OWN 2.1.2 RESPONSE TO: Violating WP:CIVIL 2.1.3 Violating WP:NPA 2.1.4 Violating WP:NLT 2.1.5 Violating WP:AGF 2.1.6 RESPONSE TO: Joint Meat/Sockpuppet Activities Influencing POV Issues 2.1.6.1 RESPONSE TO: UCRGrad's meatpuppet activities in support of Insert-Belltower 2.2 Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute 3 Outside view 3.1 Outside view 2 4 Discussion

[edit] Statement of the dispute

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

[edit] 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.}

Since he first registered a user account on Wikipedia, UCRGrad (talk • contribs • logs) has attempted to assert effective ownership over significant portions of the University of California, Riverside article. This assumption of "ownership" mainly consists of adamant if not absolute resistance to any changes to controversial content, but also has been extended by accusations of plagarism to include "his own" comments on the UCR talk page. While UCRGrad was confirmed to have used a sockpuppet account, 909er (talk • contribs • logs), in April, he was not alone in this. Another user, Insert-Belltower (talk • contribs • logs), who is the current subject of another RFC, was also confirmed to have used sockpuppets, and continues to work towards the same objectives as sought by UCRGrad. These two users share identical opinions, post at approximately the same times, and are both primarily concerned with editing the UCR article. They also, notably, tend to be only editors to that article who not only share, but resolutely defend the other's extreme opinions against all others regarding POV issues. Though it is strongly suspected by editors with significant experience interacting with those two that these accounts are meatpuppet accounts, per Wikipedia RFC guidelines two RFCs have been filed with itemized evidence of independent conduct violations for each.

[edit] Evidence of disputed behavior

[edit] Violating WP:STALK

1. [1] - Harassing User:Aeon1006 on User talk:JakGd1, disrupting the dispute resolution process.
2. [2] - Harassing User:Aeon1006 on User talk:Triddle, disrupting the dispute resolution process.
3. [3] - Harassing User:Aeon1006 on User talk:Aeon1006.
4. [4] - Harassing User:Aeon1006 through the AMA by unarchiving a noted complaint.
5. [5] - Harassment of User:Aeon1006 after blocked for six hours.

[edit] Violating WP:OWN

1. UCRGrad appears to be a single purpose account who almost exclusively edits the UCR article, related Talk page, and, more recently, mediation and dispute resolution pages related to that article as documented in his contributions
2. Unilaterally decides to remove merge tag sans discussion with other users less than 13 hours after the merge suggestion was made
3. Insists his POV (ownership) of article is established after he "refutes" objections to his edits (see the edit summary)
4. Attempts to claim ownership of comments on article talk page
5. wikilawyering in support of POV
6. More evidence of ownership of remarks on article talk page
7. More evidence of ownership on AMA advocacy page
8. From User talk:UCRGrad: "As an impartial individual with extensive knowledge of the campus, I can provide a very accurate and representative article - and that is my goal. Any changes to the text should be made with adequate justification, not because "somebody feels like this or that." [6]
9. Reverts virtually every time someone changes his preferred version: [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20]
10. States, " if you're going to make sweeping modifications that you already know that I-B and I will not agree with, it goes without saying that there will be a reversion."
11. Restores outdated photograph on article with the edit summary of I will not permit deletion of this photo.

[edit] Violating WP:CIVIL

1. Refuses to apologise for or acknowledge mistake in reference to gender of other user
2. Makes condenscending remarks to and about new editors
3. Tells a user that "NONE of your suggestions have had any merit" and "perhaps you should give your reasons a little more thought."
4. Questions an editor suspicious of the (later proven) sockpuppets of UCRGrad and Insert-Belltower by asking "YOU HAVE THE AUDACITY TO ACCUSE A THIRD PARTY, UNBLOCKTAU, OF IMMATURITY AND LACK OF RESPECT????"
5. Tells an editor with whom he disagrees that "you're being ridiculous"
6. Files a WP:AN/3RR report against 66.214.118.69 (talk • contribs • logs), even though he reverted exactly three times. (The IP does have a history of 3RR blocks, and was also blocked for blanking his user talk page): [21] (rejected: [22])
7. Known confrimed sockpuppet 909er Vandalised user page of Szyslak. UCRGrad (As 909er) said "I thought it was you my bad". Showed no remorse over the vandalism. [23]
8. Uncivil edit summaries: [24] (as 909er), [25], [26], [27], [28], [29],
9. Files a WP:AN/3RR report against WHS even though no violation occured. [30]
10. Blocked for violation of WP:3RR
11. Uncivil behavior towards an Admin, stating "I understand that it must feel satisfying and rewarding when you think you've "caught" what MUST be a "typical sockpuppeteer," and yeah it probably seems like it first glance, but did it ever occur to you that you might be incorrect???"
12. Says "Quit pussyfooting around and respond to my counterargument"
13. Says "However, in the off-chance that you are indeed psychic and a mind-reader, you might consider working for the Psychic Friends Network. Otherwise, please keep your baseless inferences to yourself."
14. Says "I therefore question your literary ability and consequently, your aptitude to contribute at all to this article."
15. Says "You clearly have nothing to contribute here."

[edit] Violating WP:NPA

1. Accused another editor, an admitted UCR alumnus, of possessing "a) obvious inherent bias, b) obvious self-interest to promote the campus, and c) immature behavior thus far with edits here" and questioning if said editor should be allowed to edit the UCR article
2. Told an editor who was raising an oft-raised issue that "ANYONE CAN SIT BACK AND CRITICIZE. WHY DON'T YOU TRY TO MAKE SUGGESTIONS TO HELP THE ARTICLE, RATHER THAN DEMEAN THE PEOPLE WHO ACTUALLY MAKE CONTRIBUTIONS"
3. States, "sounds to me like you really don't have any affiliation or knowledge whatsoever about UC Riverside"
4. States, "understand that you take it personally that you had to take remedial classes in college"
5. States, "thus far, I have not been very impressed by the caliber of your writing - so don't pat yourself on the back just yet."
6. States, "works in an academic library and he can't even find a recent issue of a widely available magazine like US News!!?? Quite frankly, I'm dumbfounded."
7. ...and follows up with "No, I have never worked in a library - even UCR gave me better opportunities than that after I graduated" after another editor mentioned that he works in an academic library.

[edit] Violating WP:NLT

1. Regarding check user performed on him, states "I also do not give consent to have my location or other details related to my IP address reported publicly. If there is any kind of breech of my privacy, and I suffer damages as a result, I would expect compensation from parties involved."

[edit] Violating WP:AGF

1. Considers cooperation among other editors evidence of a "a pattern of conspiracy to vote and push for sanctions against I-B and/or myself"
2. Accused a new editor of being a sockpuppet with no evidence
3. While dismissing another editor's objections, notes that the IP address of the anonymous editor is in the IP range allocated to UCR, suggesting bad faith
4. Again notes that the IP address of the anonymous editor is in the IP range allocated to UCR, suggesting bad faith
5. Accuses another editor of harassment when the user correctly files a Request for User Check and requests a Check User for many other editors in the article with no basis for suspicion
6. Suggests that four editors are sockpuppets or meatpuppets by stating that "the same four people have conveniently written supportive statements within the same brief time window"
7. Accuses Danny Lilithborne (talk • contribs • logs) of "independently asking an admin to make a unilateral decision," thus violating mediation policy, when administrator Samir (The Scope) (talk • contribs • logs) removes a passage supported by UCRG: [31] (Samir's response: [32]). (There was no mediation in progress, and Samir's removal of the passage was not an administrative action.)
8. Ad Hominem fallacy against other editors when he says "Most recently, there have been complaints from Amerique, Teknosoul, WHS, and szyslak. What is particularly frustrating is that NONE of these editors are UCR graduates, UCR students, or seem to have any affiliation with the university." Compare this quote with the one above, in which he accuses other editors of holding a pro-UCR bias because they are affiliated with the university.
9. Refers to good faith edits as vandalism [33], wikilawyers the definition [34]
10. Accuses editors of having a pre-bias.
11. States, "don't need to put on a "show" and pretend like you've been severely injured. This isn't a soccer match. Thanks."
12. States, "if it is meaningful and informative to compare to other UC campuses, that's also fine...but to do so for the sole purpose of sugar-coating a bad number..."
13. In response to WP:DR procedures, states, "you and others seem to prefer to try to silence me through WP:DR sanctions rather than actually discussing issues"

[edit] Joint Meat/Sockpuppet Activities Influencing POV Issues

1. Apparent admission that UCRGrad colludes with other editors, "know one another", and "use the same computers back-to-back," as close to an admission of meatpuppetry as one is going to get
2. Talk:University of California, Riverside/Archive_9#UCR Survey Identical opinions registered on extensive survey of contentious areas of UCR article.
3. Talk:University of California, Riverside/Archive_6#Classroom size Identical opinions expressed regarding reference to Biomedical program facilities.
4. Talk:University of California, Riverside/Archive_6#Fat_Girl UCRGrad defends IB's controversial photo upload.
5. Talk:University of California, Riverside/Archive_6#Photo of Sorority Girl Both editors override objections to photo upload.
6. Talk:University of California, Riverside/Archive_6#Mediation Both editors respectively reject call for inter-party mediation.
7. Talk:University of California, Riverside/Archive_4#And now for something completely different Both editors introduce their respective sockpuppets to the article talk page. UCRGrad:909er; Insert-Belltower:HisBundleAblation. This is also the first concrete evidence that both editors are operating in a concerted manner.
8. Talk:University of California, Riverside/Archive_1#Insert-Belltower IB's second post to the UCR talk page, a defense of the allegation that he is a sockpuppet of UCRGrad.

[edit] UCRGrad's meatpuppet activities in support of Insert-Belltower

1. [35] Supports IB's defense of controversial content.
2. [36] Complements IB for selecting controversial content.
3. [37] Supports IB's defense of controversial content.
4. [38] UCRGrad in support of UnblockingTau, one of IB's sockpuppets.
5. Talk:University of California, Riverside/Archive_5#Szyslak's recent edits UCRGrad's confirmed sockpuppet 909er responds to accusations of sockpuppetry.

[edit] Applicable policies and guidelines

{list the policies and guidelines that apply to the disputed conduct}

1. WP:OWN
2. WP:AGF
3. WP:Civility
4. WP:NPA
5. WP:SOCK
6. WP:NLT
7. WP:STALK

[edit] Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute

(provide diffs and links)

1. Talk:University of California, Riverside consists of eight archives as of July 19, 2006. As evidenced by Archive 1, the talk page was fairly quiet until UCRGrad arrived. Most of the overwhelming reams of discussion are aimed at resolving NPOV disputes concerning UCRG and I-B's preferred version.
2. User_talk:Aeon1006/AMA is an attempt by an Advocate to mediate the disputes; it was abandoned in favor of this and another User Conduct RFC against Insert-Belltower as the issues were too complicated and the progress non-existent due to stonewalling and lack of cooperation from UCRGrad and Insert-Belltower
3. This is an example of the stonewalling that occured in the advocacy attempt as UCRGrad continued to dwell on a minor point long after nearly every other party in the discussion, including the advocate and neutral third parties, had all reached the same conclusion and were ready to move on.
4. An RfArb was filed this year; although it failed it is significant evidence of dispute resolution and the severity of the dispute as 7 different editors were involved
5. Mediation was proposed but was immediately dismissed by UCRGrad
6. 2 months later, mediation was again proposed (by a different editor) and immediately dismissed by UCRGrad
7. An RFC was proposed and filed and drew immediate criticism and ridicule from UCRGrad who characterized it as a "crutch" and stated that filing an RFC was "request[ing] 3rd-party intervention and cross[ing] [your] fingers that they will side with you."
8. A straw poll was created on the UCR Talk page, posted on WP:POLLS, and also posted to the other University of California article Talk pages. UCRGrad participated in the poll but after it was clear that most of editors participating in the poll were posting opinions contrary to his own UCRGrad announced that the poll data is "inadmissable" as it was not scientifically created and administered. Contrast this with his defense of the StudentReviews.com website and its data (particularly the inclusion of a quote from one supposed-UCR student labeling the institution "an abomination to higher education"), a website that clearly suffers from many of the same problems (low response rate, self-selected sample, etc.) as the "inadmissable" straw poll

[edit] Users certifying the basis for this dispute

{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}

1. Working as Amerique's Advocate, over the course of a week or so, I attempted to help resolve this dispute and failed. UCRGrad was completely obstinate and unwilling to genuinely contribute to anything towards resolution. אמר Steve Caruso _(desk/AMA) 13:35, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
2. Attempted to help both sides to a resolution dispite being the oposing Advocate (Of Insert-Belltower), UCRGrad stonewalled the process and AMA was unable to help bring this to a resolution as a direct result. Aeon ^{Insane Ward} 14:25, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
3. Participant in the UCR article and Talk page. --ElKevbo 15:51, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
4. Amerique
5. WHS
6. For more than three months, I've been trying to help resolve the many disputes surrounding this article, but UCRG has proven impossible to work with. szyslak (t, c, e) 22:38, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
7. I first edited the article a couple of months ago, unaware of the dispute. I removed the negative POV; my edits were immediately reverted. I then realized that any further attempts to get rid of the POV and make other substantial changes would be reverted as well. I decided to participate on the Talk Page before taking further steps. My policy now is that I will revert back if anyone reverts my edits. I do not feel that there is any other way to participate as an editor without being blocked by UCRGrad and Insert-Belltowner. So far, so good...We'll see. starkt 17:29, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Other users who endorse this summary

1. Danny Lilithborne 01:04, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
2. GeorgeLouis 02:57, 19 August 2006 (UTC) I don't have the time or inclination to deal with UCRGrad (even though I am one myself).

[edit] Response

In summary, there is very little basis for Amerique's allegations above. I have been a dedicated editor of the UC Riverside article for over 5 months with almost 1,000 edits in my log. You would think that by now, if Amerique's accusations were true, I would have been kicked off or sanctioned a long time ago. In fact, just the opposite happened. On June 22, 2006, Amerique filed an RFA (Request for Arbitration) against me, with the EXACT SAME allegations: violation of WP:own/civil/NPA/NLT/AGF. However, her RFA was summarily denied and dismissed when four admins/arbitrators reviewed her case and made several important findings:

1. "The contention around the UC Riverside article seems to have produced a pretty decent college article, devoid of a lot of the fluff such articles tend to attract"
2. "I don't think think any contention between the editors has damaged the encyclopedia"
3. "A number of editors on all sides have been stubborn, hard to work with and contentious"
4. "I don't see that this is completely a 'one impossible editor' situation." [explicitly rejecting Amerique's WP:OWN claim]
5. "UCRGrad presents a signifcant point of view"

Please take a look at what the article looked like before I started editing: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=University_of_California%2C_Riverside&oldid=40245848

As you can see, there have been profound improvements since that time. The article is now well-referenced, there are far more statistics and useful comparisons, several new sections have been added, existing areas expanded, more pictures, etc. Clearly, my contributions along with those of other dedicated editors have produced a "pretty decent college article." I will admit that sometimes I am a bit stubborn, and sometimes I don't say the nicest things, but even the admins agree that a number of opposing editors have been "hard to work with and contentious." I don't think it's quite fair that I get singled out.

Consider this: I've made ~1,000 edits over the course of 5 months. Wouldn't you think that if I am truly as terrible as Amerique claims, he would have been able to dig up far more evidence of my alleged misconduct than the above? Keep in mind that Amerique also solicited the help of many other users to come up with more "dirt." Not surprisingly, they only produced the above. Furthermore, I estimate that 2/3 (maybe 3/4) of the alleged "violations" actually occured when I was a BRAND-NEW editor (5 months ago), at which time I was just learning the ropes and figuring out how to deal with abusive editors. In fact, at least 2/3 to 3/4 of the comments I made weren't even directed towards Amerique or ANYONE currently endorsing her side. Please also keep in mind that this article has seen at least 5 vandals and multiple invidiuals who have written far more offensive and accusatory remarks than I could ever come up with. If you considered the above vs. all of the WP violations (especially WP:AGF and WP:NPA), including several in the past month, I would be considered more civil than the average editor of this article.

But don't just take my word for it. For an example of how I sincerely try to discuss issues and I just get attacked left and right, please refer to this most recent example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:University_of_California%2C_Riverside#Abomination_Quote_Revisited Notice how I try to discuss a particular line of the article, I present my arguments and immediately: nobody responds to my arguments, old arguments that have already been addresses by me are rehashed, I am immediately attacked by Danny, WHS refuses to discuss despite a polite inviation, Amerique refuses to discuss despite a polite invitation, and what follows is a slew of personal attacks and arguments that don't even pertain to the sentence I was trying to discuss in the first place! Please read the dialogue. It's what I've been dealing with for 5 months. UCRGrad 03:44, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

To give examples of the WP:NPA, WP:civil, and WP:AGF attacks people have been using, I quickly went through the edit logs for the past 3 weeks (that's it), and looked for the snide remarks made by the very same people who are accusing me of these violations. Please keep in mind that this was just for the past 21 days only! In comparison, Amerique has dug up things I've said over FIVE MONTHS (imagine what these people have said over that same time period). I hope this helps put things into perspective.

Amerique

- Also, regarding accusations of plagarism, there is a word "parody," I think you should look up in a dictionary 19:01, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

- Anyway, it seems if the three of us work together at editing the article like those two do, we can overpower them. I say we turn this drama into an episode of WWF tag team wrestling 15:51, 9 July 2006

Danny Lilithborne

- there is an obvious bias in the language of the article, 22:56, 16 July 2006

- It takes a lot of chutzpah to compliment your own sockpuppet 04:19, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

- I do not believe you're interested in compromise, and I see nothing uncivil in stating the obvious. 05:14, 17 July 2006 (UTC

- Sounds like another attempt to circumvent discussion to me 02:39, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

- I would say it shows bad faith to hold one article to a particular standard and not hold a comparable article to the same standard. There's definitely a reason to suspect bias

- Please don't attempt to distract from the issue at hand, ie. double standards for different articles.

Starkt

- your cherry picking is clearly made in bad faith. Either that, or you have no understanding of commonly understood principles of logical inference and empirical verification.

15:12, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

- There is really nothing to discuss here 09:54, 18 July 2006

Teknosoul02

- I see this article as nothing more than a subtle slam of Riverside ..[it is] very one-sided and paints Riverside in a very ugly light 01:03, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

WHS

- UCRGrad, your response is exactly why one shoudn't call him or herself a reasonable person 22:28, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

24.205.124.171

- This article is completely biased, I've never read anything like it 05:19, 3 July 2006

- I am convinced that "UCRGrad" is a very bitter alumni who had some bad experiences and is taking his/her revenge on a random internet encyclopedia. I'm amazed at how much time they've wasted from their own life, hunting down every negative article they could find about the school, instead of looking for the major articles from more credible sources that the general public actually pays attention to. I hope you didn't just graduate in June, because if you did, there's a good chance you could have done better on your finals, instead... now leading to another reason you have a personal beef with UCR 05:27, 3 July 2006 (UTC

- Give it a rest, honestly. If someone did the disservice for UCR that you've done to every other UC school, they'd all look horrible 01:09, 4 July 2006 (UTC

(to be continued) UCRGrad 01:31, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RESPONSE TO: Evidence of disputed behavior

[edit] RESPONSE TO: Violating WP:OWN

1. UCRGrad appears to be a single purpose account who almost exclusively edits the UCR article, related Talk page, and, more recently, mediation and dispute resolution pages related to that article as documented in his contributions
2. Unilaterally decides to remove merge tag sans discussion with other users less than 13 hours after the merge suggestion was made
3. Insists his POV (ownership) of article is established after he "refutes" objections to his edits (see the edit summary)
4. Attempts to claim ownership of comments on article talk page
5. wikilawyering in support of POV
6. More evidence of ownership of remarks on article talk page
7. More evidence of ownership on AMA advocacy page
8. From User talk:UCRGrad: "As an impartial individual with extensive knowledge of the campus, I can provide a very accurate and representative article - and that is my goal. Any changes to the text should be made with adequate justification, not because "somebody feels like this or that." [39]
9. Reverts virtually every time someone changes his preferred version: [40] [41] [42] [43] [44] [45] [46] [47] [48] [49] [50] [51] [52] [53]

UCRGRAD RESPONSE: Just as a note, I have never ever claimed ownership of this article, nor do I believe that I have such ownership. Of course, none of the links above actually quote me claiming such ownership either. The very issue of a WP:own violation was one of the things considered by the Request for Arbitration, which was filed by Amerique (also filing this RfC against me). All FOUR administrators sided with me and in rejecting Amerique's arguments, stated they they "don't see that this is completely a 'one impossible editor' situation." I'm not sure why Amerique is trying to bring this up again, especially since RfC findings wouldn't override an RfA finding anyway. Finally, I have personally only contributed (or been a significant editor of) about 6 paragraphs to the article: admissions, rankings, recruitment, Thomas Haider, air pollution, and 909. Amerique, on the other hand, has contributed an EQUAL number of paragraphs (the entire history section), which in fact, take up more lines than mine. How can Amerique claim that I "own" the article, when he/she has contributed more than I have? There is clearly no merit to this allegation. UCRGrad 14:49, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RESPONSE TO: Violating WP:CIVIL

1. Refuses to apologise for or acknowledge mistake in reference to gender of other user

UCRGrad Response: Amerique never asked for an apology, so how could I "refuse to apologize?" If he had requested an apology, of course I would have offered one. In fact, Amerique specifically wrote on his user page: "While Amerique is male, he is not at all offended by references to him using the feminine pronoun ["she"]". I had been using "she" for pages and pages before Amerique even brought this up. If Amerique isn't even offended by a mistaken gender reference, why would he expect an apology over something so trivial? ...and why should he use this an example of a WP:civil violation, when there MUST be so many more "bad things" I must have said to be accused of being so "uncivil"...or perhaps not. UCRGrad 16:22, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

1. Makes condenscending remarks to and about new editors

UCRGrad Response: On re-reading what what I wrote, I was unable to find anything that was written "about new editors" (Amerique alleges condescending remarks "about new editors" aboe). My response, however, was directed to an individual who wrote that "This article is completely biased" and based this opinion solely on his anecdotal experience at UCR. I tried to explain that the article contained verifiable facts that were more appropriate than his own anecdotal experience. At a later point, the user began vandalizing the article, made massive deletions, and was blocked at least twice by admins. Given the circumstances, my response could hardly be considered "condescending," and certainly did not qualify as "uncivil." Again, if I have been so uncivil, as Amerique alleges, there must be better examples than this first two so far. UCRGrad 16:51, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

1. Tells a user that "NONE of your suggestions have had any merit" and "perhaps you should give your reasons a little more thought."

UCRGrad Response: On re-reading what I wrote, this was in response to an anonymous user who essentially made tons of suggestions, but based them on his personal opinion that the article was biased or accused me of trying to make UCR look bad (which was never my intention). Thus, his suggestions lacked justification or support (beyond his strenuous opinion), and therefore did not have merit. It was also clear that this user hadn't put much thought or reasoning into his suggestions, which explains my second comment. Again, if I am as uncivil as Amerique alleges, there must be better examples than these.

1. Questions an editor suspicious of the (later proven) sockpuppets of UCRGrad and Insert-Belltower by asking "YOU HAVE THE AUDACITY TO ACCUSE A THIRD PARTY, UNBLOCKTAU, OF IMMATURITY AND LACK OF RESPECT????"

UCRGrad Response: "Unblocktau" was NEVER a sockpuppet of mine, and in fact, an RFCU proved that Unblocktau was NOT a sockpuppet of mine, nor was Insert-Belltower. I think it would be very gracious of Amerique to provide a correction for the above untrue statement (but please don't remove what you initially wrote). UCRGrad 17:23, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

1. Tells an editor with whom he disagrees that "you're being ridiculous"

UCRGrad Response: On re-reading what I wrote, I really do think the user was being somewhat ridiculous. Essentially, he disputed usage of the term "decreasing trend" (referring to a decrease in UCR's enrollment for 3 consecutive years) because "it's a subjective term ...and there is no citation of someone categorizing the decline as a trend," somehow not understanding numbers decreasing each year for 3 years in a row was a "decreasing trend," and that I didn't need to cite a statistician to prove this. SoCalAlum, a neutral third party (who rarely posts on this article) even had to jump in and quote the dictionary to this user. Given the circumstances, I believe that my response was warranted...but again, where are the truly uncivil remarks I supposedly made? UCRGrad 17:47, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

1. Files a WP:AN/3RR report against 66.214.118.69 (talk • contribs • logs), even though he reverted exactly three times. (The IP does have a history of 3RR blocks, and was also blocked for blanking his user talk page): [54] (rejected: [55])

In retrospect, this anonymous user actually did commit a 3RR violation - I just forgot to fill out the 4th revert on the 3RR reporting page, and my request was specificaly denied because of this. However, what is so WP:uncivil about reporting a 3RR violation in good faith on a user who had repeatedly vandalized the page, been warned my multiple users and admins, been blocked at least twice for vandalism, and had committed several 3RR violations in the past? UCRGrad 18:10, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

1. Known confrimed sockpuppet 909er Vandalised user page of Szyslak. UCRGrad (As 909er) said "I thought it was you my bad". Showed no remorse over the vandalism. [56]

I'm not sure how this was vandalism. The message wasn't particularly offensive, and was probably written tongue-in-cheek. It was a case of mistaken identity. I think part of being civil actually involves forgiving simple mistakes of others. I also believe that "my bad" is a colloquial apology, if I'm not mistaken. UCRGrad 18:10, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

1. Uncivil edit summaries: [57] (as 909er), [58], [59], [60], [61], [62],

Edit summaries are brief, 1-2 sentence explanations of what changes were made. Since I started editing this article many months ago, we've had at least 5 vandals and countless users attempting to revert/change content that was inconsistent with TALK discussions. In almost all cases, an impolite edit summary left by me was in direct response to a "hostile edit" made by another user, usually with his/her own impolite edit summary. Given that I have made roughly 1,000 edits on Wikipedia, I don't see what the fuss is about if there are 6 (0.6%) that aren't very nice...this hardly establishes a pattern of uncivil behavior by any measure. UCRGrad 18:58, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

1. Files a WP:AN/3RR report against WHS even though no violation occured. [63]

The admin was not convinced that the 1st diff was a revert, however, he did give a warning to WHS regardless. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:WHS Regardles, I'm not sure it's uncivil to report a 3RR in violation that results in a user being warned by an admin. UCRGrad 19:05, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

1. Blocked for violation of WP:3RR

I was a new editor (less than a month old), and I wasn't aware of this rule. I have not violated 3RR since then, although countless others on Amerique's side have. UCRGrad 19:05, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

1. Uncivil behavior towards an Admin, stating "I understand that it must feel satisfying and rewarding when you think you've "caught" what MUST be a "typical sockpuppeteer," and yeah it probably seems like it first glance, but did it ever occur to you that you might be incorrect???"

I should have a right to defend myself against actions that I think are unfair, don't I? I agree that the quote above wasn't very "nice," but it's hardly can be considered "uncivil." UCRGrad 19:19, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

1. Says "Quit pussyfooting around and respond to my counterargument"

Despite the fact that this particular individual really didn't respond to my counterarguments, despite repeated reminders, I probably shouldn't have written that. This was from March (several months ago), though, and I was a new editor at the time. I didn't know how to handle users who were being abusive towards me. UCRGrad 19:19, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

1. Says "However, in the off-chance that you are indeed psychic and a mind-reader, you might consider working for the Psychic Friends Network. Otherwise, please keep your baseless inferences to yourself."

This is one of the first interactions I had on Wikipedia (several months ago), from an editor who made all sorts of accusations about my intentions, and I didn't know at the time that he was violating WP:AGF. I know better now than to respond in such a way, and you will NOT find any comments of the sort from the past month or two - this is probably why Amerique has dug up quotes from so long ago. UCRGrad 19:19, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

1. Says "I therefore question your literary ability and consequently, your aptitude to contribute at all to this article."

Well, the user was pretending not to know the definition of the word "violent," and was definitely writing in such an aggressive and attacking manner that I responded in similar fashion. I've learned since then (this was from March, many months ago), that it is best to remain calm when addressing abusive editors. UCRGrad 19:19, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

1. Says "You clearly have nothing to contribute here."

This user actually did not have anything to contribute - just spent pages accusing me of this and that. There wasn't anything really untrue about my statement. UCRGrad 19:19, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Violating WP:NPA

1. Accused another editor, an admitted UCR alumnus, of possessing "a) obvious inherent bias, b) obvious self-interest to promote the campus, and c) immature behavior thus far with edits here" and questioning if said editor should be allowed to edit the UCR article
2. Told an editor who was raising an oft-raised issue that "ANYONE CAN SIT BACK AND CRITICIZE. WHY DON'T YOU TRY TO MAKE SUGGESTIONS TO HELP THE ARTICLE, RATHER THAN DEMEAN THE PEOPLE WHO ACTUALLY MAKE CONTRIBUTIONS"

[edit] Violating WP:NLT

1. Regarding check user performed on him, states "I also do not give consent to have my location or other details related to my IP address reported publicly. If there is any kind of breech of my privacy, and I suffer damages as a result, I would expect compensation from parties involved."

[edit] Violating WP:AGF

1. Considers cooperation among other editors evidence of a "a pattern of conspiracy to vote and push for sanctions against I-B and/or myself"
2. Accused a new editor of being a sockpuppet with no evidence
3. While dismissing another editor's objections, notes that the IP address of the anonymous editor is in the IP range allocated to UCR, suggesting bad faith
4. Again notes that the IP address of the anonymous editor is in the IP range allocated to UCR, suggesting bad faith
5. Accuses another editor of harassment when the user correctly files a Request for User Check and requests a Check User for many other editors in the article with no basis for suspicion
6. Suggests that four editors are sockpuppets or meatpuppets by stating that "the same four people have conveniently written supportive statements within the same brief time window"
7. Accuses Danny Lilithborne (talk • contribs • logs) of "independently asking an admin to make a unilateral decision," thus violating mediation policy, when administrator Samir (The Scope) (talk • contribs • logs) removes a passage supported by UCRG: [64] (Samir's response: [65]). (There was no mediation in progress, and Samir's removal of the passage was not an administrative action.)
8. Ad Hominem fallacy against other editors when he says "Most recently, there have been complaints from Amerique, Teknosoul, WHS, and szyslak. What is particularly frustrating is that NONE of these editors are UCR graduates, UCR students, or seem to have any affiliation with the university." Compare this quote with the one above, in which he accuses other editors of holding a pro-UCR bias because they are affiliated with the university.
9. Refers to good faith edits as vandalism [66], wikilawyers the definition [67]
10. Accuses editors of having a pre-bias.

[edit] RESPONSE TO: Joint Meat/Sockpuppet Activities Influencing POV Issues

1. Talk:University of California, Riverside#UCR Survey Identical opinions registered on extensive survey of contentious areas of UCR article.
2. Talk:University of California, Riverside/Archive_6#Classroom size Identical opinions expressed regarding reference to Biomedical program facilities.
3. Talk:University of California, Riverside/Archive_6#Fat_Girl UCRGrad defends IB's controversial photo upload.
4. Talk:University of California, Riverside/Archive_6#Photo of Sorority Girl Both editors override objections to photo upload.
5. Talk:University of California, Riverside/Archive_6#Mediation Both editors respectively reject call for inter-party mediation.
6. Talk:University of California, Riverside/Archive_4#And now for something completely different Both editors introduce their respective sockpuppets to the article talk page. UCRGrad:909er; Insert-Belltower:HisBundleAblation. This is also the first concrete evidence that both editors are operating in a concerted manner.
7. Talk:University of California, Riverside/Archive_1#Insert-Belltower IB's second post to the UCR talk page, a defense of the allegation that he is a sockpuppet of UCRGrad.

UCRGrad's Response: The list is actually longer than the above. Unfortunately for Amerique et al, Insert-Belltower and I are completely different individuals. An RFCU has already confirmed this, and usually there is no dispute once this verification occurs. I'm having a difficult time understanding why Amerique continues to insist that we are sockpuppets, especially in an RfC, since an RfC does not override an RFCU on this matter. If everyone stipulates that they will cease to accuse me of being the same person as Insert-Belltower, I would be happy to insist on another RFCU to verify this - otherwise, there really is no point. I have the right to agree with Insert-Belltower's positions, and vice-versa, as long as valid arguments are provided. If I don't agree with him, or I don't have a good argument in support, you'll find that I just don't respond to his particular thread in the article TALK page. Clearly, agreeing alone, does not make you a meatpuppet - because if it did, everybody in Amerique's camp (including WHS, ElKevbo, szyslak, etc.) would be his meatpuppets for sure! In fact, a quick click on their talk pages will reveal that Amerique has "coached" all of them on when to appear, on which discussion, and everything short of telling them WHAT to write. There really is no merit to this accusation. UCRGrad 18:32, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RESPONSE TO: UCRGrad's meatpuppet activities in support of Insert-Belltower

1. [68] Supports IB's defense of controversial content.
2. [69] Complements IB for selecting controversial content.
3. [70] Supports IB's defense of controversial content.
4. [71] UCRGrad in support of UnblockingTau, one of IB's sockpuppets.
5. Talk:University of California, Riverside/Archive_5#Szyslak's recent edits UCRGrad's confirmed sockpuppet 909er responds to accusations of sockpuppetry.

[edit] Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute

(provide diffs and links)

1. Talk:University of California, Riverside consists of eight archives as of July 19, 2006. As evidenced by Archive 1, the talk page was fairly quiet until UCRGrad arrived. Most of the overwhelming reams of discussion are aimed at resolving NPOV disputes concerning UCRG and I-B's preferred version.
2. User_talk:Aeon1006/AMA is an attempt by an Advocate to mediate the disputes; it was abandoned in favor of this and another User Conduct RFC against Insert-Belltower as the issues were too complicated and the progress non-existent due to stonewalling and lack of cooperation from UCRGrad and Insert-Belltower
3. This is an example of the stonewalling that occured in the advocacy attempt as UCRGrad continued to dwell on a minor point long after nearly every other party in the discussion, including the advocate and neutral third parties, had all reached the same conclusion and were ready to move on.
4. An RfArb was filed this year; although it failed it is significant evidence of dispute resolution and the severity of the dispute as 7 different editors were involved
5. Mediation was proposed but was immediately dismissed by UCRGrad
6. 2 months later, mediation was again proposed (by a different editor) and immediately dismissed by UCRGrad
7. An RFC was proposed and filed and drew immediate criticism and ridicule from UCRGrad who characterized it as a "crutch" and stated that filing an RFC was "request[ing] 3rd-party intervention and cross[ing] [your] fingers that they will side with you."
8. A straw poll was created on the UCR Talk page, posted on WP:POLLS, and also posted to the other University of California article Talk pages. UCRGrad participated in the poll but after it was clear that most of editors participating in the poll were posting opinions contrary to his own UCRGrad announced that the poll data is "inadmissable" as it was not scientifically created and administered. Contrast this with his defense of the StudentReviews.com website and its data (particularly the inclusion of a quote from one supposed-UCR student labeling the institution "an abomination to higher education"), a website that clearly suffers from many of the same problems (low response rate, self-selected sample, etc.) as the "inadmissable" straw poll

Users who endorse this summary:

[edit] 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.

Since I've had no previous involvement with either the article, or the editor, I have carefully reviewed this RfC, the UCR article, its Talkpage, and the Talkpages of several (but not all) of the editors involved. In my comments I will attempt to seperate "Statements of Fact" from "Statements of Opinion (mine)".

• Statements of Fact

1. WP:OWN - While UCRGrad has never "claimed" ownership in a public statement the history of reverts as well as comments and edit summaries clearly indicate an attempt at ownership, as does the fact that UCRGrad is a single purpose account. A careful review of his contributions history indicates that the account has never made an edit which was not related to UCR.
2. WP:AGF - Some of these comments were so minor that they would normally be overlooked in the course of a dispute where tempers get frayed. Taken in toto however, they indicate an unwillingness to comply with basic WP policies and guidelines.
3. WP:CIV - As per WP:AGF above.
4. WP:NPA - As per WP:AGF above.
5. WP:SOCK - the permablock of this account is clear and compelling evidence of sockpuppetry. UCRGrad's demand for a retraction and apology are...inappropriate.
6. WP:NLT - The posted link provides clear evidence of UCRGrad violating core policy.

Taken individually, none of these items (except the WP:NLT) would normally rate more than a warning and (possibly) a brief block to let the situation cool down. Again though, the extensive history of contentious editing, and an unwillingness to work with other editors in a constructive manner is quite troubling, as is the editor's refusal to participate in Mediation. This RfC should probably be viewed as a final attempt to correct unacceptable behaviour before more extreme actions are taken. --Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 20:22, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 20:22, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
2. Aeon ^{Insane Ward} 20:49, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
3. ElKevbo 20:53, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
4. Danny Lilithborne 22:03, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
5. szyslak (t, c, e) 10:00, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
6. Amerique Although the sockpuppet allegations were proven some time ago, I still think UCRGrad and Insert-Belltower's sustained pattern of partisan support for the other's controversial editing practices, both before and after the user check established they were posting from seperate IP addresses, shows that this "sockpuppetry" dynamic is still an ongoing problem under the more qualified term "meatpuppetry." I respectfully request further comments as to the appropriateness or inappropriateness of any activities on Insert-Belltower or UCRGrad's part that would seem to qualify as "meatpuppetry."--Amerique 15:07, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
7. WHS 23:44, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
8. starkt 16:54, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

• Statement of Opinion

At some point it becomes foolish for the WP community to continue assuming good faith, especially in the face of ongoing tenditious editing and multiple refusals to follow policies, guidelines, and indeed, to cooperate or act constructively in any significant way. While UCRGrad clearly has the intelligence and education to be a very valuable contributor, I find no evidence that he actually intends to do so. His ongoing attempts to maintain the supremacy of his POV, wikilawyering, bad faith edits and total refusal to work with a valid consensus are simply not acceptable to the community at large. At this point, a failure to reform and act in compliance with our standards will almost certainly result in sanctions against this editor. --Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 20:22, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 20:22, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
2. Aeon ^{Insane Ward} 20:48, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
3. ElKevbo 20:53, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
4. Danny Lilithborne 22:03, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
5. szyslak (t, c, e) 10:00, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
6. Amerique
7. WHS 23:44, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
8. starkt 16:54, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Outside view 2

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.

In the interests of building and strengthening the wikipedia community I'd like to offer the following additional comment:

UCRGrad has clearly demonstrated the potential to become a respected member of the community and a valuable contributor to WP. This will require little more than "branching out" into other areas of the encyclopedia and focusing on positive interactions. Call me Pollyanna, but the potential is there. --Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 19:52, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 19:52, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
2. Aeon ^{Insane Ward} 19:59, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
3. szyslak (t, c, e) 08:03, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
4. WHS 23:44, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
5. Danny Lilithborne 01:14, 26 July 2006 (UTC) It's patently obvious to me; I mean, he's a smart guy.
6. Torinir _{( Ding my phone My support calls E-Support Options )} 20:47, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
7. starkt 16:54, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 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.