Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct disputes archive/Lord Kenneth (JackLynch)

(User:Lord Kenneth | talk | contributions) This user has taken what may have been a legitimate complaint over my capitalization of the letter "G" in God in the Atheism article, and turned it into a focus for inordinate hostility at Talk:Atheism and my usertalk. There is also a place where he presents his point of view on Uncle Ed's user page JackLynch 08:07, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I wish to differ. I did not participate in the edit war, but it seems that that JackLynch is the one being hostile, and marked up the Atheism page to give it a slight bias. It had to be protected for 24 hours because he kept on capitalizing the "G"s and removing NPOV material and so forth. --User:Ashibaka

thats a bit of a muddled take on the situation. The page wasn't protected because of "G"'s, but rather my placing a disclaimer after a paragraph, stating what "some" might think of it (repeatedly, and I apologised for that). Also, that happened after I posted this here. Jack 05:16, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)

While I agree that Lord Kenneth was rather in-your-face about responding to Jack, and I did participate in that edit war myself so I may not be an unbiased observer, I think Jack's done quite a bit to instigate and provoke the situation. When I got involved he was quite quick to verbally attack me on my user talk page and on the talk pages of the atheism and agnosticism articles, claiming my reversions were tantamount to an accusation of vandalism. Jack seems to be aiming to narrow the definition of atheism to exclude some viewpoints that are covered by the current article's definition, and based on some of his statements I'm suspecting a biased agenda. Bryan 01:57, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I have now been placed, along with others, on User:Lord Kenneth's "wall of shame". I find this offensive and rude to the utmost, of course. Jack 10:33, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)

User:Jack Lynch doesn't seem to understand NPOV and keeps making controversial edits to Atheism and Nazism and Socialism. Secretlondon 07:49, Jan 20, 2004 (UTC)

I understand NPOV very well. Please discuss any problems you have with me in my talk Jack 09:29, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC)

User Kenneth has now refered to me as an "ignorant... disgusting pig" and implied I am in fear of him, on Talk:atheism Jack 00:50, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)

As with my previous comment, I think Lord Kenneth was overly in-your-face with that comment, but that Jack certainly provoked it. It was in response to a comment by Jack in which Jack claims that American atheists have prevented the Boy Scounts from "clean[ing] up after homosexuals and transgenders, because their youth group counts as a "church" and churches arn't allowed in the parks in California." I don't know exactly what "cleaning up after homosexuals and transgenders" entails, but to me it sounds insulting. Oh, and as with my previous comment, I should disclaim that I'm kind of involved in this conflict myself - especially now that Jack's given me my own personal header on this page, above. :) Bryan 02:40, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)

As a formerly "disinterested party" let me add my support for Lord Kenneth and Bryan Derksen in this matter. I have followed Jacks antics both at Talk:atheism and elsewhere pretty closely, and he appears to be a textbook troll, much more so then FotT. While "ignorant... disgusting pig" is strong language, it is disconcertingly close to the truth in light of the boyscout-comment quoted by Bryan above. -- Jussi-Ville Heiskanen 08:15, Jan 21, 2004 (UTC)

I am more a troll than a banned user? Insults are accurate regards to me? I'm rather frightened to see your on the mediation committe.... Jack 08:25, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I think you mix up EoT and FotT, a natural enough mistake,... or is it?

Last time I looked, members of the mediation committee were still allowed opinions. I think the best way forward and easiest for all concerned, would be if you changed your editing habits so that they evince less bigotry. That is just my personal opinion, not an official statement as a member of the mediation committee. Otherwise, if the shoe fits... -- Jussi-Ville Heiskanen 09:37, Jan 21, 2004 (UTC)

A few pointers from "his lordship".

"I know more about philosophy than you do. Hell, if you knew anything you wouldn't be catholic. - Kenneth 16:48, Jan 27, 2004 (UTC)

Your type of "NPOV" reeks of Fox New's "fair and balanced" Lord Kenneth 18:18, Jan 24, 2004 (PST)

Your filthy bias shows yet again ... you are a disgusting pig. - Lord Kenneth 00:39, Jan 21, 2004 (UTC)

It's obvious you have no idea what you are talking about. You don't even understand the fallacies you are accusing me of making. … Are you even sane? - Lord Kenneth 22:39, Jan 25, 2004 (UTC)

This guy really isn't serious. He's just a religious fanatic out with an agenda. - Lord Kenneth 02:37, Jan 21, 2004 (UTC)"

Jack 10:06, 1 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Awww, Jack, Jack, Jack... you already have a conflict between users page about this, remember, li'l Jack? Or did you forget so suddenly? Many of the above quotes have already been talked about, especially the "disgusting pig" comment, which was in reference to you talking about the boy scounts "cleaning up" after homosexuals and transgenders. I think you're stalking me too much. You're like the little girl who picks on the little boy because she secretly likes him. - Lord Kenneth 14:40, Feb 1, 2004 (UTC)

[Mirv]: Lord Kenneth is a 16 year old high schooler, so his narrow-minded insistence that his views can be the only possible correct, NPOV version of an article can perhaps be forgiven: he may not have been exposed to a range of thought that would cause him to question his own extreme scientism. Much more serious, however, is his total ignorance of basic good manners, as Jack's selection of quotations above -- to which I could add many more -- shows. I think he could be a valuable contributor iff he could learn to respect the views of those who disagree with him -- which he doesn't: observe his conversations with Gene Ward Smith on the CBU page; to cease making personal attacks, period; and to view articles not as battles to be won, but as collaborations between everyone concerned. — No-One Jones (talk) 14:47, 1 Feb 2004 (UTC)

What is this, some sort of pseudoscience/paranormalist bash-LK party? Like I said, there's already a conflict between users page about this, it's rather obvious that my enemies (that is, those who revert my changes from POV articles to a respectable NPOV article).

There is no reason to respect any views when those views are represented as fact in the wikipedia when in reality they are conjecture and nothing more than faith. I'll treat them all the same, and that is as non-factual information. I don't care how deeply you hold such beliefs, lies are lies. Jack, Mirv, Gene Ward Smith are all people with anti-scientific worldviews. Also, I wonder how you got the idea that I'm a 16 year old high schooler? That's rather interesting on why you would say such a thing. - Lord Kenneth 14:59, Feb 1, 2004 (UTC)

• I note you didn't answer my question re whether you have a high school diploma. Why not? I find it hilarious that you, a person who does not seem possessed of much education, are willing to tell people educated in the sciences that they possess an anti-scientific world-view. Gene Ward Smith 23:43, 1 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I see he now has a "Wall of Shame" on his user page listing his enemies and their supposed 'misdeeds'. Since I recently told LK to not call other users a troll, I guess I will be on his wall of shame soon too. This is not acceptable behavior. --mav 23:42, 1 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I agree with Mav- to use one's user page in such a pro-actively negative way doesn't inspire much confidence with me as to the value of this users contributions- how about changing your user page to a wall of FAME, listing those contributors who actively ADD to the value of wikipedia? To my mind at least you would be enhancing your own standing and not striking me as a negative whinger who finds it easy to enhance his own standing by highlighting the shortcomings of others. Just my fourpennorth, TBH I don't take a huge amount of interest in these ego spats, I've served my time on usenet already. quercus robur 23:58, 1 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Does using admin privledges in an attempt to get someone following proper policy guidelines on a copyright matter reek of "trolling"?

For your information, the wall of shame is simply a watch list for people who troll topics. You won't appear on it unless you troll an article. - Lord Kenneth 23:52, Feb 1, 2004 (UTC)

I advocate what I have always advocated (eg. MNH) for people making repeated and unacceptable personal attacks:

1. A final warning to stop by the arbitration committee (no need for mediation)
2. If the attacks don't stop, banning - decided by the arbitration committee.

- snoyes 23:52, 1 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Agreed. I will have to recuse myself because LK has already pissed me off. Which brings up a valid point: What if a user intentionally trolls arbitrators in order to force each of them to recuse themselves? --mav 00:38, 2 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Trolling? All I did was report it was a possible violation. I'm not demanding immediate takedown. You're making this a personal issue. I'm just following copyright policy. You snapped at me. If you don't like the policies, Mav, why don't you try to get them changed? Also, I don't like how you can call me a troll when you, earlier, did tell me not to. Such hypocrisy! - Lord Kenneth 00:43, Feb 2, 2004 (UTC)

I didn't call you a troll. I was posing a hypothetical situation to another user exposing a possible weakness of our arbitration procedures. --mav

Then I stand corrected. I still maintain that this is not a personal issue, and I don't know why you made it one. It's not like you can't take a higher-resolution picture of yourself with your camera, you know... - Lord Kenneth 00:50, Feb 2, 2004 (UTC)

Certainly LK has offended me. Apparently that makes me part of a large group of people. But I see that I have been "honored" by being place on his "wall of shame", so I suppose I ought to contribute to this discussion.

I find his behavior unacceptable. If there is poll as to whether to ban him, I would be in favor. Or at least put some sort of training wheels on his account. He does not appear to be able to see beyond his own personal viewpoint. He does not seem to understand the concept of the Wikipedia NPOV policy. He is unwilling to learn, unwilling to resolve conflicts, and quick to take offense with everyone. And he violates nearly every Wikiquette guideline there is. What more is there to say? Grizzly 10:13, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC)

It seems I have every person on wikipedia into "fringe" theories (psychic powers, quackery, etc) on my tail. Why can't I have "normal" people bothering me, and not the anti-skeptics? Grizzly, you want to talk NPOV? I invite anyone to check your previous changes to James Randi and the various skepticism posts see who really is violating "NPOV". Of course, your kind tends to get treated well. I fully expect with all the anti-science cranks complaining about my fair edits (removing their bias and lies) I'll be banned. I will make sure, then, to be quite vocal on just how "friendly" wikipedia really is.

Hm, let's see... Reddi/JDR, Grizzly, JackLynch, Gene Ward Smith, Mirv.... probably soon to be irismeister... you're all in good company, like peas in a pod! - Lord Kenneth 12:36, Feb 3, 2004 (UTC)

When have I advocated fringe theories or quackery? Do not confuse arguing against you (and you alone -- I did not argue with Tim Starling's or Bryan Derksen's edits to that article) on one issue with advocating something you dislike. Also note that nobody is talking about banning you for your edits, but for your constant hostility, rudeness, and personal attacks. This kind of behavior would be just as unacceptable coming from the people you so viciously oppose, and in fact people have already complained about Irismeister engaging in the same behavior as you -- observe Requests for comment/Irismeister. No-One Jones (talk) 12:46, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I have seen your previous edits, Mirv. Can you tell us all your opinions on skeptics, science, supernatural powers, or perhaps other things currently unsupported by science? I think it's very likely you have a bias.- Lord Kenneth 20:33, Feb 3, 2004 (UTC)

Also, I have barely been rude-- I have actually been quite nice when dealing with those who consistently revert, delete my work (without discussing it with me, as you did... "garbled paragraph", yeah right...). If you say hostility to mean "hostile to pseudoscience and POV", then yes, I am very hostile. I do not suffer lies very well. As for "personal attacks", there is nothing wrong (in my opinion) with calling someone a troll when they resort to reverting inaccurate and biased articles. If wikipedia has a rule against that, fine, but that does not change the fact that those actions are exactly what could be "described" as trolling. As for "quack" and "pseudoscientist", I sincerely apologize for using those terms in the correct manner. Oh, and calling Jack Lynch a pig is nothing when he insults homosexuals and transgenders-- the reason I called him that in the first place (funny how he likes to leave out that fact). - Lord Kenneth 20:42, Feb 3, 2004 (UTC)

Request for hard ban on Lord_Kenneth

User:Lord_Kenneth in talk mentions quote you're full of **** all... here unquote. Unworthy for lordship, methinks : ) Sincerely, irismeister 13:42, 2004 Feb 3 (UTC)

Oh, look, I was right! For your information, irismeister is a quack-- read up on iridology. These types are very quick to silence when the truth attempts to speak. - Lord Kenneth 20:23, Feb 3, 2004 (UTC)

Repeated request for hard ban on Lord_Kenneth

Com'on mylord, say what you know about the quack I am and let truth silence only the perpetrators of ad hominem like the one you are. I thought you understand taste. You only badly need more toilet training before adding anything else, mylord : ) (quote you're full of **** all... here unquote :)°
Not recommended : ) Unworthy of anything, let alone lordship : ) Sincerely, irismeister 08:49, 2004 Feb 4 (UTC)

You only serve to discredit the rest of the quacks/pseudoscience people who wish me to be banned. - Lord Kenneth 20:45, Feb 4, 2004 (UTC)

Mylord, rest assured

Nobody wants you out. Everybody wants you polite, articulate and creative. The culture of name-calling, Milord, is bankrupt. Why not losing time constructively in lieu of pestiferating against things you do not understand ? Sincerely, irismeister 12:41, 2004 Feb 7 (UTC)

I'm choking on the irony. - Lord Kenneth 20:07, Feb 8, 2004 (UTC)

No problem, there is a workaround: Spit the poisonous bone. Take a deep breath. If anything else fails, call a doctor :) irismeister 13:59, 2004 Feb 9 (UTC)

If I'm going to call a doctor, it's *NOT* going to be you. - Lord Kenneth 14:55, Feb 9, 2004 (UTC)

Behaviour on IRC

On February 2 2004 00:35 AM UTC on Freenode IRC network at #wikipedia IRC channel, User:Lord Kenneth showed some behaviour towards me which I consider unkind.

When I told him: "[02:35:19] <Optim> LordKenneth you seem to have some "emotional charge" regarding this issue. it's better to wait until the emotion discharges so you can use your judgement/reason better."

Lord Kenneth gave an answer and then ignored me saying he did that because I was as coherent as Reddi. His/her comment was public (in #wikipedia)

As another user pointed, I was just as coherent as one who isn't a native speaker of the English language.

I said to Lord Kenneth: "[02:37:32] <Optim> if u dont understand me, request a rephrase." but Lord Kenneth didn't answer.

I regard Lord Kenneth's comment as an insult since it was made in public. It was made on the Wikipedia IRC channel, so it is related to his/her Wikipedia behaviour and we can take it into account as evidence of bad conduct. He/she could say something more socially acceptable but he/she didn't, indicating, in my opinion, a personality that I could describe as somewhat impulsive and maybe even anti-social, although in general I dislike to characterise people. This is my current personal opinion, but I am more than willing to change it if Lord Kenneth wishes to apologise.

Optim 09:29, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC) (updated Optim 05:06, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC))

I don't think this is an appropriate venue to discuss behaviour that took place off the site. The IRC channel is not Wikipedia and things people do there should not be held against them on Wikipedia itself. Angela. 03:44, Feb 24, 2004 (UTC)

In my understanding, #wikipedia is Wikipedia. If Lord Kenneth's comment was made on another IRC channel, I would not report it here. If a user has bad behaviour in #wikipedia he/she should, at least, be banned from #wikipedia, and his/her behaviour in that channel can be used for the decision of a ban in Wikipedia. The same applies to the mailing list, IMO. Optim 04:51, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I not only disagree strongly with that (angela's position) generally, but the specific example of you citing a discussion with Kenneth here seems to show you taking an awkward, perhaps untenable position. In conclusion, kenneth needs to be banned, or at least punished and his user page forcibly blanked. See my note to Jimbo here, and feel free to add to it. Sam Spade 04:43, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Sam, how is my finding out whether Kenneth was prepared to take part in mediation any sort of "untenable position"? That makes no sense whatsoever and has nothing to do with the fact that I believe people should not be punished on Wikipedia for things they do on IRC. Angela. 13:04, Mar 4, 2004 (UTC)

Well, first of all let me point out that I was not meaning to critisize you personally, but rather your point (about IRC). IMO what we do anywhere matters, esp on wikipedia IRC. You disagree, and I point out that you have utilized IRC for wiki business (finding out that Kenneth didn't want to mediate). What I now understand your position to be is that IRC can be used for wiki business, but ill behaviours on it cannot be used against anyone? I don't agree at all if that is your position, but I do want to point out once more that it is your argument I disagree w (if thats what it is, clarify if need be) not anything you have done. Sam Spade 02:59, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I don't think it is okay to have wikibusiness in IRC and disregard wikipedians' behaviour in it. The same applies to the mailing list and the BBSes. Also, Angela opposed the adminship of User:Eclecticology in Wikipedia:Requests for adminship, including the comment "He has recently sent me highly abusive emails". See [1] So it seems, as far as I can understand, that she considers email behaviour as relevant to Wikipedia. So, why not do the same with IRC behaviour in the Wikipedia IRC channel? Optim· 20:11, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I shan't object to Sam bringing this up if LK is ever nominated for adminship, but I don't think you can expect the arbitration comittee to deal with issues that do not occur on site. Angela. 16:28, Mar 6, 2004 (UTC)

Tsk. Children... *sigh* I've been away for a few weeks and they STILL try to censor and kick me off. Your position is ridiculous and reminds me of SCO's litigation against IBM... - Lord Kenneth 04:03, Mar 3, 2004 (UTC)

See? Instead of apologising, User:Lord Kenneth is calling my position "ridiculous"! This is not wikiquette. Optim^·.· 20:04, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I think you'll find a number of wikiquette failings on the part of Kenneth, but it appears flaming isn't enough for arbitration (I've tried) :( Sam Spade 03:44, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I have no need or reason to apologize to someone who tries to get me banned through ridiculous methods. Your position is, I shall say again in perhaps harsher terms, IDIOTIC. - Lord Kenneth 01:38, Mar 6, 2004 (UTC)

A gem from Kenny

"You are insane. - Lord Kenneth 15:51, Mar 6, 2004 (UTC)"

Kenny has promoted himself, by his continued actions and name calling, to a psuedoskeptical troll, IMO ... but then he thinks I'm insane [chuckles]. Sincerely, JDR

I'm not the only one who thinks you're crackers. - Lord Kenneth 06:35, Mar 7, 2004 (UTC)

Double paging of disputes where it is mostly one fellow(Lord Kenneth) ganged up upon only serves to dicredit the attackers. Lord Kenneð 17:20, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

This is a Political Trial for Thoughtcrimes. Highly NOT reccommended!

Hey, folks, leave Sam alone! He was one of my most active and fierce critics for edits on Iridology. But hey, are you after witches or something? Leave the man/lady/Wiki editor at large just as he/she is - free and alone! Or I'll report your acts as a fascist deviation! The right to free speech includes leaving people free to think as they deem fit. If they express themselves, it's there inalienable right. Raising files with profiles and then spamming editors with "urgent" nonsense and stuff raises specters of political police! When I was younger I myself had a huge file in Securitate for opposing communism. I wish not see this experience again! For anybody! If you don't like what Sam thinks, say so, write to him, demonstrate in front of him with facts and your stuff that his opinions are not yours, etc. But don't carry him to Salem for more witch*hunting. Duh! Disgusting! - irismeister 22:55, 2004 Oct 10 (UTC)