User talk:Amerique/UCRGradRFARB

Involved parties

 * (filer of case)
 * (filer of case)
 * (filer of case)
 * (filer of case)
 * (filer of case)

List of Dispute Resolution Avenues NOT attempted
Avoidance - NOT DONE (In most cases, editors made blanket reverts or edits without any justification!)

Talk to the other parties involved - NOT DONE I have always had an open dialogue with Amerique and ALL other editors of this article!!!

Informal mediation - NOT DONE

Wikipedia:third Opinion - NOT DONE

WP:Requests for comment - NOT DONE

WP:Straw polls - NOT DONE

Mediation - rejected by one party.

Requesting an Advocate - NOT DONE UCRGrad 00:23, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

This request for arbitration concerns the behavior of, who primarily posts to the article. UCRGrad’s conduct with respect to other users and with respect to the article has been considered in violation of Wikipedia principles Assume Good Faith, WP: Civility, WP: No Personal Attacks, WP:POINT, WP: No Legal Threats, and WP:OWN. UCRGrad began posting to the article on 18:46,19 February 2006 and was blocked (for 3 hours) by William M. Connolley 11:58, 18 April 2006 (UTC) for violating the 3 revert rule. Later, on May 1, 2006 Mackensen indefinitely blocked UCRGrad from using confirmed sockpuppet 909er. These attempts and others to resolve disputes with UCRGrad’s posts to the article and to its talk page have failed to resolve ongoing disputes concerning both the neutrality of the article and UCRGrad’s behavior with respect to other editors. UCRGrad has refused to consider RfC or other forms of mediation leaving this editor no choice but to submit this RfA in the interest of all still concerned with the quality of the article.


 * Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
 * UCRGrad
 * Tifego
 * szyslak
 * ElKevbo
 * Jahamal
 * WHS


 * Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried
 * 1) suggestion from Szyslak to "please consider changing the way you work with others here at Wikipedia."
 * 2) *UCRGrad: Continued confrontational attitude:
 * 3) suggestion from Tifego to "please stop violating WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL ... It is not necessary or helpful" (about this edit)
 * 4) *UCRGrad: Refusal to acknowledge: "There is no violation of WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL at all."

Wikipedia dispute resolution procedures
Avoidance
 * 3RR Violation
 * Personal attacks
 * "4) I'm sorry, but I think you're way out of touch with reality here. UCRGrad 17:13, 27 March 2006 (UTC)UCRGrad"
 * "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.64.54.92.76 19:03, 27 March 2006 (UTC)UCRGrad"
 * "I therefore question your literary ability and consequently, your aptitude to contribute at all to this article. 64.54.91.177UCRGrad"
 * "Quit whining. 64.54.91.177UCRGrad"
 * "There you go again with your psychic mind reading. 64.54.92.76 19:03, 27 March 2006 (UTC)UCRGrad"
 * "You clearly have nothing to contribute here. 64.54.92.76 19:03, 27 March 2006 (UTC)UCRGrad"
 * "Quit pussyfooting around and respond to my counterargument. UCRGrad 03:52, 27 April 2006 (UTC)"


 * WP:AGF Violation

First step: talk to the other parties involved Discuss with third parties
 * Ignoring problems brought up by other parties
 * Failure to acknowledge problems after talk:
 * 1) UCRGrad:"...In particular, numerous people (most recently ElKevbo) have attempted to express why they "feel" that the article is biased, but in the end, none of their arguments really pass basic scrutiny or merit -- this is because there really is no bias, there is only their "opinion" and "gut impression" due to their own personal biases..." UCRGrad 23:04, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) UCRGrad: "With regard to the lack of a football team, I am appalled that you and another individual do not appreciate how critical it is to mention this. Perhaps you are not in tune with college sports, or you attended an undergraduate institution that did not have a football team."
 * "I've been asked to come back and clarify my third opinion. As DtEW says, the burden of proof lies with the editor that wants the edits to stand. UCRGrad has provided sources for some of their assertations, but not for others - for instance, the nickname, 'University of California, Rejects', undoubtedly exists, but those sources do not show that it is because of the admission critera - this is speculation or original research at best. On a related note, be careful that sources show what you are claiming that they do - the MDapplicants.com one doesn't say anything about the relative merits of the university; you need to do a certain amount of research to figure that out, so it's unacceptable (or at least, that page of it is). --Scott Wilson 13:17, 29 March 2006 (UTC)"
 * "Insert-Belltower, please do not revert to the version with the disputed assertions. The burden of proof is on the editor who wishes the edits to stand, and more evidence is still needed. --Scott Wilson 14:07, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Conduct a survey
 * The same goes for you, too UCRGrad - reverting it umpteen different times won't make them any more acceptable to WP:V. You made no attempt to discuss my comments, as well as many of DtEW's before reverting. --Scott Wilson 14:15, 29 March 2006 (UTC)"
 * 1) (Evidence of attempts at Third Party Intervention) David Gerard: "I had a look too and spotted the sockpuppet without prompting from Mackensen. Your pattern is obvious. You appear to have mistaken Wikipedia's tremendous tolerance for stupidity. Please don't assume that if it would fool you it must fool everyone else" - David Gerard 17:21, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) *(Evidence of failure of attempt at Third Party Intervention) UCRGrad: "I don't fricking believe this. And what kind of pattern might this be? Two users who obviously know each other using the same computers back to back? UCRGrad 17:31, 1 May 2006 (UTC) And did you check as far back as the day 909er initially registered (right after my 3-hour "ban")? 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??? What type of evidence would it take to prove my case to you?" UCRGrad 17:40, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
 * The following statement suggests UCRGrad's attitude towards surveys:
 * UCRGrad: "The majority opinion is not necessarily the correct one. For instance, in 19th century America, it was majority opinion that Blacks should be slaves. It was only through careful deliberation by justices of the Supreme Court that the CORRECT opinion (that Blacks should NOT be slaves) was enforced over the MAJORITY opinion. Naturally, if 10 freshmen from the A-I dorm decide to "vote" here, you're going to see a natural skewing here." UCRGrad 22:14, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Informal Mediation / Mediation
 * "Yo, man. "If you disagree, I invite you to bring this matter up in arbitration or mediation" is a useless response that sidesteps your obligation to justify your statements. I mean, dude, you're basically saying that Alternet is NOT a reliable source per WP:RS, yet the WP:RS page doesn't specifically have any restrictions against Alternet, yo. On the other hand, I'm going to cite WP:RS as NOT specifically mentioning anything that would absolutely make Alternet an inappropriate source. You get a revert, UNLESS you can back it up. Eat it. 909er 02:16, 29 April 2006 (UTC)"
 * 1) (Evidence of attempts to request Mediation, including Request for Comment) ElKevbo: "It's clear there are several disagreements which are not being resolved to anyone's satisfaction. I recommend we call a truce, cease editing the article for a bit, and look into one of the mediation options such as an Request for Comment. What say ye?" --ElKevbo 02:26, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) *Evidence of failure of attempt 2) UCRGrad: "I do not agree to mediation, and here's why..." UCRGrad 02:56, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I would like the ARBCOM to note. Most all of these comments are several months old. Insert-Belltower 20:26, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Statement by Amerique

 * I began posting to the University of California, Riverside article in an attempt to mediate between UCRGrad and others involved in long term disputes concerning its quality. I thought I could possibly get parties involved on the same page by promoting a collective initiative to edit the article to featured status. However, this initiative has failed in that UCRGrad has continued to exhibit the same interpersonal behavior and attitude toward the article which has lead to its talk page filling over 6 archives of protests, complaints, and dedicated informal interventions largely against his activities there. UCRGrad's insertions of negative information about UCR, when appropriately referenced, are to this editor not the problem so much as his absolute insistence on phrasing this and otherwise neutral information as a means of casting the worst possible impression of the university. On the article's talk page, he continually makes speculative assertions attacking the personal expertise and qualifications of others to edit even minor points of the article, belittles editors he disagrees with as "confused"  and makes a rhetorical show of "agreeing" with the suggestions of some editors towards improving the article in order to justify including some items only of importance to his personal agenda. Several editors have ceased working on the article due to UCRGrad's conduct both on the talk page and in the article, and other than some contributions I made to attempt to propel collective development, there has been little progress in the article other than in lateral directions. It seems to some editors, including myself now, that attempts to impartially improve the article further would either be met with outright hostility or else be incorporated as a means of justifying or allowing for UCRGrad's particular point of view of the subject, which in effect becomes rendered as the point of view of Wikipedia. As the likelihood of this situation changing soon without a formal arbitration hearing seems minimal, I hereby request the intervention of the arbitration committee towards resolving this ongoing conflict.--Amerique 15:51, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Response to Morven's Comments

 * Regarding Morven's observation that this is not a "one impossible editor" situation, that editors on all sides have been contentious, I would like to point out that while this is clearly true, still the malfesance has been primarily been directed against the activities of two editors, apparantly working in conjunction, the second of whom has involved himself in this RFARB in defense of UCRGrad. A review of the UCR talk page archives will substantiate that these two editors started posting at approximately the same time, have never once disagreed with each other, and have both used abusive sockpuppets against other editors contributing to the article. Several attempts at informal dispute resolution have been made by third parties or newcomers to the case, most notably sustained by Aucaman here before dialogue between all degenerated into contention. From my position as the filer of this RFARB, the Arbitration Committee must take a firm stand against behavior that instigates this sort of long-term, severe contention between editors. Thank you--Amerique 17:41, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Statement by ElKevbo

 * Definitely proving that UCRGrad has blatantly violated Wikipedia policies may be difficult. However, I believe through his or her edits to the UCR article (the only article that he or she edits) have established a pattern of POV-pushing, article ownership, and uncivility (including several ad hominem attacks).  I attempted over the course of several weeks to make good-faith edits to the UCR page and reach consensus with UCRGrad and another editor who exclusively edits that article but my edits were almost uniformly rejected.  Attempts to reach compromise were also fruitless as he or she rejected all of my arguments and unilaterally edited the page to reflect his or her views.  I also asked if it would be appropriate to use the RFC process to deal with these issues but my query was never answered.  I regularly edit several highly contentious and high traffic articles, including many universities and schools, and this is the only article I have removed from my watchlist out of frustration as UCRGrad was completely unwilling to reach consensus (as documented above, he or she even rejected my plea for some form of voluntary mediation, thus rendering nearly all of the options listed by UCR as "Dispute Resolution Avenues NOT attempted" moot).  In my interactions with this user I have found him or her to be unwilling to live up to the Wikipedia community's standards of compromise and collegiality.  This has resulted in a very POV article about the University of California, Riverside.  I think UCR and the Wikipedia community deserve better.  --ElKevbo 14:17, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Statement by WHS

 * After following the progress of both the UCR article and its talk page over the course of the past few months, it appears to me that UCRGrad has continued to violate numerous Wikipedia policies, as referenced by the two above statements. Due to his or her actions, the quality of the article has dropped significantly and many editors have ceased work on it out of frustration. I myself have been reluctant for some time to make any contributions to it since I, after seeing the confrontational attitude displayed by UCRGrad throughout the article's archives, have become convinced that any change which he or she doesn't agree with would just be reverted in any case. Indeed, even tags on the page which indicated that the topic is a heated source of debate or that there is a POVdispute have been removed, presumably to give the reader of the article the impression that edits made by UCRGrad were the consensus of all the editors working on the article. This sort of alienating behavior serves only to the detriment of Wikipedia and its community and should not be allowed to continue. It seems unlikely to me that these transgressions will cease without any formal intervention, and I am therefore concuring with the request for arbitration on this matter. WHS 23:42, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Statement by calwatch
I agree with the above. Calwatch 02:28, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Statement by Insert-Belltower
I have been editing the UC Riverside article for sometime now and I wish to make a few brief comments on this action take by the above members.

I do NOT think UCRGrad’s actions, comments, or discourse on Wikipedia warrant a Request for Arbitration.

The above comments by Amerique, ElKevbo and WHS, which are intended to indict UCRGrad, present a very slanted view on the situation. More simply, they selectively pick out comments from the discussion and spin them to fit their own intrepretations. One particularly troubling misrepresentation is when ElKevbo says that UCRGrad is “completely unwilling to reach consensus,” a statement that is totally inaccurate based upon the discussion in TALK there has been numerous times when UCRGrad has agreed with other editors 1. In comparison, ElKevbo’s own remarks have been the most profane and confrontational written to date on the TALK, with one such example 2. I would suggest that member look at how his/her own actions are contributing to a lack of consensus, rather than baselessly accusing a single member (UCRGrad) whose only “mistake” is being a careful and thorough editor. Interestingly, Amerique makes the remark that he/she’s intention is to “get parties involved on the same page by promoting a collective initiative to edit the article,” which, after some thought, I think to mean “form a consensus.” Although when he/she didn’t agree with a particular edit, Amerique labels the other editors as “clowns” 3—a remark I find extremely reprehensible and inconsistent with someone who is attempting to promote a “collective initiative.” Another comment by WHS, “tags on the page…that there is a POV dispute have been removed,” is also completely inaccurate because the NPOV tag dispute has been previously discussed with UCRGrad, as well as other editors, and it was agreed upon to be removed. WHS would have not made this comment upon a more thorough investigation of the achives.

After reviewing UCRGrad’s remarks for several months now, I can agree that he/she has unique writing style that is “to-the-point.” This reflects a true commitment for the truth, and a desire to edit articles in an efficient and precise manner. His/her actions and comments do not suggest anything more than this. Indeed, I have NEVER felt intimated or threatened by these his/her comments whenever we disagreed on any issue related to the article.

In light of these observations, including the misrepresentations of the aforementioned USERS, I strongly do NOT support a request for arbitration because it lacks no substantial basis and it would be a waste of time for all members involved. Insert-Belltower 02:57, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Statement by Jahamal

 * In my days before deciding to edit on wikipedia, I was browsing through articles, when I came across the UCR article. I noticed the tag that said it was a hotly disputed, so I checked out the talk page. After about an hour of reading I decided to get involved in the discussion, but before that I read up on all of the archives of past discussions. I came to the conclusion that any edit made at that time would stand the chance of being lost due to a number of editors tendency to revert the entire article. So instead I decided to make myself heard in the discussion. Well, that wasn't a plesent experience. Shortly after I joined, UCRGrad posted a response that basically chastized me for not reading the arguements that had already taken place. He then went on to say he would not repeat his arguement and he had already answered my conceren. Well, I did not feel that he had answered my concern at all, in fact he totally ignored all of the points I tried to make. So I posted back and he again replied in the same manner, claiming victory on all points involved, but yet never answering any point of mine. Well, every post I made was met with equal resitance and/or flat out ignored. I became discouraged and dropped the arguement because it was a waste of time. So when mediation was brought up, I thought that would be a good idea. So I tried to champion that idea. I was met with much of the same resistance as before, UCRGrad ignoring points, and claiming that the arguement had already been resolved. After a long "discussion" with him/her, the only reason I could find against getting mediation from UCRGrad was that he/she did not want to have to reargue all of the arguements, and mor ework on his/her part was unfair. Since then I really have not done much, not having seen the point. I sinery feel something needs to be done to break the giant stalemate on the article, anything. The article just needs to get moving again in any direction. --jahamal 17:21 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Clerk notes

 * (This area is used for notes by non-recused clerks.)

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/4/0/0)

 * Reject for now. I don't see sufficient evidence that this needs to be taken to arbitration, nor do I see much attempt to resolve things in any other way.  Furthermore, 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, so I don't think any contention between the editors has damaged the encyclopedia.  Being difficult to work with is not sufficient to be brought to arbitration, IMO.  Besides, a quick read of the talk pages and article history shows that a number of editors on all sides have been stubborn, hard to work with and contentious; I don't see that this is completely a 'one impossible editor' situation.  I would enjoin all parties to work better at assuming some good faith and attempting to write an accurate and neutral article.  However, UCRGrad should consider himself warned to never attempt sockpuppetry again; if he does so, then he may indeed find himself on the censured side of an arbcom case. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 19:21, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Reject, UCRGrad presents a signifcant point of view. Fred Bauder 20:42, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Reject. - SimonP 18:24, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Reject, per Morven. Needs more prior dispute resolution; I recommend a RFC. Dmcdevit·t 05:18, 26 June 2006 (UTC)