Hello WHS,
Thanks. I concur with your assessment of the UCR article. I've stopped work on it temporarily to investigate the feasibility of successfully submitting a request for an arbitration committee hearing on UCRG's behavior. Apparently, User:Tifigo has compiled a list of earlier incidents formatted for an RfC, a general Request for Comments on UCRG's activities, located here: [1] I have copied this list and have extensively edited it here: [2] but it seems the format for an RfA [3] is a bit looser, so I may not have needed to do that. Anyway, I've sent emails to Tifego and others on his list of users in dispute of UCRG's conduct (Szyslak, Calwatch, an entry on ElKevbo's talk page) but have not recieved any responses from them. Jahamal I've contacted independently and he emailed me a statement in support of arbitration. If you would like to become involved as a party to this action I would greatly appreciate it if you would prepare a statement to that effect and post it here: [4]Best,-- Amerique 23:03, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Please consider adding a statement here [5] if you are still at all concerned with this. Best,-- Amerique 16:47, 22 June 2006 (UTC) Thanks WHS. Now, to the trenches!-- Amerique 15:38, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Glad to see you back. I've been on the sidelines advising Technosoul02 on how to best approach this article, but have since got pulled back into it. Anyway, it seems if the three of us work together at editing the article like those two do, we can overpower them. I say we turn this drama into an episode of WWF tag team wrestling.-- Amerique 15:51, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, someone has responded to a request for advocacy I put up. I'm currently communicating with this person. Anyway, I fully expect 3rd party interventions to fail but I think that pursuing them will put UCRG into sustained contact with administrators. The article has attracted some outside attention, whether due to the recent revert wars or for other reasons. Last week some admins deleted IB's photo uploads, but so far they have not been willing to engage with those two rhetorically. But anyway, a link to the text of the final version of the RFARB is here [6] if you ever need to consult it. I should have informed you of its location prior to this, sorry about that.
Anyway, this week I think I am going to experiment with further edits to the article. I'm also going to post the survey request to all the UC talk pages, as I'd like more outside input into these issues. I'm ready for a sustained campaign against those 2.-- Amerique 21:38, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
You are in danger of violating the three-revert rule on a page. Please cease further reverts or you may be blocked from further editing. Stifle ( talk) 09:54, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
Don't wory you are more than welcome to post at my AMA page. I'm currently investigating the matter of the sockpuppets and should have that information soon. Thanks for making your comments, this issue is a compilcated one and needs to be carefully talked out. Aeon Insane Ward 04:22, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
The Resilient Barnstar | ||
WHS, you handled yourself well in the Dispute, owned up to your mistakes and went an extra mile to be civil. Thanks Aeon Insane Ward 01:18, 16 July 2006 (UTC) |
I will be filing an RfC on Steves behalf as soon has I figure out if it goes under Article or User Conduct. Aeon Insane Ward 01:18, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
I need a brief statement of your issues with UCGrad and Insert-Belltower for the RfC. Aeon Insane Ward 01:51, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
Seriously. Those comments about the soda and Myrtle Beach were not intended to be patonizing. I'm sorry if you took it that way. Insert-Belltower 03:51, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
Have it your way then. Insert-Belltower 15:06, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
I responded to your comment on my RFC. Insert-Belltower 02:49, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
You can find Barnstars here Barnstars there several there and other awards to. lol I have that page saved to I can award users who do great things for people. Aeon Insane Ward 16:43, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
This has not been filed yet. If you wish to make any eidts to your statement please do so. Draft of RfC Aeon Insane Ward 20:40, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
Hello WHS, I've proposed restructuring IB's RFC entirely around the "meatpuppet" allegation. Aeon thinks it is a good idea. The RFC will be on whether the Wikipedia community agrees IB's generally tamer actions in support of UCRG constitute "meatpuppetry." The RFCs will probably have to be delayed a day or so to gather and structure the evidence.-- Amerique 23:37, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Hello WHS,
Please look over the current RFCs and tell me or Aeon what you think. I was thinking IB's could benefit from adding whatever civility violations he's also committed, as all the evidence currently on his page goes to substantiate the sock/meatpuppet allegations. We are thinking of filing these tonight or tommorrow.-- Amerique 20:43, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
And hi again, Amerique. There was an edit conflict as I was attempting to make my last post. Anyway, I think we should file them tomorrow. Give me some time to look them over and I'll throw in what I can. -- WHS 20:48, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for all your hard work in helping this process along.-- Amerique 16:02, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
IB's RfC has been filed. If you could go there and endorse or certify that would be cool Aeon Insane Ward 19:36, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Take a look at this. Aeon Insane Ward 23:56, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
User talk:JakGd1 User talk:Triddle My Talk Page
Steve has added WikiStalking to the RfC now. Aeon Insane Ward 23:56, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Its ok WHS he has manged to cause several people a lot of grief. He was blocked for the stalking for 24 hours so hopefully that will serve as his wake up call. Aeon Insane Ward 02:46, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.
P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 21:38, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Hey WHS, I'm back the break did me good. Æon Insane Ward 16:44, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks WHS Æon Insane Ward 03:08, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
WHS,
I am an editor with the UCR Highlander, the student newspaper at UCR. I have assigned coverage of this wiki article to one of my staff. She, like most people, has limited knowledge of the wiki interface, so she asked me to contact potential interview candidates. Essentially, we are trying to write a non-biased account of the UCR wikipedia article, complete with the motivations of both sides, student reaction and then faculty verification of some of the facts.
You appear to be more on the pro-UCR side, which I why I am contacting you. I also have messages into UCR Grad and Belltower. We want both viewpoints expressed equally, so I'd like to hear what you have to say. If you wouldn't mind answering a few questions, anonymously or otherwise, please drop me an email at features@highlander.ucr.edu
Ryan
Hi, Ryan. I've e-mailed you a response. -- WHS 10:26, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Hey WHS, thanks. Undoubtedly I picked up some bad karma for that "little quip" but it was entirely worth it. Incidentially, I think you and El Kevbo could possibly represent UCR article affairs to the Highlander much more objectively than I could. If they do publish a story on this I would definitely want to write their account into the article itself in some way. That would be hilarious, i think.-- Amerique 00:06, 14 August 2006 (UTC) P.S. Ask them when they will be updating their online archive again.
Hello WHS,
re: doing another RFARB, while I would like to do so, I don't have time to take the lead in organizing one at this time nor do I anticipate having the time in the near future. If you decide to do this, the old evidence on the current RFC will have to be updated to reflect its current location in the article talk page archive, and new evidence added accordingly. If the new evidence shows that UCRGrad's old pattern of behavior has continued despite the admonitions of various third parties encountered in the WP:DR process, (i know it has personally but this should look obvious to people unfamiliar with the case) then i think we have a much better shot than we did the first time we tried this. Also, make sure this RFARB is focused on user conduct and not article content, which is something we did not make clear enough last time. Also, I recommend giving UCRGrad the option of undergoing a formal mediation before filing the RFARB, to show that we tried everything we could under WP:DR to resolve issues with this guy.
If UCRG rejects mediation and you want to do this soon, send me an email and I will prepare a statement. i may be able to help with final editing but probably not so much with new evidence gathering. let me know what you want to do. best, -- Amerique 22:20, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Hello WHS & ElKevbo,
I think, with the Highlander writing a story on this, we should move within the next week with the next RFARB. I'm anticiating the story will set off a small colbert effect in the form of a deluge of inexperenced and hostile editors swarming the article, which would significantly further muddy the POV waters we've been treading in and cause an exponential # of petty conflicts to occur. -- Amerique 19:50, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
Hello WHS,
Thanks for offering to send me a copy of the Highlander article. If you can scan a copy into a pdf format and send it to me via email, that would be cool. I can't believe the Highlander does not publish online anymore. I was hoping the article would have more "net" impact, but oh well. I hope everything is going well with you. I am super busy with academics these days, but maybe we can still get the UCR article to featured status at some point in the long term. Best,-- Amerique 21:54, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
Hi WHS, I want you to get my side of the story before you make any judgments.
UCRGrad wrote this on the talk page: "Furthermore, I think it's nice that you compare UC Riverside to Rutgers. Rutgers is a virtually unknown school to people living in California, and probably has a similar reputation to UCR - this is consistent with the similar peer assessment score."
It was obviously intended as (an admittedly subtle) swipe at Rutgers University. Using that statement, he intended to bait me and provoke me into saying rather uncivil comments. Now I truly regret what I said and I admit I turned several of the wiki talk pages into a war zone between UCRGrad and me, but I would like you to know that it was his comment above that provoke me into a barrage of insults and admittedly uncivil attacks on UCRGrad.
I am not asking for your sympathy or to take sides, but I want to know that I did not just say those things completely out of the blue. While my behavior was unbecoming of an editor, I still stand by my position that UCRGrad should not have said those remarks about UCRGrad. He knows very well that he was insulting my school and he knows that I take pride in Rutgers. For him to disparage Rutgers (even if he asserts is true) is uncalled for. He did fire the first shot and when I tried to apologize to him for being admittedly uncivil, he just continued to disparage Rutgers. Thank you for your understanding. Teknosoul02 03:56, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Hi, WHS. My understanding is that "reverting" means going to the history page, clicking on an earlier version of the article, and saving it so that it replaces the present article. I haven't been doing that, I've just been editing the article. If you think I'm wrong about this, let me know and I'll look into it further. starkt 08:06, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
In reply to your further remarks, I think I'll take a wait and see attitude. I notice an awful lot of editing going on from UCRGrad and others -- surely more than 3 edits a day -- so I don't think he's in a position to criticize me for doing the same thing. But rules are rules, so we'll see. And thanks for saying that you generally agree with my edits. Also, note what I've written about them on the Talk page. :) starkt 08:18, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the source material. I'll try to put it in the article (quickly glances through wiki tutorial on external links...) starkt 08:48, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
I looked at UCRGrad's entries for August 13, and see that he removed all kinds of things I'd written -- certainly more than three times. I think he has about 20 edits just for that day -- lots of them removing my material. So we obviously lack an even playing field here. We're supposed to follow the rules, while UCRGrad violates them with impunity. I was tempted, by the way, simply to do a whole page revert back to my last version once I saw the nonsense he was up to. Then I would have undone all of his reverts of my work while doing only one revert myself. I think I might take this tack in the future. starkt 11:12, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for clarifying that it's by section. I take that to mean any part of the article that you can edit separately. And that as long as I don't remove material put in by other editors more than three times in a 24 hour period in any one section, I'm okay. I hope that's correct. I have read the 3RR rule, and it's not clear on this point, at least not to me. Have a good sleep. starkt 11:38, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
I don't know whether you can do this, but I seem to be the anti-UCRGrad editor making the most changes. It would be easier for me to stick to my guns if other people (also opposed to UCRGrad and Insert-Belltower) edited my most recent page (in the history section) so that I could revert to it later without eliminating their good edits. I'm passing this message on to ElKevbo and Teknosoul02. starkt 14:33, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
They've both indicated they don't want to undertake WP:Mediation. I am for initiating further data collection this week for the next RFARB, RFARB2.0, for which I've pulled the evidence from the current RFC and saved it on yet another user subpage located here: [11]. I truly think the last one failed mainly for a lack of due process, but we will see. I am not in a rush to do this, but will be working on compiling further evidence and developing a comprehensive statement through this week.-- Amerique 23:33, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
You are right about collecting new evidence. We don't need to do this now, all the evidence we should need to provide is to show how prior steps at WP:DR since the last RFARB have not worked and provide our personal statements as to what the nature of the problem (still) is and what we want the ARBCOM to do about it. I am working on my statement now offline, I should have something online by Thursday or Friday. best,-- Amerique 23:56, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
I've put up my preliminary draft statement on my afformentioned userpage. You can put yours up there now or wait until after I file the request, which I intend to do next Monday. Best,-- Amerique 00:55, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Ok, I've gotten the format of the next RFARB mostly ready to go with minimal further editing necessary. I would like to open the question of whether we should file this week to further discussion on my talk page, as UCRGrad himself seems to have suddenly become absent. Best,-- Amerique 02:23, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
The Editor's Barnstar | ||
For all you have done for Wikipedia, I award you, WHS, the Editor's Barnstar. Michael 04:29, 2 September 2006 (UTC) |
You earned it. Michael 01:00, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.
P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 15:21, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current
Arbitration Committee election. The
Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia
arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose
site bans,
topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The
arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to
review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on
the voting page. For the Election committee,
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) 13:59, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Hello WHS,
Thanks. I concur with your assessment of the UCR article. I've stopped work on it temporarily to investigate the feasibility of successfully submitting a request for an arbitration committee hearing on UCRG's behavior. Apparently, User:Tifigo has compiled a list of earlier incidents formatted for an RfC, a general Request for Comments on UCRG's activities, located here: [1] I have copied this list and have extensively edited it here: [2] but it seems the format for an RfA [3] is a bit looser, so I may not have needed to do that. Anyway, I've sent emails to Tifego and others on his list of users in dispute of UCRG's conduct (Szyslak, Calwatch, an entry on ElKevbo's talk page) but have not recieved any responses from them. Jahamal I've contacted independently and he emailed me a statement in support of arbitration. If you would like to become involved as a party to this action I would greatly appreciate it if you would prepare a statement to that effect and post it here: [4]Best,-- Amerique 23:03, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Please consider adding a statement here [5] if you are still at all concerned with this. Best,-- Amerique 16:47, 22 June 2006 (UTC) Thanks WHS. Now, to the trenches!-- Amerique 15:38, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Glad to see you back. I've been on the sidelines advising Technosoul02 on how to best approach this article, but have since got pulled back into it. Anyway, it seems if the three of us work together at editing the article like those two do, we can overpower them. I say we turn this drama into an episode of WWF tag team wrestling.-- Amerique 15:51, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, someone has responded to a request for advocacy I put up. I'm currently communicating with this person. Anyway, I fully expect 3rd party interventions to fail but I think that pursuing them will put UCRG into sustained contact with administrators. The article has attracted some outside attention, whether due to the recent revert wars or for other reasons. Last week some admins deleted IB's photo uploads, but so far they have not been willing to engage with those two rhetorically. But anyway, a link to the text of the final version of the RFARB is here [6] if you ever need to consult it. I should have informed you of its location prior to this, sorry about that.
Anyway, this week I think I am going to experiment with further edits to the article. I'm also going to post the survey request to all the UC talk pages, as I'd like more outside input into these issues. I'm ready for a sustained campaign against those 2.-- Amerique 21:38, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
You are in danger of violating the three-revert rule on a page. Please cease further reverts or you may be blocked from further editing. Stifle ( talk) 09:54, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
Don't wory you are more than welcome to post at my AMA page. I'm currently investigating the matter of the sockpuppets and should have that information soon. Thanks for making your comments, this issue is a compilcated one and needs to be carefully talked out. Aeon Insane Ward 04:22, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
The Resilient Barnstar | ||
WHS, you handled yourself well in the Dispute, owned up to your mistakes and went an extra mile to be civil. Thanks Aeon Insane Ward 01:18, 16 July 2006 (UTC) |
I will be filing an RfC on Steves behalf as soon has I figure out if it goes under Article or User Conduct. Aeon Insane Ward 01:18, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
I need a brief statement of your issues with UCGrad and Insert-Belltower for the RfC. Aeon Insane Ward 01:51, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
Seriously. Those comments about the soda and Myrtle Beach were not intended to be patonizing. I'm sorry if you took it that way. Insert-Belltower 03:51, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
Have it your way then. Insert-Belltower 15:06, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
I responded to your comment on my RFC. Insert-Belltower 02:49, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
You can find Barnstars here Barnstars there several there and other awards to. lol I have that page saved to I can award users who do great things for people. Aeon Insane Ward 16:43, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
This has not been filed yet. If you wish to make any eidts to your statement please do so. Draft of RfC Aeon Insane Ward 20:40, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
Hello WHS, I've proposed restructuring IB's RFC entirely around the "meatpuppet" allegation. Aeon thinks it is a good idea. The RFC will be on whether the Wikipedia community agrees IB's generally tamer actions in support of UCRG constitute "meatpuppetry." The RFCs will probably have to be delayed a day or so to gather and structure the evidence.-- Amerique 23:37, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Hello WHS,
Please look over the current RFCs and tell me or Aeon what you think. I was thinking IB's could benefit from adding whatever civility violations he's also committed, as all the evidence currently on his page goes to substantiate the sock/meatpuppet allegations. We are thinking of filing these tonight or tommorrow.-- Amerique 20:43, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
And hi again, Amerique. There was an edit conflict as I was attempting to make my last post. Anyway, I think we should file them tomorrow. Give me some time to look them over and I'll throw in what I can. -- WHS 20:48, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for all your hard work in helping this process along.-- Amerique 16:02, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
IB's RfC has been filed. If you could go there and endorse or certify that would be cool Aeon Insane Ward 19:36, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Take a look at this. Aeon Insane Ward 23:56, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
User talk:JakGd1 User talk:Triddle My Talk Page
Steve has added WikiStalking to the RfC now. Aeon Insane Ward 23:56, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Its ok WHS he has manged to cause several people a lot of grief. He was blocked for the stalking for 24 hours so hopefully that will serve as his wake up call. Aeon Insane Ward 02:46, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.
P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 21:38, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Hey WHS, I'm back the break did me good. Æon Insane Ward 16:44, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks WHS Æon Insane Ward 03:08, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
WHS,
I am an editor with the UCR Highlander, the student newspaper at UCR. I have assigned coverage of this wiki article to one of my staff. She, like most people, has limited knowledge of the wiki interface, so she asked me to contact potential interview candidates. Essentially, we are trying to write a non-biased account of the UCR wikipedia article, complete with the motivations of both sides, student reaction and then faculty verification of some of the facts.
You appear to be more on the pro-UCR side, which I why I am contacting you. I also have messages into UCR Grad and Belltower. We want both viewpoints expressed equally, so I'd like to hear what you have to say. If you wouldn't mind answering a few questions, anonymously or otherwise, please drop me an email at features@highlander.ucr.edu
Ryan
Hi, Ryan. I've e-mailed you a response. -- WHS 10:26, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Hey WHS, thanks. Undoubtedly I picked up some bad karma for that "little quip" but it was entirely worth it. Incidentially, I think you and El Kevbo could possibly represent UCR article affairs to the Highlander much more objectively than I could. If they do publish a story on this I would definitely want to write their account into the article itself in some way. That would be hilarious, i think.-- Amerique 00:06, 14 August 2006 (UTC) P.S. Ask them when they will be updating their online archive again.
Hello WHS,
re: doing another RFARB, while I would like to do so, I don't have time to take the lead in organizing one at this time nor do I anticipate having the time in the near future. If you decide to do this, the old evidence on the current RFC will have to be updated to reflect its current location in the article talk page archive, and new evidence added accordingly. If the new evidence shows that UCRGrad's old pattern of behavior has continued despite the admonitions of various third parties encountered in the WP:DR process, (i know it has personally but this should look obvious to people unfamiliar with the case) then i think we have a much better shot than we did the first time we tried this. Also, make sure this RFARB is focused on user conduct and not article content, which is something we did not make clear enough last time. Also, I recommend giving UCRGrad the option of undergoing a formal mediation before filing the RFARB, to show that we tried everything we could under WP:DR to resolve issues with this guy.
If UCRG rejects mediation and you want to do this soon, send me an email and I will prepare a statement. i may be able to help with final editing but probably not so much with new evidence gathering. let me know what you want to do. best, -- Amerique 22:20, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Hello WHS & ElKevbo,
I think, with the Highlander writing a story on this, we should move within the next week with the next RFARB. I'm anticiating the story will set off a small colbert effect in the form of a deluge of inexperenced and hostile editors swarming the article, which would significantly further muddy the POV waters we've been treading in and cause an exponential # of petty conflicts to occur. -- Amerique 19:50, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
Hello WHS,
Thanks for offering to send me a copy of the Highlander article. If you can scan a copy into a pdf format and send it to me via email, that would be cool. I can't believe the Highlander does not publish online anymore. I was hoping the article would have more "net" impact, but oh well. I hope everything is going well with you. I am super busy with academics these days, but maybe we can still get the UCR article to featured status at some point in the long term. Best,-- Amerique 21:54, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
Hi WHS, I want you to get my side of the story before you make any judgments.
UCRGrad wrote this on the talk page: "Furthermore, I think it's nice that you compare UC Riverside to Rutgers. Rutgers is a virtually unknown school to people living in California, and probably has a similar reputation to UCR - this is consistent with the similar peer assessment score."
It was obviously intended as (an admittedly subtle) swipe at Rutgers University. Using that statement, he intended to bait me and provoke me into saying rather uncivil comments. Now I truly regret what I said and I admit I turned several of the wiki talk pages into a war zone between UCRGrad and me, but I would like you to know that it was his comment above that provoke me into a barrage of insults and admittedly uncivil attacks on UCRGrad.
I am not asking for your sympathy or to take sides, but I want to know that I did not just say those things completely out of the blue. While my behavior was unbecoming of an editor, I still stand by my position that UCRGrad should not have said those remarks about UCRGrad. He knows very well that he was insulting my school and he knows that I take pride in Rutgers. For him to disparage Rutgers (even if he asserts is true) is uncalled for. He did fire the first shot and when I tried to apologize to him for being admittedly uncivil, he just continued to disparage Rutgers. Thank you for your understanding. Teknosoul02 03:56, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Hi, WHS. My understanding is that "reverting" means going to the history page, clicking on an earlier version of the article, and saving it so that it replaces the present article. I haven't been doing that, I've just been editing the article. If you think I'm wrong about this, let me know and I'll look into it further. starkt 08:06, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
In reply to your further remarks, I think I'll take a wait and see attitude. I notice an awful lot of editing going on from UCRGrad and others -- surely more than 3 edits a day -- so I don't think he's in a position to criticize me for doing the same thing. But rules are rules, so we'll see. And thanks for saying that you generally agree with my edits. Also, note what I've written about them on the Talk page. :) starkt 08:18, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the source material. I'll try to put it in the article (quickly glances through wiki tutorial on external links...) starkt 08:48, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
I looked at UCRGrad's entries for August 13, and see that he removed all kinds of things I'd written -- certainly more than three times. I think he has about 20 edits just for that day -- lots of them removing my material. So we obviously lack an even playing field here. We're supposed to follow the rules, while UCRGrad violates them with impunity. I was tempted, by the way, simply to do a whole page revert back to my last version once I saw the nonsense he was up to. Then I would have undone all of his reverts of my work while doing only one revert myself. I think I might take this tack in the future. starkt 11:12, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for clarifying that it's by section. I take that to mean any part of the article that you can edit separately. And that as long as I don't remove material put in by other editors more than three times in a 24 hour period in any one section, I'm okay. I hope that's correct. I have read the 3RR rule, and it's not clear on this point, at least not to me. Have a good sleep. starkt 11:38, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
I don't know whether you can do this, but I seem to be the anti-UCRGrad editor making the most changes. It would be easier for me to stick to my guns if other people (also opposed to UCRGrad and Insert-Belltower) edited my most recent page (in the history section) so that I could revert to it later without eliminating their good edits. I'm passing this message on to ElKevbo and Teknosoul02. starkt 14:33, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
They've both indicated they don't want to undertake WP:Mediation. I am for initiating further data collection this week for the next RFARB, RFARB2.0, for which I've pulled the evidence from the current RFC and saved it on yet another user subpage located here: [11]. I truly think the last one failed mainly for a lack of due process, but we will see. I am not in a rush to do this, but will be working on compiling further evidence and developing a comprehensive statement through this week.-- Amerique 23:33, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
You are right about collecting new evidence. We don't need to do this now, all the evidence we should need to provide is to show how prior steps at WP:DR since the last RFARB have not worked and provide our personal statements as to what the nature of the problem (still) is and what we want the ARBCOM to do about it. I am working on my statement now offline, I should have something online by Thursday or Friday. best,-- Amerique 23:56, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
I've put up my preliminary draft statement on my afformentioned userpage. You can put yours up there now or wait until after I file the request, which I intend to do next Monday. Best,-- Amerique 00:55, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Ok, I've gotten the format of the next RFARB mostly ready to go with minimal further editing necessary. I would like to open the question of whether we should file this week to further discussion on my talk page, as UCRGrad himself seems to have suddenly become absent. Best,-- Amerique 02:23, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
The Editor's Barnstar | ||
For all you have done for Wikipedia, I award you, WHS, the Editor's Barnstar. Michael 04:29, 2 September 2006 (UTC) |
You earned it. Michael 01:00, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.
P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 15:21, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current
Arbitration Committee election. The
Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia
arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose
site bans,
topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The
arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to
review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on
the voting page. For the Election committee,
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) 13:59, 23 November 2015 (UTC)