RfC and/or RfAr.

• UCRGrad ( talk • contribs • block log)
• sockpuppets of UCRGrad:
  • 909er ( talk · contribs)
  • 71.198.58.193 ( talk · contribs)

• Tifego ( talk · contribs)
• szyslak ( talk · contribs)
• Calwatch ( talk · contribs)
• DtEW ( talk · contribs)
• TheRegicider ( talk · contribs)
• Sharqi ( talk · contribs)
• Dandanxu ( talk · contribs)
• ElKevbo ( talk · contribs)
• Amerique ( talk · contribs)
• jahamal ( talk · contribs)
• WHS ( talk · contribs)
• (to do: who else supports this?)

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

Evidence of sockpuppetry and violations of the 3 revert rule on UCRGrad’s part, while no longer problems following William M. Connolley and Mackensen’s interventions, have been included for completeness.

Well, I can say that this needs to be done. I am sad to see the state of the article, but even sadder to know that a person can be as hell bent as UCRGRAD is to utterly destroy an article. There is so much to work on, but even making a small change is met with stubbornness, and rudeness. I started posting in the talk page to go against the head strong editors, seeing no point in changing the article without changing the ideas motivating the strong willed editors. After being blasted on a number of occasions as being only negative with nothing to offer, I became discouraged with the process, and have since, just been watching the proceedings. There is no point to argue at all, topics that are raised are ignored and hided behind a constant rhetoric. So I absolutely support action against UCRGRAD.-Jahamal

1. suggestion from Szyslak to "please consider changing the way you work with others here at Wikipedia."
   • UCRGrad: Continued confrontational attitude: [1] [2] [3] [4]
2. suggestion from Tifego to "please stop violating WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL ... It is not necessary or helpful" (about this edit)
   • UCRGrad: Refusal to acknowledge: "There is no violation of WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL at all." [5]
3. (to do: quite a few more)

1. (Evidence of attempt 1) David Gerard: "I had a look too and spotted the sockpuppet without prompting from Mackensen. Your pattern is obvious. You appear to have mistaken Wikipedia's tremendous tolerance for stupidity. Please don't assume that if it would fool you it must fool everyone else" - David Gerard 17:21, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
   • (Evidence of failure of attempt 1) UCRGrad: "I don't fricking believe this. And what kind of pattern might this be? Two users who obviously know each other using the same computers back to back? UCRGrad 17:31, 1 May 2006 (UTC) And did you check as far back as the day 909er initially registered (right after my 3-hour "ban")? I understand that it must feel satisfying and rewarding when you think you've "caught" what MUST be a "typical sockpuppeteer," and yeah it probably seems like it first glance, but did it ever occur to you that you might be incorrect??? What type of evidence would it take to prove my case to you?" UCRGrad 17:40, 1 May 2006 (UTC) [6]
2. (Evidence of attempt 2) ElKevbo: "It's clear there are several disagreements which are not being resolved to anyone's satisfaction. I recommend we call a truce, cease editing the article for a bit, and look into one of the mediation options such as an Request for Comment. What say ye?" --ElKevbo 02:26, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
   • Evidence of failure of attempt 2) UCRGrad: "I do not agree to mediation, and here's why. At first glance, it may seem that some of the concerns may make sense. That is, people are not used to reading ANY negative information in a university article. Thus, the presence of these facts, no matter how true and accurate and representative they are, will likely to be misconstrued as bias. Ultimately, I believe that I can justify inclusion of this information to any neutral third party; however, it will require that I (and others in my camp) start from square one, from the very beginning, re-explaining over and over why XYZ should be included and why it is 100% appropriate..." UCRGrad 02:56, 9 May 2006 (UTC) [7]

1. UCRGrad: "I'm wondering if UCR students like TheRegicider should be allowed to edit this article due to a) obvious inherent bias, b) obvious self-interest to promote the campus, and c) immature behavior thus far with edits here." [8]
2. UCRGrad: "it is irrelevant that 4 of the same individuals who routinely object to ANY contributions that shed a negative light on he campus are again not satisfied with my latest contribution ... Maybe instead of doing blanket reverts, the four of you should get together and actually provide reasonable counterarguments, seeing as how the same four people have conveniently written supportive statements within the same brief time window." [9]
3. UCRGrad: "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." [10]
4. UCRGrad: "it's that some editors of this article might have a pre-bias. HERE The Theregicider for example, assuming it's the same person, is an advocate for UCR." [11]

1. UCRGrad: "NONE of your suggestions have had any merit so far" [12]
2. UCRGrad: "I've made some excellent points, so excllent, in fact... you've been nailed on several points, especially how you falsified ... you became desperate to find ANYTHING to counter with ... YOU HAVE THE AUDACITY TO ACCUSE ... ???? Why don't you look in the mirror" [13]
3. UCRGrad: "You're being ridiculous" [14]
4. UCRGrad: "...you've asked a lot of questions about what typical medical education is, but you clearly have no clue in this area - I've asked you not to edit portions of the article you are not familiar with..."UCRGrad 07:31, 21 May 2006 (UTC) [15]
5. (to do)

1. UCRGrad: "I will point out again that 138.23.21.216 is a UCR computer." [16]
2. UCRGrad: "(the user above) traces back to a computer located on the UC Riverside campus." [17]
3. UCRGrad: "I'm wondering if UCR students like TheRegicider should be allowed to edit this article due to a) obvious inherent bias, b) obvious self-interest to promote the campus." [18]
4. 909er: "obviously either students of UCR, affiliated with UCR, cohorts of UCR students ... I wouldn't be surprised if half you guys were sockpuppets." [19]
5. UCRGrad: "Most of the individuals in Tifego's camp are either UCR students, UCR graduates, or UC-affiliated in some way." [20]
6. (to do)

1. UCRGrad: "Tifego and his camp don't have valid reasons as to why my contributions should be removed, therefore, they are trying harrass me through other means .. I think a lot of these individuals would prefer to have zero negative facts presented, even if this meant sugar-coating data and deleting pertinent and important information about their school. Now it has resorted to this!" [21]
2. (to do: there are many more)

1. UCRGrad: Deleting an entire not-yet-sourced (but undisputed) section after being asked to provide references. "There is NO source for the information in history. I expect appropriate citations, just as others have asked of me." [22]
2. UCRGrad: Removing article POV-check and Cleanup tags placed by other editors."19:15, 11 June 2006 UCRGrad (I don't see how this article fails to meet Wikipedia's quality standards. It's far more informative and organized than most college articles I've read here.)"
3. UCRGrad: "EVEN IF all of your points of contention were correct (which I don't believe they are), there STILL would not be enough "bias" in total to call this article NPOV. Therefore, I am removing the tag, but will continue to work with you on these minor issues." UCRGrad 07:31, 21 May 2006 (UTC) [23]
4. (to do: there are at least a few more)

1. UCRGrad: "If there is any kind of breech of my privacy, and I suffer damages as a result, I would expect compensation from parties involved." [24]

(to do)

1. UCRGrad: "...As a "UCRGrad," I have extensive first-hand experience about the school's academics, student life, reputation, etc. and I am very familiar with relevant publications in the media and by well-regarded organiations. That is why you are reading true and comprehensive information about UCR, and not a photocopy of the recruitment pamphlet." UCRGrad 20:18, 9 May 2006 (UTC) [25]
2. UCRGrad: "Reading other college articles is like opening up a recruitment brochure, in that they are riddle with POSITIVE BIAS. On the other hand, I happen to have extensive knowledge about UCR, and I can present a true and balanced perspective along with relevant news article and facts about the school that you are relevant, verifiable, and are very informative. That is why you see such a difference. There is no bias in this article." UCRGrad 02:58, 19 May 2006 (UTC) [26]
3. UCRGrad: "I'm sorry if you don't quite understand this, but it suggests that perhaps your lack of a "big picture" knowledgebase in college sports precludes you from being an effective editor for this section." [27]

(to do)

1. UCRGrad: "The majority opinion is not necessarily the correct one. For instance, in 19th century America, it was majority opinion that Blacks should be slaves. It was only through careful deliberation by justices of the Supreme Court that the CORRECT opinion (that Blacks should NOT be slaves) was enforced over the MAJORITY opinion. Naturally, if 10 freshmen from the A-I dorm decide to "vote" here, you're going to see a natural skewing here." UCRGrad 22:14, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
2. UCRGrad: "Even if I stipulated that "ALMOST ALL other campuses of the University of California" should instead read "MOST campuses of the University of California," it WOULDN'T CHANGE the validity of the my argument. The fact that Nobel laureates are at least somewhat prevalent among UC campuses (in this case, MOST campuses) means that the COUNTERARGUMENT that we should not include this fact because "Nobel Laureates are rare" is defeated. Recall that "Nobel prizes are rare" was one of the arguments made for why we should not mention their absence at UCR. Finally, you attempt to make a reductio ad absurdium argument "If we're going to include that, we may as well include every other thing that 4/9ths of the campuses don't have." Unfortunately, your statement does not draw a parallel, because the presence of Nobel prize-winning faculty is already prima facie relevant to an article about a national university, because it is a surrogate marker of the a school's recognition, caliber of research, ability to attract top faculty, ability to draw top grants/funding by a Nobel laureate, and is typically a feature of well-known schools. Honestly, you are entitled to your opinion. I respect that you "believe" that there is a violation of NPOV and WP:OWN, but if you are unable to justify your "opinion" with facts and evidence that survive scrutiny (like we are doing here), then at the end, your "opinion" is probably just that and nothing more." UCRGrad 21:16, 25 May 2006 (UTC) [28]
3. UCRGrad:"...In particular, numerous people (most recently ElKevbo) have attempted to express why they "feel" that the article is biased, but in the end, none of their arguments really pass basic scrutiny or merit -- this is because there really is no bias, there is only their "opinion" and "gut impression" due to their own personal biases..." UCRGrad 23:04, 26 May 2006 (UTC) [29]
4. UCRGrad: "With regard to the lack of a football team, I am appalled that you and another individual do not appreciate how critical it is to mention this. Perhaps you are not in tune with college sports, or you attended an undergraduate institution that did not have a football team." [30]

(to do: various edit wars, including 3RR violation)

(to do: there must be a better title for this section)

1. [31]

• Use of sockpuppetry was confirmed by CheckUser.
• (Initial evidence of suspected sockpuppetry was here.)

1. 909er: "You get a revert ... Eat it." [32]
2. 909er: "Yo, at what point did you think it was a good idea to make these obnoxious changes" [33]
3. 909er: "justify your obnoxious changes. If you don't feel a need to justify your changes, I don't feel a need to justify my REVERT!!!!!" [34]
4. 909er: "Since I'm on a roll here, I'm still waiting for you to respond to allegations that you falsified data to support your arguments" [35]
5. 909er: "Just suck it up and ... find a REAL source" [36]
6. 909er: "Why don't you read the TALK page, man, rather than sound like a fool" [37]
7. 909er: "Yo, man. The "burden of proof" is on why YOU think information should be removed!!! ... the other party stubbornly remains silent. I'm referring to Pimpclinton" [38]
8. 909er: (user page vandalism) [39]
9. (to do)

See discussion page.