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: 10:16, 6 June 2024 (UTC).

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. אמר Steve Caruso (desk/AMA) 13:45, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Amerique
  3. WHS
  4. Like UCRGrad, Insert-Belltower has proven impossible to work with. szyslak (t, c, e) 22:56, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. ElKevbo
  6. starkt 04:40, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Other users who endorse this summary

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

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 Summarized 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.

#1 Insert-Belltower is NOT a meatpuppet/sockpuppet

There exists no evidence that concretely establishes that UCRGrad and I are working together in concerted manner. First, RCU has already shown the we are two different individuals. Additionally, the fact that we have similar opinions is not proof that we are meatpuppets.

I "met" UCRGrad on wikipedia one day several months ago as I was searching through articles on universities and colleges. I never formally introduced myself to him, rather I noticed the UC Riverside article was a devoid of comprehensive information and looked to be a "bare bones" article. So I chose to edit the UCR article. Another editor, UCRGrad, was already making edits and contributions that were adding relevant information about the campus. Observing this, I happily began editing the article.

After sometime I noticed that there was some resistance against UCRGrad to adding "negative" but relevant information about the campus to the article. For a while, I stayed out of the debate until it reached the point were I felt that I had to say something. Instantly, I was labeled as a sockpuppet of UCRGrad by other users-- and this scarlet letter has stuck ever since. Indeed, it is a major focus of the dispute now.

The most significant piece of evidence that the other camp points to as the smoking gun of meatpuppetry is the fact that UCRGrad and I agree on many points (however not ALL). I strongly argue that just similar thinking does not necessarily mean same purpose. If there was a direct relationship between these to concepts then I could say with confidence that the other editors who filed this RFC are meatpuppets, because they all agree on nearly every major issue.

#2 The disputed behavior allegations are exaggerated.

'Here I will make the case the these 'quotations of disputed behavior' are hyped, exaggerated and completely taken out of context.

#[29] Makes threatening remarks regarding sockpuppet accusations.

Insert-Belltower Response: I don't see where the "threatening remarks" are here. The statement "such accusations could cause you problems down the line" is a completely true statement intended to inform this user that making false accusations is uncivil and can lead to disciplinary action down the by wiki community (perhaps in the form of an Rfc, for example.)

#[30] makes snide "apology" for earlier incivil remarks.

Insert-Belltower Response:

This is only a snide apology to those who wish to intrepret it that way. It had the best of intentions and I will let the community judge it for itself. Update: WHS has accepted my full apology.


  1. [31] Accuses another editor of "trolling."

Insert-Belltower Response:

I will make a strong argument that when a user is personally attacking other editors, inciting others to vandalize an article-- he is in fact 'trolling' and looking for trouble.

Thus, I stand by this accusation and I ask the community to do so as well.


  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.

Insert-Belltower's Response: In the spirit of Nelson Mandela, while I disagree with the findings of the ADMIN who ruled on the sockpuppet issue, I accept the judgement and its consequences. Nevertheless, this issue is 3 months old and it has nothing to do with the present conflicts between myself and the other users. Therefore, It is irrelevant and inappropriate to apologize or comment on this matter.

Furthermore, this issue cannot be brought into this RFC because it has already been ruled on my ADMIN and penalty has already been applied. It would be analogous to charging a defendent with a the same crime which he had previously been convicted.


  1. 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.

Insert-Belltower's Response: How is it appropriate that I apologize for issues warrant no apology? Neverthess, I have attempted to apologise twice to WHS for my preceived tone on the talk page, but it has only been met with consernation.

  1. WP:FAITH Amerique has in the past attempted resolution and compromise and has questioned the intents of other editors.

Insert-Belltower's Response: Indeed, I too have attempted resolution and compromise, however the former has failed mainly as the result on inadequate and inappropriate counsel.

:# WP:ATTACK Insert-Belltower Accused WHS of threatening personal attacks if there is no mediation.

Insert-Belltower's Response: Now this is a complete distortion. I would like to invite anyone to read the entire conversation, and I am sure they will NOT come to the conclusion that this was an ATTACK.

Context: UCRGrad and WHS were in debate and WHS was making blantant personal attacks.

Conversation:

WHS: If you think the third party sanctions will take care of my personal attacks and supposed plagiarism, then why not do it? Can't say I didn't try.--WHS 13:32, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Insert-Belltower's Response: Now you are threatening personal attacks if there is no mediation[?] What sort of reasoning is that?... Insert-Belltower 14:07, 11 July 2006 (UTC)(insert bracket)

I then continue to mention negative that would be using an example.

I did NOT accuse WHS of threatening personal attacks, but rather I was asking if he was implying that he would continue the attacks if there was no mediation. There is a big difference between accusation and question.

#3 Dispute resolution failed because of inadequate counsel

As mentioned above, I requested an adovate in order to resolve the dispute that I had with Amerique and other users in his camp. This resolution process failed due to the inability of the advocates to properly facilitate and organize the discussion. As a result, the discussion became difficult to follow and understand who was responding to who; comments and responses were not being addressed. More specifically, my advocate, Aeon1006, immediately sided the camp. Without prior consultation, he insisted that I "roger up" (apologize) for sockpuppetry actions that were NOT relevant to the current dispute. When I respectfully explained why I thought that it was inappropriate and unnecessary to discussion these issues, he rebuked me and told me that I was being "stubborn."

The following is a short list of questions actions by Aeon1006 that I find troubling:

On July 11, 2006, Aeon1006 agreed to be an advocate for Insert-Belltower, who was seeking help defending against hostile efforts of editors Amerique and WHS.

On July 12, 2006, Aeon1006 sought statements from Insert-Belltower (I-B), but strangely, also an opposing opinion’s from I-B’s direct opposition, Amerique and WHS. He did so without consulting with his client, I-B.

On July 12, 2006, Aeon1006 requested that ElKevbo bring his opinion into the discussion. ElKevbo was a party known to oppose I-B, and his testimony was in opposition to I-B’s cause.

On July 13, 2006, WHS (opposing side) complained to Aeon1006 that Insert-Belltower had made unauthorized changes to his user talk page. In response, Aeon1006 wrote “Thank you I will investigate that and notify Mackensen [admin].” Instead of advocating on behalf of his client, Aeon1006 attempted to bring charges against Insert-Belltower with the admins. In fact, he ratted out his client to this admin on his talk page.

On July 14, 2006, Aeon1006 attempted to required all editors to obey the “fairness of tone” policy in their TALK discussions. However, Aeon1006 erroneously applied WP:NPOV#Fairness_of_tone to TALK discussion, when this rule specifically applies to article content.

On July 15, 2006, Aeon1006 demanded, in a public discussion, that his own client apologize to individuals for sockpuppetry, even though I-B’s alleged sockpuppetry did not actually affec any of these particular individuals (occurred at a different time).

On July 15, 2006, Aeon1006 wrote that his client was “stubborn.”

On July 16, 2006, Aeon1006 began assisting I-B’s direct opposition, Amerique – volunteering to submit an RfC against I-B’s side of the disagreement. As an advocate, Aeon1006 had access to privileged and confidential information from I-B – Aeon1006 now violates that privileged role and has agreed to use his knowledge to support the party that originally opposed his client. all above text compiled by UCRGrad

Concluding Remarks

Thank you for reading my side of the story. I would like and encourage all reviewers of this RFC to consider all the information presented here and look at the bigger picture.

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

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.

  1. The past use of sockpuppets was clearly confirmed.
  2. Reviewing WP:SOCK, this sentence "The Arbitration Committee has ruled that, for the purpose of dispute resolution, when there is uncertainty whether a party is one user with sock puppets or several users with similar editing habits they may be treated as one individual." indicates that the editor has indeed acted as a "Meatpuppet" and further appears to constitute a single purpose account.
  3. Many of the other accusations leveled at Insert-Belltower are blown out of proportion to their actual context, probably as a result of those editor's frustrations with UCRGrad. There was incivil behaviour from almost every editor involved in the article; these regretable instances are best resolved with an agreement to "forgive and forget". It's time to move on.

I believe that all of these issues can be resolved with the following prescription:

The time has come to boldly fare forth into the wilderness that is Wikipedia, armed with civility, with good faith as your shield, and possibly even girding your loins with neutrality.
Surf WP, improve articles, expand stubs, and most especially, take time to enjoy and have fun! --Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 21:56, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Users who endorse this summary:

  1. Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 21:56, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Aeon Insane Ward 18:49, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Danny Lilithborne 01:22, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. I endorse all except the meatpuppet statement, but we can agree to disagree there. Let's carry on with editing WP. Move along, there's nothing more to see here. Torinir ( Ding my phone My support calls E-Support Options ) 20:46, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view of Torinir

This is a very ugly RfC. I won't mince words here, there's enough fault to go around. While IB did have a confirmed WP:SOCK case, accusing of meatpuppeting with UCRGrad is inappropriate. Just because person A agrees with person B does not automatically make them a meatpuppet. They share similar beliefs on the article and are willing to go to bat to defend them. It doesn't make those beliefs right or wrong, but it does demand at least token respect. Otherwise, you cannot reasonably expect them to show any respect toward your own beliefs.

I don't believe this is an appropriate RfC, if only because there's too many unclean hands on both sides. Bad faith is all I've seen of this whole situation. I think the whole article, and everyone involved in the dispute needs to be commented on.

I will not endorse either the dispute or the response, as neither side is completely clean here.

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. Torinir ( Ding my phone My support calls E-Support Options ) 19:23, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Insert-Belltower 23:22, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Insert-Belltower&oldid=1143881077"