User:Mr-Natural-HealthMr-Natural-Health/RK/1

Contents

1 Dispute 2 Problem Areas 3 Responses / Comments 4 Response by RK

Dispute

user:RK's aggressive editing tactics in the Wikipedian community of reverting articles, engaging in personal attacks in edit summaries, trying to goad editors into flaming him, trying to goad editors into wasting time engaging in edit wars over his reverts, and RK's use of editing tactics that should be classified as vandalism, even if they are currently not classified as vandalism. -- John Gohde, aka Mr-Natural-Health 05:22, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)

---

Problem Areas

Feel free to expand this list of problem areas by adding problems or grievences of your own.

• Vandalism_in_progress#User:RK
• User:MyRedDice/Wikipedians attacked by RK
• Variety of aggressive and impolite wikien-l posts, notably this one (http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2003-October/006813.html). See google (http://www.google.co.uk/search?sourceid=navclient&q=site:mail%2Ewikipedia%2Eorg+rkscience100)
• Articles in Wikipedia
  • Alternative medicine and Talk:Alternative medicine
    • Edit war by reversion on 4/11/04.
    • Editing tactics approaching vandalism
  • Traditional Chinese medicine and Talk:Traditional Chinese medicine
    • Editing tactics approaching vandalism, and personal attacks of an offensive nature, edit war in progress
  • Israel
    • Editing tactics approaching vandalism
  • Palestine
    • Editing tactics approaching vandalism

• Users certifying the basis for this user conduct dispute:
  1. John Gohde, aka Mr-Natural-Health 06:20, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  2. Based on his aggressive editing of Chiropractic medicine over an extended period of time. Fred Bauder 14:37, Apr 12, 2004 (UTC)
  3. Based on his aggressive editing of Israel over an extended period of time. Jonesy 15:19, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  4. Based on attacks, bias, and heavy handed editing. Martin 16:02, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  5. As above, and Palestinian views of the peace process too. --No-One Jones 18:36, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  6. His harassment at Palestine is pretty annoying. He even removed the reference to this page from Palestine's talk page. That's pretty pathetic. --Rei
  7. Although I have had no recent incidents with RK, that is in large part because I have quit editing. When I did edit, RK was extremely rude and frequently in violation of any rules which might govern appropriate conduct. Lirath Q. Pynnor
  8. He has been disrupting the traditional Chinese medicine article, using the word "religion" as an insult (which he seems to believe invalidates the entire subject) and has been insulting towards and seemingly paranoid about some of the other editors there. I've never had a direct run in with him, but I've lurked a bit and posted a few comments on the article's talk page. He seems to take changes to his editing very personally, and to very often have an all-or-nothing approach to his personal POV (which he denies is POV). He will at least need some counselling as regards NPOV and his interpersonal skills. Fire Star 05:58, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  9. RK is not civil, and wikipedians have long endured his incivility. Although I have not interacted with RK recently (I've tried to stay away or ignore him), nearly everytime I have interacted with him it has been a negative experience. He must be disciplined until he becomes civil or ultimately be banned permanently. I'd rather see RK reform rather than permanently ban him because RK goes after a lot of wikipedians who contribute mostly nothing but crap. However, wikipedians must insist that its editors be civil on the whole, and RK's LONG history has showed that he is not. B 21:33, Apr 13, 2004 (UTC)
  10. My perception is that RK makes of point of making inflammatory edits, which may or may not be considered vandalism, depending on your perspective. He then follows any revert or negative response with personal attacks. I experienced this directly in regards to editing Traditional Chinese medicine. I consider all his edits to this article to be inflammatory and vandalism, and have begun to simply revert his edits to this article. He has responded with name calling and personal attacks, which I made a point of asking him to stop. I feel like dealing with him is a big waste of my time, which could be better spent editing the Wikipedia, or directed to other projects in my life. His abusiveness is unprofessional and intolerable to me. I have found his attacks against me to be offensive. If he is allowed to continue wreaking havoc of this nature, I am likely to expend my energies on other projects. I simply don't believe I should have to put up with his treatment of myself or articles which I consider important and valuable to Wikipedia, and I think he is damaging to the project as a whole. User:Heidimo 18:25, 13 Apr 2004

---

Responses / Comments

1. User:RK terrroizedAlternative medicine 9 times on 11 Apr 2004 with his reverts that caused an edit war and the page to be protected; again on 20:45, 8 Apr 2004; on 13:04, 27 Mar 2004; and also on 15:34, 6 Jan 2004. All of these reverts consisted of personal attacks directed specifically against me. His attack on 20:45, 8 Apr 2004 in alternative medicine occurred about the same time as his attack on Traditional Chinese Medicine. -- John Gohde, aka Mr-Natural-Health 06:14, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)
2. User:RK has been waging a protracted campaign to make the articles on both Israel and Palestine as sympathetic to his Zionist principles as possible. Now, clearly we all have our political opinions, strongly held or not, and there is no problem with that. It only becomes a problem when Wikipedia is used to further political agendas, violating the policy on NPOV by editing articles in favour of ones own sympathies. This is precisely what RK is guilty of. The fact he is a staunch Zionist is evident if you read this article on his user page: User:RK/A_Liberal_Defense_of_Zionism. He continually edits articles relating Israel according to this POV, reverting or deleting when others users include facts that he as a Zionist finds uncomfortable or hostile. Thus, he continually erases references to "occupation" of Palestinian areas, despite the fact the United Nations, international law, most of global public opinion, and even Ariel Sharon describe the situation as such. Furthermore, when someone included in the Palestine article the fact Israeli settlements are "illegal" - which they are, being condemned under international law and the United Nations Security Council - he changed the information to claim they were merely the resurrection of Jewish communities that left in 1948 (i.e. the Zionist POV). When I reverted, he then wrote:

This is not the proper place for diatribes against Israel as a criminal state. Cut it out; place discussions in their proper articles, or leave Wikipedia.

It should be noted that there was no reference to Israel being a criminal state, merely it had been written that settlements are illegal. However, even though I had merely restored the original version as written by someone else, he then suggested I leave Wikipedia. Should we allow those of militant political persuasions to purge Wikipedia of those they consider their political enemies? RK must be stopped from editing articles in order to make them more sympathetic to his political opinions, and from intimidating those defending objectivity. Jonesy 15:16, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)

---

Response by RK