User talk:Amerique/Archive 1

Welcome!

Hello, Amerique/Archive 1, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:26, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

UCR Article

Hi, I'm sure I'm speaking on behalf of most people when I say that I appreciate your work on the UCR article. However, it's pretty evident to me that UCRGrad has no real intention of bringing the article up to featured status. Rather, he's just attempting to find as many negative facts as possible about the school and throw them in there. I'm suggesting that maybe you don't waste your effort in a lost cause, as he's always going to be there to counter whatever positive changes you make to it. Perhaps just let him have the article for the time being, and start making real advances to it once he grows tired of playing Wikipedia editor? Just my thoughts. WHS 21:27, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Sorry, I've been a little busy, but I'll add a statement to the page as soon as I have some free time on my hands. Thanks again for your work. WHS 19:37, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking leadership in filing the RfA about UCRGrad. After my own experiences with him, I watched your attempts at negotiation and compromise over the last month or so and it was like watching a slow motion car wreck. It was fascinating in a macabre sort of way but the outcome was ineveitable.

Please let me know if there is anything I can do to further support or strengthen our claims in the RfA. "Working with" UCRGrad and InsertBellTower was the most frustrating experience I've had on Wikipedia and I'd surely love for something constructive to be done so we can improve the UCR article. --ElKevbo 21:03, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your willingness to bite the bullet and file the long overdue UCRGrad RFAr. I ran away from the UCR article in frustration over his antics, and would love to help any way I can. szyslak (t, c, e) 04:17, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Baseless RFAr is Failing Insert-Belltower 20:23, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your gloating is both premature and uncivil. Please cease. --ElKevbo 01:31, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just stating the obvious. There is really no case here, and the UC Riverside article, as the ADMIN agrees, is very comprehensive. Insert-Belltower 19:37, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's funny you ask me to do that because I was about ready to do it on my own. It was a little disappointing to see that he had rejected it, but I'll go ahead and try to gather up what I can anyway. Perhaps more information from "Unwillingness to reach agreement" section of your UCRGarb page? Anyway I'll try to dig up some dirt. WHS 00:53, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes please! use all you can! I would work more on it myself but i have another project ongoing right now. best--Amerique 00:57, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute Resolution Evidence

I'm going to go ahead and post what I found here:

Avoidance

3RR Violation [1]
Personal attacks

"4) I'm sorry, but I think you're way out of touch with reality here. UCRGrad 17:13, 27 March 2006 (UTC)UCRGrad"[2]
"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.64.54.92.76 19:03, 27 March 2006 (UTC)UCRGrad"
"I therefore question your literary ability and consequently, your aptitude to contribute at all to this article. 64.54.91.177UCRGrad"
"Quit whining. 64.54.91.177UCRGrad"
"There you go again with your psychic mind reading. 64.54.92.76 19:03, 27 March 2006 (UTC)UCRGrad"
"You clearly have nothing to contribute here. 64.54.92.76 19:03, 27 March 2006 (UTC)UCRGrad" [3]
"Quit pussyfooting around and respond to my counterargument. UCRGrad 03:52, 27 April 2006 (UTC)" [4]

WP:AGF Violation [5]

First step: talk to the other parties involved

Ignoring problems brought up by other parties [6] [7]
Failure to acknowledge problems [8]

Discuss with third parties

"I've been asked to come back and clarify my third opinion. As DtEW says, the burden of proof lies with the editor that wants the edits to stand. UCRGrad has provided sources for some of their assertations, but not for others - for instance, the nickname, 'University of California, Rejects', undoubtedly exists, but those sources do not show that it is because of the admission critera - this is speculation or original research at best. On a related note, be careful that sources show what you are claiming that they do - the MDapplicants.com one doesn't say anything about the relative merits of the university; you need to do a certain amount of research to figure that out, so it's unacceptable (or at least, that page of it is). --Scott Wilson 13:17, 29 March 2006 (UTC)" [9]
"Insert-Belltower, please do not revert to the version with the disputed assertions. The burden of proof is on the editor who wishes the edits to stand, and more evidence is still needed. --Scott Wilson 14:07, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

^^^This has been taken out of context. Scott later apologizes and the course of the discussion changes. The situation is resolved.Insert-Belltower 13:35, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Wilson apologizes for calling you a sockpuppet, not for what he said. Let's not resort to lying to the arbcom now. And it should be noted that you are indeed a confirmed puppetmaster. --WHS 17:28, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, he and I came to a mutual reconciliation on this matter of the reverts and the sockpuppet comment that he made. I would ask you to please go back and look at the entire conversation for full details and I you will find that he and I are completely civil and respectful to each other. This isolated statement the requires a context for full understanding of its meaning. One could take anybody's words and spin them with the own interpretation. Insert-Belltower 19:46, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The same goes for you, too UCRGrad - reverting it umpteen different times won't make them any more acceptable to WP:V. You made no attempt to discuss my comments, as well as many of DtEW's before reverting. --Scott Wilson 14:15, 29 March 2006 (UTC)" [10]

Conduct a survey

Won't work because of the following:

"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)" [11]

Informal Mediation / Mediation

"Yo, man. "If you disagree, I invite you to bring this matter up in arbitration or mediation" is a useless response that sidesteps your obligation to justify your statements. I mean, dude, you're basically saying that Alternet is NOT a reliable source per WP:RS, yet the WP:RS page doesn't specifically have any restrictions against Alternet, yo. On the other hand, I'm going to cite WP:RS as NOT specifically mentioning anything that would absolutely make Alternet an inappropriate source. You get a revert, UNLESS you can back it up. Eat it. 909er 02:16, 29 April 2006 (UTC)" [12]
"I do not agree to mediation..." [13]

And then throw in everything in the unwillingness to reach agreement section on your ucrgarb page.

Oh and by the way, I should note that the K5pec who posted in the "Student Life" section of the talk page is a non-abusive sockpuppet of mine, just to prevent any problems beforehand. Anyway that's all I've got the will to go through and look for right now, I'll try to look around some more later. WHS 02:06, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

UCR Article, next steps?

It seems to me that, despite our best efforts, the good guys have lost and RFARB has failed. It seems to me that not going through prior dispute resolution steps may have been the primary factor in costing us this case, apart from the beligerent actions of those on our side. Later today I will copy the RFARB text and save it in a sub-page for future users to consider in any further actions against UCRG or IB.

As for the article, it seems to me that I can approach this in either 1 of 2 ways. Cease work on it entirely or else continue working on it according to my original intention of developing it to feature status, not only for that purpose, but in order to force contact between UCRG/IB and other Admins. It seems to me that a likely outcome of that would be more material for another RFARB or other steps in dispute resolution, and though I myself am not particularly interested in further contact with these two characters, I don't believe the UCR article as a whole is far from where it has to be to qualify for such a nomination, despite the biased elements. In any case, the article itself is setting new standards for objectivity.

But there are other articles I'd like to work on also. So I will think about this over the next few days. I would like to thank all of you who supported this for working with me, and I hope to keep in touch.--Amerique 20:28, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Per the Arbitration policy, I've requested Fred Bauder and SimonP, the two arbitrators who voted "Reject" and did not provide a rationale, to provide a rationale. It's part of the process, it may be instructive or useful, and it's a perfectly reasonable request.

As stated a few months ago on the UCR Talk page, I don't care to work on that article with UCRGrad and InsertBelltower maintaining de facto ownership of it and veto power over any changes. It's simply not worth the effort as it's too frustrating and a waste of time and energy. I have no investement in UCR, either the article or the institution, so I don't care to waste my time and energy on the article when there are so many other articles with cooperative and collegial editors who know how to work with others and play nicely.

If you can come up with something else, please let me know! --ElKevbo 21:06, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All four arbitrators have provided their rationale (three on the RfA page and one on my Talk page). --ElKevbo 19:42, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

UCRGrad's Response

So I've been following various TALK pages (including this and others) and I just want to say that I admire the level of effort and enthusiasm you guys have expended in trying to silence my contributions. Perhaps if you all had taken that same amount of energy and directed it towards actually improving the article (instead of harrassing one of the editors), the text would be that much better right now.

But what confuses me is in light of FOUR independent arbitrators reviewing my contributions as well as the article, and NONE of them agreeing with your accusations, you people STILL don't let it go.

This leads me to believe that there is a discrepancy between PERCEPTION and REALITY. For instance:

Perception: The article is biased.

Reality: MANY people have this perception at first glance and several have tried to explain why they believe so. NOBODY has been able to rationally provide a good argument as to why. When logic fails (or does not pass simple scrutiny), it usually is because perception (the "gut impression" that the article is biased) does not translate to reality (the article really is biased). The fact the article is NOT biased is further substantianted by the review of FOUR WP arbitrators, one of whom even said that I had a valid viewpoint, and another stated that this was a pretty good college article!

Perception: UCRGrad is unreasonable and difficult to work with.

Reality: I have always made a strong effort to justify my edits and respond to any and all objections people have raised. On the other hand, not everyone has provided valid justications or ones that survive simple scrutiny. In fact, this has happened quite often. Just because individuals "insist" they are correct or wish/hope/pray that this were the case (and convince themselves of such) it doesn't mean things will pan out in REALITY. If people cannot provide valid reasons or logical justification for their objections, how should an editor, like myself, respond?? I certainly should not "give in" just because an individual strenuously objects, especially if his reasoning for doing so is flawed. Some people have perceived this as being "stubborn" or "difficult to worth with." The reality is, I am a perfectly reasonable person, and people have become frustrated when I challenge their arguments and explain why their objections are not valid.

Perception: UCRGrad is trying to make UCR look bad.

Reality: Absolutely untrue. As I have repeatedly stated, I have considerable knowledge of the campus, and I'm in a position to convey comprehensive and useful informationn about the university. If UCR does not accel in certain areas, it is not because of me - I merely present the facts, and I believe that I do so objectively.

Well, I'm glad UCRGrad has become aware of a distinction between perception and reality. I encourage him to further explore this distinction with regards to his own point of view, however "simple" the method or the substance might be. Although UCR might not have deserved UCRGrad, UCRGrad surely seems to have deserved Riverside. He earned his right to be there, in "reality" and on Wikipedia.--Amerique 19:44, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You can choose to ignore everything I wrote and dunk your head into the sand like the proverbial ostrich - but the preponderance of evidence against you (and the absence of evidence in your support) speaks mouthfulls. Your fancy rhetoric and subtle ad hominems (all of which fail to directly address anything I've written) only further compromise the validity of your viewpoint. Again, there's perception, and there's reality. Yours are not in agreement. UCRGrad 03:14, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence against me? I'm not sure what you are referring to. Apart from calling you a clown that one time, over a patently insignificant issue, (which, by the way, I sincerely apologise for) I'm not aware of much "evidence" against me. However, the RFARB failed not for any lack of evidence against you, but for a failure to follow prior dispute resolution steps. Should I decide to edit the article again, I have no doubt these steps will have to be taken, but the question for me is whether I care enough about the article or your activities there to initiate them. The article seems to mean more to you than it does to me, maybe, after all, you deserve it. Regards--Amerique 15:31, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you do not truly care enough about the UCR article, I wonder why you feel the need to be one of its editors! I think everyone appreciates your work on the history section, but to spend all that energy trying to silence me just seems like a waste of time. Good luck to you. UCRGrad 02:22, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Amerique (and others): Please don't feed the troll. --ElKevbo 03:32, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

re:Advocacy Request

There is a response to your inquiry on AMA Requests. :-) אמר Steve Caruso _(desk/poll) 00:18, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Avocate of User Insert-belltower

Hello Amerique I'm Aeon of the AMA. Insert Belltower has requested an avocate to help resolve an issue reguarding edits to the University of California Riverside. If you could please go to this page on my user space (Aeon's AMA Desk) maybe we can resolve this issue with out taking it to other steps. Thank you and Happy Editting Aeon ^{Insane Ward} 05:10, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou for posting on my AMA page, I'm very pleased with the way you outlined your issues and have invited Insert-Belltower to do the same so that way all parties understand the other issues. Thank you and best reguards Happy Editting Aeon ^{Insane Ward} 20:17, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still out here

I don't think it's appropriate for me to get involved in any way with the mediation processes but I just wanted to drop you a line and let you know I'm still out here and following the ongoing edits and actions in and related to the UCR article. My views have not changed and it seems to me that the problems I perceive in the article and with some of the editors of the article still exist. If there is anything I can do to help short of jumping back into the article (an action I will not take until the ongoing issues are resolved as I view that as a complete waste of time and energy) please let me know. I fully support what you have done so far and wish you the best! --ElKevbo 20:50, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm so sorry

I have been refering to you as she. So so Sorry about that. Aeon ^{Insane Ward} 01:55, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Amerique is a she, though! No need to apologize. UCRGrad 04:11, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No Look at the User Page. Sorry Amerique Aeon ^{Insane Ward} 04:13, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This doesn't really have anything to do with the rest of this section of your talk page, but I'm putting it here so I don't call too much attention to the comment. Although inappropriate, I wanted to let you know that I got a good laugh out of the Insert-Belltower remark you left on his talk page. Also, if you're not busy, take a look at the most recent message left for me in my talk page and if possible, let me know your thoughts about it. --WHS 08:05, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Heads up

WHS and Amerique just to give you a heads up, I'm no longer IB Advocate and now UCRGrad feels that my involvment is going to iritate him, I have post on steves talk page about either RfC or Formal Mediation to handle this. Aeon ^{Insane Ward} 23:55, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry Amerique I will still be involved dispite what UCRGrad feels about it. Aeon ^{Insane Ward} 00:31, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Amerique I feel this should go higher. I'm willing to support you in this since you and WHS were willing to try to work this out. Aeon ^{Insane Ward} 00:33, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Steve is busy with the AMA so I will File the RfC on his behalf. Thanks for trying ot work this out civily Aeon ^{Insane Ward} 01:10, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For trying to resolve this issue

		The Resilient Barnstar
		Amerique you learned from mistakes and betn over backwards to try to fix the issues. Aeon ^{Insane Ward} 01:16, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, what do you think about WHS filing a mediation request? I am not really engaged in any personal/civil disputes with either of them currently, but i think issues unresolved from the "plagarism" accusation merit a mediation request.--Amerique 01:19, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

hmmm.....I dought UCRGrad will go for Mediation....and RfC might be better to start with. Aeon ^{Insane Ward} 01:25, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thank you very much for the barnstar. going offline for the evening.--Amerique 01:26, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. I will need a brief statement from you for the RfC on your issues with Insert-Belltower and UCRGrad. Aeon ^{Insane Ward} 01:49, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

fine by me Amerique. I wil stift through the AMA desk and get all the evendence Aeon ^{Insane Ward} 18:07, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

here is what the RfC looks like it s just s draft. Feel free to make any changes you wish RfC draft Copy Aeon ^{Insane Ward} 20:41, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

looks good so far. I have fixed the links to the Wikipolicies. The sock issue may come up, I might move it to the discription. Feel free to move stuff around. Aeon ^{Insane Ward} 21:16, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not a prob! also remember to sign your post ;-) Aeon ^{Insane Ward} 21:28, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be inappropriate to add WP:OWN into the mix or must this RFC only contain what was covered in the arbitration? --ElKevbo 22:15, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe we should add in UCRGrad into the Insert Belltower RfC, keep everything on one page Aeon ^{Insane Ward} 23:04, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let me double check the RfC guidlines, and I will get back to you. Aeon ^{Insane Ward} 23:12, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Disreguard what I said earlier. Lets file these seprate (BTW i can't spell that great sorry) I will have to edit you all staements since they involve UCRGrad to. Aeon ^{Insane Ward} 23:16, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In that case I don't thik I have anything to add regarding Insert-Belltower that I haven't already said. So will a separate RFC be filed for UCRGrad? If so, I do have some to add to that. --ElKevbo 05:21, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That is fine, to tell the truth this is the first one of these I have had to file (I've been on WIkipedia for more than a year and with the AMA for the last seven months). If you wish to take your time then by all meens do so. I will edit it some more tomarrow I will be going offline soon. Aeon ^{Insane Ward} 23:51, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thursday sound good? Aeon ^{Insane Ward} 22:04, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I like the way the RfC on UCGrad looks. I removed the statment from the RfC, your right looks to formal for an RfC. I think we need to edit it a bit more before we file it. Aeon ^{Insane Ward} 01:30, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I put some work into the RFC against UCRGrad - check it out and let me know how it looks. I tried to explain the various examples of violations so the mediators wouldn't have to guess at our meaning. During that process, I removed a few which were erroneous (one was actually one of IB's sockpuppets, not UCRGrad's) and where I couldn't make any reasonable connection between what was alleged and the proffered evidence. Feel free to add more, correct what I've done, whatever.

Can someone provide a link to the IB RFC so I can take a look at that, too? --ElKevbo 05:02, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I-B RFC: [14] --WHS 06:47, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, Maybe we should just take on UCRGrad for now. I have a feeling he is the main problem you all have. Lets hold off of IB for now. Aeon ^{Insane Ward} 01:26, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey could you E-mail me that way I we can continue this Aeon ^{Insane Ward} 01:28, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, i would file it with the one you wrote. It is by far the best of the two. Aeon ^{Insane Ward} 15:58, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I fixed that disabled it for a couple of reasons. Aeon ^{Insane Ward} 17:39, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So far it looks good. I have made a few minor formating changes, I'm going to reword the second paragraph a little and redo the attempts to solve this issue. Do you have anything from the UCR page that shows you aor WHS trying to solve this? Aeon ^{Insane Ward} 18:57, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have reworded the paragraph. All I think it needs is a touch up on the disupte resolution and it is ready. Aeon ^{Insane Ward} 19:06, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the sockpuppet stuff on UCRGrad since that is in his RFC. Aeon ^{Insane Ward} 19:13, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes but I would still leave that one out, since this RfC is about IB, it could cause issues with the community. Aeon ^{Insane Ward} 19:34, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

sounds cool, out of the frying pan and hopefull ynot into the fire Aeon ^{Insane Ward} 20:07, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You and WHS should be the first ones to cerify the RfCs. I will let Steve know and after that I will ceritify. Me and steve will prob have to make comments. Aeon ^{Insane Ward} 20:31, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Amerique. I've replied to your comments on my talk page. --WHS 21:18, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Roger tha tbe a good idea. steve should look these over to. Aeon ^{Insane Ward} 21:30, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Amerique. I've done some work on the UCRG RFA and looked over the one on I-B. Both of them look ready to me. I'll certify the UCRG one when it goes up. Since I haven't interacted much with I-B, I'm wondering whether I should certify or simply endorse his RFC. Either way, both RFCs have my full support. szyslak (t, c, e) 13:31, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree I think it is time. Aeon ^{Insane Ward} 14:52, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If your Filing then you should it would be proper. Here we go! Aeon ^{Insane Ward} 15:05, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

IB RfC

Do you want IB's RfC be filed yet, or do you wish to wait? Aeon ^{Insane Ward} 19:19, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is done

RfC

It has been filed and I notified IB and UCRGrad. I will be notifying others as well. Aeon ^{Insane Ward} 19:35, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It works, not sure what is wrong.....try refreshing it Aeon ^{Insane Ward} 20:43, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

fixed....forgot to list the dang thing. Aeon ^{Insane Ward} 20:53, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LOL not a problem Aeon ^{Insane Ward} 20:59, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for informing me of the Rfc. I will respond tonight or tomorrow. Nevertheless, I feel optimistic about the future. It's a nice day where I am, apart from the humidity. How is the weather where everyone else is at? Insert-Belltower 21:52, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, IB. Glad you are taking this well.--Amerique 21:56, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

yes maybe the issue can stop at RfC and not have to go any further. And my weather is Hot an dry. I would love a thunderstorm. Aeon ^{Insane Ward} 22:11, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In A2, we just had one last night. Kind of humid and overcast today, though--Amerique 22:18, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Same here. It's like that in many parts of the US.Insert-Belltower 22:46, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

UCR survey

Given how the article stands now, and the lack of recent activity in the survey, I wouldn't object to withdrawing it. But we might want to wait a day or so, in case UCRG or I-B revert Evil Saltine's edits. But that was a couple days ago, and so far so good... szyslak (t, c, e) 10:40, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Remaining Issues

I have added this topic on the UC Riverside TALK page with the hope of discussing remaining problems with the article.Insert-Belltower 21:43, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem with you moving that question to the TALK page. People might still have issues with the article as it is now, but we will see. Sounds good.Insert-Belltower 22:45, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion

After reading Doc Tropics comment I have a suggestion to You and IB. Why not try to request Mediation again (Formal or Informal through the mediation Cabal up to you). In this case however it would only involve the two of you (WHS, UCRGrad et all would not be involved). That way you could discuss the issues you have with each other with out outside influence on either side with a Neutral Party over seeing it. It could help to keep this issue from going higher and might even start to help with the other issues. How do the two of you feel about this? (NOTE: I will not be mediating if you do decied to give it a try, but I will provide the link) Aeon ^{Insane Ward} 19:16, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments on my talkpage Amerique. I hope that those involved in the current dispute are willing to make another attempt at mediation. I have a strong preference for seeing disputes resolved as informally as possible so that editors can focus on things like...editing :) --Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 20:10, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lately, I think that we have been working well. I don't see a need to go into this again right now.

PS. Amerique. Which place do you like better, Riverside or A2?Insert-Belltower 23:36, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Highlander

Thanks for offering your opinion on the Highlander thing. Contrary to what you said though, I think you'd be just as objective as any of us in the article since afterall, it's not you that's unilaterally trying to push a POV on the article, but I guess that's neither here nor there. Anyway, you think an RfArb would be justified now that we've pretty much exhausted other dispute resolution procedures with no result? --WHS Talk 03:30, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey. I did some editing of the RfC last night to throw in a few more current (as in the past few weeks) violations, so I don't think that part of the process will be a problem. I think I'll hold off on it for a little bit longer before I decide that an RfArb would be absolutely necessary. And besides, the longer we hold off, the more evidence against him I suppose. --WHS Talk 22:37, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Amerique. I noticed the exact same thing you did regarding how the Highlander seems to be taking a pro vs. negative stance on the article. I figured that when answering their questions, I could clarify that it's not a pro vs. negative thing, but rather a POV vs. NPOV debate. As far as the RfArb goes, I'll attempt to solicit more third opinions and leave the mediation option again. I'm still going to hold off on it for a bit though, since I've been bit by the jury duty bug. --WHS Talk 02:08, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey. If UCRGrad and I-B once again reject the request for mediation, then I agree that we should move forward in DR. Regarding the publication of the story however, I don't think it'll have too large of an effect on the article, especially now that it's protected. I'm still sort of weary about going back to the ArbCom (and also of whether or not DR actually works here), so I want to make sure all the non-POV editors approve before it's done. --WHS Talk 00:14, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please edit my edits

I don't know whether you can do this, but I seem to be the anti-UCRGrad editor making the most edits. It would be easier for me to simply revert back to them (after they are reverted) if other anti-UCRGrad/anti-Insert-Belltower editors edited my work (latest starkt entry in the history section) instead of the article itself. Thanks. starkt 14:47, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RfArb

I think as far as data collection goes, we're pretty well off. People have been adding policy violations to UCRGrad's RfC as he has committed them, so the list is fairly well updated. Personally, I felt the last one failed due in part to a lack of following other items on WP:DR, but also because the admins weren't bothered enough to thoroughly check through the history of the dispute (although you can't really blame them since I'm sure they have to deal with tons of these a day). Regardless, I think filing another one is more than justified now, and I'll work to prepare a statement as well. We should probably post an announcement or something of the sort on the UCR talk page so other editors are aware that one is in process. Honestly, I pretty much agree with Starkt's assessment of the article. I'm tired of beating around the bush. It's clear that UCRGrad has no intention to genuinely make an effort to improve both his behavior and the article, and it's time to do something about it. And as for Insert-Belltower, he really hasn't done anything aside from support UCRGrad, so "silencing" (haha) (Actually, I shouldn't joke about that. He'll undoubtedly cite it as evidence of a conspiracy against him) him will be like cutting the problem off at the head. --WHS Talk 00:29, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Before filing another RFAr, I think we should try an article RFC, the only step in WP:DR we haven't tried, save for mediation. UCRG hasn't been around for a couple of days now, so I hold out some dim hope he could come around and agree to mediation after all. After all, multiple editors have been trying to convince him to accept it. It's best if we can show we've exhausted every possible option. szyslak (t, c, e) 09:18, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still not that familiar with all of these dispute resolution processes, so let me know what I need to do (specifically) to help. I'll be checking in on the UCR article every two or three days. Thanks. starkt 10:02, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We may not necessarily need an "evidence" section, as we used on the first attempted RFAr. What really matters is the evidence presented in the open case. However, we should provide some diffs for evidence, preferably in the introduction and our statements, like "UCRG/I-B engages in personal attacks [diff] and incivility [diff]. That'll all be worked out in due time. szyslak (t, c, e) 00:27, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well personally, I want to stop screwing around and get this dispute settled since this has already been dragged out far too long, but how do you feel about the article RfC Szyslak has proposed? I kinda think that it's an unnecessary formality because it's pretty much certain that we'll just end back up where we are now, but Szyslak does make a good point when he says that it'll show we've exhausted every possible option. --WHS Talk 02:55, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But we've already tried that. :( --ElKevbo 03:16, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't object to another article content RFC, however I don't think the issue of whether we do one or not has any bearing on the second RFARB, which will be entirely focused on user conduct violations and not article content disputes.--Amerique 04:53, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Amerique. I'll probably be able to get my statement up on your subpage prior to monday, depending on how busy I am IRL. Thanks for the heads up. --WHS Talk 06:57, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

Hi. I was wondering if you guys could intervene and instruct Starkt that his recent comments are inappropriate. On the TALK he stated that "reverting my edits will be met with a reversion in turn." I don't think this is a fair policy for obvious reasons, and I don't think that he will listen to me.

I look forward to further cooporation. Insert-Belltower 18:37, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RFARB ready to file

Ok, I've gotten the format of the next RFARB mostly ready to go with minimal further editing necessary. User:Amerique/RFARB2.0 I would like to open the question of whether we should file this week to further discussion on this page, as UCRGrad himself seems to have suddenly become absent. I for one am ready to go to the ARBCOM now, but would like UCRGrad to have the opportunity to defend himself. UCRGrad or Insert-Belltower can also comment here on this if they want to.--Amerique 02:19, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it would do any good to file an RfArb against an editor who is not present and has not present for about a week. If he shows up again and continues his activities then let's press ahead. But right now, without UCRGrad's presence in Wikipedia, the issue is moot. The article is finally moving in a positive direction and into compliance with Wikipedia policies and that's the important thing, right? --ElKevbo 02:29, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I concur.--Amerique 03:22, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the above. I've also followed your suggestions, Amerique. starkt 04:47, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

After reading criticisms of my attempts to remove (and keep out) POV material in the article by various editors (ElKevbo, GeorgeLouis, Szyslak and Danny Lilithborne), I've decided to no longer participate in any complaints against UCRGrad and Insert-Belltower. You can see my reasons in the UCR article discussion page ("Overall NPOV Status" and "Article Un-Protected"). starkt 05:30, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PEACE

I'm not planning to do much editing of the UCR article in the near future. I might come back later.

I've learned that sometimes, despite one's best effort, you have to bend over and take the Belltower; the porno music starts. "Peeep Bohh Chicka Bow Wooow."

Peace and Love, my fellow WOLVERINE!! Insert-Belltower 17:46, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]