Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Rkowalke

In order to remain listed at Requests for comment/User conduct, 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 &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126;. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: 23:30, 22 September 2007 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is:, 29 July 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 are concerned by this user's conduct. Users signing other sections ("Response" or "Outside views") should not edit the "Statement of the dispute" section.''

Rkowalke is a self-identified alumnus of Warren National University and has so far edited only in that article and its talk page, operating essentially as a single-purpose account and violating WP:COI.

For background, WNU is a distance education university that has been alleged to be a diploma mill. Most of the reliably sourced information that exists regarding the school is about various legal actions and issues that have surrounded the school. To his credit, Rkowalke has not attempted to completely whitewash the situation, but he is definitely interested in making WNU look good.

Rkowalke has made some useful contributions, but overall his behavior is a textbook example of Tendentious editing. His level of activity resembles that of the Energizer Bunny, including repeated and unexplained reversions of others' edits, long-winded acrimonious and discontinuous argumentation on the talk page, nasty diatribes against the other Wikipedians who interact with him, and repeated removal of all warnings and corrective messages posted on his user talk page.

I endorse the statement of dispute. In addition I have some concerns that the user has stated that certain reliable sources are out to maliciously malign the reputation of Warren National University and therefore can't be used, e.g., Seattle Times, The Oregonian, and even government agencies the Oregon ODA and GAO.

Desired outcome
''This is a summary written by users who have initiated the request for comment. It should spell out exactly what the changes they'd like to see in the user, or what questions of behavior should be the focus.''

Ideally, this user would be made to understand that Wikipedia policies on matters such as COI, NPOV, and verifiability exist for a good reason and are worth abiding by, and that Civility is an important objective.

I endorse the desired outcome.

Description
''{Add summary here, but you must use the section below to certify or endorse it. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries, other than to endorse them.}''

Rkowalke has stated that certain reliable sources are out to maliciously malign the reputation of Warren National University and therefore some of their statments can't be used in the article, i.e., Seattle Times, The Oregonian, and two government agencies the Oregon ODA and GAO.

Evidence of disputed behavior

 * current version of Talk:Warren_National_University - Much of the article talk page (all 197 kb of it) is by Rkowalke; note volume, frequency, tone and content of the comments. Page also includes various messages by other editors attempting to open or maintain productive dialog.
 * Diff from user's talk page, deleting one of the warnings there - particularly note edit summary
 * another diff from user's talk page
 * Diff from article talk page featuring user's labeling a comment by Orlady as a "personal attack" and a separate accusation of "smearingly malicious" content on the article page
 * article history shows edit-war pattern, including heated disputes over trivial matters
 * Shows Rkowalke's apparent COI by his assertion that GAO investigation was a "witchhunt". GAO was material being reverted when he apparently violated WP:3RR policy.
 * possible Rkowalke legal threat because Seattle Times quote was used
 * Rkowalke asserts that reliably sourced information that is negative towards WNU is defamation
 * Here Rkowalke argues that the The Oregonian newspaper quote is defamation.

Applicable policies and guidelines

 * WP:COI and WP:OWN
 * WP:CIV, WP:AGF and WP:NPA
 * WP:3RR
 * possibly WP:SOCK (possible sockpuppets include User:192.236.22.105, User:24.93.224.109, and User:Piggy ziffle)

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute
(provide diffs and links)
 * Warnings/Messages placed on user's talk page on 2 Sept and 16 Sept by TallMagic and Orlady (also includes user's response to the 2 Sept message)
 * User talk page message by TallMagic regarding WP:3RR
 * "No personal attacks" warning on talk page by Orlady
 * Orlady requested full protection of Warren National University in hopes of cooling the edit war. It is currently protected for 4 days, but the talk page has not cooled down.
 * Orlady also contacted the user by e-mail on 16 Sept. This is not admissible as "evidence", but here's what I wrote:


 * I restored the deleted content to your talk page. As stated at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Uw-tpv1, "talk pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments is considered bad practice, even if you meant well." This applies to user talk pages as well as article talk pages.


 * Now that I think of it, the whole collection of user-talk-page templates at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Template_messages/User_talk_namespace might be helpful to you in understanding Wikipedia culture.


 * Truly, I am not there to bite you, but am just trying (not very successfully sometimes) to maintain standards.

Users certifying the basis for this dispute
{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}


 * User:Orlady
 * User:TallMagic TallMagic 15:08, 23 September 2007 (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.''

In this instance, Rkowalke has elected to use the talk page Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Rkowalke for his response and has not posted in this section.

{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:

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.