Welcome!

Hello, Amerique, 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:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

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]