User talk:Tifego/UCRG notes

Re: Sockpuppet problem

Hi Tifego, and thanks for being one of the few voices of sanity editing the UCR article. I stumbled upon that whole mess while I was doing unrelated cat work on UC-related articles. The funny thing is, it's the first college/university article I've encountered that has a negative POV. Most of the ones I've seen go on and on about how "prestigious" and "distinguished" the school is, and about how this or that famous person went there...

Yep, I think the 909 guy is probably a sock of UCRGrad. If not, he's a troll/vandal who showed up at the right time. Either way, it's an abusive account created in bad faith to disrupt the article. Whether or not 909 is UCRGrad, the account should be blocked for simple trolling, so going the RFI route is the best way IMO. szyslak (t, c, e) 08:03, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I'd feel happier if it was checkuser confirmed before blocking a suspected sock. You've got plenty of grounds for placing a request. Let me know the outcome (or place it on RFI) and I'll see if a block is appropriate. Petros471 21:57, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Oh, sorry, I did in fact place a request at RFI. Currently it is there under user requests at the top. –Tifego^(t) _{22:03, 20 April 2006 (UTC)}

Did you place a Requests for CheckUser? My message above was in response to your WP:RFI report. Petros471 22:34, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Oops, no, I thought the request linked to RFI. I'll put a checkuser request in [err, in a few days if nothing else comes up], then. –Tifego^(t) _{22:37, 20 April 2006 (UTC)}

But, honestly, I am more concerned about convincing UCRGrad to stop this sillyness than about getting one of his sockpuppets blocked. –Tifego^(t) _{22:39, 20 April 2006 (UTC)}

Ok, I'll take a look at this again in the morning, as investigating RFI reports late at night is not a good idea ;) Petros471 22:43, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I too believe 909er is a sawkpuppet of UCRGrad. In addition, a simple search on google revealed a lot of bias from users under the same handle "UCRGrad" - coincidence? Here is the link http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/archive/index.php/t-149891-p-2.html —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pimpclinton (talk • contribs) .

Huh, well now UCRGrad is starting to say increasingly insulting things to me [1] [2], and then a new sockpuppet of somebody appeared a few hours later with an even more blatant/leading personal attack against me [3]. I suppose I should just ignore such comments, as annoying as they are, but I can only assume the sockpuppeteer is UCRGrad, given that he's the only one who has shown such animosity toward me on that page. If he's trying to convince me that he wants to focus on making a good encyclopedic article, he's doing a very poor job of it.

–Tifego^(t) _{07:31, 23 April 2006 (UTC)} Oh, and... "sawkpuppet"? Of the bawksor rawksoring variety?

I only find this a waste of my time until mediation or any other form of authoritative decision-maker can intervene. I will wait for such before I continue posting as it is apparent that UCRGrad in his/her many forms are highly opinionated/vocal and highly stubborn – the worst combination. In addition: should I (or you) remove the bold facing and caplocks? I guess I got carried away, you’re right, it’s not going to help him/her understand my point any better. Pimpclinton 00:18, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

You should probably be the one to remove the caps if you want to, because it's normally inappropriate to modify the posts of others. Also, mediation is actually a method of coming to an agreement that requires both parties to cooperate. If it works, great, but I have a feeling we won't suddenly start getting along. Another possibility is to file a user-conduct RfC on UCRGrad's behavior, to get community opinion on the appropriateness of his actions. To do that would require evidence of more than one other person trying and failing to reach agreement with him on the same issue, however... I'm sure it's happened at least 2 times but I haven't been keeping track of when. Chances are low that anybody will intervene without such steps being taken first. –Tifego^(t) _{00:27, 24 April 2006 (UTC)}

RfC sounds like a more viable solution; I am fairly sure at least two more opposing posters (regarding the hate crime part) including us will be willing to vouch for his behavior and obvious bias. I'm really only interested in having an authoritative figure judge the arguments that have been presented; users with strong voices and stronger stubbornness cannot even help themselves. I wouldn't dream of seeing such selectivity of information appearing in a Britannica Encyclopedia. Ironically, I would agree with him on the notion that UCR grads aren't the brightest people. LOL, alright, so I don't "officially" sponsor this personal attack on UCRGrad Pimpclinton 02:36, 24 April 2006 (UTC).

Hi Tifego!

I'm new to editing wikipedia articles. Thank you for your work on the UCR article. It's still a complete mess, but it's very helpful to have someone not associated with the school editing the article too. I'm rather concerned with UCRGrad and his apparent use of sockpuppets. In fact, from reading the collegeconfidential thread that pimpclinton pointed out, it really felt like he set up a completely unbelievable story on one handle just to bash UCR on his UCRGrad handle. Are there any safeguards in wikipedia that could prevent such heavyhanded bias? Dandanxu 20:01, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

There's a list of helpful pages on the right here and here, and there's WP:RCU. It seems to me like there aren't very many actual safeguards in place anywhere for this sort of thing, but there are these various inefficient (out of necessity) processes for dealing with it when it happens. I've already posted about this UCRGrad incident at WP:RFI and WP:RCU, btw. –Tifego^(t) _{23:45, 25 April 2006 (UTC)}

Tifego, thank you for your time and effort on the UCR article. For what it's worth, please note that Insert-Belltower recently added a photo of an overweight girl, emphasising that she was in a sorority [4] (with the obvious intent being to cast a certain image of what UCR's sorority population looks like, disregarding the irrelevance of such a discussion in an encyclopedic article). The image was later removed and added by BeerDrinker [5]. Noteworthy is the fact that this is BeerDrinker's very first edit on WP. 71.110.253.193 00:53, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, BeerDrinker is probably somebody's sockpuppet, but it's all very confusing, as it depends on whether Insert-Belltower is really UCRGrad. Initially I thought Insert-Belltower couldn't possibly be UCRGrad, and there are several reasons to believe they are different people, but they have started acting more and more alike recently. –Tifego^(t) _{09:11, 26 April 2006 (UTC)}

Tifego, I departed from this debate in the past right as you were beginning your participation in it, and I never got the chance to thank you for your continuing attention to this problem. I submitted the RfC under the assumption that the considerable bias in the article would be obvious to everyone, but I didn't imagine that UCRGrad's POV-pushing agenda, sockpuppetry, and other malfeasances would become obvious to so many as well. I guess back then people just weren't interested in involving themselves as more than casual readers, and I got a bit discouraged. Anyways, if anyone wants to start a RfC against UCRGrad, I'd be glad to second it. I had actually suggested it to my advocate, but I didn't get a response, so I assumed it wasn't the best idea for whatever reason. A request for arbitration or some sort of administrative intervention is probably also a good idea, since the debate has raged long enough and has already gone through quite a few Wikipedia processes (Advocate, Third Opinion & RfC by me, and now WP:RFCU & WP:RFI). I actually believe that UCRGrad isn't stubborn, but rather just devoid of any integrity. He's perfectly willing to change his points and debate tactics as long as they serve his needs, but refuses to acknowledge any good points made against his arguments. At around that instant, a putative sockpuppet leaps out of the woodwork and proclaims that "(UCRGrad) took the time to respond to all of your complaints, yet you really didn't respond to his," nevermind what the reality was. Or makes an ad hominem: circumstantial accusation. Or throws a tantrum over perceived uncivility. Hypocritical, of course, coinsidering his current behaviour. --DtEW 08:30, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

It's good to know I'm not crazy for thinking the same things about the article's neutrality and UCRGrad's effects on it. I agree about the probable lack of integrity (and certainly there's no point in assuming good faith in him after he has been so disruptive and made so many provocative personal attacks), although I'm sure some of his actions are more childish reactions to being frustrated than anything. I'd definitely support an arbitration request, but I think it'll depend on checkuser results; it makes a big difference if there's proof that he's been running a sockpuppet farm, and would save the trouble of addressing the actions of 909er, UnblockingTau, etc. separately from UCRGrad. BTW, where is/was this RfC for UCRGrad? I didn't know of it, or of the advocate. –Tifego^(t) _{09:11, 26 April 2006 (UTC)}

I apologize for the confusion, but I meant that I created the RfC for the article "UC Riverside". No RfC was ever started for "UCRGrad" as I did not receive supportive feedback about this proposed action from my advocate. I assumed that the lack of support implied that I was taking it too personal, turning it away from the goal of addressing the bias in content (I guess the advocate was still asumming good faith on UCRGrad's part) and turning it into a personal attack. One other thing to note is my observation that UCRGrad/sockpuppets? have mananged to defeat other debaters with shrill accusations of civility violations, nevermind what they do themselves. This works because the vast majority of Wikipedia participants are participating in good faith and do try very hard to adhere to Wikipedia standards of conduct. Once assused, they probably feel that they have weakened their case and basically give up from due to their perceived exacerbation of what they now realize is an uphill battle. Don't let that sort of thing discourage you at all. --DtEW 18:38, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Hello Tifego, DtEW, and to whomever else this concerns. I am sorry to conclude that I have made every effort possible to keep the argument structured, clear, and concise for you and for UCRGrad but somehow he managed to go against even this basic organization (for rebellion's sake?). The truth of the matter is that UCRGrad simply cannot be helped – he has rebelled against the one thing - organization and clarity - that was meant to help him understand the issue. Discussion is impossible with him as he isn't digesting what I state, he has falsely inferred conclusions I don't make, or he attempts to pin a motivation/bias to my (or other's) claims. Please email me when an authoritative “decision-maker” arrives (not mediation). I should have adhered to my original philosophy - that naïve realists are self-sufficient. In the meantime, good luck! Pimpclinton 05:41, 27 April 2006 (UTC).

Sure, but one thing: I think you should give him at least one more response, because otherwise you're giving him the possible idea that you don't have any counterargument if you suddenly leave the discussion now that he has asked you to state it. –Tifego^(t) _{05:53, 27 April 2006 (UTC)}

UCR

How are the discussions on UCR coming along? I'm not really interested in that article, so I haven't been following the discussions, but let me know if you need any help. I appreciate your efforts in solving these conflicts. Aucaman^Talk 06:08, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, more editors seem to have joined in, and I'm not very interested in that article either, so for now I am mostly waiting to see what will happen. It is a little discouraging, though, when I see "impossible-to-revert" changes like this made by UCRGrad. –Tifego^(t) _{03:06, 27 April 2006 (UTC)}

As I have noted on the discussion page over there, I don't think debating with UCRGrad is worth the effort. As much as I'd like to believe that the Wikipedia guiding concept of users discussing to reach concensus works, it only works for reconciling misunderstandings between intellectually honest individuals. If a slimeball is bent on introducing bias, you will expend twice the effort just to elucidate all his subtle slurs and misrepresentations. Then you will "debate" with him, wasting three times as much effort to dismiss his non-sequiters, pin down his evasive statements, correct him on his misinterpretations, and generally a lot of to-do to point out the obvious. But of course, the sheer volume of debate will serve to the slimeball's interest by muddying the point much further for the casual observer. Even assuming you manifest this superhuman level of dedication, in the end somebody (casual observer? sockpuppet?) will remark that its just one opinion vs. another and all your hard work is reduced to square one. Even in the off-chance you beat the slimeball into submission on a certain point, he will just introduce more bias in two or more areas. I think the only productive way to go is to establish his status as a slimeball and get him banned from participation. Again, IMHO. --DtEW 03:46, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, you're probably right, although I think it would be counterproductive to actually say so on the article talk page. Is it even possible to file an RfAr on him, or do we need a lengthy RfC on him first? (I wish there could be some sort of automated checks done per article to prevent sockpuppet POV-pushing like this from being so easy for anyone to do.) –Tifego^(t) _{04:21, 27 April 2006 (UTC)}

I honestly don't know. I've actually never been a Wikipedian prior to finding the blatant bias in that article. I'm still learning about the various volunteer processes and committees here. I don't think a RfC could hurt, though. That said, I do see on the WP:RfC page that a RfC could be turned against the filer(s), which is something to be concerned about considering the apparent willingness with which UCRGrad employs sockpuppets. I think the RfC could be phrased so that sockpuppetry is prior declared, minimizing its potential influence upon the casual and uninitiated. Should we consider wording? --DtEW 05:48, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

For charges of his sockpuppetry we can of course link to this page. There's no need to worry about a "backfiring RfC", that's only referring to frivolously made RfC's, which this one clearly wouldn't be, and an RfAr would be even more serious than an RfC. And either way there is an abundance of evidence in the form of edit diffs of UCRGrad saying insulting things ("There's no need to whine and make retarded accusations.") in response to people who were attempting to be reasonable, and of UCRGrad changing sentences in the article from neutral to biased, in addition to the sockpuppetry as a response to his 3RR violation. I'm hesitant to start this up now, though. It can probably wait for further investigation, and if our accusations are truly well-founded, then he will most likely continue to incriminate himself with his actions anyway. (Boy, he really jumped on this opportunity.) –Tifego^(t) _{06:38, 27 April 2006 (UTC)}

Note that I think he's perfectly entitled to his POV, but I object to his pattern of aggressively defending unencyclopedic statements while making demeaning comments and personal insults from multiple usernames. –Tifego^(t) _{05:09, 27 April 2006 (UTC)}

I would also point out that there is an outstanding RfCU on suspected sockpuppets which has not yet been addressed. The end of the one-week window in which edits by the suspected sockpuppets have occurred is quickly approaching, so I think it is becoming increasingly-urgent that this RfCU be looked into. 71.110.253.193 13:46, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

909er/UCRGrad

Apparently 909er, who may or may not be UCRGrad, just decided to become a userpage vandal: [6]. You think it's getting to be time for an RFC? Maybe even an RFAr? szyslak (t, c, e) 06:26, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

He assumed you put the tag there? I put it there days ago. Well, I think there should be an RfAr (and you're not the first to suggest that), but it depends on the CheckUser request. It's annoying to have to wait for that, but as I understand it it's a tricky undertaking, and I don't think pestering the admins about it will help. If it comes up positive then that's grounds enough for an RfAr^*, but if it's denied or isn't addressed soon enough to be able to give results^**, then I think we should try an RfC first. Either way, I don't really feel like starting either of those right now (it seems like such a waste of time to prepare and undergo an RfC or RfAr just to convince someone to make him stop wasting everyone's time...)

*(it might also make things more complex; maybe there are 2 people, both with multiple sockpuppets)

**(which might be in a few days if he's started switching computers to use different usernames)

–Tifego^(t) _{08:00, 28 April 2006 (UTC)}

On second thought, after taking another look at the most recent changes to the article and its talk page, it's clear he's really asking for an RfAr. He is unwilling to deal with anybody in a civil manner and unwilling to admit that he might possibly be wrong about anything. For all intents and purposes he has hijacked and now owns the article. It also looks like he is purposely trying to piss you off. Someone as abusive and unproductive as that shouldn't be editing here. (Also, it looks like he has already been banned for harassment at some forums where he was vocal at, and his claims to not be the same person as that are preposterous.) –Tifego^(t) _{08:52, 28 April 2006 (UTC)}

I'm not sure we should jump right into filing an RFAr immediately. He does have it coming sooner or later, but why don't we make sure we can show we've tried other methods of dispute resolution, perhaps an RFC. All depending on how the CheckUser comes out, as you were saying earlier. I think we should go ahead with your suggestion for a user subpage to discuss this matter and put together material for a potential RFAr. szyslak (t, c, e) 09:41, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Of course; I meant (considering my other post) that we should put together what evidence we have, and see if we can convince ourselves that it is both enough to warrant an RfAr and enough to be used in an RfAr. If not (it may well not be, although I believe there have been several other attempts at dispute resolution), then it will still work as evidence of complaints that could be brought to an RfC. –Tifego^(t) _{20:21, 28 April 2006 (UTC)}

I agree with the call for the RFC. I think I'm coming to the point where I have wasted enough time with it. Calwatch 01:35, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

RFC info

I added a few things to get this started, but don't have time right now to finish this. Hopefully people supporting the RFC will help out with adding evidence or sorting out the sections. –Tifego^(t) _{06:28, 29 April 2006 (UTC)}

Btw, if you all look at http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/forumdisplay.php?f=519 , you can see that UCRGrad posted under numerous different ideas, and most of his threads had to be locked. As he has done here, he often got the names and arguments confused, making it obvious who was doing it all. TheRegicider 07:16, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, just noticed the link was already posted. Glad someone else noticed. TheRegicider 07:16, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it has been posted here yet. Perhaps it belongs somewhere on the main page, in an "other notes" section. –Tifego^(t) _{07:40, 29 April 2006 (UTC)}

The only reason I've even spent time of this article is because I know how agonizing the college decision is. We cannot allow one idiot to warp the minds of an entire incoming freshman class. TheRegicider 07:16, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Scratchpad for Links

[7] is an edit I found particularly egregious; I'm not sure what the most appropriate place to categorize this (if any) on the RFC is. Sharqi 08:06, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I put it in the WP:POINT section. –Tifego^(t) _{08:32, 29 April 2006 (UTC)}

Confirming.

I'd like to confirm and be a part of this. I'm not too familiar with all this so I didn't know how to do it. Clearly his reverts have an extreme bias, your examples are all very telling TheRegicider 07:08, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I've removed the "unconfirmed" that was by your name. –Tifego^(t)

Again, I'm kind of new, so what exactly are we attempting to do? Get him banned? Ping his IP? How are we coming on everything and if you need me to do anything, let me know. TheRegicider 18:14, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

We're trying to make a formal complaint about his behavior at WP:RFC/USER, and ask the Wikipedia community to decide what to do about it as well as ask for a response to the charges by UCRGrad. If it's decided that his behavior is unacceptable and harmful, and if UCRGrad doesn't stop behaving that way, then it might proceed to WP:RFAR where the Arbitration Committee would consider what to do about it (such as disallowing him to edit the University of California, Riverside article and authorizing others suspected to be him to be banned if they behave similarly).

To get started making the formal complaint, we need (a) evidence that we and others tried and failed multiple times to reason with him about his behavior, and (b) supporting evidence of our claims about his behavior, i.e. that he breaks multiple Wikipedia policies and is generally hostile and disruptive. The best form of evidence is an edit diff (from the history tab) that directly shows him doing something objectionable, or directly shows somebody else trying to reason with him. The easiest way to find those diffs is probably to go to his contribs and check out some of the links that say "diff".

I added subsections to the main page such as "Violating WP:AGF" (assuming someone else has biased or malicious motives, which I've seen him do quite often), "Unwillingness to reach agreement", etc. to correspond with the problems I believe he has exhibited and continues to exhibit, but many of those sections don't have any evidence yet, so we need to find at least a few instances of things he has done in the past that demonstrate those problems.

–Tifego^(t) _{18:40, 29 April 2006 (UTC)}

I'd like to confirm and add my support for this. Thank you for putting it together, Tifego. Dandan 20:02, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

JokerSmoker

Clearly this JokerSmoker is just UCRGrad with another name. What are the chanes of a complete stranger rushing in to add more hate crimes to a highly contested area of the article on his first edit?

We really gotta do something about all this, it's getting depressing. I've about lost my faith in Wikipedia. It's supposed to be this great democratic entity, but it somehow allows one tool to run the entire thing. How is it possible that he rules this entire article? It doesn't matter how hard everyone tries, how many reverts, nothing happens. I've been editing this article for nearly 2 months, and it's still almost exactly the same as it was when I started---if not worse. It's one guy, how is he doing all this?

How close are we to getting rid of him? Today the last day to submit a SID to these schools, an entire freshman class is making their decision bassed on this faulty, biased and horrific information. I don't even know what to say. TheRegicider 19:02, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

I was about to post something about JokerSmoker, but TheRegicider took the words out of my mouth! I'm also growing a bit disillusioned over Wikipedia. I'm particularly dissapointed in how slow the RfCU process has been going. From a cursory look at the RfCU pages, WP's access logs only go back 1 week, and said logs are the basis for much of the CheckUser results. The original UCRGrad RfCU has sat static for a week. Sharqi 19:10, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Someone might want to add something to the sockpuppetry evidence page about JokerSmoker. (UCRGrad may be watching changes to that page, but I'm not sure that matters.) Also, what do people think about UnblockingTau? Am I wrong to think he is probably UCRGrad? I'm 100% sure that 909er is UCRGrad, but I'm starting to wonder about the others; perhaps some of them are meatpuppets, or sockpuppets of someone else? –Tifego^(t) _{00:32, 1 May 2006 (UTC)}

CheckUser results

Wow, what a coincidence, the checkuser was completed within about 10 minutes of my comment above (by Mackensen, see here). He also blocked the sockpuppets. As the puppetmasters, Insert-Belltower and UCRGrad are the only two who weren't blocked. –Tifego^(t) _{00:55, 1 May 2006 (UTC)}

I'm not sure what that all means. Translate? How much closer are we to getting rid of him entirely? TheRegicider 02:39, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

It means they (UCRGrad and Insert-Belltower) will have a hard time getting away with more sockpuppetry, they've both been warned that causing further disruption will probably result in them being banned, and they both have "this user is the puppet master of one or more abusive sock puppets" on their user pages so other people will know. If they do continue being disruptive and POV-pushing (probably under other user names), depending on how obvious they are about it, an admin may be willing to block them for it, or we'd be justified in filing an RfAr for a permanent ban if necessary. (Until then, I won't be using the evidence page here, except possibly this discussion page if there's any further talk about it.)

This means that useful contributions to the article might actually be able to stay in the article without unreasonable amounts of combatting a bunch of sockpuppets on the talk page.

–Tifego^(t) _{03:21, 1 May 2006 (UTC)}

Alright, well I appreciate all your work. I am going to attempt to get rid of the StudentsReview stat because it's clearly not a reputable stat. Also given their tendancy for Sock puppets, it's likely that they submitted negative reviews to taint it. I'm going to need everyone's help, so if they revert it can you guys back me? TheRegicider 04:34, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I already redid some of the other improvements made by szyslak, and it looks likes I beat you to removing that review. For all I know they'll go right back into an argument over it, but there's definitely a concensus against what they wanted to add. Let's not get carried away, though. –Tifego^(t) _{04:46, 1 May 2006 (UTC)}

what happened to all the stuff we'd compiled? TheRegicider 07:53, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

They haven't actually done anything (yet) since after their sockpuppets were blocked, but it's all still there. –Tifego^(t) _{08:34, 1 May 2006 (UTC)}

But there still is the problem of these two individuals warring over the consensus of everyone else. While they can't make sockpuppets to do changes, they can certainly use their three reverts a day to disrupt forward progress on the article. Calwatch 06:46, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

yup, UCRGrad's at it again. Anything we change to the article instantly gets reverted back. How on earth can the efforts of so many people be held back by one insistent person? (@_@) Dandan 23:50, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

However many people are doing this, they are really determined. If a group of people are more determined to make an article unencyclopedic than others are to make it encyclopedic, they'll tend to win unless they're also outnumbered by a lot. –Tifego^(t) _{21:15, 3 May 2006 (UTC)}

Straw man?

Maybe I am just being paranoid, but I suspect that Teknosoul02 is a sockpuppet of Insert-Belltower. See straw man if you find that idea confusing. I know this is not assuming good faith of Teknosoul02, but there's not much reason remaining to assume good faith of Insert-Belltower or UCRGrad, and you have to admit that fabricating an enemy with easily-refutable arguments (and frequent funny vocabulary errors, and a tendency to yell and disregard Wikipedia policies on civility) would be an awfully smart thing for him to do if he wants to make UCRGrad's case look better without making it look like another pro-UCRGrad sockpuppet has joined in. It's hard to explain why I suspect this, but something about the conversation sounds too scripted and uncharacteristically calm on UCRGrad's part. Also, Teknosoul02 happened to be created merely 4 minutes away from the only edit Insert-Belltower had made to the article for hours.

–Tifego^(t) _{01:30, 3 May 2006 (UTC)}

Actually, I'm not so sure about that, and even if it's true, it probably doesn't matter. –Tifego^(t) _{16:06, 7 May 2006 (UTC)}

Others

SoCalAlum has made it clear that he completely supports Insert-Belltower and UCRGrad. [8] [9] Also, these two diffs by Jokersmoker and SoCalAlum make me suspicious: [10] [11] Like Jokersmoker (Insert-Belltower's sockpuppet), SoCalAlum also only edited the UCR article, except for that one edit to Canada.

–Tifego^(t) _{21:14, 3 May 2006 (UTC)}

While I can see how you might get the impression of complete support from me, I hasten to point out that I've never defended their more egregious edits; I try to stick to edits that strike me as being rather neutral either way. It's true that if it weren't for Jokersmoker (who I now know to be a sockpuppet), I wouldn't have seen the Canada article (by checking his recent contribs), but I hardly think that a penchant for cleaning up minor spelling errors is enough to warrant suspicion. A thorough check of my posting history will reveal what I consider to be mostly innocuous edits. SoCalAlum 00:15, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

My apologies then, I was a bit struck by how confrontational you seemed in the few talk page comments you've made, but that wasn't really the case anyway. It's more that, in the two examples I gave above, you had taken what I'd said slightly out of context in your reply, appealing to something more general that didn't quite apply to the situation. When I say part of the article is opinionated or unnecessary, I'm talking about the way it's currently stated in the article, not something inherent about the phrase or information in question. Encyclopedic facts can easily paint a very biased picture of something by being rearranged, selectively chosen, or not worded carefully enough. –Tifego^(t) _{05:18, 4 May 2006 (UTC)}

Kay Stat

1) Did anyone noticed when Belltower posted this in his talk points: "This was an excellent suggestion made by one of our colleagues assisting with the editing of this article."

I think that's evidence that they are continuing to work with sockpuppets. Or at least working as a team to edit this article with a specific purpose. Is that evidence enough to report them again? Admission of guilt?

Um, actually I think "one of our colleagues" is referring specifically to me. I was the one who put in the attribution, in response to this utterly ridiculous edit by Insert-Belltower that stated it as absolute fact with no indication of who said it. –Tifego^(t) _{05:32, 4 May 2006 (UTC)}

2) Can someone back me up on this revert? It's clearly just another attempt to portray the school badly. The stat isn't at all verified it's just a random quote from a woman. I could go to my professors and get them to estimate some stats, post it on my website, but that would be unethical. It needs to go, and I need some help. TheRegicider 03:32, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Arguing against the credibility of the source might be the best way to go on this. If something is self-published or published in a school newspaper then it's usually not acceptable, possibly unless it's simply backing up some widely-accepted fact. Also, there is again the lack of comparison that should be brought up - maybe 60% not initially writing at a college level (whatever that is defined to mean) is perfectly normal or even better than most colleges, but the way it was placed and worded strongly suggested otherwise. –Tifego^(t) _{05:55, 4 May 2006 (UTC)}

Business

Is there anyway we can contact people about UCRgrad again? He just revert a weeks work of edits. Decided we should begin citing articles UCR wasn't a part of, like that's appropriate. TheRegicider 01:10, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I've just had my first encounters with UCRGrad and Insert-Belltower and I am ready to help in whatever I can to help mitigate and, if possible, prevent their biased and negative contributions to Wiki. I'm a higher education administrator so I spend much of my time editing college articles (it's a subject in which I am both interested and educated); the UCR article is terrible! I also find it very hard to believe there are two different people as both their writing styles and viewpoint are strikingly similar. I would appreciate guidance from more experienced and knowledgable wikipedians on how best to help deal with these issues. --ElKevbo 19:26, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

We should fill in a few more or the remaining sections with some hopefully recent evidence of their continued averse behavior (such as this reverting of a week's worth of edits, and any other indications of being disruptive or insulting or unwilling to cooperate), because the evidence we have of their behavior is out-of-date. Then we can file a request for user conduct RFC at WP:RFC (two requests, one per each), unless they are being particularly disruptive in which case an RFAR against both of them would be warranted. Basically our statement at the RFC will be that their behavior thus far on the article has been disruptive and unhelpful, and if enough other people agree, and if they don't stop being so uncooperative as a result, the next steps are mediation (unless they don't agree to it) and after that (if the situation still hasn't changed) RFAR. (The statement at the RFAR, if one happens, is that their disruptive and unhelpful behavior is most likely intentional and unlikely to stop.)

Whoever wants to start the RFC (I'm too busy at the momemt), take a look at how another RFC page started, like this RFC for example; the format should more or less exactly match that one.

About them being strikingly similar, they are (essentially proven to be) not the same person, and that much didn't surprise me (based on Insert-Belltower being more often willing to compromise than UCRGrad), but both of them were caught to be using (very disruptive and fairly abusive-behaving) sockpuppets to support their views and back each other up (evading 3RR) on the article.

–Tifego^(t) _{16:12, 7 May 2006 (UTC)}

I've been away for a couple weeks, and after coming back, it's pretty dismaying to find that many of the previous edits we made were all reversed again. i doubt that any progress whatsoever could be made on the UCR wiki as long as UCRgrad & insert-belltower continue to revert all our efforts and add more "facts" with a highly negative POV. (>_<)! Dandan 02:05, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

UCRGrad/Insert-Belltower active again

While they didn't go so far as to revert my edits to the UCR article, the quality of their contributions yesterday, even if unbiased in intent (which they were not), should be enough to merit revoking their editing privileges. Please add UCRG's derangment of my work on diversity at UCR and IB's edit "cleaning up" of the entry on ASUCR to the list of incidents illustrating disruptive and unhelpful behaviors on their part. The situation seems to me to require arbitration, as they've both disputed repeated calls for mediation and continually edit the article from obviously biased standpoints.

Anyway, I may be willing to start the RFC, as I am serious about getting the UCR article up to featured status, and I don't see how I can do it with these two continually introducing selective facts without context and otherwise slanting the rhetoric, not to mention their well documented antics on the talk pages. I will give it a week to see how they react to my further edits, then if necessary contact others who share my point of view for this to happen.--Amerique 00:07, 13 June 2006 (UTC)