Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by SAJordan (talk | contribs) at 02:11, 31 December 2006 (→[]: Add reply.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Focus

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)

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)

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)

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)

Outside view by Samuel Blanning

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)

"Nick does not understand copyright policy"

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 _edits 23:54, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

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 Misplaced Pages 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)

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 _edits 02:39, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

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)

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 Misplaced Pages links to is under copyright.) Cindery 02:52, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

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 _edits 05:28, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

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.

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)

kundan/kuntan

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)

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 _edits 05:27, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

See these links:

• Thread "Your unwarranted remark" - Note Kuntan's statement "the two users concerned have plainly refused to look up the word in a local language dictionary and never denied the fact that it is a proper name among the scheduled castes of Kerala."
• Thread "You are wrong" - Note Kuntan's statement "When a dispute occurs around a word, I expect you to rely on references rather than on popular consciouness. Kuntan is not new to Malayalam. It has been there for a long time before it took the meaning you say it has in some slang. Most importantly it is a proper name still in use in Kerala."
• (Examples in Google searches, excluding Misplaced Pages: kuntan+malaysia, kuntan+kerala.)
• "Kuntan", the name of a town in Malaysia – SAJordan _contribs 07:16, 30 Dec 2006 (UTC).

SAJordan's comments moved from main page

On "Outside view by Samir" and appended remarks

Samir

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?

ArmadilloFromHell

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 Misplaced Pages, once upon a time?

Bakaman

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

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 Misplaced Pages 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

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 _contribs 05:26, 30 Dec 2006 (UTC).

Tintin

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 _contribs 07:37, 30 Dec 2006 (UTC).

Heligoland

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 Misplaced Pages 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 _contribs 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)

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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages:Changing username for the procedure you should follow now. Thank you. – SAJordan _contribs 02:11, 31 Dec 2006 (UTC).

Followup discussions

• • Your wiki-lawyering on behalf of trolls is inane and getting close to the point of disruption -- Samir धर्म 05:50, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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)

"People stating why they left Misplaced Pages": Clt13 (in his last edit), and Parker Peters, for just two examples. – SAJordan _contribs 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)

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 _contribs 09:02, 30 Dec 2006 (UTC).

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)

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)

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

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

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)