In order to remain listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with ~~~~. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: ~~~~), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 12:06, 5 July 2024 (UTC).

• UCRGrad ( talk · contribs · logs)

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

Statement of the dispute

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

Description

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

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

Evidence of disputed behavior

Violating WP:OWN

1. UCRGrad appears to be a single purpose account who almost exclusively edits the UCR article, related Talk page, and, more recently, mediation and dispute resolution pages related to that article as documented in his contributions
2. Unilaterally decides to remove merge tag sans discussion with other users less than 13 hours after the merge suggestion was made
3. Insists his POV (ownership) of article is established after he "refutes" objections to his edits (see the edit summary)
4. Attempts to claim ownership of comments on article talk page
5. wikilawyering in support of POV
6. More evidence of ownership of remarks on article talk page
7. More evidence of ownership on AMA advocacy page
8. From User talk:UCRGrad: "As an impartial individual with extensive knowledge of the campus, I can provide a very accurate and representative article - and that is my goal. Any changes to the text should be made with adequate justification, not because "somebody feels like this or that." [1]
9. Reverts virtually every time someone changes his preferred version: [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15]

Violating WP:CIVIL

1. Refuses to apologise for or acknowledge mistake in reference to gender of other user
2. Makes condenscending remarks to and about new editors
3. Tells a user that "NONE of your suggestions have had any merit" and "perhaps you should give your reasons a little more thought."
4. Questions an editor suspicious of the (later proven) sockpuppets of UCRGrad and Insert-Belltower by asking "YOU HAVE THE AUDACITY TO ACCUSE A THIRD PARTY, UNBLOCKTAU, OF IMMATURITY AND LACK OF RESPECT????"
5. Tells an editor with whom he disagrees that "you're being ridiculous"
6. Files a WP:AN/3RR report against 66.214.118.69 ( talk · contribs · logs), even though he reverted exactly three times. (The IP does have a history of 3RR blocks, and was also blocked for blanking his user talk page): [16] (rejected: [17])
7. Known confrimed sockpuppet 909er Vandalised user page of Szyslak. UCRGrad (As 909er) said "I thought it was you my bad". Showed no remorse over the vandalism. [18]
8. Uncivil edit summaries: [19] (as 909er), [20], [21], [22], [23], [24],
9. Files a WP:AN/3RR report against WHS even though no violation occured. [25]
10. Blocked for violation of WP:3RR
11. Uncivil behavior towards an Admin, stating "I understand that it must feel satisfying and rewarding when you think you've "caught" what MUST be a "typical sockpuppeteer," and yeah it probably seems like it first glance, but did it ever occur to you that you might be incorrect???"
12. Says "Quit pussyfooting around and respond to my counterargument"
13. Says "However, in the off-chance that you are indeed psychic and a mind-reader, you might consider working for the Psychic Friends Network. Otherwise, please keep your baseless inferences to yourself."
14. Says "I therefore question your literary ability and consequently, your aptitude to contribute at all to this article."
15. Says "You clearly have nothing to contribute here."

Violating WP:NPA

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

Violating WP:NLT

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

Violating WP:AGF

1. Considers cooperation among other editors evidence of a "a pattern of conspiracy to vote and push for sanctions against I-B and/or myself"
2. Accused a new editor of being a sockpuppet with no evidence
3. While dismissing another editor's objections, notes that the IP address of the anonymous editor is in the IP range allocated to UCR, suggesting bad faith
4. Again notes that the IP address of the anonymous editor is in the IP range allocated to UCR, suggesting bad faith
5. Accuses another editor of harassment when the user correctly files a Request for User Check and requests a Check User for many other editors in the article with no basis for suspicion
6. Suggests that four editors are sockpuppets or meatpuppets by stating that "the same four people have conveniently written supportive statements within the same brief time window"
7. Accuses Danny Lilithborne ( talk · contribs · logs) of "independently asking an admin to make a unilateral decision," thus violating mediation policy, when administrator Samir (The Scope) ( talk · contribs · logs) removes a passage supported by UCRG: [26] (Samir's response: [27]). (There was no mediation in progress, and Samir's removal of the passage was not an administrative action.)
8. Ad Hominem fallacy against other editors when he says "Most recently, there have been complaints from Amerique, Teknosoul, WHS, and szyslak. What is particularly frustrating is that NONE of these editors are UCR graduates, UCR students, or seem to have any affiliation with the university." Compare this quote with the one above, in which he accuses other editors of holding a pro-UCR bias because they are affiliated with the university.
9. Refers to good faith edits as vandalism [28], wikilawyers the definition [29]
10. Accuses editors of having a pre-bias.

Joint Meat/Sockpuppet Activities Influencing POV Issues

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

UCRGrad's meatpuppet activities in support of Insert-Belltower

1. [30] Supports IB's defense of controversial content.
2. [31] Complements IB for selecting controversial content.
3. [32] Supports IB's defense of controversial content.
4. [33] UCRGrad in support of UnblockingTau, one of IB's sockpuppets.
5. Talk:University of California, Riverside/Archive_5#Szyslak's recent edits UCRGrad's confirmed sockpuppet 909er responds to accusations of sockpuppetry.

Applicable policies and guidelines

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

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

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute

(provide diffs and links)

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

Users certifying the basis for this dispute

{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}

1. Working as Amerique's Advocate, over the course of a week or so, I attempted to help resolve this dispute and failed. UCRGrad was completely obstinate and unwilling to genuinely contribute to anything towards resolution. אמר Steve Caruso _{( desk/ AMA)} 13:35, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
2. Attempted to help both sides to a resolution dispite being the oposing Advocate (Of Insert-Belltower), UCRGrad stonewalled the process and AMA was unable to help bring this to a resolution as a direct result. Aeon ^{Insane Ward} 14:25, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Other users who endorse this summary

Response

This is a summary written by the user whose conduct is disputed, or by other users who think that the dispute is unjustified and that the above summary is biased or incomplete. Users signing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Outside Views") should not edit the "Response" section.

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

Users who endorse this summary:

Outside view

This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Response") should not edit the "Outside Views" section, except to endorse an outside view.

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

Users who endorse this summary:

Discussion

All signed comments and talk not related to an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page. Discussion should not be added below. Discussion should be posted on the talk page. Threaded replies to another user's vote, endorsement, evidence, response, or comment should be posted to the talk page.