User talk:UCRGrad: Difference between revisions

Dear UCRGrad: Welcome to Wikipedia, a free and open-content encyclopedia. I hope you enjoy contributing. To help get you settled in, I thought you might find the following pages useful:

• Five Pillars of Wikipedia
• Community Portal
• Frequently Asked Questions
• How to edit a page
• How to revert to a previous version of a page
• Tutorial
• Copyrights
• Shortcuts

Don't worry too much about being perfect. Very few of us are! Just in case you are not perfect, click here to see how you can avoid making common mistakes.

If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the Wikipedia Boot Camp, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.

Wikipedians try to follow a strict policy of never biting new users. If you are unsure of how to do something, you are welcome to ask a more experienced user such as an administrator. One last bit of advice: please sign any dicussion comment with four tildes (~~~~). The software will automatically convert this into your signature which can be altered in the "Preferences" tab at the top of the screen. I hope I have not overwhelmed you with information. If you need any help just let me know. Once again welcome to Wikipedia, and don't forget to tell us about yourself and be BOLD! Kukini 06:26, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Because you and User:TheRegicider have both violated the Wikipedia:Three-revert rule, I have made a report on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR. You will likely be blocked by an administrator. Please refrain from edit warring in the future. Thank you. szyslak (t, c, e) 08:43, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future. The duration of the block is 3 hours. The block will be extended if you return to extensive reverting William M. Connolley 11:58, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi UCRGrad. I think it's awesome that you're adding your perspective to the UCR article. It's obvious that you weren't happy with your experience there, and that's cool. Just like any university, it's not for everyone. However, as a longtime Wikipedia editor, I think you should consider taking a different approach. For one thing, you've been making some personal attacks against other editors. Per WP:NPA, personal attacks are not permitted on Wikipedia. When you make rude, incivil comments, it poisons the working atmosphere and makes people less likely to want to work with you. Nobody wants to listen to suggestions from people who are shouting at them and unwilling to accept other alternatives. So please consider changing the way you work with others here at Wikipedia. Thanks, and happy editing! szyslak (t, c, e) 04:20, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have blocked your sockpuppet indefinitely. I'm not going to block your main account at this time but please consider this a stern warning. Best, Mackensen (talk) 00:29, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove the notice from your user page. Thanks, Mackensen (talk) 00:41, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ATTENTION MACKENSEN: I am outraged that I have been accused of having a sockpuppet. Your RFC procedure is FLAWED - because it does not rule out the possibility that two distinct people may be using the same network and/or sets of computers. I will admit that I know who 909er is (though I should not have to reveal this), and that there may have been some collaboration on a few posts. If there are some shared elements of style (such as bolding), that is because I may have directed it. However, my understanding is that this type of activity is not necessarily prohibited. It certainly does not warrant having a "sockpuppet" label on my talk page because this does not strictly meet the definition of a sockpuppet. I hereby request that this sockpuppet business be removed. UCRGrad 01:28, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Save it. Obviously you know this person, since you both edit from the same cable modem within an hour of each other. Repeatedly. If you stop denying the obvious I'm prepared to let this go. Further disruption can only lead to a block. Mackensen (talk) 01:40, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ATTENTION MACKENSEN: So, if a friend of mine, who happens to share my opinion on the state of this article, decides that he wants to make his own vocal contribution, I don't see what the problem is. Obviously, I'm not going to let him use MY account. So "909er" made some abrasive comments here and there. I can't control what he writes, nor should I be held responsible solely because he happens to be using MY computers, even if I happened to be sitting 2 feet away. I bet if you carefully go through your IP logs again to look for dissimilarities (rather than similarities) in access patterns, you'll find that what I'm saying is the case. There is no sockpuppet business here. I expect the sockpuppet label to be removed. Furthermore, I would like 909er's account to be reinstated, provided your only reason for locking it was suspected sockpuppetry. I have many colleagues who are far more knowledgable about UC Riverside than Tifego and "the others" - in the future, when I ask them to contribute, I will make sure they are using a distinct computer network, so we don't have to go through this crap again. Thank you. UCRGrad 16:22, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've heard this before and have no reason to believe it. Even if you are telling the truth, so-called "meatpuppetry" is highly frowned upon and treated the same way. Whether you did it yourself or had someone do it for you matters not. I'm restoring the sock label. If you remove it again I will block you for disruption. Mackensen (talk) 16:54, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You've "heard this before," therefore *I* am lying? That doesn't make any sense. Secondly, I didn't hold a gun to this individual's head and demand that he type his response. If you find what he wrote objectionable, then HE should be sanctioned, NOT ME. Technically, I would be hard-pressed to even call this "meatpuppetry," but it is absolutely 100% not sockpuppetry, and I believe that it is unfair to label it as such. Did you even re-check the IP logs???? I am asking you to reconsider. I would also like to request that an independent 3rd-party administrator review this case and independently review the IP logs as well. Again, thank you. UCRGrad 17:03, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, I've heard this from one sockpuppeteer after another. It's always their roommate, or the fellow across the hall, or their children, etc. I have re-checked the IP logs and I find them conclusive. I'll ask another administrator to review my findings as a matter of courtesy. Mackensen (talk) 17:12, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

4.) It's your pejorative. But I still feel as though you have some axe to grind. (E.g. "Additionally, only 5% of UCR alumni donate back to their alma mater, the lowest alumni giving rate of any national university.") Honestly, answer me this, why were you unhappy at Riverside? Did you really feel that Riverside was worthless? Or are you just some USC/UCLA/Berkeley troll trying to sully Riverside?

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Teknosoul02 (talk • contribs)

Whether he has an axe to grind or not, some of the behavior of UCRGrad here is hard to classify as anything but trolling (although he's not the only one doing this). But, might I suggest you move things that pertain only to him (like #4) to his talk page, so it doesn't interrupt talk about the article overly much? –Tifego^(t) _{00:15, 3 May 2006 (UTC)}[reply]

I have neither stated nor implied that I a) was unhappy at Riverside or b) felt that Riverside was worthless. I do not appreciate being asked if I am a USC/UCLA/Berkeley troll. Ironically, your line of responses and questioning are characteristic of trolling yourself. Good thing we have that troll warning up at the top of this page.

UCRGrad 00:24, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mean to get personal (even if it sounds this way). But if you weren't unhappy, why is there's too much emphasis on the negative aspects of UC Riverside (e.g., bringing up the stats that students are very unhappy according to Princeton Review)? Again, there are so many schools out there that are arguably so much worse than Riverside. And even top schools like UCLA have their share of problems (UCLA also has "too many teaching assistants teach upper class courses according to Princeton Review).

Well, I'd disagree with your assertion that there's "too much emphasis on the negative aspects of UC Riverside." I think it is an accurate and fair portrayal. It is objective, and it is appropriately referenced. The statistics are what they are. UCRGrad 01:20, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"According to 2003-05 data published by the UC Office of the President (Merced excluded) [citation needed], UCR had the highest percentage of low socioeconomic status (SES) students compared to other UC's. Low SES was defined as family income below $30,000 per year and first generation college. Based on Academic Performance Index data, the freshman classes at UCR are composed of the highest percentage of students graduating from low-performing high schools. The retention rate for freshmen is 85%, the lowest of any UC.[23] Additionally, only 5% of UCR alumni donate back to their alma mater, the lowest alumni giving rate of any national university.[23] [24] The rates at UCLA and UC Davis are at 16% and 10% respectively. According to The Princeton Review's 2004 publication of "Best 351 College Rankings", UC Riverside ranked #12 nationwide for "least happy students".

Currently, all UC-eligible high school seniors in California who apply to the Riverside campus will be offered admission.[16] As such, UCR's acceptance rate has always been amongst the highest (79% for 2004-05) and average GPA/SAT (3.48 and 1074, respectively) amongst the lowest, compared to the other UC schools. In order to attract more competitive applicants, UCR has invited home-schooled and other nontraditional students to submit a portfolio of their work in addition to test scores.[17] In 2004, Stephanie Kay, a lecturer in the Department of English, estimated that 60% of incoming UCR freshman are not capable of writing standard college English"

Lemme ask how this is NOT emphasizing the negative aspects of UC Riverside. Again, maybe if Riverside WOULD STOP COMPARING ITSELF TO OTHER UC SCHOOLS, this would provide UC Riverside students/graduates an incentive not to feel so bitter and sorry for themselves. The problem with this article is too much emphasis on: "UC Riverside sucks becuase it's not as good as UCLA and UC Berkeley. The students at UC Riverside are dumb and stupid and only go to UC Riverside b/c the only other alternative is junior college." you're doing very little to make UC Riverside graduates feel good about themselves. There's too much of this whiny "Waaaah, why can't UC Riverside be as good as UCLA or Berkeley!!!!" Well, if these people "wish" they could've gone to say UC Berkeley or UCLA, those same people will feel sorry for themselves b/c they wished they went to Stanford.

While it may be true that UC Riverside students are not the brightest kids in the neighborhood, to constantly reinforce this perception does little to boost Riverside grad's self-esteem. It's a vicious, never-ending cycle: the more UC Riverside students are reminded that they are "UC Rejects" and "couldn't get into a better college due to lack of intelligence and work ethic", the more UC Riverside kids lose confidence in their abilities and they become even WORSE off. in the end, all you're doing is destroying Riverside and its student pride. This is when trolls from USC/UCLA/Berkeley win. They win because they can boast: "See, I told you that UC Riverside people are total failures in their lives!" Don't let the trolls from USC/UCLA/Berkeley win. Teknosoul02 19:03, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Teknosoul, I understand your frustration. Unfortunately, my job an encyclopedia editor is not to change social perceptions or enhance the image that the public has for UC Riverside. My purpose is to provide objective information about the school, and nothing more. I disagree with you that there is an overly negative emphasis on UC Riverside. I merely chose the statistics that I believe are relevant to an article on a university - and this is based on extensive personal experience and reading a great deal on this topic from major publications. Naturally, a UC school will be compared with other UC schools - that goes without saying. If it isn't done in this article, it is done everywhere else. At least by providing objective numbers and comparisons, people can get the information they need without looking in several different places (the goal of an encyclopedia article). I don't know where this troll-business comes from, so I don't know how to respond to it. UCR is what it is. UCRGrad 22:07, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you look in the archives, there's a poster named CalWatch who is trying to smear UC Riverside's name and reputation. It's obvious he's a Berkeley troll (he even mentioned he was from UC Berkeley). So if people like him are trying to sully Riverside's name, you better be sure there are similar trolls like him around. Teknosoul02 18:30, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have filed an RFAR against you here [1].--Amerique 16:05, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Rejected requests. 02:45, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

UCRGrad,

This is not intended to be accusatory or anything of that nature, but I am curious as to why you are so keen as to keep a quote that is quite frankly, a slap in the face to the institution that provided you with your education and college degree. I appreciate your enthusiasm for wanting to keep an opinion on this article that trashes your very own alma mater. But I find it rather peculiar that you are willing to condone an opinion that calls UC Riverside, the very school that you graduated from (your own alma mater, where you got your degree from) an "abomination to higher education".

I don't have a major preference one way or the other whether the quote stays. What I DO have a problem with is people trying to change this article's contents for trivial reasons or ones that lack merit. We have had too many problems with people who "feel" that XYZ statement doesn't belong, but when it came down to it, they really couldn't justify why. I am not part of the promotional office of UC Riverside. My purpose here is not to inflate the image of UCR, even though doing so would obviously be beneficial to me. 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." UCRGrad 00:47, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Color me confused; I'm not here to promote the image of UCR. However, the article itself should not denigrate UCR either. I'm not really sure why omitting a quote from an anonymous student which calls UCR "an abomination to higher education" is doing anything to enhance UCR's image. By keeping this quote though, there's the potential that it could actually do the exact opposite. I agree that it is an editor's job to provide an accurate and representative article, but how is calling a university an "abomination to higher education", especially since we don't exactly know the truth and accuracy of that statement. (I understand it's an "opinion" and all, but in the context of writing articles for colleges, statistics and rankings from authoritative sources like the widely published US News rankings can more effectively make the article accurate and fairly represented.)

Picture this: if you went to a job interview, and the boss/interviewer asks you what you thought about UC Riverside, and you said: "oh, UCR is nothing but an abomination to higher education", that does not reflect very favorably upon you or the college. Now if the boss/interviewer himself was a UCR grad, ouch..... Teknosoul02 02:28, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Overall, while I don't agree with the article and see it as POV, I am willing to keep most of it intact "as is". However, all I ask is that we delete a quote that is frankly, blatantly offensive to the university and the students who attended UC Riverside and likely spent 3-4 years of their life there trying to get an education and better themselves. I have never attended UC Riverside, but this quote is not fair to those who did attend and many may feel deeply offended to see that the university they worked hard to earn their degree in is labeled an "abomination to higher education". If I react so strongly to that statement, imagine how the school and the students/alumni feel when they see that? Whatever your personal feelings are for this school--and I understand you likely have very strong negative feelings for this school, whatever the reason--for the greater good of wikipedia and the goal of making a complete, objective, and fairly represented article, let's delete the UCR abomination quote and the reference to studentsreview.com. We are NOT changing the overall scheme of the article; just think of it as fine-tuning. Thanks for reading this and I appreciate your response. Best, Teknosoul02 23:32, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So what I'm hearing from you is that you're concerned that graduates of UCR might "feel bad" or be offended by the quote, and therefore it should be removed? While I understand your concern, unfortunately, we cannot just remove lines from articles just because there is the potential for people to be offended. Now, granted, if something is untrue, unreferenced, or is obscene, it should be removed - and WP policy supports this. However, MANY articles contain positive and negative facts about various things. It would be inane to remove negative facts just because people might "feel bad" by reading them. I supposed you'd also want to argue that we should remove mention of UCR's #85 ranking because graduates might be said that they aren't in a Top 50 school. Do you see how ridiculous your reasoning is?

UCRGrad 00:47, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see anything wrong with keeping the rankings. They come from a published, authoritative source (US News) and they are widely used. While some of their methods for ranking schools are rather dubious (the details of which are irrevelant), these rankings are widely cited and are considered at least a decent barometer for measuring a school's academic quality and progress. I think the rankings should be maintained. And after further discussing this issue with you, I agree that it's justifiable to compare UCR to the other UC schools. but the way I see it, let's use a wiki article for a movie as an example. Which would be more preferable to include in the article about the movie: rankings from established film critics like Roger Ebert (for example, his Top 10 list of best and worst movies), or some anonymous film critic on-line who completely trashes the film? I compare the US News rankings to the perspective of established film critics and/or published magazines like Entertainment Weekly, while I compare the abomination quote to some anonymous, obscure film critic who has no credibility and a potential agenda.

I don't necessarily agree with you. In your example, it would be acceptable to ALSO include a quote from an obscure film critic as either a) an alternate viewpoint to Roger Ebert or b) as an example of a commonly held opinion. Roger Ebert's critique may be well-respected and reflect HIS tastes in movies, but would it necessarily reflect the movie preferences of a 12 year old middle-school kid? What if the movie was a kids-movie? Then it would probably be appropriate to include opinions from kids. To make your example parallel, suppose there was a survey published that showed 50% of kids HATED the kids-movie I speak of - then it would be perfectly appropriate to follow this statistic with "with one kid calling the film 'yucky'." Sames goes for this UCR article. UCRGrad 02:45, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

At least with established film critics (and other authoritative, published sources), they have done a very thorough job to ensure that the methodology they use to evaluate and rank things is (mostly) fair and accurate to the subjects themselves. With an anonymous, on-line source, sure it can be "verified" that someone wrote it, but these on-line sources are often free-wheeling with no cross-checking of any kind. Most opinions are in their nature biased one way or another, but unlike published sources, these anonymous on-line sources often get carried away in their personal views, biases, and potential agendas. These sorts of opiniosn can potentially hinder the articles themselves; rather than making the articles objective, they serve as a conduit to promote certain points of view. Teknosoul02 03:07, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but when Roger Ebert reviews a film, it's all HIS opinion - there is no "methodology" to "evaluate and rank" or to ensure "fairness and accuracy." I don't know where you're getting this from. Listen, all of this is YOUR opinion, your own assertions, with zero evidence to back it up. For instance, "most opinions are in their nature biased one way or another" -- that's YOUR opinion, not fact. Another example: "online sources are often free-wheeling with no cross-checking of any kind." I have already TWICE listed the extensive methodology StudentsReview.com uses to ensure validity on its website, and you have failed to respond to them TWICE. Yet another example: "these sorts of opinions potentially hinder the articles themselves." Well, I would counterargue that these sorts of opinions add another perspective and a different point of view, which ENHANCES the utility of numerical statistics. UCRGrad 03:57, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am familiar with Mr. Ebert's work, and while his methodology isn't 100% statistical, he takes a lot of things into consideration when reviewing a movie. Sure, he may have biases here and there, but his work, though they are opinions, at least he tries to take into account what sort of film he's watching and he tries to see it from the perspective of the audience which the film will appeal to. And in terms of evaluating and ranking movies (like Top 10 best and worst films), most magazines and film critics do have (at least) tacit criteria for rating films from best to worst.

I (and others) have mentioned that Studentsreview.com is a SELF SELECTING site. So naturally, it will attract students who have very strong feelings about the school (one way or another). Their opinions are VERY appropriate in a forum discussing colleges and what's good/bad about them -- but in the context of Wikipedia, opinions that could unbalance the neutrality of the article should either be omitted, or if you are really keen in keeping this quote, elucidiated. And NPOV states that both sides of the coin should be presented. Teknosoul02 04:25, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that StudentsReview.com has self-selecting reviewers is IRRELEVANT, because it doesn't change the fact that a respondant made the abomination quote, which is what the article states. The article does not CLAIM that UCR is an abomination to higher education, only that someone made this remark. In addition, you have failed to demonstrate how the existence of a single opinion, four-words long, can somehow magically "unbalance the neutrality of the article." Such a suggestion is ludicrous. UCRGrad 04:32, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To this day, i'm still surprised that you are not remotely bothered by an opinion that calls your very own alma mater, the school that provided you with an education and a degree, an abomination to higher education. *sigh*. Teknosoul02 04:25, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To this day, I'm shocked and awed that you STILL bring up this very same point, over and over again, ad nauseum, even though I have already addressed it over and over again, ad nauseum. UCRGrad 04:32, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well ... the way I see it, for you to think it's okay to trash your very own alma mater and allow it to be labeled an "abomination to higher education" is like calling your very own child a b@stard, wouldn't you agree?

I have my reasons why this article is POV. Please see the UC Riverside discussion page. Thanks. Teknosoul02 02:28, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've already responded to them. UCRGrad 03:57, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In your recent reverts of Dyslexic_agnostic (talk · contribs)'s recent edits, you said in the edit summary "THIS IS VANDALISM". No, it's not. See WP:VAND. Please understand that around here, it's considered very, very bad form to call good-faith edits vandalism. As you've said over and over in the UCR talk page, I know you think reverts against your preferred version are in bad faith, every other editor except you and I-B are out to whitewash UCR because we love it so much, etc. None of that is true. No matter how you may disagree with someone's edits, they're not "vandalism" unless they're CLEARLY, INDISPUTABLY in bad faith. Falsely calling someone a vandal is a blatant personal attack and is extremely uncivil. szyslak (t, c, e) 03:35, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I respectfully disagree with you. Mass deletion of two major paragraphs without so much as a reasonable explanation is VANDALISM in my book. Whether or not Dyslexic_agnostic's action met criteria for WP:vand is a different story. You will notice that I never specifically stated that there was a specific policy violation. Perhaps what you are conveniently ignoring is the clearly more egregious action: the mass deletion of work from this article. It is not a simple "reversion," as you suggest. It is a DELETION - and without appropriate justification. Someone as reasonable as you should agree that such actions are extremely poor-form and frowned upon. Keep in mind that your above accusation can also be categorized as violations of WP:NPA and WP:CIV. Thanks. UCRGrad 04:00, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In general, I don't like mass removals of text from articles. You won't get much of an argument on that from me. However, you will notice that in the straw poll and elsewhere on the talk page, a number of users dispute whether the "909" section belongs in the article. Setting aside the issue of whether it does or not, there are a lot of people who would shed no tears if it were gone. (Dyslexic agnostic also removed the "air pollution" section, which few people want to get rid of at the moment.) Remember that the basic definition of vandalism is edits that are indisputably in bad faith. It's my opinion that D.A. felt he was acting in the best interests of the encyclopedia; I'm sure many others would agree. Therefore, his edits were not indiputably in bad faith. If you honestly believe D.A. vandalized Wikipedia, I suppose you could file a report at WP:AIV, and see whether an admin is willing to block him. szyslak (t, c, e) 04:15, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

N.B.: I'm not actually suggesting you file an AIV report against D.A. You'd just get an admin sending you a message telling you he's not a vandal and asking you to read WP:VAND. szyslak (t, c, e) 04:18, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To repeat, "Whether or not Dyslexic_agnostic's action met criteria for WP:vand is a different story. You will notice that I never specifically stated that there was a specific policy violation." "Vandalism" is not a neologism, invented by Wikipedia. The term "vandalism" can be found in a standard dictionary, and refers to malicious destruction of property. You assumed incorrectly that I was appealing to WP:vandalism. As I have stated before, I was not. I am relieved, however, that you agree that it is definitely inappropriately to mass-delete two paragraphs, especially in blatant disregard for the lengthy discussions in TALK. UCRGrad 04:37, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I refuse to let this discussion get any more ridiculous. It's not vandalism according to WP policy, but it's still vandalism? No, there's only one kind of vandalism here. Anything else is not vandalism, unless we're talking about breaking into Wikimedia headquarters and smashing the servers with a baseball bat. Please see Wikipedia:Wikilawyering. I've noticed a lot of that from you on the UCR talk page, trying to find loopholes in the letter of Wikipedia policy. szyslak (t, c, e) 06:47, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but are you trying to argue that there can only be ONE definition of "vandalism," and it must be the one used by the WP policy pages? Now you and I both know that's ridiculous. Furthermore, it is ironic that you have now just accused ME of violating Wikipedia:wikilawyering. I am personally very offended that you think that I try to "find loopholes in the letter of Wikipedia policy." My personal belief is that the WP policies were written in good faith, and it's not up to you or me to change them. If the policies don't work in your favor, for instance, there's no need to become irate and accuse others of violating "Wikilawyering." If you believe that I have a violated ANY WP policy, including this one, you are expected to provide evidence of such. Otherwise, what it amounts to is a false accusation! Thanks. UCRGrad 04:14, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Since I don't have admin capabilities, I'm not exactly sure what you want me to do about this. Danny Lilithborne 22:31, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Oh, good point. Thanks, anyway! UCRGrad 22:48, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The talk page header Abomination Quote barely discusses the issue of that quote. Unless you can cite other references that bring it up as being relevant to UCR, it is POV, and needs to be removed. -- Samir धर्म 00:21, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, UCRG. In this talk page message to Samir (The Scope) (talk · contribs) [2], you accuse him of taking a unilateral admin action. Though Samir is an administrator, his edit was not done as an administrator, but as a user. An example of an admin action would be protecting the page, or blocking its regular editors. Administrators have no more authority in regular editing than other users. Please remember to assume good faith. Thank you. szyslak (t, c, e) 00:21, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Szyslak, thank you for clarifying that the edit was made as a user, not as an administrator. However, this does not violate WP:AGF, which implies that an individual's actions are made in bad faith. I know that you and Amerique are trying very hard to fit anything I say or do into your RFC, but this just doesn't quite cut it as an AGF violation. If you want to read some examples of some AGF violations, read Danny's remarks. UCRGrad 03:21, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You assumed bad faith when you:

1. accused Danny Lilithborne of going behind your back and hiding behind an admin, and
2. accused Samir of acting unilaterally

I'm only presenting evidence. I'll let those who read the RFC decide whether it's valid. By the way, I don't think you're assuming good faith when you accuse Amerique and I of "trying very hard to fit anything you say or do into our RFC". Nonetheless, the great thing about RFC is that it gives the subject a chance to defend themselves. So you have ample opportunity to present evidence on your own behalf. szyslak (t, c, e) 08:28, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've actually seen your draft RFC and I think most of the "examples" of violations you've placed in there aren't actual genuine violations, they just "sorta" fit but not really. This is just an example. For instance, it is not an accusation that Danny asked this admin to evaluate the article - IT IS A TRUE STATEMENT, and a quick read of Samir's talk page will reveal that. Secondly, when Samir makes an edit without consulting with people on the TALK page, that's a unilateratl decision. Thirdly, I never stated or implied that Samir was acting in bad faith, I merely asked him to clarify his action (which I have a right to do). So at first glance, it might "seem" that there was an AGF violation to person who really really wants me to violate that rule so he/she can fit it into an RFC - but in reality, it just doesn't work (kinda like your failed attempt above to tell me that I misapplied WP:vandalism, which I didn't.) UCRGrad 14:27, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello UCRGrad,

I thought you would appreciate being the first one to be notified regarding the RFC[3] I just filed on your many conduct violations. I look forward to your response.--Amerique 15:55, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know that we have never formally talked, but it seems that Amerique's bunch is has filed an RFC against you and planning one against me. Somehow they are mixing up the actions between you and I! I don't get it. Insert-Belltower 17:53, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't get in my way. UCRGrad 18:13, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RfC

UCRGrad, this is a notification that IB's RfC has been filed. We didn't want it ot go this far but we feel that progress was not made on the AMA attempt and this is the last chance there is to resolve this issue before it goes up higher. If you wish to respond then please follow the link. Thank you and Happy Editting in the Furture Aeon ^{Insane Ward} 19:34, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

UCRGrad please wen you reasond to an RfCplease do so in teh Response Section thank you. I will be moving you responses today to the correct area. Aeon ^{Insane Ward} 16:33, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunatly you were reverted before I could move anything. Please in the future use the reasponse section that way nothign gets removed or reverted. Aeon ^{Insane Ward} 16:36, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank toy for reverting I have moved each of your replies to the correct section, I made sure they were in the order in which you posted them. Aeon ^{Insane Ward} 17:03, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aeon1006, I know you're trying to do me a favor, but there is a separate area to make a "summary" argument of my own. I think that it is important to respond to each allegation separately, because none of them actually have much merit. I want people to be able to read my response directly, not have to scroll down. I will make a separate "summary" at the end. It doesn't say anywhere that I am not allowed to respond directly. If it does, point it out, and I will move everything myself. Your camp has had a chance to speak - please let me have mine. UCRGrad 17:05, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly stated at the bottom of the RFC page: "Threaded replies to another user's vote, endorsement, evidence, response, or comment should be posted to the talk page." I've moved your threaded replies to the Talk page where they belong. --ElKevbo 17:33, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I read the section you are referring to and I believe that you are correct. As such, I have moved my responses over to the section where I am supposed to respond. Thanks for bringing this to my attention. UCRGrad 18:15, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He is a VERY neutral editor, if anybody violated rules he will find it and call them on it, even if it is me, don't worry about the Doc he is about as impartal has you could find on Wikipedia. And I didn't ask him to reply back on my talk page about it, just his input on the RfC, it needs an outside input from someoen who is not involved in the conflict. Aeon ^{Insane Ward} 20:44, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are a couple of different things going on here UCRG, but please don't jump to conclusions. Aeon knows that I'm interested in becoming more involved in the "processes" of WP and he invited me to comment there as a courtesy, not an attempt at collusion. While I respect Aeon's work I would never make a comment anywhere just for the sake of supporting another editor. Several editors send me pointers to various "controversies" and ask for my input, but it is always with the understanding that I will be voicing my honest independent (and hopefully rational) opinions, not automatically supporting their's. That was exactly the case in this situation. --Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 21:00, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Excactly, Doc Tropics would never go to the RfC if I asked him to support ANY user.Aeon ^{Insane Ward} 21:02, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see that Aeon has tried to reassure you about my participation as well. While he flattered me with his comments, I do strive for neutrality and rationality in all things (or almost all things...when I feel I can't be neutral I decline to participate). Therefore I do regard my comments at the RfC to be both honest and independent. The reason I asked for Aeon's feedback was that I felt the final section "My Opinion" may have been inappropriately harsh. If it was, it's only because I do see your potential as a valuable contributor, but I feel that your potential is going to waste on the UCR article. Finally, while I made my comments on the evidence presented, I will continue to monitor the RfC for your additions. In the past I have been most willing to strikeout and retract my own comments that were shown to be based on incorrect or incomplete information. I hope this reassures you that there is no collusion or attempt to "stack" comments, as this was certainly not the case. --Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 21:10, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused at how you can be neutral and make an informed opinion by reading only one side of the story, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, and I hope that you will take a look at what I have to say too. Thanks! UCRGrad 01:07, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In a case like this I don't actually listen to anyone's side. I simply followed all the diffs that were posted, as well as following a number of threads from the article's talkpage and the pages of various editors involved. In this instance I spent over 3 hours researching (and I'm a speed-reader) before I posted my comments.

There is something that you might help with: when I checked your user:contributions I only found 200. You claimed ~1000 edits, and using Interiot/Tool2 I confirmed a count of 877. Obviously I didn't see all your contributions the first time around, only about 1/4 of them. If you can point me to any edits you've made that were unrelated to the URC article then I will certainly modify or retract my single purpose account comment. Also, if you can provide any clarification on the NLT situation, I would be interested. Thanks for giving me the benefit of the doubt; I'm certainly keeping an eye on the RFC in case you (or anyone else) should add to it. --Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 01:58, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for giving me the opportunity to clarify some of these issues. For # of edits, I copied all of my distinct edits under my "user contributions" into microsoft word and did a "line count" and got >1,000. Some of the edits took up two lines, so I just rounded down to 1,000, approximately. 877 is probably close. But either way, if they all came up with was < 88 "edits" that they found offensive, that means that at least 90% of my contributions on WP were fine! You could hardly consider me a habitual violator of WP policies, especially considering how many times other editors of the UCR article violated WP:AGF and WP:NPA, etc, and in much more egregious ways. With regard to SPA, I am aware that I edit the UCR article exclusively. I am also aware of WP:SPA, which tends to be associated with POV-pushers on a single article. However, I only consider myself to be "knowledgable" in certain areas. With regard to UCR, the length of my involvement with the campus, along with my particular interest in its rankings, campus, statistics, academics, etc. means that I am well suited to be an editor. When I first started editing, the UCR article was barebones, unreferenced, and contained numerous inaccuracies. I felt that I could make a considerable contribution, and I think that the admins have agreed that I have. I may be knowledgable in other areas, but those specific articles are already well-developed and well-written, so there is no reason for me to stick my nose in those topics. Another concern is that the UCR article has taken a lot of my time, particularly with dealing with vandals and editors who insist that the article should be "their way." If I didn't have to deal with constant harrassment (a new editor will show up every week or two and start firing away the accusations), I might have had more time to make a meaningful contributin to another article. But I just don't have the time or energy to start up another project and edit another article. Finally, with regard to WP:NLT, I wanted to make sure that an RFCU did not publically reveal my IP address, because doing so could reveal my identity - which would be a violation to my privacy rights. As such, I wrote: "For the record, I do not consent to having my IP address reported publicly. 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." Nowhere did I threaten to take legal action. Nowhere did I write "I'm going to sue you." Did anyone in particular feel legally threatened? I highly doubt it...well maybe if someone decided that they would breach my privacy, but other than that, no. The implied message of my remarks was that I did not want my IP address revealed publically - and that should be clear if you re-read it. The statement can only be overinterpreted to mean that I was going to sue, but upon re-reading it, that was not its intent or its purpose. I just think that those individuals opposed to me simply went down the list of all the WP policies that could be violated, and tried to fit this quotation in as a WP:NLT violation. It honestly wasn't, and it obviously wasn't the spirit of what I wrote either. Thank you again for taking my side into consideration. UCRGrad 03:03, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking the time to clarify and elaborate so thoroughly. Since we're both involved in the RfC at this time I'm not sure it would be appropriate to address your points here. Instead, I plan on adding a seperate comment at the RFC itself, after I've clarified my thoughts a bit. As an FYI, I do plan to add an "Outside view" at the RFC for Insert Belltower as well. There is one point that I feel safe addressing here because it is largely personal:

In my experience, most articles don't involve anywhere near as much contention and "negative" editing as UCR. I often enjoy using the Special:Random article feature to browse WP and make minor edits or expand stubs. These activities don't require specialized knowledge or an ongoing effort. Most of the necessary research can be done quickly and easily using Google. This can make for a pleasant change of pace, and you can find some very interesting articles this way. Just a thought...--Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 18:59, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

UCRGrad I DO NOT appreciate your efforts to derail the case I'm handling. I have complained to a SYSOP. Any further actions taking in this and I will report it to the Admins. Aeon ^{Insane Ward} 22:23, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody is trying to "derail" the case you're handling. However, your actions as an advocate for Insert-Belltower were so egregious that I feel that it is necessary to warn others of the possibility that you could once again breach your role. UCRGrad 00:38, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

UCRGrad, with how you've been acting out against Aeon, you're breaking both the spirit and the letter of Wikipedia's Policy Against Harassment. Please cease immediately, or there will be further action. If you have a problem, follow the dispute resolution process. I'm 90% certain that you are aware of this. אמר Steve Caruso _(desk/AMA) 22:42, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Steve, I have read WP:stalk and none of my actions qualify at all. I have the right to let Aeon know that I was extremely unhappy about the way he breached his responsibiblity as I-B's advocate, and I explained my reasons why. It is common practice on WP to let others know how you feel about their actions. Furthermore, I am worried that Aeon could do this again to other parties, and it is clearly justified to alert such individuals that he has agreed to mediate for of this potential. If you believe that this is a policy violation, please feel free to quote the exact text of the policy and I would be happy to address it. Otherwise, if you think there is a problem, you are also welcome to follow WP:DR. Thanks. UCRGrad 00:38, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

UCRGrad, it's not about the "exact text" of the policy, that is only half of the code here at Wikipedia. The other half, that cannot be ignored, is the spirit of the rules. To harp upon the letter is to be a wikilawyer, which is something that I cannot stand for on a personal level. Your edits were made in bad faith, were disruptive, and appeared not to have even a whisper of willingness to forgive, as Aeon resigned from the AMA after your requests and badgering. In short, I have yet to see one action from you that demonstrates any ability or even capability of compromising or working together with people you label as the other side of a conflict. I'm still willing to work together, make efforts to compromise, and work things through. All both of us need from you, UCRGrad, is some token of faith no matter how small it is: Something I've been yearning to see since this entire mess started back at the UCR article. אמר Steve Caruso _(desk/AMA) 15:05, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the concept of the "spirit" of the rules, and I can also tell you that overinterepting the "letter" of the policies by overapplying the "spirit" of the rules can cause a lot of problems, especially when non-admins (such as yourself) attempt to do so. That being said, WP is not an anarchy. There are rules that everyone is expected to abide by in order to keep things running smoothly. I think you can appreciate that. That being said, Aeon1006 wrote that he left the AMA so that he could join the mediation cabral, not because he had butchered his job as advocate. If he had just acknowledged that he had been a poor advocate and that he was resigning because he was not capable of being a good one, then that would have been okay for everyone. Even the ADMIN who decided to block me agreed that my allegations that Aeon1006 seriously breached his duty as an advocate were probably true. YOu talk about bad faith? Aeon1006 "pretending" to help I-B and immediately soliciting testimonies from users against his client, and later turning around to help I-B's opposing parties -- now THAT is BAD FAITH. I am all for working together and making efforts to compromise, so long as it is done with reasonable people who are respectful. A quick read of the talk pages reveals that nobody is willing to do this. You think the mild comments I made were serious WP policy violations -- the list of blatant uncivil/rude remarks made by others is ten times as long and a lot worse! UCRGrad 16:24, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't a matter of "truth," it is a matter of your behavior both before, during and after the incident. Because of your behavior, you were blocked in violation of the policy. Yes, I agree that he should have handled the situation a bit more diplomatically and eased out of the case, no argument from me. However, he as a person found it impossible to work with the uncompromising nature of the situation. I-B was very stubborn with cooperating, and even more stubborn on the talk page of the article that the entire dispute started on (no one, other than you and I-B appears to dispute that). AMA Members are volunteers, human and are prone to making mistakes, just like anyone else on this project. We're not infallible, nor do we intend to be. When and if Aeon decides to rejoin the AMA, we should have training procedures up and working by then, and I will personally oversee that he is familliar with them. I understand your frustration, but it needs to be dealt with in a fashion that actually fixes things rather than makes them worse, aggrivates, or disrupts the experiences of other Wikipedians as your actions have. Two wrongs do not make a right, and if you simply asked Aeon sincerely in a polite tone that he would be willing to make ammends ("In order to be accommodated, you must be accommodating"). The path that you're on now only makes the fire that is this problem burn brighter. אמר Steve Caruso _(desk/AMA) 16:57, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

UCRGrad, I'm extremely alarmed at your pattern of recent edits, particularly those involving Aeon on talk pages. It's both distasteful and innapropriate to follow an editor around and post comments against them on other users' talk pages. In essence, it's purely stalking and harassment. I understand that you may have problems with Aeon, but posting on others' talk pages is not the appropriate way to resolve this situation. Please cease this behavior immediately. It doesn't do you any good, it doesn't do Aeon any good, and it doesn't do Wikipedia any good. αChimp ^laudare 23:32, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alphachimp, I believe in a principle known as "duty to warn." For instance, if I have information that could prevent harm to a party on WP, I have a duty to let that individual know. In this instance, Aeon terribly breached his role as an advocate and immediately became partisan against his client - with such a propensity to impartiality, I have good cause to believe he could do exactly the same thing as a mediator. As such, it was necessary to let the two affected parties know about his previous action. I do not "follow" Aeon around, I do not edit his other articles, etc. UCRGrad 00:42, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

UCRGrad, you have lied made factual errors in your comments about me which will be obvious to anyone who traces the threads thoroughly; the history is avaialable for all to see. You have also failed to heed any and all advice offered to you by myself and many other editors who find your behaviour deplorable. You have violated so many policies I'm not going to bother listing them here, those records are also available to everyone. The ludicrous defense of "doing your duty" is a vindictive rational calculated to maximize discomfort and tension for Aeon. Looking on the bright side, firm adherence to your "principals" will result in you enjoying the self-indulgent pleasure of martyrdom by way of Arbitration. --Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 01:14, 27 July 2006 (UTC) [reply]