Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Insert-Belltower

In order to remain listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with ~~~~. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: 19:28, 21 July 2006 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 10:36, 11 December 2024 (UTC).

---

• Insert-Belltower (talk · contribs · logs)

---

Users should only edit one summary or view, other than to endorse.

Statement of the dispute

This is a summary written by users who dispute this user's conduct. Users signing other sections ("Response" or "Outside views") should not edit the "Statement of the dispute" section.

Description

(Filed by Aeon1006 on Amerique's Behalf)

This RFC is to gather opinions from the Wikipedian community as to whether Insert Belltower's pattern of activities in support of UCRGrad's contributions to the University of California, Riverside article constitutes meatpuppetry. UCRGrad first registered an account and started posting controversial content to the UCR article on 19 Febuary, 2006. The content of his first post to the article was a single line: "While UCR has broadened into a comprehensive university, it is still the least known of all the UC campuses"[1]. On 24 March 2006, another new user, Insert-Belltower, made his first contribution to the UCR article with this line: "Yet because it is the least known campus in the UC system, many students are surprised to learn that there is indeed a UC in Riverside"[2]. Thus began user Insert-Belltower's pattern of providing partisan support for all of UCRGrad's controversial opinions and editing activities concerning that article. On 1 May 2006, Mackensen ran a user check on their IP accounts, which established that both users were posting from different IP addresses and were also actively using abusive sockpuppets to harass other users as well as influence debates over the POV of the article. While their sockpuppets were immediately blocked, both to this day still post controversial content to the article and exclusively support the other's extreme opinions regarding POV issues over the objections of all other editors to that article.

On 10 July, Insert Belltower requested advocacy against Amerique's organizing activities with other users concerned with the UCR article[3]. During the exchange facilitated by two AMA advocates (Aeon1006 and Steve Caruso), Amerique and WHS came clean regarding their past incivilities and other activities with both advocates. Both Amerique and WHS went out of their way to be accommodating to Insert-Belltower and UCRGrad in both the AMA discussion and the article's talk page. Insert-Belltower along with his companion refused to give ground and attempt to settle the dispute. Insert Belltower throughout the AMA discussion was either evasive or would agree with whatever UCRGrad posted. After Insert-Belltower and UCRGrad's refusal to admit any wrongdoing stonewalled the AMA process, the advocates closed discussion on 14 July and recommended parties involved file this RFC in order to resolve this issue.

It is our sincere hope that this RfC will help lay to rest the conflict without having to go any higher.

Evidence of disputed behavior

(Provide diffs. Links to entire articles aren't helpful unless the editor created the entire article. Edit histories also aren't helpful as they change as new edits are performed.)

Meatpuppet Activities Influencing POV issues

1. Talk:University of California, Riverside#UCR Survey Identical opinions registered on extensive survey of contentious areas of UCR article.
2. Talk:University of California, Riverside/Archive_6#Classroom size Identical opinions expressed regarding reference to Biomedical program facilities.
3. Talk:University of California, Riverside/Archive_6#Fat_Girl UCRGrad defends IB's controversial photo upload.
4. Talk:University of California, Riverside/Archive_6#Photo of Sorority Girl Both editors override objections to photo upload.
5. Talk:University of California, Riverside/Archive_6#Mediation Both editors respectively reject call for inter-party mediation.
6. Talk:University of California, Riverside/Archive_4#And now for something completely different Both editors introduce their respective sockpuppets to the article talk page. UCRGrad:909er; Insert-Belltower:HisBundleAblation. This is also the first concrete evidence that both editors are operating in a concerted manner.
7. Talk:University of California, Riverside/Archive_1#Insert-Belltower IB's second post to the UCR talk page, a defense of the allegation that he is a sockpuppet of UCRGrad.

Insert-Belltower's meatpuppet activities in support of UCRGrad

1. [4] Supports UCRG's proposed removal on NPOV tag.
2. [5] IB says "Sockpuppet accusations are not a substitute for addressing another user's arguments," on UCRGrad's behalf.

UCRGrad's meatpuppet activities in support of Insert-Belltower

1. [6] Supports IB's defense of controversial content.
2. [7] Complements IB for selecting controversial content.
3. [8] Supports IB's defense of controversial content.
4. [9] UCRGrad in support of UnblockingTau, one of IB's sockpuppets.

Sockpuppet Activities

1. [10] Denies having used sockpuppets on article talk page after user check revealed them.
2. [11] Refuses to admit guilt in Advocacy case.
3. [12] Refuses to see problem in Advocacy case.
4. Talk:University of California, Riverside/Archive_5#Violence against gays IB "in support" of his own sockpuppets.
5. As UnblockingTau, says "Actually, I think that we would not be having this inane conversation if Tigego would be less ignorant and more informed about the facts already presented in the discussion"
6. As UnblockingTau, says "I actually think pimpclinton is confused. His whole argument is convoluted like the proximal tubule."
7. As UnblockingTau, says "you were essentially grasping at anything that might give you a foothole in this debate, rather than formulating more sound arguments"
8. As UnblockingTau, says "If you just "believe," ... then why are you commenting?"

Also here are the confirmed Sockpuppets of Insert-Belltower established by Check User done by Mackensen. All have been blocked indefinitely for abuse.

HisBundleAblation Jokesmoker UnblockingTau

1. Sock puppet article editing of Insert Belltower [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24].

As Insert-Belltower, recent violations of WP:CIVIL

1. [25] Makes threatening remarks regarding sockpuppet accusations.
2. [26] makes snide "apology" for earlier incivil remarks.
3. [27] Accuses another editor of "trolling."

Applicable policies and guidelines

{list the policies and guidelines that apply to the disputed conduct}

1. WP:SOCK - Insert-Belltower has had three sockpuppet accounts blocked for abuse in regards to the UCR talk page. Insert Belltower has not admitted to this despite the evidence that supports it.
2. WP:CIVIL - Both sides have been uncivil however Amerique and WHS have either retracted and/or apologized for comments. Insert-Belltower has resisted owning up to or apologizing for this past conduct. Insert-Belltower did however accept Amerique's apology.
3. WP:FAITH Amerique has in the past attempted resolution and compromise and has questioned the intents of other editors.
4. WP:ATTACK Insert-Belltower Accused WHS of threatening personal attacks if there is no mediation.

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute

(provide diffs and links)

1. [28] Prior attempts on IB's talk page.
2. Aeon's AMA Help Desk - UCR dispute resolution attempt by AMA. Failed, both my self and Steve Caruso agreed that this is beyond the scope of the AMA
3. Talk:University of California, Riverside#Mediation? Amerique and WHS side of the arguement prossed Mediation and was rejected by Insert-Belltower and UCRGrad
4. Talk:University of California, Riverside#Request for Comment Amerique proposes article RFC to help support consensus. Rejected by Insert-Belltower, and later by UCRGrad.

Users certifying the basis for this dispute

{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}

1. Aeon
2. אמר Steve Caruso _(desk/AMA) 13:45, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
3. Amerique
4. WHS
5. Like UCRGrad, Insert-Belltower has proven impossible to work with. szyslak (t, c, e) 22:56, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Other users who endorse this summary

1. Danny Lilithborne 01:03, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Response

This is a summary written by the user whose conduct is disputed, or by other users who think that the dispute is unjustified and that the above summary is biased or incomplete. Users signing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Outside Views") should not edit the "Response" section.

Full response is incomplete.

Insert-Belltower's General Response

I completely reject the allegations of the above USERS and I deny any major wrongdoing with regard to editing the UC Riverside article or Wikipedia. Specifically, I reject charge of meatpuppetry and disruptive behavior.

In this response I will prove the following:

1.) I am NOT a meatpuppet.

2.) The disputed behavior allegations are exaggerated.

3.) Dispute resolution failed because of inappropriate counsel.

4.) User:Amerique, the primary proponent of this conflict, is in fact pushing a postive POV on the UC Riverside article and has violated numerous Wiki guidelines, including WP:OWN.

#1Insert-Belltower is NOT a meatpuppet

#2The disputed behavior allegations are exaggerated.

#3Dispute resolution failed because of inappropriate counsel

#4User:Amerique, the primary proponent of this conflict, is in fact pushing a postive POV on the UC Riverside article and has violated numerous Wiki guidelines, including WP:OWN.

Concluding Remarks

Users who endorse this summary: Insert-Belltower 17:01, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Outside view

This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Response") should not edit the "Outside Views" section, except to endorse an outside view.

{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.}

Users who endorse this summary:

Discussion

All signed comments and talk not related to an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page. Discussion should not be added below. Discussion should be posted on the talk page. Threaded replies to another user's vote, endorsement, evidence, response, or comment should be posted to the talk page.