The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
A summary of the debate may be found at the bottom of the discussion.

Focus[edit]

We need to bring this in focus. One of the requirements is that we show that an attempt was made by more than one user to resolve the dispute. Because the abuse is so wide ranging this may be difficult. I made one attempt to reason with Mimsy on his AfD actions which he then threatened me with a block. I think I can take other diffs where other users requested a rationalization for a deletion against consensus and was rebuffed with "Take it to DRV." We'll need two diffs for attempts to resolve the Kundun username dispute. I can provide diffs where attempts were made to smoothy resolve my block dispute and Mimsy displayed an attitude that a further punitive block was needed due to my prior bad acts. We need to focus this in an provide better diffs for unsuccessful dispute resolution or this will never get off the ground. —Malber (talk • contribs) 13:16, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Finding evidence of an attempt to resolve the civility issue may be problematic because Mimsy has abused his rollback powers to remove any warnings from his talk page history. —Malber (talk • contribs) 13:18, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's patently untrue. This shows that you have little or no idea what you are talking about. "Rollback" is simply an automated reversion. It removes nothing from the history. If he had gone to the trouble to delete his talk page and remove certain revisions from it you would see evidence of that in the admin logs. You don't. Please stop making flagrantly inaccurate claims to back up your position of attack.—WAvegetarian•(talk) 23:44, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Of course it's probably futile since Nick is simply making all of India admins to meat-puppet support, right?—WAvegetarian•(talk) 01:55, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Infact it was nock who got some Indian users baned on WP:RFArb.Bakaman 23:39, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by Samuel Blanning[edit]

Nowhere in the description of the issue states that AfD is a vote. The term "consensus" is consistently used. —Malber (talk • contribs) 13:22, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Nick does not understand copyright policy"[edit]

I don't understand a few of these points. For instance, it is not a misunderstanding that a mere assertion that you uploaded the file onto another website is not enough. I could claim that I uploaded pretty much any video on YouTube, and there is no way you can prove I did not. And including his "YouTube is not a reliable source" comment? That's not even relevant to copyright. -Amarkov blahedits 23:54, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In order to refute a statement in writing by a copyright holder verifying copyright (and permission to use on-wiki), you would need some evidence to impeach the veracity or identity of the person making the statement. (For the record, the copyright holder who stated --in writing --his permission for the use of the Barrington video on Wikipedia via You Tube is a senior Google engineer. Since Google owns You Tube, he presumably has a vague idea how it works/should work :-)
Cindery 01:54, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's not how copyright law works. You must prove that you do have permission, you can't just fail to prove that you don't. -Amarkov blahedits 02:39, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
For linking, the standard is reversed. If you know, or have good reason to know, that material is infringing copyright, then linking to it is comtributory infringement. If you do not have reason to believe that the material is infringing, you may legally link to it.
If some random Joe posts a clip of the Mary Tyler Moore show, there's good reason to believe it is infringing, since that's a well-known TV show which has a well-defined copyright holder which is not in the habit of allowing uncompensated reproduction of its IP. If some random Joe posts a video of some unsigned band, you don't have a good reason to believe that it's infringing, as the random Joe may be a band member, and the band may encourage its fans to post the video to gain more exposure. Argyriou (talk) 05:45, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly--and Mahlen proved that he did (by asserting in writing that he is the copyright owner). But, be my guest if you would like to argue that a senior Google engineer has fraudulently claimed in writing to own the copyright to a You Tube link...? In general, I think you may also be confused re linking and reproducing. (Almost everything Wikipedia links to is under copyright.) Cindery 02:52, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, you're right there. I think you should make it clearer exactly what you mean, though. And "YouTube is not a reliable source" still is irrelevant to copyright. -Amarkov blahedits 05:28, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Video is often a reliable source. Quite often, video is a primary source - most news and sports coverage would qualify, video of dance choreography would qualify, etc. I recently took some video of a local overdone Christmas light display. If I were to link to that video to illustrate Christmas lights#Outdoor displays, there would be no issue over whether my video was a "reliable source". It's a primary source, and thus inherently reliable for factual description.
This is arm-waving. Please cite the legal precedents for contributory negligence not applying simply because people refused to accept the possibility that copyright was being violated. We already have cited case law for the contention that linking to offsite copyvios is contributory infringement, and I see nothing to suggest that the burden of proof would be reversed in this instance. Nor is there any evident basis in policy for links being default include when all other content is default exclude when good-faith concerns are raise. The onus is, and always has been, on those seeking to include content, to address any good-faith objections raised. We have also in the past seen false assertions of permission. It is not in the least unreasonable to require authoritative validation of copyright status for links or indeed content. Guy (Help!) 12:10, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Guy, you need to 1) bring yourself up to date on the issue by reading the discussions which have already taken place 2) familiarize yourself with the specific case being discussed here 3) heed the advice you have repeatedly been given that this is an RfC about Nick, and his edit warring over a specific link, not the general discussion page for You Tube. (Have you noticed at the general discussion page for You Tube links that no one has endorsed your "alternate proposal," and that you have been advised there also to bring yourself up to date on the discussion?) Thanks,

Cindery 16:22, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read through the NOR and EL discussions? A couple things are made clear there: 1) the source of a You Tube video is not You Tube--the source is the publisher. Source credibility varies as widely as blogs, and all other self-publishing mediums--everything from Daily Kos to some 13 year old's livejournal. (Hence, just as there can be no blanket ban on You Tube for copyvios, there can be no blanket assessment of You Tube as a source. Underlying sources for You Tube include everything from CNN to someone's little sister. Therefore, they have to be evaluated via editorial judgement/there can be no blanket judgement of YT's "source reliability"--there are too many sources, and their credibility varies widely. It has also been established, in the EL discussions, that YT links are used primarily as ELs, and hence don't need to meet the same RS standards as sources in every case, and editorial judgement is required, not a blanket prohibition, which is not useful for a) article quality b) educating users/upgrading editorial judgement. Arg's inclusion of Nick's statement re RS is there because Nick glumped the issues together--"either they're copyvios or nor reliable and can't be used." Which is not true. Cindery 06:31, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

kundan/kuntan[edit]

Kund(t)an is a common north Indian name. Kuntan has a notorious meaning in Kerala

The two words are quite different, putting a hole in Malber's argument. Also, swear words in Malayali can have a different meaning in Hindi/Punjabi. The Indian "kuntan"s Malber has cited are all North Indian and none are Malayali. Perhaps we should consult Deepujoseph (talk · contribs) or Bharatveer (talk · contribs) as to the local norms in KeralaBakaman 04:46, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I find it exponentially more important that the user in question created a page explaining that their username meant something offensive. Obviously it's not that they were innocently blocked, unaware that their is had an offensive meaning. -Amarkov blahedits 05:27, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See these links:

If I may interject, I find the reference to a town in Malaysia totally spurious in this argument. Although the languages of Southeast Asia and India are not completely unrelated, the language of Malaysia differs significantly from Malayalam, the language of Kerala. There is a temptation to believe that some editors might be confused by the similarities of the name Malayalam and the country Malaysia, thinking the languages must also be similar. --BostonMA talk 20:32, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SAJordan's comments moved from main page[edit]

On "Outside view by Samir" and appended remarks[edit]

Samir[edit]

On Samir's "Kuntan is a troll and Nick's username block was entirely appropriate." As with Samir's comments on the the RFC he deleted, either this is mixing user conduct issues with a username issue (but a user's conduct does not make his name offensive or obscene), or it is a repetition of the argument that just using the name "Kuntan" constituted trolling because it was so "obscene" (but its legitimate use has been documented). As quoted further up this page, Samir has made the latter argument even against Kuntan's second ID, though the legitimate use of "Kundan" has also been documented. But hounding an innocently-named person for months with the continual false accusation that the name is obscene — isn't that trolling?
Wikilawyering to the extreme. Are you advocating that Kuntan be unblocked? -- Samir धर्म 15:19, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ArmadilloFromHell[edit]

On Armadillo's "An admitted troll"... Could you please provide a cite? Not meaning to doubt you in any way at all, I trust you absolutely, but as a matter of fairness it worries me that all the verifiable citations in defense of Kuntan's name have been simply ignored, while those who continued to assert its obscenity have neither acknowledged what those citations showed nor been required to present any to the contrary. Say, wasn't verifiability supposed to be a bedrock principle of Wikipedia, once upon a time?
I don't know ho to track it down, but I believe he created a page for a city, and I was tricked into helping him to keep it, I think I removed a speedy delete tag, and then I'm pretty sure it went to AfD, in the end the whole city was a hoax, and that's what he admitted to. --ArmadilloFromHellGateBridge 03:58, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It was easier to find than I thought Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kuntayithote - an intentional waster of everyone's time --ArmadilloFromHellGateBridge 04:00, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

...you don't seem to have noticed the addition of my paragraph to the main page (under "comments by SA Jordan removed...") which includes citations for the facts that 1) Kuntan was a very new editor at the time this happened--two weeks old 2) he apologized to you 3) he wasn't "an admiited troll" or accused of being one--tintin thanked him both for admitting the article was a (brief, innocuous) hoax and "beautifully exposing what is wrong with AfDs." I cited your rejection of his apology/threat to have him banned as an example of WP:BITE. Cindery 04:41, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bakaman[edit]

On Bakasuprman's "Is blocking trolls controversial now?" Please read the repeated and emphatic cautions in WP:TROLL (especially WP:TROLL#Bad_faith) and WP:BITE. It's something that deserves a lot less headstrong certitude than this, especially when both admins had already repeatedly expressed personal hostility toward the user before the blocks: WP:BLOCK#When_blocking_may_not_be_used.

Aksi_great[edit]

On Aksi_great's "He has caused a lot of disruption in the beginning with his inappropriate username"... Has anyone accused the town of Kuntan in Malaysia, or soccer player Kuntan Singh Kanwal, or Senior Superintendent of Police Kuntan Krishnan, of having "inappropriate" (or "obscene" or "offensive" or "disruptive") names? What's "inappropriate" about the colloquial Tamil word for "a strong, stout person"? Has Wikipedia likewise forbidden use of the names "Monica", "Dick", "John", and "Jimmy", as "inappropriate" due to their having slang meanings as well as legitimate uses? Why is such a completely different rationale applied to User:Kuntan's case than to any of these others?

Guy[edit]

On Guy's "Kuntan's was a righteous block." If the block reason had been content disputes, or user conduct, then there could have been a dispute resolution process, and the outcome could have been specified in the block. But user conduct wasn't the reason given for this block. The reason given was Kuntan's name — an "Inappropriate username, created only for disruption" — or as previously argued, so obscene and offensive that it constituted "disruption" and "trolling" in itself. Wow. That's an impressive accusation. But where was the evidence? Where were the citations? Meanwhile, verifiable citations to the contrary have been offered... and simply ignored, even on this page. (Nick's own response to those citations? "I don't care whatever definitions exist for the word 'Kuntan'".... But then how could he declare it "inappropriate" or a violation of WP:USERNAME?) On another user above you demanded "some informed dissent". On this user, that's been provided. So does having it actually make any difference? Please advise. – SAJordan talkcontribs 05:26, 30 Dec 2006 (UTC).
Kuntan is a troll. He was blocked. There is no realistic chance that will be reversed, and it has been endorsed by numerous experienced admins. End of story. Please find a better cause to fight. Guy (Help!) 12:06, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tintin[edit]

On Tintin's "I have explained it to Malber and Jordan two or three times now and they never replied to that. I can't be bothered again." Tell the whole truth, Tintin: you posted to the RFC/NAME about Kuntan, and 51 minutes later (before I could even read your comment) Samir deleted the entire RFC so that no-one could comment any more. I asked him to let the RFC and its discussion resume, and he refused, deleting even the link I'd posted to the history copy. Complain to Samir that you want replies re-enabled. – SAJordan talkcontribs 07:37, 30 Dec 2006 (UTC).

Heligoland[edit]

On Heligoland's "fully support the block against Kuntan - For a start, it's very similar to the English word "Cunt" so it's inappropriate from a purely English standpoint, the translation is fully worse."
  • Similarity to English words. Should we also delete Shiite, Fokker, and Dean Koontz, and block users for names like Monica, Dick, John, and Jimmy?
  • ..."the translation is fully worse". The translation? What translation? On this RFC at present, the one and only translation actually citing a verifiable source is "a strong, stout person (coll.)" from the Tamil-English dictionary. How come that gets ignored, while the mere unverifiable assertion that "Heligoland" is a foul obscenity (somewhere) gets User:Heligoland condemned and blocked as a disruptive troll simply for using that name?
  • Real people, a real town, and even a real type of tree (pic), have the name "Kuntan" in the real world. I suppose Wikipedia can't ever permit any article on (or mentioning) any of them, whatever the encyclopedic value might be. – SAJordan 15:37, 30 Dec 2006 (UTC).
On Heligoland's "If we had a user called "Child molester" or whatever, there would be no question at all of blocking."
  • But even the unverified accusations make no such claim against "Kuntan"; the closest they come amounts to "victim of child molestation". Are you saying that names alleged to claim victimhood, or even names that acually do claim victimhood — "Molestation victim", "Rape victim", "Robbery victim", "Disabled war veteran", "Florida voter 2000", "Congressional page", "Voted for Mark Foley" — should be blocked as inappropriate? – SAJordan talkcontribs 00:39, 31 Dec 2006 (UTC).
Since this is getting so petty, my final comments are that any user who registers a username similar to those you've mentioned above should be asked to change their username, and if they don't, they be forced to change the username. Usernames can be disruptive either intentionally or unintentionally, whether being provocative or a target for attacks and taunting. There are vandals and antagonists out there would love to target someone who had been a rape victim. That's not fair to the individual who may not realise how open they are to abuse here, and it's disruptive to the project. You'll also note that potentially abusive usernames are routinely blocked, whether it be due to undesirable language, commercial content, danger of implying a link with the project or a danger of implying status within the project and/or foundation. --Kind Regards - Heligoland | Talk | Contribs 00:53, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We should apply Official Policy so strictly that if one possible meaning violating WP:USERNAME can be found (or even alleged without proof), all the other legitimate meanings don't matter? Then please change your name at once, in accordance with WP:USERNAME#Inappropriate_usernames:
"Usernames that promote a company or website: Usernames of or closely resembling the names of companies, groups, or include the URL of a particular website are discouraged and may be blocked."
Your name doesn't just "closely resemble" but is identical to that of the group Heligoland, whose URL and MySpace ID also use that name. Acccording to their many Google hits, they don't need any more promotion via a Wikipedia username. As if further reason were needed, an Australian class-41/entertainment trademark would trigger:
"Trademarked names: Trademarked names, especially sports teams like the Miami Heat, the Carolina Hurricanes, or the New York Yankees should not be used in a username."
Following your remarks above, I trust you will not attempt to cloud the issue by dragging in other, more acceptable uses of the name "Heligoland", since you've just declared that such things don't matter. Please see Wikipedia:Changing username for the procedure you should follow now. Thank you. – SAJordan talkcontribs 02:11, 31 Dec 2006 (UTC).
Have you finished making your point? If so, please get back to civil editing.—WAvegetarian•(talk) 06:31, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I certainly want to avoid incivility, but you could greatly help me by telling me what in the above was uncivil. – SAJordan talkcontribs 10:13, 31 Dec 2006 (UTC).
Ahem Heligoland! You can't TM a placename so that no-one can ever use it in a different context. SAJordan - please stop being disruptive for the sake of making a point. I thought you were better then that! --Spartaz 15:09, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Kindly assume good faith. How is it "disruptive" to civilly ask a user please to abide by Wikipedia's official policy?
"You can't TM a placename so that no-one can ever use it in a different context." – The issue here is not whether trademark law allows the same name to be trademarked for different contexts (industries) by different entities. The issue here is that once anyone has trademarked it, Wikipedia policy precludes its use as a username. (Relevant provision quoted and cited above.)
To rely on the leeway in trademark law would be misguided, because in this case Wikipedia policy is more restrictive – just as pointing to the "fair use" leeway in copyright law as the upper limit on uploading copyrighted materials here would be misguided, because in that case Wikipedia policy is more restrictive. – SAJordan talkcontribs 16:18, 31 Dec 2006 (UTC).

I think SA Jordan is making valid points in good faith, and would ask you to observe Shimeru's request that labelling people who disagree solely because they disagree as "disruptive" is, basically, namecalling/threatening. The discussion page of this RfC is precisely where SA should be making his points, and is in no way disruptive. The username issue re Kuntan/Kundan after Sundown should probably continue into another RfC, as it is not getting a fair hearing/the previous RfC was prematurely closed. Cindery 15:46, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Followup discussions[edit]

SA Jordan has made many, many good points which--as I pointed out on Dmcdevit's talkpage--have relevance beyond the issue of Kuntan. When PA's like "troll" are used and blocks are unjustified/out-of-process, that alienates the community-- especially the community of editors who do not participate in "politics." Maybe it is difficult for you to see this objectively, due to your personal involvement?--the inflammatory statements and personal attacks you made towards Kundan after Sundown on your talkpage, your persistent use if the word "troll," with regards to him, and your re-block of Kundan after Sundown without any due process? Try to take a breath and think of how this looks to outsiders, who know nothing of whatever it is you are upset with Kuntan about. If there is a good case against him for disruption or harassing anybody, please present it through appropriate channels. Telling people: "you are getting close to the point of disruption" "why are you sticking up for a troll?" makes things worse--i.e., it sounds like you are just trying to shut them up, and amplifies outside perspective that transparent policies and procedures, agreed upon by the community, are not being followed--that instead a small number of people have ganged up on someone they didn't like and want to cover it up/don't want it discussed, because it brings scrutiny on their actions. If there's a case against Kundan (after he changed his name) please present it on ANI, bring it to RfC/Arbcom for community ban, etc. Cindery 06:07, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cindery, you take a breath and see the insulting and demeaning commentary put forth by Kuntan, the admitted hoax articles he made, the references he made to sodomy in deleted articles, and the nasty comments he made on RfA's and on the administrative noticeboards in his various incarnations. The fact that you still continue to back him up boggles the mind. I'm beginning to think you have some sort of vendetta against User:Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington -- Samir धर्म 06:24, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For the last week, I have been unable to see diffs on my computer--it just crashes when I click on a diff. Being overworked, I have ordered a new computer online instead of going to buy one in person, since I don't need to see diffs on Wikipedia to do my job. (It won't run Firefox anymore either, though, and has reverted to some version of Explorer from 2001--which totally sucks-- and the hard drive seems to be dying--that is why I ordered a new one.) Because of holiday mailing hoo-ha, I am sure it won't arrive until after New Year's (and *then* I will have to go to the "genius" bar in person, because something will be wrong with it/I won't be able to figure something out, and Mumblio is zero help because he has a Dell...) But, If you post the links you say are there as http links, I should be able to see them (or you could just quote them as text.) What I *was* able to see is Kundan after Sundown's edit history--which looked like it contained many useful contributions. Again, if there is evidence that he harassed anybody or was disruptive, that can go through appropriate channels. --Why not? Fairness and transparency in procedure is the issue, and it goes beyond Nick and Kuntan (and you). And, seriously, I *have* received emails from people stating that they left Wikipedia over the politics/injustice re the block of Kuntan. In fact, the very person to whom you said "why are you sticking up for a troll?" left Wikipedia after that. Maybe you should spend some time thinking about what purpose the question "why are you sticking up for a troll?" serves?--is it possible that it intimidates/alienates/drives away productive editors? I think you should think about how your actions towards one person--no matter how "vile" you think he is--affect others who witness them. And you should also think about how an average editor--those who write 80% of Wikipedia articles--feel when an admin asks them, "why are you sticking up for a troll?"---I think it comes off as threatening/intimidating, not inviting and inclusive, and harms the project even if you don't mean it to (which is why disputes should go through transparent channels, blocks not be made by admins involved in the dispute, who may be too subjective not only about their actions in blocking , but too subjectively engaged to see how their actions affect others who just witness the block.) Cindery 07:04, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"People stating why they left Wikipedia": Clt13 (in his last edit), and Parker Peters, for just two examples. – SAJordan talkcontribs 09:02, 30 Dec 2006 (UTC).
What you fail to realize is that administrators are the appropriate channel for user conduct. Administrative blocks are entirely appropriate for user conduct and username issues. Here we have a number of administrators telling you about Kuntan's trolling; as opposed to at least acknowledging that Kuntan was acting inappropriately based on evidence provided (and there's been much provided here), you are hell-bent on proving that Sir Nick did something wrong, that I did something wrong, and that the inappropriate edits of Kuntan were righteous. That is disruption as far as I'm concerned.
And trust me Cindery, I've gotten my fair share of e-mails about your on-wiki conduct -- Samir धर्म 07:14, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If the case was so clear, and had nothing to do with personal feelings, why is it that no neutral and impartial admin could be found to handle it, but only two long-time foes of Kuntan were willing to do the deed — when they should have recused themselves and disengaged instead? Justice must not only be done, but be seen to be done; and those in positions of trust must avoid not only impropriety but the appearance of impropriety, lest they forfeit that trust. You and Nick should never have used your admin bits where your personal feelings were so strong. That you still defend these actions, after all this discussion, leaves me wondering and worrying about whether you ever will understand why other people object to them. Instead you attack the objectors. I've seen that sort of thing before; it never ends well. – SAJordan talkcontribs 09:02, 30 Dec 2006 (UTC).
Last time I checked, SAJordan, twenty-five people have backed up my statement on the RfC that Kuntan was trolling. That is evidence enough that the Kuntan block was justified, and that, despite you righteous claims, you are just trying to stir up trouble. It is time for you to leave this issue alone and to stop harassing those who are administrating this project. It leaves me in awe that you do not understand that blocking of clearcut trolls is entirely part and parcel of the job of administrators. And frankly, I don't really care what you think about me ever understanding something. The problem here is you, and the fact that you don't realize how disruptive you've been is the real issue here -- Samir धर्म 14:49, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
note: you are just trying to stir up trouble and the problem here is you are clear personal attacks on SA, Samir.

Cindery 17:19, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How cute. I also think that you are trying to stir up trouble, Cindery. -- Samir धर्म 22:35, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SA Jordan already established that the username block was unjustified--you prematurely closed SA Jordan's RfC on the issue, and unblocked Kuntan for username/reblocked Kuntan for disruption. So in as far as it pertains to Nick, the evidence that it was a misuse of the blocking policy is already there/is not being debated. In so far as it pertains to you, no RfC has been filed against you--people are merely saying that the reblock should go through appropriate channels, and I have said that Kuntan (And Dakshaaynu, whom I beleive is a separate person) should be allowed to participate in dispute resolution. I don't understand why you are opposed to making your case against Kuntan in the open, if it is a good case? Seems that it would be quite simple. Cindery 07:29, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What has not been open about the blocks? Kuntan has trolled, there's ample evidence to support it, yet for some reason, you choose to ignore it all, and are attempting to perpetuate the fallacy that it is an injustice that this troll was blocked. If we had RfAr's on every clearcut troll who creates sockpuppets to harass users, our Arbs would be overwhelmed with cases! It's all in the open. -- Samir धर्म 07:43, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Where are the warnings to Kundan after Sundown? Where is the ANI discussion? Where is the RfC? Cindery 07:55, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kundan after Sundown is not blocked: Block log. -- Samir धर्म 16:05, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That creates more questions: since Kuntan changed his name to Kundan after Sundown, 1) why was he blocked for having the username Kuntan after he had changed it? And, 2) where are the warnings to Kuntan-as-Kundan after Sundown re his *previous* username, the ANI discussion, the RfC, etc? Cindery 23:32, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There does not have to be an ANI discussion or an RfC to block trolls. Hundreds of troll accounts are blocked every day by administrators. This is no different -- Samir धर्म 14:49, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Again, as both Shimeru and I have pointed out, please make your case correctly--not expediently--in that case. If there is no case, and ED is instead the issue, please make that clear.

Thanks, Cindery 17:22, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea who Shimeru is and no idea what Encyclopedia Dramatica has to do about this. I consider your conduct to be nothing short of disruption -- Samir धर्म 21:36, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh User:Shimeru is who you mean. Okay. I still don't get why you want us to unblock a troll? -- Samir धर्म 21:41, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Provisional Statements[edit]

Moved from main page with my comment included for context

Trying to make a federal case out of a simple case of dealing with a troll and removing content from a banned user (as proscribed by policy) not only demonstrates vindictivness and poor judgement by some of those bringing the RFC but significantly undermines their core argument. Spartaz 14:07, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. It has been pointed out several times now that Kuntan was not community banned. (He was indef blocked.) It has also been pointed out that questioning a block that looks prima facie questionable is being done because such blocks alienate the community/drive away regular editors, and because Process is Important, etc--good and well-intentioned reasons. I would ask you to AGF, Spartaz, and try to contribute something to the discussion other than attacking SA Jordan for reviewing the block at the RfC about the block, which is precisely where such a review should be conducted. Please see also Shimeru's comments on the matter.

Thanks and happy new year, Cindery 16:35, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would not have attached my reply directly to this certification, except that this remarkable personal attack should be answered right where it took place, not in another section or page far removed. As the person who civilly asked Nick to re-examine the issue of that username block (rather than a user conduct block), who filed the RFC, who civilly asked Samir to undo his sudden deletion of it, and who brought a number of links here, I am the person at whom this charge is necessarily directed: "vindictiveness". On what basis do you allege this motive? I have had no ties of either friendship or enmity to Kuntan, Samir or Nick; no interaction with the first (as far as I know), and only recent interaction with the other two. My concerns were clearly stated at all times, and they had to do with good and bad procedures and precedents, notably the need to recuse and disengage oneself as an admin where one's feelings have become too strong to maintain neutrality or impartiality. This has been clearly stated in those discussions, and in my comment following Argyriou's view. One other pattern I'm seeing is a persistent diversion: the citations of the username's legitimacy are ignored, no evidence is presented to the contrary, any who question the basis of the username block get personally accused themselves, and the subject is quickly changed to the blocked user's conduct, as though such guilt not only alters his name but gets spread by contagion. Why is it, Spartaz, that this sets off no alarms for you? Let me also ask you whether, in your heart of hearts, your above statement assumed good faith or was even civil, in your own opinion. What justified this ad hominem, the groundless accusation? You presumed to state my motives (incorrectly); what were your own? I don't pretend to know, so I'm asking. – SAJordan talkcontribs 03:06, 1 Jan 2007 (UTC).

Did you notice that I said some, not all? Are you feeling sensitive? How do you know I meant you? Frankly the amount of incivility and failure to assume good faith by so many people involved in this process is breathtaking. Can I ask you what prompted you to try and force Heligoland to change his username? From my end it looks like it only came about as part of the "getting even" process of this RFC. This whole exercise has the unpleasant smell of trying to extract every last bit of dirt - no matter how trivial and seeking to make the absolute maximum out of it. RFC isn't for revenge and its supposed to be for resolving dispute and working towards an agreement - all I can see is a bunch of editors desparately seeking to have Sir Nick desysyoped and scrabbling around everywhere trying to justify it. This seems an even bigger failure to assume good faith than the one on my part that essentially invoked it quacks like a duck.... Happy New Year to you. Spartaz 11:33, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely correct. Stop disrupting, SAJordan -- Samir धर्म 14:51, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please calm down. Questions like "are you feeling sensitive" are not very helpful. I think he was obviously trying to establish precedent re Usernames-with-multiple-meanings, not "get even." Please comment on content, not attribute malign motives like "get even" to the contributor. Please also see Shimeru's comments re how SA Jordan has been treated. I would like to see some reasonable discussion about the block of Kuntan from those supporting it--not incessant attacks on those who are trying to reasonably discuss it. It doesn't appear to a reasonable observer to be justified. Now that we know ED may be the precipitating factor, things make more sense. Repeatedly telling someone who was not privy to some off-record info that what's on-the-record is enough (when it's not) does nothing to resolve things, and just makes them worse. Have you seen that movie, Gaslight? I would say SA Jordan has been gaslighted, which is another reason Process is Important; off-wiki stuff should be left off-wiki. I.e., if one retaliates on-wiki for an off-wiki action out of process and wants to cover it up, that leaves one two options if the matter is exposed, doesn't it?--1) admit it 2) try to make people shut up about it. If this is what's going on here, I think Samir/Nick should have admitted it/aplogized/moved on, not bullied SA. Spartaz, can you please 1) analyze Kuntan/Kundan after sundown's on-wiki contributions, and present a hypothetical case as if you were presenting it on ANI, to justify why he should have been blocked 2) look at the Encyclopedia Dramatica issues. Thanks, Cindery 17:10, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No - I'm not an admin and I have no intention of wasting my time doing this. Kuntan has been blocked and I'm not going to go round looking for evidence that this was wrong. There is an appeals process - RFAR and that's where this needs to go - but its for Kuntan to do not you.
There is half a case in your initial RFC but by casting around for every tiny thing you can find, you have fixated yourself on trivia and significantly damaged the credibility of this process by trying to argue the insupportable. Trying to disallow Heliogoland's user name was just pure nastyness and reflects very badly on SAJordan. (NB to save anyone looking - the username RFC was thrown out). If you had simply concentrated yourself on the core arguments you would have inevitably garnered more support than you have - as it is, there seems to be very little support for your point of view and I wonder whether this is going to change after the end of the holidays. I suspect not. Spartaz 20:08, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
1.You seem to have missed the point SA Jordan made that Kuntan has been/was prevented from any means to appeal his block--talkpage protected, etc. More importantly, that "admin misconduct" RfCs are where the community reviews any misuses of the blocking policy--this was filed as admin misconduct re the blocking policy, hence the relevance of reviewing the block of Kuntan.

2. "just pure nastyness" is a personal attack on SA; please refrain. 3. There are multiple points of view in this RfC, not just mine--and support for all of them. (If you notice, I have expressed no view of the AfD issues, and spoke to Dmcdevit re whether two separate RfCs should be brought, since some issues are admin misconduct, some just user conduct.) This is/was a very complicated case, with multiple issues different people wanted to address--some user conduct; some admin misconduct. It should probably go to Arbcom on the complications alone (especially in the absence of any participation by Nick.) Cindery 20:31, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To RfAr? No, look at the RfC page again. I think most people agree that it is frivolous -- Samir धर्म 21:42, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't say "frivolous" so much as "not serious enough to warrant action beyond asking for self moderation." --Barberio 22:06, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Resolution?[edit]

Since when did RfC have enforced resolutions? -Amarkov blahedits 17:05, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't and (on reflection) I guess we should avoid seeking quasi-arbitration solutions to this. As it is, I guess this RFC is dying on its feet. --Spartaz 20:10, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A request for comment is nothing more then a "Request for comment" and it's scope is basically limited to "comments" and "requests for." But... people can offer non-binding recommendations. ---J.S (T/C) 16:19, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Content and links with disputed copyright status[edit]

moved from main page by Argyriou (talk) 20:05, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In reply to:

  1. The standard to remove external links is not the same as the standard to remove content on Wikipedia itself, which is that quoted. The standard, as mentioned in WP:EL is that links which we reasonably believe to be copyvio should be remove, we do not require proof of licensing for everything we link to, and such a requirement would be an irrational burden on editors. The expectation is not to 'knowingly' link to copyvio. --Barberio 21:07, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Where does it say that? Where does it say that the onus is on those seeking to include content, unless it's links in which case anything can go in and the onus is on those seeking to remove? And yes we damned well should require proof of licensing just as we should have a cited source for everything that goes in. Of course, mostly we just trust people, and mostly that's fine, but we should check and the fact that we haven't, or we think it's OK, does not magically make it OK. One of the reasons links to blogs and personal sites are deprecated is because they are much more likely to contain copyright violations. There seems here to be a degree of working backwards from the desired result; think of it instead in these terms: if content is removed which may, for credible reasons, expose us to legal liability, should we (a) keep it out until we've ensured that no liability attaches or (b) leave it in while we wait for the lawyers to call? I'd say (a). And I'd say this would apply to all content, regardless of the nature of the liability, provided it is credible. Which, in the case of links to offsite copyright infringement, it appears to be. Guy (Help!) 21:43, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I refer you to Wikipedia:Copyrights#Linking_to_copyrighted_works. Specifically, "It is not necessary to obtain the permission of a copyright holder before linking to copyrighted material" and "If you know that an external Web site is carrying a work in violation of the creator's copyright, do not link to that copy of the work." (my emphasis). There is no requirement to find licence information for any link, only the requirement that known copyvio not be linked to. This is the basis for current consensus at WP:EL.
You seem to confuse the 'burdon of proof' requirement for factual statements as applying to reporting an external link. Placing an external link is simply saying 'There is a Site at this URL relevent to this article', it is not using that site as a source. In this case, verifiability is simply a matter of checking that the URL is valid, and is relevent. Further decision on to keep the link or not are covered by WP:EL.
Please note. I lead the re-write process that brought together the current WP:EL so may have some knowledge of this guideline and related policy. You may certainly disagree, and feel that different policy and guidelines are needed. But this is not the place to do so. Instead, please take your issues with the guideline to it's talk page. --Barberio 22:44, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Of course we don't need permission to link to copyright material. That is completely different, however, to what we do in respect of material which violates copyright. Example of a link to copyright material: any link to a newspaper or news organisation - BBC, New Yrk Times, whoever. Perfectly acceptable. Example of an inappropriate link: linking to an illegal upload of copyright material to YouTube by a user who does not own the copyright. Not too hard to understand. From the very guideline you cited:

Since most recently-created works are copyrighted, almost any Wikipedia article which cites its sources will link to copyrighted material. It is not necessary to obtain the permission of a copyright holder before linking to copyrighted material -- just as an author of a book does not need permission to cite someone else's work in their bibliography. Likewise, Wikipedia is not restricted to linking only to GFDL-free or open-source content.


If you know that an external Web site is carrying a work in violation of the creator's copyright, do not link to that copy of the work. Knowingly and intentionally directing others to a site that violates copyright has been considered a form of contributory infringement in the United States (Intellectual Reserve v. Utah Lighthouse Ministry). Linking to a page that illegally distributes someone else's work sheds a bad light on Wikipedia and its editors. However, If the site in question is making fair use of the material, linking is fine.

See the second para? That is precisely what we are talking about here. Guy (Help!) 11:58, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is going in circles, this is irrelevant since edit warring is unacceptable for any reason, and this is not the place to re-write the WP:EL guidelines. If you think the current guidelines are wrong, take that up in discussion at the guideline's talk page. --Barberio 12:55, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In reply to:

  1. Requiring verifiable copyright status of every external link would make a majority of cited sources invalid. This would break Wikipedia. Besides, this RfC is not about YouTube links, it's about admin conduct. User:JzG is attempting to sidetrack the discussion. —Malber (talk • contribs) 23:07, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Evidence? I see no evidence that not linking to offsite copyvios would restrict legitimate sourcing in any way. And yes it is relevant, because it is being asserted that resisting links to material with unknown copyright status was an abuse of admin priviliges. It wasn't. Guy (Help!) 12:00, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Any Objection to my delinking this from the RFC page? It seems to have passed its sell by date.[edit]

Header says it all. Please object below and I'll not do it. --Spartaz 21:51, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CommentHmm Account created today and only activity is to join a wikiproject and object to delinking this? However, its an objection and probably from a pre-existing user, so I will not delink as yet. --Spartaz 11:16, 16 January 2007 (UTC) (message posted after that of Addhoc)[reply]
Go ahead anyway - the purpose of an RfC is to encourage a user to improve, not to gain leverage regarding past actions. Addhoc 11:05, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delink, it appears clear that this RfC has no merit, and it's just being used as a tool for Cindery to continue her disruption. -- Samir धर्म 03:35, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm gonna give it another 24 hours and delink if there are no further objections. We really do seem done here. --Spartaz 21:44, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
More