Teknosoul02

Hello Teknosoul02,

Hey, I admire your struggle to make the UCR article less POV. However, as the person who initiated the failed Request for Arbitration against UCRG, I'd advise not attacking him or his modivations directly. One thing some arbitrators suggested, which has not yet been tried, is the filing of a Request for Comment on the article itself [1]. I would not advise filing an RfC on UCRG's behavior at this time because he has cleaned up his act somewhat since the RfA. On the other hand, an RfC on the article could also backfire in that it could attract more users like UCRG/IB who are openly biased against the school.

Regarding negative information, so far as the guiding priciple on wikipedia is anything goes as long as you can reference it, there is not much we can do when they provide links. I suggest initiating a request for comment on the article, and then seeing what happens. Best Regards,--Amerique 16:27, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi Amerique, I appreciate your suggestions. For the most part, I've tried to be reasonable and I don't think I've engaged in any attacks on UCRGrad's motives, at least not intentionally. I do agree that in terms of statistics, UC Riverside isn't exactly stellar. But the way the article has been worded shows it is highly POV. For example, the article states that "Unlike the majority of UC schools, Riverside does not have any Nobel Laureates on its faculty". Although that is prolly true, it is worth noting that the vast majority of universities, even those in the Top 50, have no Nobel Laureates. Even in the UC schools, only slightly more than half have Nobel Laureates. Yet, UCRGrad feels it is important to point this out anyway.

Further, the article includes a quote from an anonymous student on studentsreview.com. The problem with including a quote like that is that it sends the wrong message: users may get the idea that just b/c someone said it on-line (no matter how dubious the source is), then users can include that quote in an article and attribute it to said anonymous source. In a wikipedia about colleges especially, there should be a higher threshold in terms of quoting references. I admit that there is no official rule about this, but common sense dictates that references about a university should come from authoritative sources like Princeton Review, USNews, Frisk (even if we don't necessary agree with those authoritative sources).

I am tired at this moment, but i will keep in touch. Teknosoul02 04:24, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Technosoul02, keep up the good fight. But keep it clean, one reason the RfA failed is because the arbitrators pointed out that there was a history of name calling and other bs on both sides, and as other formal steps in dispute resolution had never been tried, they dismissed the RfA entirely. So far, you have been keeping it civil with UCGRG/IB, which is why i think you can take whatever formal dispute resolution steps with regards to the article you think are appropriate at this time. (I sort of personally attacked UCRG on my user page following the RfA; I don't think I could carry on with editing the article without getting into a huge and ultimately pointless fight with him/IB, blowing up some minor issue entirely out of proportion to the effort involved.)

Anyway, currently you are the strongest and most reasonable opposition those 2 have. The efforts you have undertaken to approach those two reasonably to my mind constitutes a legitimate basis for initiating formal dispute resolution steps, which may provide evidence to support a successful RfA at some point. I know it's a pain, but other than continuing to beat your head against the wall those 2 present, which many others have done thoughout the talk pages and ultimately quit out of frustration, I don't think there are other options. Short of posting to article again, I will help out however I can with supporting your case through any formal dispute resolution steps that require second-person support.--Amerique 17:18, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Amerique,

Thanks for the words of encouragement. I recently found this on wiki's own policy pages (under reliable sources):

"Bulletin boards, wikis and posts to Usenet Posts to bulletin boards and Usenet, wikis or messages left on blogs, are never acceptable as primary or secondary sources. This is because we have no way of knowing who has written or posted them."

I think this sums up what I've been trying to say. The main issue here is whether studentsreview.com can fall under the "Bulletin boards" section. I'm pretty sure that the definition of bulletin boards is broad enough to cover sites like studentsreview.com (and others like ratemyprofessor.com, etc.) b/c the opinions are completely anonymous.

Of course, there's the possibility that UCRGrad will accuse me of misinterpreting things. However, I can only hold out for so long. if the above quote doesn't solve it, i'll continue to research wiki's policy pages and find something perhaps more convincing. obviously, NPOV doesn't work so i hope the reliable sources section is more persuasive.

i'm out, got a barbeque to go to. but thanks for helping me out. Best. Teknosoul02 18:16, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree the studentsreview.com site looks more like a bulletin board site than any sort of authoritative primary source, especially with a quote like that, but from what i understand about those 2 is that you can bring up any rationale to support any change to their edits and they will overide it simply by working together in support of the other's sophistry. You cannot win by attempting to engage in an earnest dialogue with those two. With the way they've been playing it, you can only do this to show that you tried and have the grounds to take it to mediation. Before my attempt at the RfA, no one else had tried formal dispute resolution. If the others had done this immediately after UCRG/IB were found to be using sockpuppets, we probably would not be having this conversation now. Though it can backfire, it seems to me that an RfC is the best option to pursue at this point.--Amerique 19:11, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Apparently, I have been punished despite my good faith efforts to make the UC Riverside article less POV. I explained my actions on the UCR talk page, but for whatever reason, the admins apparently do not acknowledge this. I will contact William M. Connolley directly and explain to him why I did the necessary reverts. I will wait for his response, and go on from there. Perhaps I have no choice than to file an RfC. But I will hold out on that until I can hear the admin's response. Teknosoul02 02:51, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Teknosoul02, please be advised that you have continued to violate WP:3RR. The proper means by which to address your concerns is on the TALK page, not by incessant reverts. Instead of continuing to make superficial arguments that just skim the surface, I would recommend that you address what IB and I have written directly. Thanks. UCRGrad 19:12, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

User notice: temporary 3RR block

Regarding reversions[2] made on July 4 2006 (UTC) to University of California Riverside

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future.

The duration of the block is 3 hours. William M. Connolley 19:40, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

This is not fair. I made a good faith effort to revert the edits made by UCRGrad and Insert-Belltower because their statements constituted POV. I provided my reasons on the UCR discussion page as to why those statements made the UCR article POV. I have also attempted to communicate my reasons to both UCRGrad and Insert-Belltower, but they constantly dismiss my views and even resorted to attacking me personally.

I can't believe that I'm being portrayed like this; I am a reasonable person and I kept most of the article on its face. I offered justification as to why those comments made by UCRGrad and insert-belltower should be deleted b/c they add no value to an encyclopedia. On it face, how can one possibly allow an article about a four-year university to include a statement (from an anonymous source) that calls the university an "abomination in higher education". This is not a college review site; this is a site that is suppose to provide comprehensive information about what the university is about, what are its course offerings, what is their research focus, and what the university has to offer to its students.

This is downright frustrating. I have attempted to communicate with UCRGrad and Insert-Belltower, and instead of actually giving consideration to my thoughts, they choose to disparage me instead (this after they allege that I was engaging in accusatory tactics, which I do acknowledge that I have earlier, but ever since I made an effort to stop doing that, they started attacking me). Teknosoul02 02:41, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Teknosoul, your "justifications" were all addressed, each and every one of them. You never responded directly to our counterarguments, rather, you kept on repeating the exact same arguments in slightly different form. Regardless, it is against WP policy to revert an article more than 3 times in a 24 hour period, IRRESPECTIVE of your intentions (with few exceptions). This is why I reported the 3RR violation. Next time, instead of quickly reverting the article, it would be helpful if you could just read what Insert-Belltower and I have written and respond to it directly. UCRGrad 03:44, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Hello Technosoul02,

from what i understand about most admins, they are not going to arbitrate conflicts, only officiate where they can see that wikipedia rules have been broken. the ban was not a statement against your arguments here, but against your practice of repeatedly reverting the page. continuing to do this will prejudice the admins and others against you if/when you ever decided to take your case to third party dispute resolution. I don't advise your current course of action.--Amerique 14:37, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Hey, it looks like more admins are making minor changes to the article. I don't think this is due to the RfC, as it turns out it had already been listed since before I became involved. (Whoever did that did not publicise it to the article's talk page, or I certainly would have used it to support the RFARB.) So, I think this recent admin activity is an outcome of the RFARB and the recent revert wars. Anyway, as the RfC turns out to have been a moot issue entirely, and as UCRG has predictably reiterated his opposition to 3rd party dispute resolution, this weekend i am going to file the items you and slyzack listed into a survey format here[3] in order to attract more outside attention to the article.--Amerique 21:40, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Goldsea Asian American Daily

On the talk page for Goldsea Asian American Daily you said that the website claims Southeast Asians drag down the East Asian image. Could you add this to the article with a citation? If this claim is from their forums I don't think it should be added because it would not represent the views of the organization.--Dark Tichondrias 00:29, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Please refrain from making personal attacks on my userpage.

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. UCRGrad 02:47, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Hey UCRGrad, if you didn't bash Rutgers (e.g., "Rutgers is virtually an unknown school to people in California"), then I wouldn't have attacked you. Try not to provoke me, k? Teknosoul02 02:49, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually Rutgers is a very prestigious institution well known to me here in Australia. However, that does not excuse personal attacks and bad language. I see that you've removed at least some material of your own volition. Please make sure all such material is deleted. (I'll check later.) Otherwise someone may start imposing blocks as a circuit breaker. Hint: I am quite willing to impose blocks if needed, though I try to conciliate if I can rather than using admin powers. Metamagician3000 03:16, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi Metamagician, I have made a conscientious effort to remove the offensive remarks I made. I have deleted them to my knowledge but next time, I will keep my temper under control. Teknosoul02 03:19, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

While I acknowledge that Rutgers is probably well-known internationally, it is not well-known by people living on the West Coast of the U.S., which is already bombarded with a plethora of public institutions. The same is true of West Coast schools perceived by people living in the East Coast. My statement was true, and I'm pretty sure Teknosoul02 knows this too - he's just trying to point the finger at me for his outburst of profanity and obscene comments. In reality, nobody pointed a gun at his head and demanded that he respond in such an uncivil fashion - and in my opinion, there really is no excuse for what he wrote. However, I respect your opinion as an administrator here. Thanks. UCRGrad 03:48, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Teknosoul, I've responded to your comments on my talk page. --WHSTalk 04:06, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Re: Apologies

Hi Teknosoul. I definitely agree that UCRG was wrong to insult your alma mater like that, and that he fired the first shot. Unlike him, some people take pride in their university. I'm definitely proud of mine. (But if we accept the proposition that UCR is the "worst" UC, my alma mater's the second worst.)

I agree that UCRG's claim about Rutgers isn't a "fact". I've lived practically all my life in California, and I've known what Rutgers is for a while. His demands that you and others "admit" his statement as true are nonsense. It's like someone on the George W. Bush talk page demanding that someone "admit" Bush is the best/worst President ever. The guy's acting like he has a monopoly on truth. On Talk:University of California, Riverside, he's now taken to calling people "liars". If you don't want him to provoke you, it helps if you don't take his obnoxious behavior too seriously. That's how I deal with him. But that's a lot easier said than done.

Oh, and the profanity in and of itself doesn't bother me. While directing profanity against another user is against WP:NPA, you've sufficiently apolologized and retracted your statements. It was beyond ridiculous when he chewed you out for saying "what the hell" or whatever that was. He looked like a first grader saying "Ooh, you said a bad word! I'm telling the teacher on you!!!!". If mild cuss words offend him so deeply, that's his problem.

So, in conclusion, you're doing a good job overall, considering how UCRG is deliberately provoking you and the rest of us in our "camp", as he would put it. It's hard to stay cool in these circumstances, but if you continue to do so, the goal of making this article comply with NPOV will be achieved. szyslak (t, c, e) 22:37, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your understanding. Regards and take care. Teknosoul02 12:29, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

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 revert back to them if other anti-UCRGrad/anti Insert-Belltower editors edited my edits (latest page in the history section) instead of the article itself. That way, when I reverted, I wouldn't be losing the good edits you guys are making. Thanks. starkt 14:41, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Hey Starkt, looks like they currently locked the UCR page in order to prevent any more edits and reversions. While I (and many others) appreciate your effort to make the UCR page less POV, you will have to be careful with what steps you take so that you do not violate any wiki policies (e.g. the 3RR rule). I advise that you discuss any outstanding issues with the UCR article on the discussion section. Let's work things out to make the article measure up to a higher quality. I've addressed a few already; if you have any thoughts I haven't covered, bring them up on the discussion page of UCR. Thanks.