Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Mark Kim

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In order to remain listed at Wikipedia: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 ~~~~. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: 03:43, 21 June 2007 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 08:03, 11 June 2008 (UTC).

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

Contents

[edit] Statement of the dispute

Mark Kim (previously known as Vesther) has been acting in an uncivil manner for an excessively long time. Several editors have tried to speak with him and help correct his behaviour but all attempts to do so are met with more incivility, denial, and his own assertion that he should be allowed to do whatever he deems necessary to "protect" articles and to get his point across in articles, which includes violations of WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, WP:OWN, as well as threats to edit war. He also maintains a double standard where he thinks its perfectly acceptable for him to do certain things (like try to moderate his user talk page with an iron fist) but then warns other users for doing the same thing (a diff will be provided where he warned a user for removing warnings from his talk page). Mark Kim also maintains that any disagreement with his behaviour is a personal attack of the utmost degree (and has referred to them as "damaging his persona"). This demonstrates his inability to work in a group setting. In a place as large as wikipedia you're never going to be able to avoid coming across someone who disagrees with you. I have never been involved in a content dispute with him. My only observations with him were as a third party recently and a year ago as I stumbled across two disputes he was involved in. After the second I dug a little deeper and found just how prevalent this behaviour was.

[edit] Desired outcome

This is long term. As in the neighbourhood of 1 1/2 to 2 years old problem. Many editors have tried and met with nothing but resistance. There is no evidence that the editor will change at this point, as he vehemently maintains his position of being allowed to ignore the rules to do what he thinks is right. On the off chance he actually changes that would be fantastic, but he should be on a very short leash. There is really only one alternative to him not changing his behaviour.


[edit] Description

Mark Kim has engaged in long term uncivil behaviour, launching personal attacks, and using language akin to owning articles. He's ignored the advice of others, often responding with more uncivil behaviour and making his ownership clearer by constantly modifying his talk page to indicate which types of messages are acceptable to him to be left there. The diffs are long. Not all are included, there is just too much. If necessary I can spend more time getting more diffs, but the ones shown will show the bulk of his behaviour.


[edit] 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.)

  • [1] - Makes statement close to owning article (not close enough, said he was watching for vandalism -G47)
  • [2] - Attempts to own talk page (he does own his talk page to the extent that he may delete comments at whim -G47)
  • [3] - attempts to exert further control over his talk page and what people may say to him. He's warned about WP:NOT and to not censor things. He is also informed of WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA.
  • Here he states any perceived insult is essentially a life long vendetta [4].
  • Here he refers to a criticism of his behaviour as "an insult" [5].
  • Here he makes a threat towards users in general if they criticize him [6].
  • He is reminded again to step back and check his behaviour, which he dismisses by again calling it an insult [7].
  • Here its pointed out that he started the debate which this surrounded, and he again reiterates the life the long hatred [8].
  • Here he moderates someone for "blatant incivility" (warranted) so it demonstrates that he's aware of what type of behaviour is inappropriate in wikipedia [9].
  • He threatens to moderate a user for any comments they make if they contain words he doesn't like [10].
    (this was part of a larger incident from a year ago. he has stopped this behaviour. -G47)
  • removes User:Theresa Knott's reminder as an "total insult" [11]. (edited for focus -G47)
  • Here he makes a complaint about Theresa on AN/I. Which again demonstrates that he is aware of what kind of behaviour is unnacceptable [12]. (in response to this -G47)
  • Here he is reminded about the manual of style, and owning articles again [13]. In his responses to Sue Anne he claims to always assume good faith in everyone [14] yet clearly he assumes the worst in everyone as soon as anyone opposes him in an article or his behaviour in general.
    (stay on target. -G47)
  • He makes yet another adjustment to his page header to further his control of it [15]. (nothing significantly wrong here. -G47)
  • He makes a threat in an edit summar [16]. (stern requests are not threats -G47)
  • After moderating his talk page with an iron fist, he tells another editor they are not allowed to remove warnings from their talk page, [17] clearly shows his double standard.
  • He removes talk from a talk page, claiming he can do it at discretion [18]. (stay on target. -G47)
  • He continually makes dismissive and owning edit summaries like this [19] (poor example, stern response to weasel words -G47)
  • Continually talks about his "discretion" in an owning manner of the article, like the article is his to do with as he pleases [20].
  • here he censors a users comment [21].
  • Here he explains how things "ruin his persona" [22].
  • Most recently he got in to another dispute on the Bose (company) article which resulted in him threatening ptkfgs [23]. The recent dispute is filled with much more incivility, but its more recent so people can view it on the bose page.
  • As per his normal behaviour, he filed an AN/I report accusing me of harassing him which no one bought: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive261#Administrator abuse/harassment.
  • The recent conversation I had with him where he spelled out his behaviour clearly and what he felt he was entitled to, his page before the "purge" to get both sides [24]. [25]

[edit] Applicable policies and guidelines

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

WP:OWN
WP:CIVIL
WP:NPA
WP:3RR - in that he's threatened to edit war if his position is not accepted.

[edit] Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute

(provide diffs and links)

  • He is reminded again to step back and check his behaviour [26]. (moved from evidence -G47)
  • Here his reminded to assume good faith [27]. (moved from evidence -G47)
  • He's reminded about owning content on wikipedia and about working with others.[28].
    (not the best example, the warner describes Kim's actions as "nuttiness",[29] an edit comment hidden by the supplied diff. -G47)
  • This is where I first met the individual, over some uncivil exchanges at the apprentice season 4 article. I reminded him to act civily and edit politely. [30]. He claimed to always try to be a diplomat. (moved from evidence -G47)
  • My talk page and his talk page above where I tried to explain to him appropriate behaviour.[31]. [32]
  • A year ago I spoke with him about this, which is here [33].

[edit] Users certifying the basis for this dispute

{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}

  1. I think the core of the problem here is that the user has unacceptably poor reading comprehension. Despite having been here more than a year, and directed to read central Wikipedia policies time and time again, he just doesn't seem to be any closer to understanding what it takes to be a cooperative and productive contributor to this project. Any disagreement with this user seems to be immediately misinterpreted as "insultive" [sic] or "abrasive". Part of being an adult means getting along with people with whom we disagree. I think this user must eventually come to understand this, or must leave the project. —ptk✰fgs 05:02, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  2. As above I've made a couple of attempts to solve this and the is adamant refusal on the part of Mark Kim to recognize the issue with his behaviour.--Crossmr 18:41, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Other users who endorse this summary

  1. Having dealt with this user in the past, I've seen proof of a number of the points laid out above --Kiand 08:01, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  2. Yes, this user needs to change the way he deals with conflict. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 15:23, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  3. Having recently talked to this user, it is clear this problem needs to be addressed.--Atlan (talk) 16:05, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  4. — Selmo (talk) 03:58, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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.

{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.}

  • Kiand is the one to blame for getting me involved in this [34]. If Kiand did not even "touch" me, then none of this would've happened.
  • I will have to also blame this page on Crossmr as well as he is not willing to leave me alone under any circumstances [35]. I am also declaring this RFC as being an act of prejudice, as the administrators have been ordered to act with extreme prejudice.
  • I am declaring Crossmr's action an act of prejudice.
  • I originally stated in The Apprentice 4 that I would prefer Rebecca's status to be fired, but after a heated debate, opted to state Not hired in television instead. Honestly, this was an act of racism in Wikipedia's part and that is why I urged the status to be "fired".
  • User06201 was not using proper English so I had to reword with the best of my efforts to ensure that the article was not being plagued with cliches.
  • Time Crisis 4 in late fall 2006 was thought to be free of WP:VSCA but because it appears that Benten and Charlesknight caught wind of the cruft, the anon apparently flew under the radar to prevent him/herself from being detected. Ever since then I had to habitually revert to remove the cruft as being WP:VSCA.
  • The Intellexual.net article in the article Bose corporation appears to have been used to troll the article many times, is outdated, and should not be utilized under any circumstances, as I firmly believe that link has to be permanently removed also as being cruft. I would prefer that links that either talk in favor of, or against Bose, not to be used where it's going to be utilized either as WP:VSCA or at the level that I have to consider the link to be a troll to the article.
  • Other articles I had to watch and deter the Singaporean anon as a couple of arcade video game articles had to be moderated, and I had to do it after seeing Benten's actions.
  • I also might have chosen to lose some clauses on The Apprentice 6 article due to sexism (when Stefani Schaffer was hired over James Sun).
  • Kiand was acting in bad faith in the first place to start.

I am extremely insulted that I have to participate in this stupid RFC just to defend my beliefs, and I feel that this RFC was done in an act of bad faith, an act of administrator abuse by Crossmr, and an act of prejudice. I also have to blame Kiand for getting me all involved in this as well, and I have to blame Theresa Knott for allowing people to watch my user page (which is indeed, harassment), and I will have to declare this harassment. I don't want my motives neither my editing habits questioned again, or I will have to defend myself over and over with the users again. — Mark Kim (U * T/R * CTD) 05:18, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

  • This RFC only creates even more anger and displays the adminitrators' natural right to be prejudiced against certain people. — Mark Kim (U * T/R * CTD) 05:23, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
    • I certainly don't see any prejudice on against you personally but rather against your actions. You have failed to address the issues brought up here which relate to your civility when dealing with other editors. Frankly, we're not saying your edits are bad, we're just saying your interaction with other members has been less than acceptable. All you've done is defend your position in edit wars in which none of us know about enough to comment on. We just want you to be nicer to other editors... does that help make this more clear? Sasquatch t|c 02:36, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:

[edit] Outside view by

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.


Users who endorse this summary:

[edit] 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.