Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Kenneth Alan

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Arbitrators may be working on final details of the proposed decision at /Proposed decision. Place evidence of wrongdoing at /Evidence, or responses to the evidence at /Responses.

Contents

[edit] Statement of complaint

This user, has been listed on Wikipedia:Requests for comment for some time. He went away but came back again last week. His style is to add nonsense to articles so that they conform to what can only be described as a parallel universe in which the Vikings play a prominent part. When his contributuons are challenged he becomes abusive. This is all well documented on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Kenneth Alan. I and several other users would like to see his permanent exclusion from Wikipeia. Mintguy (T)

[edit] Statement by affected party

I would have you all know that I merely focus on my specific interests. I care not what else goes on, respectfully requesting that I not be persecuted for my limitation and focus of interests. I merely wish to do as well as I can with the things I possess deep enough attraction to. It is not up to you to madly revert a contribution without merit. Your form of merit is the hatred of my amateur style. My fault is the lack of application to use a sandbox before altering an article. Many times I regret the lack of formality to the articles, and when I tire of the project, I leave it to hopefully be fixed by another user, much as any article must be at any given time. Like any article, it is up to people to improve, not merely remove. Ad-hominem edits are not the style preferred by Wikipedia. You, holding your privilege to block, should I restore to a more informative version, are guilty of the utmost hypocrisy in this matter. Kenneth Alanson 17:44, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

My lax approach to Wikipedia is perhaps not what is expected. Considering that this is not an officially and totally funded program, I had expected it to be an amateur effort. Now that I see the vast amount of wikipediholicism, mass wikicloning and the sort of competition between editiors, whether I am involved or not, surely turns me away for the most part. I will stay editing until you most likely will pigheadedly ban me for your lack of analysis to this concern. Wikipedia is by nature, a testosterone geek adventure. People gang up on others or are led to be doing so, with little personal care to the subject matter at hand. It is a way for people with no sense of control in their personal lives to insert such overriding dominance in a faceless arena, despite the false niceties on ever constant display. I am tiring of these infowars and I'm not the only one. Other editors and sysops I know here agree with me about the hostility and rediculous soap operas that operate this website. They have made it clear that they aren't getting involved with major editing or commonplace disputes, because that is what is such a drag to them in dealing with. Those people I admire for their kindness and honesty, their willingness to solve the problem rather than go on autofire. I may not have always given them the decent return in that regard, for as we can see, I've had to deal with a whole lot from those who do not take proper care. I applaud those unmentioned people for hanging in there despite my unnecessary outbursts in their direction that I apologised about to them. I have also in the past, apologised to those who have been on autofire to me in situations where I'd give it right back in my own way, but to no avail. I recieved mockeries instead of humility. If this is how maturity runs in a semi-professional body of online associates, it stinks of a madhouse. My intents to be a bold editor can not possibly go on without some form of collision. Also, if I go without a username, I'll automatically be suspect for any wrongdoing and people will not respect my edits even more than before. I politely request that people take a gander at what they are doing and not be so quick to rush and attack, recruiting others along the way to do their dirty work for them either. You know, when you get others to speak up for your opinion, you desensitize yourself from the logic of the matter and the issue takes a separate course. This is not Congress nor is it Parliament, so I expect a different way of handling articular disputes. Smear campaigns across the internet, how quaint? How childish and inconsiderate can people be to not keep it to themselves? Inciting and instigating things is not what I came to see here. I suppose I was mistaken, though. I suppose you just don't give a damn for care to the truth when it comes to yourself and another human being; as for certain, you make little actual attachment to the articles you yourselves go gonzo over when it appears less than politically correct. It is the appearance of a shift in the spectrum of thought that has you scared and angsty. Do not expect me to be as frightened when it comes to enlightenment for I have spent several long years in hermitage, studying the various humanities and analysing all manner of philosophy. I understand that I am hitting a brick wall in every attempt I make for some furtherance of reasoning skills from you. Perhaps I wish to teach people with these lessons just as much as I edit an article of my intrigue. Kenneth Alanson 19:19, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Preliminary decision

[edit] Arbitrators' opinions on hearing this matter

  1. Accept Fred Bauder 19:00, Aug 19, 2004 (UTC)
  2. The RfC shows both the long-running nature of the dispute, and serious attempts to resolve it without arbitration. As such, accept. Martin 21:49, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  3. I agree with Martin's description of the situation -- accept. Jwrosenzweig 22:40, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  4. James F. (talk) 16:57, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  5. Accept. →Raul654 07:30, Aug 22, 2004 (UTC)
  6. Accept. --the Epopt 15:55, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Temporary injunction

[edit] Partial final decision (enforcement provisions may be added)

[edit] Principles

1) Wikipedia does not allow personal attacks. (See Wikipedia:No personal attacks.)

[edit] Votes and comments by arbitrators

Aye:
  1. James F. (talk) 18:40, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  2. Fred Bauder 19:28, Sep 20, 2004 (UTC)
  3. Jwrosenzweig 19:38, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  4. Martin 23:21, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  5. →Raul654 23:49, Sep 27, 2004 (UTC)
Nay:
Abstain:


2) All contributions should be written from the NPOV. (See Wikipedia:NPOV.)

[edit] Votes and comments by arbitrators

Aye:
  1. James F. (talk) 18:40, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  2. Fred Bauder 19:28, Sep 20, 2004 (UTC)
  3. Jwrosenzweig 19:38, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  4. Martin 23:21, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  5. →Raul654 23:49, Sep 27, 2004 (UTC)
Nay:
Abstain:

3) Users are expected to work with other Wikipedians in a mature fashion. (See Wikipedia:Civility.)

[edit] Votes and comments by arbitrators

Aye:
  1. James F. (talk) 18:40, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  2. Fred Bauder 19:28, Sep 20, 2004 (UTC)
  3. Jwrosenzweig 19:38, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  4. Martin 23:21, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  5. →Raul654 23:49, Sep 27, 2004 (UTC)
Nay:
Abstain:

4) Wikipedia is not a vehicle for original research. (See Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, expounded in Wikipedia:No original research.)

[edit] Votes and comments by arbitrators

Aye:
  1. James F. (talk) 18:40, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  2. Fred Bauder 19:28, Sep 20, 2004 (UTC)
  3. Jwrosenzweig 19:38, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  4. Martin 23:21, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  5. →Raul654 23:49, Sep 27, 2004 (UTC)
Nay:
Abstain:


5) Wikipedia users who demonstrate over a period of time that they are unable or unwilling to conform to Wikipedia policy may be banned.

[edit] Votes and comments by arbitrators

Aye:
  1. Fred Bauder 19:28, Sep 20, 2004 (UTC)
  2. James F. (talk) 19:32, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC) (perhaps "[...] are unwilling or unable to [...]"?)
  3. Jwrosenzweig 19:38, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC) (Agree with James F.'s note -- Fred, can we alter the principle accordingly?)
  4. Martin 23:21, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC) (either version fine)
  5. →Raul654 23:49, Sep 27, 2004 (UTC)
Nay:
Abstain:

[edit] Findings of Fact

1) User Kenneth Alan appears to be unable to conform his behavior to a number of Wikipedia policies, including avoiding personal attacks, avoiding inserting original research into articles, avoiding systemic point of view violations and avoiding violations of Wikipedia etiquette, see [1]

[edit] Votes and comments by arbitrators

Aye:
  1. Fred Bauder 19:34, Sep 20, 2004 (UTC)
  2. Jwrosenzweig 19:41, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC) -- I am especially troubled by Kenneth's email attacks on a member of the Swedish wikipedia, which Kenneth has not denied or apologized for. It is obvious, though, that Kenneth's attacks have been widespread and frequently personal. The other violations (original research, POV, etc.) are likewise widespread in spite of frequent warnings.
  3. James F. (talk) 19:50, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  4. Martin 23:21, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  5. →Raul654 23:49, Sep 27, 2004 (UTC)
Nay:
Abstain:

[edit] Remedies

1) Due to User Kenneth Alan's demonstrated inablility to conform to Wikipedia policies he is banned for one year.

[edit] Votes and comments by arbitrators

Aye:
  1. I would support a longer ban. Fred Bauder 19:37, Sep 20, 2004 (UTC)
  2. Perhaps a little harsh, but not hugely so. James F. (talk) 19:50, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  3. Jwrosenzweig 19:43, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC) I am hesitant to jump immediately to such a long ban, but Kenneth's behavior is egregious enough to warrant serious consequences. I would support a ban of 1-3 months without hesitation -- I will have to consider if a longer term is wise. If this comment is left here beyond October 1, please move it to Nay. Likewise, if someone proposes an alternative punishment of anywhere between 1-3 months, please register me as an Aye vote. I reviewed the evidence again and considered the damage done by Kenneth and the vitriol with which he has attacked some editors. Honestly, the more I looked at it, the more I recalled Plautus Satire, whose behavior warranted, as I recall, a 1 year ban. Kenneth deserves the same.
  4. Martin 23:21, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  5. I agree wholeheartedly with James' (Jw..g) assessment. →Raul654 23:49, Sep 27, 2004 (UTC)
Nay:
Abstain:

[edit] Enforcement

[edit] Re-appearance

Judging by contributions and language used, User:24.255.40.174 is the same person. See e.g. User talk:24.255.40.174. - MPF 15:40, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

  • User began contributing again as User:Borderer in December 2004. I have since banned the user as of February 28, 2005. I should note that I noticed in January that this user was Kenneth Alan, because of a telltale edit on one of my watchlist pages that led me to investigate the user's contributions. I did not act at the time, because he seemed to be "well behaved", and I was willing to somewhat look the other way. In particular he seemed to be making small edits that were more factual in origin. Nevertheless the "DNA profile" of his edits was unmistakably Kenneth. Recently through he began straining closer to old form, insulting other users. This recent edit on Danelaw was so much nearly a thesis of his previous controversial edits that it signalled to me that he was going back to his old form. -- Decumanus 03:53, 2005 Mar 1 (UTC)

He has edited again with the IP address noted by MPF above. I have blocked the IP for 30 days. —Charles P. (Mirv) 06:03, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Edited as User:Frontiersman on May 6, 2005. -- Decumanus 05:13, 2005 May 7 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../r/e/q/Wikipedia%7ERequests_for_arbitration_Kenneth_Alan_3900.html"