Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Rkowalke

I just don't see it

 * WP:COI - merely being a graduate does not a conflict of interest make...additionally this in and of itself falls under [[WP:ATTACK}, "Using someone's affiliations as a means of dismissing or discrediting their views..."
 * WP:OWN - aggressive editing and discussion is not asserting ownership
 * WP:CIV - his tone is certainly aggressive and not necessary. Perhaps going to the Village Pump would be a better way to go.
 * WP:AGF - Definitely, but this seems to be a problem with a lot of users. Perhaps mediation would be a better way to go. Additionally, your comments "However, other contributors who are spending their days and nights tending the article seem to be bent on keeping the topics separate." are fanning the flames. Just because he cares passionately does not mean he is wrong. As long as all claims are IAW WP:V & WP:RS, they should be fine...as they appear so in the article currently...
 * WP:NPA - I haven't seen any evidence of this.
 * WP:3RR - Has he actually been blocked of this? Has he actually exceeded 3 reverts? I don't see this in the evidence.
 * WP:SOCK - I see no evidence of this. The multiple accounts (even if they are him), have no basis unless he is trying to build a consensus or get intentionally around blocks. I personally had 2 IPs (work & home) until I got an account. Additionally, there seems to be no basis for this claim (no verified discovery of sockpuppetry). — BQZip01 —  talk 03:22, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Additionally, this dispute seems primarily to be a problem with WP:V. "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiable" in this context means that any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source." If said editor can accept that "truth" is not the standard for inclusion, then this article's editing would be fine, IMHO. Additionally, this particular author doesn't seem to understand that Wikipedia is liable for anything stated; as such plagiarism is an issue. This article does not belong to the institution in question, but to Wikipedia. As such, there are certain standards that must be upheld. — BQZip01 — talk 04:38, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Re: # WP:COI Graduation from a conventional educational institution does not create COI, but the same is not true of grads from unaccredited institutions that are alleged to be diploma mills. They are often (understandably) anxious to keep negative information out of Wikipedia. Re WP:V: Issues of verifiability are indeed at the heart of the contention over Warren National University. That's not unusual, but it is unusual for people who dislike WP:V to accuse people of "wiki-gang warfare," "smearingly malicious" statements, and "bullying," or to respond to templated warnings with "stay off my page. I don't like your graffitti and attempts to bully me and trash my talk page. You're really pushy and vindicative..." --Orlady 15:51, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Comments on a couple of items (not enough time right now for the whole list).


 * Thanks for the comments, BQZip. Regarding the WP:COI issue, I agree that simply being a graduate of a regular school doesn't usually mean a WP:COI. However, graduates of less-than-wonderful institutions can sometimes get extremely defensive. It seems to me that Rkowalke's edit pattern and statements on the talk page indicates that he does suffer from a WP:COI. In particular is his stated opinion on reliable sources when they go too far in his mind stating negative information about his alma mater. This seems to me to be an indication of WP:COI? TallMagic 16:12, 23 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Regarding the WP:3RR issue, he was only warned but I don't think a block was ever requested and definitely no block was ever made on his account. I note that after the warning he waited for two minutes after the 24 hour deadline to revert again and avoid another potential WP:3RR violation. Which indicated to me some potential level of game playing and working the system.
 * 1st revert: 22:57, 18 September 2007
 * 2nd revert: 23:47, 18 September 2007
 * 3rd revert: 00:18, 19 September 2007
 * 4th revert: 00:39, 19 September 2007
 * Warning: 01:32, 19 September 2007
 * 5th revert: 00:20, 20 September 2007
 * At the time I wasn't as familar with WP:3RR and didn't realize that it didn't have to be the same edit for the three revert rule. So, I never asked for a block based on reverting some other edits as well. TallMagic 16:12, 23 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes BQZip, I agree that the main problems are WP:AGF and WP:V but I believe that they are primarily caused by a conflict of interest. It appears that he has recruited some other WNU graduates to try and help keep negative information about WNU out of the article. (Unless they are WP:SOCK?) Which is a concern to me for when the article protection is removed. The WP:Edit warring had gotten to the ridiculous point when the article editting was blocked. Based on comments in the talk page I don't think it will be any different when the protection expires unless something else is done. TallMagic 16:25, 23 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I forgot to mention that there did seem to be two additional anonymous posters doing reverts after Rkowalke got the WP:3RR warning so WP:SOCK could be a potential issue in this case. Here's the two contribution lists. TallMagic 16:48, 23 September 2007 (UTC)TallMagic 19:01, 23 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Wow - I am absolutely amazed how far TallMagic and Orlady are going on this. The accusations and allegations are incredible from my perspective.  I'm happy I've been deemed smart enough to sockpuppet, but I didn't even know that term until now and I'm supposedly acting like other users?  And I've made a legal threat?  Oh really?  That's a stretch.  I would hardly waste my money on two people I don't even know.  And how is it that TallMagic thinks I "waited" to make another edit to avoid a 3RR violation?  My edit pattern should reflect an answer to that.  I have been surprised that few are interested in the WNU page that have received outstanding benefits from their matriculation, but building a consensus by fakery?  Wow!  Truly this is absurd, but fits right in with my experience thus far with TallMagic and Orlady.  I would be surprised if anyone other than those two agree since I haven't had any negative interactions with others on the WNU talk page.  You know, one thing that may be helpful for this action is noting what TallMagic and Orlady are doing who are in opposition to me.  While I have kept to the article and my commentary has remained there, both TallMagic and Orlady have gone to my talk page and continued with their policy comments even after making them on the WNU talk page and I even received an email from Orlady to which I replied.  And now this?  Hmmm...  I think the answers are really in the Talk page of WNU as well as the behavior of TallMagic and Orlady here on this action page.  The only reason I'm here is because Orlady wrote on my talk page again and thought I might be interested though I've repeatedly told her to stay away.  Still I've not gone to their talk page to make my policy comment views about what I perceive as their group behavior.  Let the commentary and that of Orlady and TallMagic speak what needs to be spoken as well as the edits.  What we have is disagreement and I've kept mine to the WNU page.  While they mention they are out to help, I would say WNU's talk page reveals what needs to be understood, including the edit page of the talk page as well.  And I'm glad some people are reading and thinking through what is going on.  I agree the mediation cabal is a great way to go and we must remember there is WP:UNI guidance that I think is worthwhile in developing the WNU page properly, but found myself defending virtually every edit to include minor word changes that I wasn't even able to spend time with the WP:UNI guidance.
 * I have watched the types of edits made by TallMagic and Orlady as well as the rationale and the small little changes in words that to me clearly shows difficulty reaching a consenus. I have tried to balance what I viewed through reading was total imbalance and hostility as compared to other university wiki pages.  I do not think there are enough WNU interested people to adequately establish some type of quorum of proper consensus.  It would be nice if WP:UNI were more established at the WNU page, but even when I put the header up there was never any help by Orlady and TallMagic to attain what is developing as a wiki standard for university pages.  This is very interesting.  I'm just sorry that others have to get involved in this disagreement and expend their time... wow!
 * Rkowalke 01:58, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Ooops forgot to sign...


 * Rkowalke, this page is for others to comment. While you are certainly welcome to respond, I think it would be better for you to respond on the main page (you have a whole section explicitly set aside for your comments). As for your assertion that you are sorry others have to get involved, don't be. This is part of the dispute resolution process. A quorum is not needed, only consensus...which is what this page is supposed to be for. What you define as a minor word change can certainly be redefining for the sentence. The subtleties of the English language are not always clear-cut.
 * "The only reason I'm here is because Orlady wrote on my talk page again and thought I might be interested though I've repeatedly told her to stay away." Orlady is required to put that notice on your page. As for "fakery", we have no idea if you are a person with extensive wiki experience or are new to the wikiworld. Their concerns (even if unfounded) are valid, but not necessarily justified.
 * (Unsolicited advice follows) I suggest reading WP:V and WP:RS. Take note that the standard for inclusion is verifiability, not truth. Negative articles (even if you view them as biased/wrong/unjust/etc.) are acceptable. If you are open to change/tweaking of said article, I recommend going to mediation first. — BQZip01 —  talk 04:17, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Weighing in on this issue
As an active participant on the Warren National University article and edit page I have followed much of what is being disputed here. It may be true that Rkowalke has been in conflict with Orlady and TallMagic. But the mistakes that may have been made were honest ones and common to newer editors here. I am not saying one party is right and wrong but I think that in any controversial subject you will have two parties and sometimes the debates and editing revisions may be of an angry nature. Sometimes its best to just "chill out" and not take things so personally.

I do like the idea of recruiting third party mediation. On this particular article this had already been done to smooth over some rather contentious points. I was personally involved in such a dispute roughly a year ago and by having a disinterested party iron out an agreement a resolution was agreed upon.

I disagree with the assertions made that Warren National is "less than wonderful." This is completely in the eye of the beholder. I do think "controversial" may be a more appropriate description for the Universitie's reputation. A number of alumni would agree with me that their experience at WNU was benificial. To allege that the institution is a "diploma mill" is incorrect because it hardly fits the discription of one (it does not grant degrees for little or no work). Instead it is an unaccredited institution of higher learning. Of course this is not the place to discuss the reputation of the institution in question, but since this was brought up by some parties here, I feel a need to mention this.

But to get back to Rkowalke, yes perhaps he or she needs to learn a bit more about Wikipedia's etiquette. But I also feel that this is a two way street. Maybe other parties in this dispute should examine their own behavior as well.

Specifically, I think that what should be done is some neutral party, who does not have an axe to grind should get in touch with Rkowalke, Orlady and TallMagic and come to an agreement. Perhaps we can get the Mediation Cabal involved.

Peace and love... Piercetp 18:44, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Piercetp, I don't believe that anyone here has said the school is a diploma mill. Rather, I said it has been alleged to be a diploma mill (there are reliable sources documenting the allegations). There is a very large difference between making an allegation and reporting that someone else made an allegation. As you note, the school is controversial, and the diploma mill allegations are a big element of the controversy. --Orlady 19:05, 23 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I argue strongly that WNU does not have a wonderful reputation, I believe that my characterization that WNU is less-than-wonderful is very reasonable. The common theme for reliable sources that Rkowalke says can't be used in the article seems to be when the reliable source uses the term "diploma mill" or "degree mill". So yes, I agree that it's a large part of the reason for this RfC. As reported on the talk page, I looked at the body of Reliable Sources regarding the use of these two terms to describe WNU and found 21,800 Google entries, I looked through the first 100 hits and found five new reliable sources that used "diploma mill" or "degree mill" to describe WNU. Although, I agree with Pierce that diploma mill involves subjective opinion, it is a widely reported view in the current body of reliable sources that apply to WNU. TallMagic 20:25, 23 September 2007 (UTC)


 * 


 * TallMagic, you're opinion and mine are vastly different. I believe very strongly that conventional wisdom is not necessarily the truth. You can look at how often the word "idiot" is used in connection to the President of the United States and you would be very surprised. Of course it does not mean that the President is an idiot, just that a lot of people have a low opinion of that individual.


 * The number of times a pair of cojoined terms appear on a Google search is not a good indicator of the truth at any rate. I certainly do not think it can be evidence in any court of law.


 * Anyway "reputation" has little to do with the article or our friend Rkowalke. If Wikipedia is to be a reputable source of information than we need to be vigilent about the facts. At the very least we need to be even handed and balanced.Piercetp 04:18, 25 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually this discussion appears to apply directly to this RfC. What is important for Wikipedia in this regard is WP:V. Not what one or the other party believes is the truth but what is verifiable. It is verifiable that KWU is commonly referred to in derogatory terms in the body of reliable sources available. While reliable sources that are generally positive number in the extremely few. Most positive statements in reliable sources are by school representatives responding to negative reports. Wikipedia can only be based on what is verifiable. It doesn't matter if you or I like something or not. It is the way it is. Wikipedia must be based on reliable sources. One does the research of the available reliable sources and edits the article. If the article comes out negative, that can still be perfectly within the neutral point of view policy. If there isn't a reliable source available for the point you wish to make then the point can't be made in a Wikipedia article, at least not within policy. TallMagic 05:52, 25 September 2007 (UTC) TallMagic 07:02, 25 September 2007 (UTC)


 * It appears policy is written in granite for some when in fact it is more guidance oriented. And it seems the policy needs to be changed somewhat is what I'm seeing from the above - something in the future I will be looking into since policy is so generically thrown at me by TallMagic.  Since there is only one entry by anyone on this page beyond the issue, I am hoping to see more entries from others not germane to the discussion or WNU article. It seems there is more Orlady and TallMagic at this page justifying themselves than input from third party sources not associated with the WNU article in any way.  There is a point when valid though unjustified concerns become harassment.


 * Rkowalke 21:05, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * What is it exactly that you disagree with? TallMagic 22:18, 27 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Regarding the policy written in granite comment, especially when there's a content disagreement the best way, usually, to resolve it is to appeal to the Wikipedia policies and guidelines. That is because all editors here are concerned with one thing first and foremost, the quality of the Wikipedia article. Wikipedia policies and guidelines are our yardstick and our compass. They help tell what to do and tips on how to evaluate quality so we know what needs to be changed. These policies and guidelines (with a little editor help :-) ) have produced over two million articles in English! (Two million is a super amazing number to me.) The policies and guidelines are well tested, honed, and work amazingly well. TallMagic 23:04, 28 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Policy is not negotiable and should be explicit, where possible. WP:V is very clear on this and a verifiable claim is valid for edits about this institution. Guidelines are, by definition, a consensus of the people on Wikipedia. Rkowalke, no one is saying these policies and guidelines can't be changed. You are welcome to head to the relative talk pages and make your case. Should the policies/guidelines change, I believe everyone here would be happy to make your requested changes, but arguing that policy should be changed here or on this article's talk page is merely a waste of time...that is not to say your efforts are worthless (your expansion of knowledge on Wikipedia is certainly a step forward), but that they are misplaced. This talk page CAN'T result in any Wikipedia-wide changes.
 * If everyone agrees with this assessment and that this disagreement is over, please sign below. I am not an administrator, but simply a Wikipedian who wants to see everyone get along...or at least abide by the given rules; I will be happy to contact an admin regarding this. — BQZip01 —  talk 03:26, 29 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree that this RfC is over. I believe that there will probably still be disagreement with Rkowalke until he better complies with WP:V and WP:AGF. TallMagic 03:40, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Still not resolved
Attempts to communicate with this user on his talk page got the reaction "Get off my talk page." He even deleted both my comments and his responses before I saw the responses: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Rkowalke&curid=13057057&diff=165878247&oldid=165878016. Meanwhile, the article in dispute is being expanded to include every obscure factoid and meaningless quotation that can be found on the Internet, regardless of the source. --Orlady 18:01, 20 October 2007 (UTC)