UCRGrad

Welcome to Wikipedia!

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)

3RR violation on University of California, Riverside

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)

User notice: temporary 3RR block on University of California, Riverside

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)

Some things to think about

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)

Sockpuppeting

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

(moved from UCR talk page)

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)}

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)

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)

"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)

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)

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)

RFAR

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

Wish granted

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

Hi

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

Re: "This is vandalism"

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

UCR and anon

• 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)

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

Abomination Quote

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)

"Unilateral" action by Samir

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)

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)

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)

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)

Conduct RFC Filed

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)

Hello

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)

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

IB's RfC

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)

How to respond to an RfC

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Crossposted

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Your Post on Talk pages

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)

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)

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)

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)

File:Barboss.JPG

And thirdly, the Code is more what you'd call "guidelines" than actual rules.
- Capt. Hector Barbossa

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Please point out these so-called "lies" in my "comments about you" because I'd love to hear them. Did you or did you not post your "outside view" in my RfC BEFORE I had a chance to even enter a response to the allegations? Were you or were you not previously acquainted with Aeon1006 or any of the UC Riverside article editors prior to leaving your supposedly "outside view?" And for somebody who accuses me of policy violations, let it be known that you have egregiously violated WP:AGF and WP:NPA above. I believe "duty to warn" is an important principal. Are you a medical doctor, Doc Tropics? Because if you are, this is one of the legal principles that you are expected to follow. If not, it is still heavily grounded in ethics and philosophy. Regardless, posting an "alert" on two user-pages hardly constitues WP:stalk, no matter how much your hope/wish/pray that it does. It doesn't...and getting all of Aeon1006's friends together to harrass me back on my user page (Doc Tropics, Aeon1006, Alphachipm, and The Thadman) is a fine example of meatpuppetry. UCRGrad 01:25, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

While I don't believe it will be productive to engage you any further outside an official venue, I would like to clear up one point that has obviously troubled you. Regarding multiple comments that I "posted an Outside View before you had a chance to respond": When I first came to your RfC you had already posted dozens of lines of response over the course of several entries.[[4]] My comment was rather obviously posted after your response. Furthermore, I took the time to engage you in dialog here on your talkpage, and I even added an additional comment to the RfC trying to express something positive about you (an action I now regret). As I've mentioned, I don't believe that dialog or interaction between us can be productive anymore, and I have no intention of engaging with you further. --—Preceding unsigned comment added by Doc Tropics (talk • contribs)

Your comment and judgements were obviously made BEFORE I had a chance to complete my response. The evidence your provide above shows that you left your length "outside view" not even half way through my response, which means that you could only have actually seen only a tiny fraction of my side of the story before you began typing your so-called "outside view." And may I ask you again: Were you or were you not previously acquainted with Aeon1006 or any of the UC Riverside article editors prior to leaving your supposedly "outside view?" ...or perhaps after egregiously violating WP:NPA and WP:AGF above, along with being proven that you left a partisan "outside view" in an RFC, you "don't believe that dialogue...can be productive anymore." (how convenient). UCRGrad 16:12, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I really don't want to continue this, but it wouldn't be fair of me to leave you hanging without a response so here it is:

1. Yes, I had previous acquaintence with Aeon, largely through AfD debates that we both participated in. He invited me to review your RFC because he respected me as neutral and unbiased contributor.

The fact that you were already acquainted and were ASKED by one of my opposing users to "comment" means that you were likely to be biased and non-neutral to begin with. The fact that you had something to gain by supporting Aeon's position (further respect and praise from him) concomitant with the fact that you "knew" Aeon1006, should have been DISCLOSED to everyone. Furthermore, the fact that you didn't even wait for me to finish a response to the allegations makes it clear that you had no intention of weighing both sides. Flipping through the TALK pages with the intention of "verifying" the opposing editor's claims is just not really fair now is it. UCRGrad 17:29, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

1. No, I had never interacted any other editor involved.
2. Several of my recent posts to/about you have possibly been borderline violations of WP:CIV and WP:NPA. That's the primary reason I don't want to interact with you anymore, you bring out the worst in me. I've never had such a strongly negative reaction to any other editor at WP. BTW - If an Admin were to block me for these posts, I wouldn't object, even though I gave myself a long "cool down" period already.

Your posts have been egregious violations of WP:civ and WP:NPA. For instance, when you called my letter to the AMA an "utter crock of shit," I found that offensive. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Aeon1006 I don't use profanity to describe YOUR contributions here on WP. I also think it's extremely hypocritical of you to say such things, then turn around and accuse ME of violating WP:civ and WP:NPA. UCRGrad 17:29, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

1. Assuming good faith does not continue ad infinitum. While I had nurtured hopes that you would change your ways, your recent posts have shattered my good faith. It's gone, and I suspect that "the community's patience" is wearing thin.

Ya know, I re-read WP:AGF and I don't see any rule that says that it doesn't continue "ad infinitum." In fact, I think you just made that up. By community, what do you mean? Do you mean the collective friends of you/Aeon/Thadman/etc? Heck, I can get my meatpuppet friends to join WP and can say exactly the same thing! UCRGrad 17:29, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

1. No, my "outside review" was not partisan. It was an honest comment (3 actually) made after carefully reviewing the case history. It was however, very strongly worded in an (obviously failed) attempt to point out behaviour that is simply not acceptable on WP.

You tell yourself that your "outside review" was not partisan, and you really/truly believe that it was an honest comment, but your ACTIONS show that you were very partisan (by not even reading my side of the story first before criticizing me). UCRGrad 17:29, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

1. No, I am not a doctor in Real Life, nor have I played one on TV; I do however watch "House" every week.

I believe that I have fully responded to your questions/accusations at this point. I would really perfer to end this dialog now. Thank you. --Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 16:53, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank God. UCRGrad 17:29, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

On your block

Sorry I didn;t leave this message as soon as I block you. Although the things you say about Aeon 1006 may actually be true, there is no Free Speech on Wikipedia. It is not appropriate to follow Aeon around. If you must, post your comments where they are relevant. However noble your intentions may be, that does not give you the right to follow users around. Because of this, I have determined that your actions constitute both personal attacks and stalking, and therefore issued the block. RyanGerbil10(The people rejoice!) 01:51, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi, RyanGerbil10. Thank you for explaining the block placed on my account. I have reviewed both WP:stalk and WP:NPA policies and I do not believe the actions you speak of are in violation of either of these policies, nor do I think that they warrant a 24h block (not even a warning). Can you please clarify both the violation and why you felt that a 1-day block was appropriate? Specifically, I'm not sure if you noticed, but I only edited two user pages - hardly "following users around," so you say, and definitely NOT stalking. I also responded whenever Aeon1006 was talking about me specifically, which every user probably has a prima facie right to do. Finally, where was the personal attack on Aeon? I merely stated my case and I think I provided ample support. I would think that all of these things would barely warrant a warning, let alone a block of such duration. I understand that you have been previously acquainted with Aeon1006 - I'm wondering if you wouldn't mind asking a second administrator to review this ruling if you don't think that you can be 100% impartial. I don't think I violated any policies, and my intention really wasn't to hurt anyone. I feel that what I was doing was the right thing, and was an appropriate thing to do given the circumstances. Thank you very much for your consideration. UCRGrad 02:38, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi again. The reason I issued the block was that even though the things you said were likely true, you said them in places and manners that are considered inappropriate. Looking back on it though, I do think your block is a bit harsh, so I'll give you a 75% off deal - 6 hours instead of 24. Keep in mind, Wikipedia policies are not steadfast rules, but are interpreted in each case. Although your conduct was not necessarily in direct violation of our policies, it was still reproachable. In the future, please keep your comments to the pages where they are relevant. Two talk pages is not strictly wikistalking, but the number of talk pages you should have posted this to is zero. Regards, RyanGerbil10(The people rejoice!) 02:58, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Please Leave me Alone

UCRGrad, I don't wish anymore comunication with you. Please do not post on my talk page. If you have a comment to me please run it through Steve thank you. Æon ^{Insane Ward} 23:35, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

On your comment

UCRGrad, that really wasn't your apology to pick with. It was addressed to Insert-Belltower alone, so it is up to IB to decide if it was sufficient. Aeon is upset with how the choices that he made in handling the case went and he has realized that no matter what his own feelings about the issue are that IB got hurt from his actions and that he is sorry for the difficulties he caused. Don't poison the well. If you have something to say that will help to work through this issue please say it. Otherwise, with all due respect, I implore you to carefully consider your words before you type them up. אמר Steve Caruso _(desk/AMA) 03:34, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand, so Aeon is allowed to communicate with I-B, and you/Amerique/Aeon/WHS/ElKevbo are allowed to discuss ME behind my back on each other's talk pages, but I am not allowed to communicate with I-B, a user that I have collaborated with for many many months and have come to trust? That's preposterous. UCRGrad 04:53, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I warned you

I have asked you in the past to stop following Aeon around and bad-mouthing him on other user's pages. I even reduced your block trying to be nice. Your picking with the apology that Aeon gave to Insert Belltower is in complete and direct violation of the things I warned you about last time I blocked you. This time, I will not be so nice, and I will not reconsider the length of the block. I have given you a second chance and you have wasted it. RyanGerbil10(The people rejoice!) 03:56, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

WAIT A MINUTE HERE. I can absolutely positively find NO violation of WP:NPA OR WP:stalk here! Insert-Belltower has been a WP acquaintance of mine for almost half a year, as we have both co-edited the article on UC Riverside. Where is the violation in me communicating with I-B over his talk page, and discussing what I think is an insincere/inadequate apology from Aeon? First of all, there can be NO violation of WP:NPA, since I wasn't even addressing Aeon in any way, so it's impossible. Secondly, the spirit, intent, and letter of WP:stalk is to discourage users from "following" others around and harrassing them. On the other hand, writing my thoughts about Aeon's apology on I-B's talk page (meant ONLY for I-B) is not even remotely consistent with WP:stalk. In fact, the Aeon's concomitant denial of wrongdoing is in direct contradiction to the evidence I have provided that Aeon violated I-B's trust as his advocate. Just based on that, I should be expected to communicate this with I-B, not to mention that again, we have been co-editors for many many months. I sincerely believe that you have overstepped your bounds as an administrator, and I believe that your relationship with Aeon and The_Thadman have prevented you from making an impartial judgement here. I hereby request that your "block" be investigated by another administrator. I will consider reporting this as admin abuse and favoritism. Administrators have an obligation to be fair and objective, even more so than mediators and advocates. I just cannot get over your lack of justification for instituting a block here. UCRGrad 04:50, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

RyanGerbil10, I respectfully request that you justify your action (and explain just how posting on I-B's talk page constitutes a violation of WP:NPA or WP:stalk) - it can be done here, or here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Example_admin. UCRGrad 04:56, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

• [[5]] 'nuff said. --Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 05:06, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

The link you provided, Doc Tropics, does not contain a personal attack, nor does it qualify as stalking. Furthermore, you have yet to answer the question of how you could have left a neutral "outside view" of my RfC if you a) previously were acquainted with one of the opposing editors supporting the RfC and b) wrote your "outside view" before I could even finish my response, thereby not even considering my side. UCRGrad 13:01, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

UCRGrad:

1. I don't even know RyanGerbil personally, nor even close to as well as Aeon. (I only know Aeon strictly through his membership in the AMA, and the first time we "met" was Advocating the UCR case.) He (Ryan) also played no part in your RfC. As such he, as Administrator, as far as I can tell is not exercising favoritism. Why accuse him of such?

Simple. Because he was previously acquainted with Aeon prior this whole ordeal, AND Aeon asked Ryan personally to intervene here. Furthermore, a 24 hour block for posting truthful statements on two user pages was obviously excessive, and not even remotely consistent with the spirit OR letter of WP:stalk. UCRGrad 19:57, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

1. Insert-Belltower was not able to read over or respond to Aeon's apology before you commented on it, and if your tone on I-B's talk page was similar to that which you left on Aeon's talk page, this probably would not have been a problem. Why did you not wait until it was more appropriate?

I'm sorry, but I wasn't aware that I had to wait a period of time to let I-B know that Aeon's apology was not for wronging him, but simply because someone was angry at him. If anything, I have more of a right to communicate with I-B, as co-collaborators on the UCR article, vs. Aeon, who betrayed I-B and turned against him. This goes without saying. Honestly, nobody had a right to stifle my communication with I-B. UCRGrad 19:58, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

1. Please, remember the words of Capt. Barbossa about the Code. The letter never overrides the spirit on Wikipedia. You were asked politely and given a second chance (and your block reduced) to stop posting disruptive things in response to Aeon's comments on other peoples' talk pages and your choice was to continue doing so.

The letter never overrides the spirit, but the spirit can easily be misinterpreted and corrupted. If the letter doesn't even remotely fit, there's no way you can grind and twist the spirit into fitting either. That's what has happened here. It was already a soft call to block me for exercising my "duty to warn" others of Aeon's lack of a ability as an impartial person, but to comment on I-B's page, that's just ridiculous. In fact, the more I think about this, the more I think this is admin abuse, and I think I will file an RfC/admin just as soon as I have more time. UCRGrad 19:57, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

So, with that said, what can we discuss that will collectively work towards resolving our mutual problem? If we work together and amicably reach an agreement, we can put this entire issue behind us, yes? All we need is patience and willingness to work together along with time (and time, a week's worth, is what we have). אמר Steve Caruso _(desk/AMA) 13:55, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

What problem is it that you and I have? Unless you are editing the UC Riverside article, all I've asked of you is to a) coordinate a review of Aeon's actions that were unbecoming of an advocate and b) consider a process by which the actions of advocates (good or bad) can be reviewed (such that there is accountability in the AMA). UCRGrad 19:57, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

After discussing the issue with Insert-Belltower, your block has been removed. I will consider future blocks of all involved parties, though. Aeon has been misleading, and you two have sockpuppet notices on your pages. Although the block against you has been removed, I'm warning all three of you that I'm not exactly overjoyed about anyone's conduct here. Sorry I was so harsh. I'm not quite sure how to show my sorriness, but know that I am. Keep me updated on this issue, please. Respectfully, RyanGerbil10(The people rejoice!) 03:50, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for understanding that there are two sides to the story and for realizing that Aeon was lying to you in his complaints against me. Nevertheless, i'm confused as to why you threaten "future blocks of all involved parties," as I don't think any of the WP policies have been broken, not even for a warning, let alone a BLOCK. At this time, I will not finish the report I had been preparing about your inappropriate block to the administrator's noticeboard/incidents, but honestly, I think you should give some thought to what actions on WP warrant a warning, a short block, or a ONE WEEK block! Thanks. UCRGrad 19:39, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

UCRGrad,

Thanks for that Barnstar. I'm glad that smart ppl think alike.Insert-Belltower

UCR Highlander

I moved the below text from user page-- danntm ^T _C 03:06, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

UCRGrad,

I am an editor with the UCR Highlander. I have assigned one of my writers to cover the Highlander wikipedia article. She, like most people, has a little trouble figuring out the Wiki interface, so she asked me to contact you for her. Basically, we are trying to write a balanced article about the entry, getting the motivations from contributors on both sides, student reaction, faculty verification on some of the statistics, etc etc. Obviously, you are a person we would like to hear from. You can remain anonymous if you'd like, or give you real name. We would just like to ask you a few questions, get your opinion and show it to the student body.

Would you be interested? If you would, email me at features@highlander.ucr.edu or just post back here on how to contact you. Believe me, I am not trying to trick you into anything, just working on compelling journalism.

Ryan

Any thoughts? 69.4.154.210 23:02, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I would be okay with answering questions, but I would prefer to do it on your talk page and not by email.Insert-Belltower 01:37, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I will set up an e-mail account to discuss these matters sometime tomorrow or Sunday. Please check back here for an update, Ryan. UCRGrad 01:53, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Any luck on an email address? 69.4.154.210 05:24, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

see the section below UCRGrad 05:32, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

UCR Talk Page

Hey moron, how dare you flame Rutgers U, I was trying to prove that UCR is one of the better public universities out there and instead of your being appreciative of my thoughts to defend your own alma mater, you suddenly disparage my alma mater. I'll tell you something: we Rutgers alumni have much more pride in our proud institution that you'll ever have. It's pathetic that you have so much contempt for your own alma mater that you'll willing to flame other schools to justify how "lousy" your alma mater really is. and unlike you, we don't blame our alma mater's "bad reputation" for our own inadequacies. We KNOW that it is ultimately up to individual merit to succeed in life. Those who cling onto the reputation of their college for life's successes are the true losers.

At one time, you even condoned some anonymous loser on Students Review who called your university, YOUR ALMA MATER an "abomination to higher education". At an earlier time, you even thought it was okay to call your school "UC Retardation". For you to think that way is like saying it's okay if your daughter gets raped b/c of the way she dresses. Truly pathetic for your to bash Rutgers in order to prove "how worthless" UC Riverside really is. Maybe you should spend some time doing something more productive in your life instead of being bitter and creating animosity over your alma mater (I suppose you like to take the easy way out and blame your alma mater's bad reputation for all the failures in your life).

Please apologize

Please take back all your comments denigrating my alma mater (Rutgers U). If you sincerely apologize for insulting Rutgers (even if you didn't think you were bashing my school, I perceived it as if you did) then I will delete all the comments I made towards you. If you refuse to do that, then I will commence further commenting. Teknosoul02 02:54, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I have the right to make true dumbfounded statements about a school I have no affiliation with. You, on the other hand, do NOT have the right to use profanity and make such offensive remarks. It is highly uncivil and really does not reflect highly of people from your alma mater. UCRGrad 02:56, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

You have no right to disparage. I worked hard to get a good education at my alma mater and for you to denigrate it is hurtful. Your assertions about Rutgers being a subpar university are ludicrous. I can't believe you and I'm disappointed at you. Further, what you state is an OPINION. And your behavior does not reflect higher of those from your alma mater as well. Would you like to continue this? Or perhaps if you retract your statement about Rutgers, then I will retract everything i've said in the last couple paragraphs. Teknosoul02 03:03, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I made no such assertions that Rutgers was a subpar university. That is your inference, and an incorrect one, at that. What I stated is more than opinon - it is reflects a factual observation. Whether you worked hard to get your good education is frankly, irrelevant. Regardless, it is highly inappropriate of you to use obscene words on the pages of a respectable internet encyclopedia. I would only hope that other graduates of Rutgers are able to exercise better self-restraint and class. UCRGrad 03:08, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

1.) You stated: "Rutgers is virutally an unknown school in California." 2.) You stated: "Rutgers has a similar reputation to UCR." 3.) in UCR's wiki page, you mention that UCR has a low peer assessment score (the lowest in the University of California) 4.) In UCR's talk page, you constantly talk about UCR does not have a favorable reputation and does not do well. You also mentioned many times in the talk page how UCR is for kids desperate to go to a UC school, how UCR kids are unmotivated, etc. 4.) Ergo, you are trying to show how Rutgers is on par with UCR in terms of "low reputation", lousy students, etc. 5.) I am pointing out the opposite. You claim that what you say is true. But, I also assert the truth that US News Rankings are NOT a definitive measure of colleges. There are a lot of great universities there that are severely underrated (and quite a few that are VERY overrated, e.g. University of Southern California. Seriously, that school ranked #30 is preposterous!!!)

How is that statement about working hard to get a good education irrelevant? B/c quite frankly, I did work hard at Rutgers and am proud to be a part of the institution. It is no ivy League, and is not even up to Michigan standards, but the alumni are proud of what we've done. It IS an insult. You should exercise what you're saying, and try to at least be respectful of other people's feelings. Teknosoul02 03:15, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Both of you please stop this. I expect Teknosoul02 to remove or withdraw all personal attacks. I expect UCRGrad to stop baiting him or her. Please discuss this civilly, or better still just drop it if (as it currently appears to me) it is not necessary for improvement of the relevant articles. At the moment I can't imagne why there is a need for this debate about the merits of your respective alma maters. I'd rather not have to impose blocks as a circuit breaker here, but I'm willing to if it is necessary, and neither of you looks "clean", from my first look at your dispute. I'll be checking what has happened later on today. You are both warned. Metamagician3000 03:24, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Dear metamagician3000, as an administrator, I am obliged to agree and accept your decisions in these matters. However, if you read the talk pages, you will simply find that the ONLY comment I made was a true statement regarding the reputation of Rutgers in California. I just don't believe that such a remarks, especially since it was true, warranted the barrage of obscene comments, gross profanity, and personal attacks from Teknosoul02. I hope that you will re-evaluate this issue and realize that I have tried to remain as civil as possible while Teknosoul02 has bombarded me with insult after insult. Thank you very much for your consideration. UCRGrad 03:28, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Dear metamagician3000, I also agree and accept your decision in these matters. However, I disagree with what is going on here. UCRGrad has obviously made an attempt to provoke me when he made swipes towards my alma mater. He keeps insisting this is true, but does not back up his assertion. All he is doing is provoking me into saying things I should not have said and sincerely regret. However, I still find UCRGrad's remarks about my alma mater to be hurtful and offensive. He is not being civil at all and his assertion of the truth about Rutgers is nothing more than a disparaging remark. Thank you for understanding this matter. Teknosoul02 03:32, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

The main thing is that it stop, whoever is mostly to blame. If you both keep going, you'll end up having Arb.Com sorting out who is most at fault, which is not what you want. Metamagician3000 03:40, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

In answer to UCRGrad's question on the Admin Noticeboard, the discussion on current talk page and the edit summaries in the article's history show plenty of at least borderline incivility from UCRGrad. I haven't looked any further than that, but I repeat that I don't think either of you is entirely "clean" here. I'm not going to allocate blame 50/50 but nor am I going to allocate it 1/99 given that Teknosoul02 has made some attempt to remove and apologise for the most egregious incivility. I'm not interested in putting a figure on it at all. The important thing for me as an individual administrator, as opposed to someone on Arb.Com., is that you both cooperate in the future. Once the 24 hours that I referred to on the article talk page has expired, you need to work out how you can work together on what needs to be done for that to happen. You may need to try mediation or some other process to settle the underlying content dispute (about which, btw, I have absolutely no opinion). Metamagician3000 09:14, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

My response

In the UC Riverside page, you addressed this: "Let me ask you this: Do you agree or disagree with the statement that Rutgers University is not well-known in California? Furthermore, do you agree or disagree with the statement that Rutgers has a similar peer assessment score to UCR according to US News?? UCRGrad 04:24, 15 August 2006 (UTC)"

Here are my responses:

1.) Who or what made you an expert on measuring the academic reputations of colleges, especially those on the opposite coast? And no, familiarity with US News rankings does not constitute being an expert on the reputations of four year colleges. Further, who or what gave you the authority to speak on behalf of California in regards to Rutgers. Your professing of Rutgers as virtually unknown to those in California and its academic reputation being similar to UCR (in an attempt to impugn Rutgers since numerous times you have stated numerous times on UCR’s talk page that UCR’s academic reputation is low and that if Rutgers is similar to UCR, ergo Rutgers must have bad academics) is nothing more than your OPINION. Even if you believe what you say is true, you know very well that I’m proud of my alma mater and that I am very sensitive to unwarranted negative comments about my school (especially from someone who is extremely ignorant about Rutgers). FYI, familiarity with Rutgers’ ranking in the US News report is NOT the same as actually spending four years there, getting acquainted with the classes, faculty members, and academic offerings. I think it’s disgusting quite frankly that you claim your opinion to be the universal truth about Rutgers (in regards to how it’s perceived in California).

Well you can choose to believe me or not - I really could care less either way. However, if you honestly believe that Rutgers is a well-known and reputable name in California, you're seriously feooling yourself. Frankly, it is irrelevant that you went there and go to know the faculty, etc - we're talking about the reputation of Rutgers with respect to laypeople in CA, not to graduates of the school. Furthermore, I merely made reference to the school's reputation to Californians and a similar peer assessment score to UCR's - there is absolutely no way you can translate this single comment into your false inference that I argued Rutgers had "bad academics." Your usage of the word "ergo" does not suddenly absolve you of your duty to practice basic logical reasoning. So again, do you or do you not agree with the statement that the name "Rutgers" is not well-known to most Californians? UCRGrad 05:39, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

"Furthermore, I merely made reference to the school's reputation to Californians and a similar peer assessment score to UCR's - there is absolutely no way you can translate this single comment into your false inference that I argued Rutgers had "bad academics."" Well UCRGrad, considering that all you've been doing is pushing a negative POV of UCR on its wiki page, there is a pretty strong inference that you view Rutgers the same way as UCR and that you look down upon it. Maybe you really don't care about Rutgers, that's your pejorative. But again, you don't speak on behalf of all Californians whenyou say that Rutgers is not well-known in California. Teknosoul02 12:39, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I have not beeing doing any such "POV-pushing," like you are accusing. Furthermore, the little information I have about Rutgers (as I am a Californian) is that you are an alumn there , and your recent explosion of profanity and obscene remarks makes me think even less of the place. Regardless of what you believe is my "opinion," I can assure you that Rutgers is not well-known in California. If it makes you feel better to think that Rutgers is a widely-known and prestigious name in California, then you're just fooling yourself. UCRGrad 14:05, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

If my actions make you think less of Rutgers, that's YOUR problem. I don't necessarily claim that Rutgers is a widely-known and prestigious name in California, but i do know that it's a very solid academic institution. I also do acknowledge that in California, there are a ton of great universities there that mostly cater to Cali kids (the UC schools, CalTech, etc.).

Suppose I DO stipulate that you're telling the truth about Rutgers. Well, if that's the case, a lot of schools in the West Coast are highly ranked in that region, but are relatively obscure in the East Coast. It's a regional thing, I admit. In the east coast, the University of Southern California is not highly regarded and is in fact put down a lot by most people in the east coast as a school for spoiled rich kids (and dumb football players) only. But it doesn't necessarily mean USC is a bad school. Perceptions are not always reality. (and note that I'm not saying nor infering that the above is true; I'm just using that as an example if I were to stipulate that Rutgers is not well known in California). Teknosoul02 15:13, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

So, do you agree or disagree with the statement that Rutgers University is not well-known in California? UCRGrad 00:23, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I disagree b/c your perception of the truth is, at best, based on anecdotal evidence from your personal observations. Perhaps to you and maybe your friends, you are not familar or simply don't care about Rutgers. That's your perogative. Teknosoul02 01:04, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

2.) Rutgers has a slightly higher peer assessment rate to UCR, and I will stipulate that a 3.3 score is decent, but could be higher. I don’t agree with the peer assessment score b/c from my experiences, Rutgers is much better than the peer assessment claims. Further, a peer assessment of 3.0 or above is still very decent. What is the average national university’s peer assessment? Further, contrary to your way of thinking, US News is NOT the absolute source on college information. I admit that I have a lot of issues with US News, but my point is, I don’t think it’s as reliable as you made it out to be.

Personally, I think a massive survey of reputable academicians, who provide the data for the peer assessment score is just slightly more authoritative than the single opinion of a Rutgers alumn who admittedly is in love with his alma mater. UCRGrad 05:39, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

While I acknowledge that US News rankings may mean the world to some people and that you find it to be reliable, all I'm pointing out is that we don't know for sure what those reputable academicians take into account when offering their peer assessment score. Is this based solely on a school's brand name? It's academic offerings? Perhaps there are biases--the bigger the school's brand name, the more the academicians will assume is a great school? At least the admissions numbers are verifiable and objective, but peer assessment score is less black and white. Teknosoul02 12:39, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I'm pretty sure that peer assessment score is probably not 100% impartial and based on many intangible factors, but what it DOES do is give a good idea of how well-regarded a school is by people in academics. Just because YOU think Rutgers is a second Harvard, doesn't mean that academicians agree with that statement (and they don't). UCRGrad 14:05, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I will stipulate to that (that the peer assessment gives a measure of how WELL-REGARDED a school is). But reputation does not always translate to high quality. The peer assessment score measures primarily a school's REPUTATION, not necessarily educational quality. I won't argue with the peer assessment score b/c I know a lot of people take it seriously and think that reputation is all that matters when you choose a college. I think that's the gap between our thinking here: you seem to place a lot of emphasis on a school's brand name and reputation (and maybe that was why you were ultimately disappointed with UCR?). I focus more on the educational quality and whether the school has prepared me for the workforce and ultimately serve the public.

Further, I never made the claim that Rutgers is the second coming of Harvard. Perhaps only Yale, Stanford, and Princeton can make that claim. I never boasted about Rutgers being a highly prestigious school, but i do know that it has served me well and I take it personally if people make swipes at it. I'm one of those (a declining number it seems) that are not interested in gaining prestige in life. Teknosoul02 15:13, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

In terms of peer assessment however, I can speculate that perhaps Rutgers has a lower peer assessment simply b/c it has to compete with many great private universities, namely the Ivy League, NYU-Stern, Johns Hopkins, Duke, etc. The whole point of my comparing UCR to Rutgers (as flawed an analogy as it is) is that you can’t necessary judge a university by its US News Ranking nor its peer assessment score. I think its unfair to devalue a university’s quality simply b/c its peer assessment score is not the highest. And further, who is doing the peer assessment score? Maybe there are biases taken into account (e.g. private universities may deliberately try to bring down a state school’s reputation while boasting their peers’). Of course I don't know this for sure (otherwise I would've added this information to US News's wiki page, but the point, take these US News rankings with a grain of salt. Teknosoul02 14:12, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Nobody has devalued Rutgers based on its peer assessment score - you were the only one who drew that conclusion. The fact is, the name "Rutgers" does not ring a bell to most Californians. No matter how many speculative assumptions you make as to why this might be, it doesn't change the truth or validity of this fact. You can either face the truth, or choose to ignore it. UCRGrad 05:39, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Your proclaimation that Rutgers is unknown in California is NOT the truth. It is your opinion. You are free to express your opinion about Rutgers (just as I am free to express my opinions and rants about US News), but do not disguise your opinion as the truth.

In the end, it's obvious that we are stuck in our respective positions and will not likely come to an agreeable conclusion. I suggest we just move on. Teknosoul02 12:39, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I really could care less if you acknowledge or not that Rutgers is not a highly regarded institution in the eyes of Californians or academicians nationwide. You could choose to believe that Rutgers is superior to Harvard, and that would be your prerogative. UCRGrad 14:05, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't claim Rutgers to be superior to Harvard b/c that is delusional (at least in terms of prestige and brand name reputation). However, it IS my prerogative to say that most academicians tend to put more emphasis on going to brand name schools rather than educational quality. I also maintain that it is your right to say you're not familiar with Rutgers, but you should not mislead those into thinking you're the authority and that you can stake the claim that Rutgers is not well-regarded in California. Teknosoul02 15:13, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

So you're saying that Rutgers is a well-known and highly-regarded university to people who live in California? UCRGrad 00:21, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

It appears you're just interested in proving you're right. I don't get why you waste your breath trying to prove to ME that Rutgers is unknown in California. This obsession of yours with trying to get me to say something you want to hear and trying to validate what YOU believe is the truth is frankly, disturbing. Teknosoul02 01:07, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

To the best of my knowledge, most "academicians" don't "put more emphasis on going to brand name schools rather than educational quality." I think that is one of the key sticking points when folks like Secretary Spelling's Committee of the Future of Higher Education try to make or even consider recommendations about measuring institutions and assessing their performance in broad terms. We (and here I speak as a member of the higher ed community) tend to resist such efforts because many of them are too broad and don't truly measure what we believe is important.

Closer to the heart of your comment, outside of a few narrow areas (specifically law school and business school) I don't know of anyone who recommends that students attend any institution because of its reputation. There are certainly many well-regarded institutions students are encouraged to attend but it's because those institutions are viewed as offering quality education. In other words, they are viewed as having rightly earned their reputation. But outside of those two narrow areas I have *never* personally heard of anyone in higher ed recommending a student base their decision to apply and attend an institution based on some arbitrary ranking like USN&WR. I'm sure it happens but I would view such recommendations with suspicion and I am confident in saying that such recommendations are definitely in the minority. Further, I would argue that our hesitation to give students and parents an easy metric by which to compare schools is what creates the demand for these overly-broad and oft-abused ranking systems. Many people don't want to hear "Well, it's complicated..." they want a quick, easy answer. --ElKevbo 16:24, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree that students should not attend a school solely based on its reputation, but the reputation of a school SHOULD be considered in the decision-making process. Furthermore, US News rankings are NOT arbitrary. Arbitrary would be a random person "assigning" numbers based on undefined characteristics. The methodology that US News uses to determine relative ranking is always published. Thus, if you agree with the methodology, then you agree with the rankings. Regardless, are you or anyone else arguing that we should remove US News rankings from this article? Because if you aren't arguing this, this discussion isn't really relevant. UCRGrad 00:21, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your insight, ElKevbo. You seem to be more familiar with this subject than I am, but much of what I say is more based on personal observations and I am not asserting that what I say is true (or even right). Teknosoul02 01:32, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Space for Communication with UCR Highlander

I changed my mind regarding setting up an e-mail address. I'd be happy to answer any of your questions here in the space below. Thanks. UCRGrad 05:31, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Here you go: 1. What motivates you to edit the UCR article?

2. Do you feel it portrays UCR accurately? That nonwithstanding, do you think it portrays the school in a positive or negative light?

3. Some have accused you of having a bias, or not being fair. Then again, many of the editors who hope to make the article positive, have a conflict of interest considering they attend the school. What is your opinion on all of this? How would you respond to people's criticism?

4. If you could make any major change to the article or to the editing process, what would it be?

5. Lastly, how do you feel about UC Riverside. Is it overrated and underperforming? Thoughts.

I really appreciate you answering these questions. We have contacted people from both camps, and hopefully we can produce an article that fairly represents everyone.

I know you are trying to remain anonymous, but is there a chance I could at least get your age, and whether you attended UCR or not? I have to attribute the quotes to someone.

You can post the answers here, or email me at features@highlander.ucr.edu

You got a chance to look these over? UCRHighlander 05:47, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you very much.

Heads Up

It looks like there is this dude, BruinBoy, who goes to UCLA who is interested in editing the UCR article.Insert-Belltower 01:44, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I saw. Thanks for the heads up. UCRGrad 00:05, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Formal Mediation

Given the article's current protected status, would you be interested in discussing editing conflicts to the point of resolving them in WP:Mediation?--Amerique 22:03, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Amerique, thank you for your offer to discuss the conflicts through mediation. Of course, I would be happy to accept any form of dispute resolution that I felt to be impartial. For instance, at one point, we attempted to request Advocacy to help move matters along. Unfortunately, advocacy failed because one of the advocates breached his duty and turned against the client he promised to assist - I think we had a good shot at resolving disputes at that point, until out trust was lost and it was later learned that advocates do not have any special training and qualifications at being neutral, nor is there sufficient oversight. A similar situation occurs with mediation, in which mediators have no special training and are not guaranteed to be neutral. I should not be expected to be placed in a similar situation, in which I should invest so much time and energy, only to have a supposedly-neutral person show his true colors and turn against my side. That being said, I am willing to continue to discuss matters with you and everyone else here, and I truly mean that. My only stipulation is that all parties refrain from making accusations and attempt to be civil. I can assure you that people in my camp will do the same. I have repeatedly offered to communicate and discuss issues, but you and others seem to prefer to try to silence me through WP:DR sanctions rather than actually discussing issues. I don't think that this is the spirit of the dispute resolution process on WP. UCRGrad 00:15, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

As multiple people have noted before, your so called attempts at communicating and discussing issues have been nothing more than absently dismissing what others have to say. Your entire argument thus far has been essentially been "I'm right, so therefore you're wrong." And, while mediators are not guaranteed to be neutral, what makes you automatically assume they won't side with you? Your contentious behavior perhaps? Or your frequent violations of WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL? Regardless, it's not up to you to decide how to handle disputes. That's what WP:DR is for, and you don't seem inclined to follow through. It's been apparent to everyone involved that thus far, you're not genuinely interested in seeing this dispute resolved. Accepting mediation would be your chance to turn that stigma associated with you around. I'm sure you don't want it hanging over your head much like you claim the 909 stigma is attached to Riverside.

And another thing, you were never placed in such a situation where you had to "invest so much time and energy, only to have a supposedly-neutral person show his true colors and turn against my side." You voluntarily voiced you opinion to Insert-Belltower's advocate, not your own. The fact that Aeon ended up not agreeing with your actions was of your own doing. Again, mediation is the only thing we've yet to try in WP:DR, so I encourage you to accept it. --WHSTalk 04:13, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I epxected such a response from you, WHS. Nowadays, the only counterargument you and others seem to provide is pointing the finger at me. I recommend that you re-read the reasons I gave as to why I do not find mediation acceptable, then re-read your response to see if my arguments were specifically addressed, or if they are not. It'd be interesting to find that there is little overlap. I'd also like to remind you that discussion is the most important part of WP:DR. UCRGrad 20:53, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I expected such a response from you as well, UCRGrad. I read your reasons, and again (because you clearly missed it earlier), I'll have to ask you why you automatically assume a third party will turn against you? It's interesting how you accuse me of not responding to your arguments when you don't seem to respond to mine.

Also, whether or not you like WP:DR, it's part of the procedure here at Wikipedia. Despite what little faith you have in it (and I admittedly have little myself as it has allowed you to constantly push your POV over the article), it is part of the dispute resolution system here, so you're obliged to follow it. And regarding discussion, I notice you immediately dismissed what I said again. No surprise there. --WHSTalk 00:04, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok, you understand your position leaves me no option under WP:DR but to take it up with the ARBCOM again. I think, if you truly knew yourself to be in the right, you wouldn't have any objection to participating in WP:Mediation. The ARBCOM, I believe, would still side with you if you are or ever were right. I think the last RFARB failed simply for a lack of due process, but we will see. I will say, however, that you have generally conducted yourself much better in these conflicts than some others have. For what it's worth to you, I will note this in my statement.--Amerique 22:47, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

UCRGrad, our dispute resolution processes have served us well for years. It's ridiculous to expect formal training for mediators. There's a pretty good screening process, based on previous experience and skill in helping to resolve disputes. If that doesn't satisfy you, you're free to propose a policy change at Wikipedia talk:Mediation or Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). I'd like to add myself to the chorus of editors urging you to accept mediation. If this dispute does get to ArbCom, your willing participation in mediation will help you argue your case to the committee, to show them that you're making good faith efforts to work with others. Of course, if you stop your manipulation, head games and attempts at article ownership, none of this will be necessary. szyslak (t, c, e) 22:58, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Alexandra Wallace

The article is about the news presenter, please do not re-add content about the student.  -- Lear's Fool 07:57, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Okay, this is evidently getting out of hand, so let me propose a compromise. We cannot have content regarding two individuals of the same name in the one article. This problem is generally solved by having two articles: in this case Alexandra Wallace and Alexandra Wallace (student) would be appropriate. A hatnote would then be added to the top of Alexandra Wallace directing viewers to Alexandra Wallace (student). If you would like to do this, simply paste the content in question into Alexandra Wallace (student), and we can go from there.  -- Lear's Fool 08:18, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Alison ^❤ 09:21, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry - busted. Bad enough that you created User:Gasongasoff to post that garbage on Alexandra Wallace which needed suppression, it turns out that this isn't the first time you were caught doing this. So, given the BLP violations and repeated socking you've been indulging in, it's game over, sorry - Alison ^❤ 09:21, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I'll just have to make another account then, sigh. But let's not kid ourselves here. Sockpuppetting, to use your terminology, is a common practice here. Look no further than the fact that you have a policy and procedure for it! Sadly, content on wikipedia is far from objective. It's nowhere near as authoritative as a real encyclopedia. People who think they are (but aren't) experts in a field try to contribute to articles, and the result is a document riddled with factual and grammatical errors. Perhaps the one advantage of wikipedia is the ability to contribute articles about recent events or notable individual. For instance, Alexandra Wallace. Let's be honest now - who cares about Alexandra Wallace, the newscaster!? If you bothered to open your eyes to what was going on in the world, you could figure out that Alexandra Wallace is all over the media now. This is exactly the kind of thing people would come to Wikipedia to read about. And of course, you and other admins here, seem to think it's not important enough. If you really want to know what people think of wikipedia, look no further than the satirical article here: http://www.theonion.com/articles/wikipedia-celebrates-750-years-of-american-indepen,2007/ Good day.

• I'm pretty-much in total agreement with what you're saying here re. objectivity, prevalence of socking, 'experts', etc. You're quite right. However, abusing multiple accounts is verboten per policy. Especially if you use them to write hatchet job articles, as you have here. Wikipedia does not exist to meticulously document the single misdeed of some overprivileged, racist UCLA kid that nobody cares about; some one-hit wonder. That's what ED is for, amongst other places - not Wikipedia - Alison ^❤ 01:40, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
• And LOL XD - Alison ^❤ 01:41, 18 March 2011 (UTC)