Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Kenneth Alan/Proposed decision

all proposed

Arbitrators should vote for or against each point or vote to abstain.

• Only items that receive a majority aye vote will be enacted.
• Items that receive a majority nay vote will be formally rejected.
• Items that do not receive a majority aye or nay vote will be open to possible amendment by any arbitrator if he so chooses. After the amendment process is complete, the item will be voted on one last time.
• Items that receive a majority abstentions will need to go through an amendment process and be re-voted on once.

Conditional votes for, against, or to abstain should be explained by the arbitrator in parenthesis after his time-stamped signature. For example, an arbitrator can state that he would only favor a particular remedy based on whether or not another remedy/remedies were enacted.

Proposed temporary orders

This user recently went on a spree, and began removing every edit he's made here. Both Jwros..g and I warned him to stop, but he continued removing them. I have blocked him for a period of one week. I suggest that until this case is decided, he only be allowed to edit on related to the arbcom case. →Raul654 03:45, Sep 25, 2004 (UTC)

Aye:

1. →Raul654 03:45, Sep 25, 2004 (UTC)
2. Fred Bauder 11:57, Sep 25, 2004 (UTC)
3. Martin 14:14, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)
4. Jwrosenzweig 21:05, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Nay:

Abstain:

Proposed principles

proposed wording to be modified by Arbitrators and then voted on

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

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.)

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.)

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 reaseach. (See Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, expounded in Wikipedia:No original research.)

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.

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:

Proposed 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]

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:

Proposed remedies

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

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:

1.5) Due to User Kenneth Alan's demonstrated inablility to conform to Wikipedia policies he is banned for four months.

Aye:

1. James F. (talk) 19:50, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC) (Would prefer more, though.)
2. Jwrosenzweig 19:59, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC) (Thanks, James F., for offering a compromise ban -- I now agree, though, that 1 year is more appropriate.)

Nay:

2. Martin 23:21, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC) (one year seems better)
3. Same reason as Martin. →Raul654 23:49, Sep 27, 2004 (UTC)

Abstain:

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Aye:

Nay:

Abstain:

Enforcement

1) During the one year ban of Kenneth Alan any edits by him or an obvious sockpuppet are subject to removal; any obvious reincarnation may be banned; and attempts to edit shall extend the ban to one year from the date of the attempt.

Aye:

1. Fred Bauder 15:04, Oct 1, 2004 (UTC)

Nay:

1. No need - this already applies to all of our decisions. →Raul654 18:07, Oct 1, 2004 (UTC)
   • Where it is becomes clear that a user account is a "reincarnation" of an existing banned user, the reincarnating account can likewise be blocked. -- Wikipedia:Blocking policy
   • The penalty for evading a ban is that the "ban timer" is automatically reset (no formal consideration is typically necessary). -- Wikipedia:Banning policy

Abstain:

Discussion by arbitrators

General

Although we may wish to add enforcement provisions we have agreed on a one year ban. Fred Bauder 12:13, Oct 1, 2004 (UTC)

Motion to close

Four Aye votes needed to close case

1. Unless an enforcement provision is needed. Fred Bauder 12:22, Oct 1, 2004 (UTC)
2. Jwrosenzweig 14:16, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC) Unless there is any fear that the community doesn't know what it means (admins intructed to ban obvious reincarnations, edits he makes are to be reverted, trying to get around the ban will extend it), I think we're in good shape. The last point is the only one that I think may need addressing.
3. Yes, this one seems over. →Raul654 23:18, Oct 1, 2004 (UTC)
4. Martin 19:50, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)