User talk:Amerique/RFC UCRGrad
Just as a note, I have never ever claimed ownership of this article, nor do I believe that I have such ownership. Of course, none of the links above actually quote me claiming such ownership either. The very issue of a WP:own violation was one of the things considered by the Request for Arbitration, which was filed by Amerique (also filing this RfC against me). All FOUR administrators sided with me and in rejecting Amerique's arguments, stated they they "don't see that this is completely a 'one impossible editor' situation." I'm not sure why Amerique is trying to bring this up again, especially since RfC findings wouldn't override an RfA finding anyway. Finally, I have personally only contributed (or been a significant editor of) about 6 paragraphs to the article: admissions, rankings, recruitment, Thomas Haider, air pollution, and 909. Amerique, on the other hand, has contributed an EQUAL number of paragraphs (the entire history section), which in fact, take up more lines than mine. How can Amerique claim that I "own" the article, when he/she has contributed more than I have? There is clearly no merit to this allegation. UCRGrad 14:49, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
- You don't need to have "claimed ownership" as your actions clearly speak for you. And the four editors who rejected the RfArb didn't "side with [you]," they merely rejected the RfArb as it was submitted. One editor specifically stated that "I don't see sufficient evidence that this needs to be taken to arbitration, nor do I see much attempt to resolve things in any other way" and two of the other editors agreed with him. One of theose editors also added that "Needs more prior dispute resolution; I recommend a RFC." The fourth editor merely stated that you "present a significant point of view," a point of view that is arguably enhanced by your previous use of sockpuppets. --ElKevbo 18:03, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
- So I've owned the article, but I've allowed Amerique to contribute more text than I have? That doesn't make any sense. Secondly, the arbitrators specifically stated that they "did not see sufficient evidence that this needs to be taken to arbitration" referring to all of the allegations Amerique had made about my conduct. The "nor" means that in addition, they did not "see much attempt to resolve things in any other way." That was a separate statement. The first one is the REAL reason why RFA was rejected: insufficient evidence. Furthermore, they wrote "Being difficult to work with is not sufficient to be brought to arbitration." It's important to read what is there, not what you want it to say. UCRGrad 03:54, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
- The "first one was the real reason?" On what basis do you make that claim? --ElKevbo 04:22, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
- So I've owned the article, but I've allowed Amerique to contribute more text than I have? That doesn't make any sense. Secondly, the arbitrators specifically stated that they "did not see sufficient evidence that this needs to be taken to arbitration" referring to all of the allegations Amerique had made about my conduct. The "nor" means that in addition, they did not "see much attempt to resolve things in any other way." That was a separate statement. The first one is the REAL reason why RFA was rejected: insufficient evidence. Furthermore, they wrote "Being difficult to work with is not sufficient to be brought to arbitration." It's important to read what is there, not what you want it to say. UCRGrad 03:54, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
- Another thing, UCRG: The ArbCom's rejection of the case is not an endorsement of your preferred version. I'm sure Morven called it a "decent college article" only because so many of them are such absolute garbage even the biased UCR article seemed good. It seems to me like half of them begin with phrases like "XYZ University is a prestigious four-year university with a highly distinguished faculty and a reputation for excellence...". In addition (I know this sounds a little like wikilawyering), the opinions individual ArbCom members state when rejecting a case are not official rulings. They're only stating their personal explanation for why they choose not to hear a case. From a look at WP:RFAr, it seems to me like they reject more cases than they accept, or at least as many. Plus, the committee doesn't rule on content to begin with. If (God forbid) this dispute ever does receive the ArbCom's attention, they won't make final rulings like "this is a decent college article" or "the 909 section shall be eliminated". As ElKevbo hinted at, the basic reason they turned down the case was that there was little prior attempt at other dispute resolution processes. And, on retrospect, I agree. At that time there wasn't even an RFC. szyslak (t, c, e) 18:19, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
- Opinions from ArbCom members are not official arbitration rulings, but they are an opinion rendered by the highest dispute court on Wikipedia - and they should be respected as such. Their explanation constituted not only reasons for why not to hear the case, but also their own position on the case, based on a review of the evidence presented and the edits that had been made. If I were truly hindering the article, you can be certain they would have said something about it. On the other hand, they complimentd the article, and one admin even complimented my point of view! And at the time, there WAS an RfC - you are mistaken. Again, it's important to read what is there, not what you want it to say. UCRGrad 03:58, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
- They didn't "compliment [your] point of view." Stop trying to twist the words and meaning of the ArbCom rejection of the RfArb. --ElKevbo 04:22, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
The Article before UCRGrad first edited it
[edit]UCRGrad directs us to the article as it was before he first edited it. I must say, it was a good article at that point. Free of POV. starkt 17:35, 13 August 2006 (UTC)