Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 page.

A summary of the debate may be found at the bottom of the page.

User:Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington

Contents

[edit] Statement of the dispute

Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) has misused the blocking policy. This administrator has also abused the deletion tools and status of administrator to close WP:AFD discussion with a decision that was consistently counter to consensus. Numerous instances of incivility towards several other editors.

[edit] Description

Nick blocked User:Malber without notice while he was personally involved in a dispute with Malber re RfA questions; Nick blocked User:Kuntan for his username without discussion despite that the status of the username as being offensive is in dispute.

Administrator has displayed numerous instances of prematurely and against consensus closing deletion debates. Consistent assumption of bad faith against deletion discussion participants. Consistent incivil attitude when questioned about administrative actions.

[edit] Evidence of disputed behaviors

  • Deletion policy
    • Deletion of List of big-bust models and performers against consensus.[4]
    • Close with Keep against consensus in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dave Gilbert (game designer) 1. [5]
    • Close against unanimous keep consensus [6]`
    • Closed delete even though significant information to contest deletion was brought up. [7]
    • Clear No Consensus (50/50 split) closed as delete [8]
    • Closed delete against consensus to keep. [9]
    • Closed delete, should have been a no consensus close. [10]
    • Closed delete, vote was 2:1 against deletion. [11]
    • Deleted comments and evidence against himself from this RFC, and blocked the providers to prevent undeletion. [12] [13]. (Admin 168... was desysopped for deleting complaints against himself.)
  • Civility policy
    • Incivility towards fellow administrator.[14]
    • Misappropriation of policy talk page to perform an incivil RfC/character assasination against an editor.[15]
    • Posting offensive image on talk page: [16]

[edit] Powers misused

    • Blocking tools, deletion tools, using status as administrator to push personal opinion and position in deletion debates.

[edit] Applicable policies

  1. WP:BLOCK
  2. WP:DELETE
  3. WP:CIVIL

[edit] Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute

(re Malber block: Amarkov's comments, discussion at Nick's talkpage, involving Malber, Cindery, and Newyorkbrad: [17] Nick's "apology" a PA on Malber. Re Kuntan, SA Jordan's comments on Nick's talkpage: [18],the username RFC, and discussion at Malber's talkpage: [19])

NOTE: Kuntan should be unblocked for the purposes of participation in dispute resoluation/this RfC, and Dakshayni should also be freely allowed to participate. Cindery 17:44, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I was blocked which was eventually overturned. I requested an apology from the administrator, however NHN has refused to offer one. I can let the block go, I can even forgive the incivil actions toward me and his constant labeling of every edit I make as "disruptive," but NHN's actions in AfD debates are what trouble me the most. There have been numerous instances where AfD discussion participants have kindly asked NHN for an explanation and he has responded in a less than civil manner. The following are diffs from his own and others' talk page.

[20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] I was hesitant to participate in this RfC because I foresee NHN attempting to bring my prior mistakes and bad decisions into the discussion. I respectfully request that if he does that anyone reviewing this will disregard his attempt at the Chewbacca defense and stick to the issues at hand. I am not seeking any redress of NHN's actions against me, but I feel that some comment and/or action should be taken on NHN's abuse of the administrative tools with regards to deletion and the "status" of being an administrator and the issues of civility when dealing with the community. —Malber (talk • contribs) 05:34, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Users certifying the basis for this dispute

  1. —Malber (talk • contribs) 05:34, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
  2. User:Cindery {talk contribs}05:45, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
  3.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 10:15, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
  4. – SAJordan talkcontribs 20:28, 29 Dec 2006 (UTC). — whose further comments were moved from this page.

[edit] Response by Sir Nicholas

I would like to thank Malber for presenting the facts in a very unilateral way, many of which have been pulled out of context. I would endeavour to throw some light on my behaviour, by addressing the issues on one-by-one basis.

[edit] Blocking policy

  • Punitive block on User:Malber: [27]. Punitive? No. Malber was being knowingly disruptive and unyielding to consensus. – [28]. Out-of-process? Yes. Sysops must not block editors with whom they are currently engaged in a [content] dispute. I wronged there, and was criticised for it on the same thread; my block was overturned – [29]. I left an apology on Amarkov's talk page. – [30]. I do not intend to do it again.
  • *Threatening a further punitive block after original block was overturned. [31]. Pulled out of context once again. – Malber left a message on my talk page uninvited, and his intention to disrupt once again is evident from the diff – [32], although, I ignored him; Andre responded – [33], Malber left another message – [34]. Hence my warning came as warranted. I would be commenting on my closure of this AfD later in this thread.
I am deeply troubled by yet-another out of process action by this admin and the in-civil, flip response. —Malber (talk • contribs) 16:49, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
I wouldn't go so far as to call any of this in-civil. Andre (talk) 16:56, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
Mimsy: did you happen to read the policy on how an admin should close an AfD debate? You're supposed to gauge consensus, not use your position to push a decision. —Malber (talk • contribs) 18:32, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
Malber, do you wish to get blocked? — Nearly Headless Nick 08:40, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
The message was clear to Malber, stop trolling. He still hasn't – [35],
How about using one that is hypothetical, on a topic that you weren't personally involved, and doesn't demonstrate that you're trying to prove a point? —Malber (talk • contribs) 17:59, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Blocking User:Kuntan for WP:USERNAME violation [36] despite documentation it's a legitimate name: – Kuntan was, and is a troll. His disruption, vandalism and trolling have been confirmed by the means of checkuser. Notice the increasing number of sockpuppets in both the categories listed on his userpage. If it might be relevant to the discussion, Malber nominated the two categories I created to mark the sockpuppets for deletion, without any discussion – [37].

[edit] Deletion policy

[edit] Civility policy

  • Incivility towards fellow administrator.[40]
  • Could you tell me which part of WP:CIVIL or WP:NPA says I violated the civility policy on Wikipedia? Tactlessness? Yeah, it was waaay tactless to ask an administrator to remove an image from his signature, after having asked him very politely – [41], was cleared a few minutes later – [42]. Perhaps I should have realised that the administrator wore that image for two years as a badge of honour? The issue was discussed on the administrator noticeboard; and I had to apologise before he removed this image as per WP:SIG.
  • Misappropriation of policy talk page to perform an incivil RfC/character assasination against an editor.[43]
  • Producing evidence is character assassination? Or you are not responsible for what you say on Wikipedia? I showed that there was *consensus* on the talk page and that Malber was trying to make a WP:POINT here.
  • Posting offensive image on talk page: [44]. Wikipedia is not censored for minors (see WP:NOT), also that image was intended for Samir, who obviously did not show any resentment. Also note that User:Clt13, who was wikilawyering for the *now* permanently banned troll – User:Kuntan, is a confirmed sockpuppet as established by off-wiki evidence. – [45], [46] (login required) (Mail User:Deepujoseph for invites).

[edit] Resolving this dispute

There is no evidence of Malber trying to resolve the dispute effectively, apart from this message he left on my talk page – [47]

Tell you what, I'll drop the whole matter and just get back to editing if you'd drop your pompousness and sanctimony just apologize for the inappropriate and out-of-process block. Here's your chance to be civil. —Malber (talk • contribs) 17:10, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
Malber, further got warned by administrator Gwernol for his lack of civility – [48]. — Nearly Headless Nick 11:41, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Users who endorse this summary:
  1. Terence Ong 08:33, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
  2. Aksi_great (talk) 17:52, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
  3. Bakaman 03:14, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
  4. Srikeit 03:38, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
  5. Bishonen | talk 10:40, 6 January 2007 (UTC).
  6. thunderboltz(Deepu) 10:44, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
  7. --R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 11:37, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
  8. Any RfC advocating for unblocking a troll is frivolous -- Samir धर्म 01:02, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
  9. — Ambuj Saxena (☎) 11:01, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
  10. User:Zoe|(talk) 01:10, 8 January 2007 (UTC), especially agree with Samir's comment. User:Zoe|(talk) 01:10, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
  11. Rebecca 12:47, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
  12. KillerChihuahua?!? 13:47, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Comments

    • How were you incivil? Perhaps with statements like this:
      • Well, you surely don't sound like an admin, but a newbie user.
    • —Malber (talk • contribs) 14:07, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
    • The issues you address on that page have little to do with the discussion about my behavior and read more like your continuing witch hunt against me. The diffs you provide show little more than legitmate participation in a DRV and discussion about issues I was personally involved in. —Malber (talk • contribs) 14:07, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
I think you have a very different take at WP:CIVIL; or perhaps double-standards. You call this warning – [49], bogus – [50], and then call the above edit uncivil. I refute your statements. My comment was harsh, not uncivil.
I'm not involved in the Kuntun dispute, but when did the policy change where we replaced CheckUser with Orkut? —Malber (talk • contribs) 15:06, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Yes, you show your capacity to get one of your #wikipedia-in friends to post a bogus warning on my talk page. You deserve a barnstar.</sarcasm> If you would have simply apologized directly to me, I would have left it to others to bring this RfC. —Malber (talk • contribs) 14:10, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Don't worry about the orkut bit. There are a lot of precedents where off-wiki evidence has been accepted. I have given you a chance to check the links, do it before he removes the evidence. <sarcasm> About the #wikipedia-in channel – come on Malber, stop talking to Kuntan over email. There are only two stewards, two arbitrators, six administrators constantly lurking in the channel. Do you really think they can do much damage? </sarcasm> Gwernol does not join IRC. — Nearly Headless Nick 09:33, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Outside view by User:Dakshaaayani

Outside view from Dakshaaayani who cannot edit here because they are indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet of Kuntan by User:Sir_Nicholas_de_Mimsy-Porpington: [51] (Link added here by User:Cindery)

  • Please note that acting as a proxy for a community banned user or sockpuppets thereof is considered disruptive and is strongly disapproved of. Please do not bring this here unless and until you have shown at least some informed dissent from the view that this is a sock of a community banned troll, and preferably a RFCU which establishes that this is not a sock. Guy (Help!) 20:06, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
    • The user's talk page was protected so that he could not even appeal the decision under his own ID. He was given no hearing, no chance to defend himself. Did you see an RFCU to establish that he was a sock? Did you require proof of his guilt? Yet here you're requiring that he prove his innocence, when he can't post anywhere under his own ID, and declaring anyone else who might speak on his behalf could also be declared "disruptive" (a blockable offense), which closes off his last possible avenue of defense. Is that how you'd want to be treated? – SAJordan talkcontribs 21:57, 29 Dec 2006 (UTC).
    • Q (Parker Peters): Should a "suspected sockpuppet" (new username) of a username block be blocked for being a sockpuppet?
      A (David Gerard): Generally not, I'd say.         (excerpted)
      (See also Parker Peters's reply and "Quitting Wikipedia" email.) – SAJordan talkcontribs 15:04, 30 Dec 2006 (UTC).
  • It was a good faith edit, and I believe that the documentation provided above by SA Jordan is "informed dissent" that there's something awry re the block of Kuntan, and therefore blocks of anyone labelled as his "sockpuppet." Please note also the discussion on Dmcdevit's talkpage regarding request that Kuntan and Dakshaaayani should be unblocked in order to participate in dispute resolution. If I am not mistaken, there is precedent even for banned editors to participate in dispute resolution. Neither Kuntan nor Dakshaaayani were even banned.
Thanks,
Cindery 21:58, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
No, there is nothing "awry" about Kuntan's block. See below. Guy (Help!) 12:38, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

There's definitely something awry with the block of Kuntan--see the talkpage of this RfC. Cindery 00:09, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I think the views of the >30 users endorsing my statement that the Kuntan block was apt count more than your italicized statement -- Samir धर्म 22:32, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Even supposing, for the sake of argument, that RfC was a vote, a bunch of signatures pointedly ignoring reasonable discussion of facts (and mixed up with the issue of Malber's block) would not make any of the facts or reasonable discussion delineated by SA Jordan on the talkpage disappear: it shows that there are two things--1)reasonable arguments/facts 2) a list of signatures. You could get 30 people to say that the world was flat, too; that would not make it so. More and more people yelling "troll!" in the face of reason is pure Monty Python. (If he weighs the same as a duck, then he's a witch and we burn him, etc.)

Cindery 00:54, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I think very few people find your argument credible. It's hard to support what you are saying when there is a mountain of evidence against it -- Samir धर्म 23:15, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Where is the mountain? Please be specific, with diffs. (The problem is the opposite: no credible evidence presented, merely a list of names of people who "trust," instead of thinking critically.) Cindery 23:54, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

It's been presented and presented again. Have you even read this RfC? You choose to ignore it or dismiss it. It's not my fault that everyone else sees what you fail to. And your choice to ignore firm evidence of trolling speaks more of your intentions than of administrative failure -- Samir धर्म 04:51, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

What I see is firm evidence of you trolling/provoking/attacking Kuntan, and then misusing the block policy to cover up Nick's misuse of the block policy. Cindery 19:54, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Misusing the block policy? To block a troll? Wow, what should we use the block button for then? -- Samir धर्म 00:05, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

There's very strong evidence that Kuntan did nothing to merit a warning --let alone a block-- for being troll, prior to your personal attack on him, calling him a troll, harassing him about his username, posting the finger, etc. Cindery 01:15, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Outside view by Samir

Kuntan is a troll and Nick's username block was entirely appropriate. His user name, among other meanings, references child molestation in Malayalam. He edited the now-deleted article Kuntayithote early in his editorial career with the following: "Kuntan in Malayalam is a term for a boy or young man kept by older man for sodomy." He vandalized the pages of editors who disagreed with him: [52]. He made tendentious edits and then mocked the users who he disagreed with: [53]. He trolled AfD's and admittedly made hoax articles based on the indecent interpretation of his username: [54]. Kuntan has since appeared in a series of sockpuppets that have trolled user pages, ANI, RfA, and other venues.
The username block is entirely apt and I strongly question the integrity of any RfC that is asking for an administrator to comment on the blocking of a clearcut troll -- Samir धर्म 10:55, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:
  1. Sam Blanning(talk) 12:19, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
  2. Duja► 12:31, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
  3. I just saw the deleted article and the very first edit to that article by Kuntan clearly states the intended meaning of Kuntan. And judging from his sockpuppet army, he seems a clear troll — Lost(talk) 13:35, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
  4. Srikeit 13:37, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
  5. This block is so obviously warranted, it makes it clear Malber is just here because he's mad, not because there's much of a problem. It's also interesting that Nick's incivility, while it could/should be improved, is far less severe than Malber's. Yet another case of trying to point out someone else's problems without having one's own house in order. - Taxman Talk 13:46, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
  6. An admitted troll, who's name I well remember. I tagged the article in the first place, and ended up wasting a lot of time with his games. --ArmadilloFromHellGateBridge 13:56, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
  7. Is blocking trolls controversial now?Bakaman 17:09, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
  8. Does an RfC mean anything which might possibly be construed as controversial must be cited as abuse? -Amarkov blahedits 17:15, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
  9. Nick was entirely justified in blocking Malber, whats more, there is evidence to suggest Malber has stalked Nick. अमेय आर्यन DaBrood© 17:29, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
  10. As Taxman has said, Malber is just here because he is mad at Sir Nick. Kuntan was and is a troll. He has caused a lot of disruption in the beginning with his inappropriate username and now with his sockpuppets. - Aksi_great (talk) 19:40, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
  11. Yes, Kuntan's was a righteous block. Guy (Help!) 19:56, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
  12. You're making a big thing of this whole situation. Malber's block may have been controversial, and may have been unjustified, but that's no reason to desysop an admin. Try living in our shoes to see what we deal with on a daily basis. Nishkid64 01:58, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
  13. I would have blocked him if I was involved. GizzaChat © 06:17, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
  14. Yawn. 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. Tintin (talk) 07:14, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
  15. Troll killer--D-Boy 09:37, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
  16. Umm, this is obviously a good block. I agree with Taxman. The plea to not look at the context provided by Malber's past makes it obvious.—WAvegetarian•(talk) 10:04, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
  17. I 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. If we had a user called "Child molester" or whatever, there would be no question at all of blocking. Malber has also indulged in a little stalking of Sir Nicholas, with the evidence available for all to see on my talk page, and whilst his block by Sir Nicholas wasn't helpful, and had it been for say 4 hours, it would have been a very sensible option for a violation of WP:POINT. --Kind Regards - Heligoland | Talk | Contribs 13:48, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
  18. Terence Ong 13:53, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
  19. Citing this block brings the whole procedure into disrepute. A frivolous complaint in a frivolous RFC. Bishonen | talk 13:58, 30 December 2006 (UTC).
  20. Meaningless RFC. The block is fully justified. A troll with an obscene username. If you think the username was innocent, check the deleted versions of his userpage.--thunderboltz(Deepu) 14:13, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
  21. Freedom skies| talk  16:51, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
  22. Fully support the block of this user Gwernol 21:31, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
  23. This block looks entirely justified. Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 22:33, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
  24. Fully support the block. The fact that the user was blocked by another Admin proves that Sir Nick was not spiteful or abusing his power. Orane (talk • cont.) 03:54, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
  25. Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 09:32, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
  26. Shyam (T/C) 08:16, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
  27. - crz crztalk 15:12, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
  28. I didn't think I'd ever use the phrase "abuse of power" and the name "Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington" in the same sentence. I support the block. alphachimp. 19:05, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
  29. Block looks fine. Deletions look fine. little evidence of any real incivility and NPA violations...where's the beef?--MONGO 11:30, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
  30. Well, I know I was right here. — Nearly Headless Nick 08:35, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
  31. "When I am asked to look into cases of "admin abuse" and I choose to do so, I generally find myself astounded at how nice we are to complete maniacs, and for how long." - Jimbo Wales. yandman 08:51, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
  32. The above quote in addition to many of Jimbo Wales other comments on trolls and content in general clearly shows that Wikipedia admins do tend to be just as careful as Jimbo initially intended them to be and in many cases even more careful and open-minded. It takes a lot of incivility to be blocked around here. MartinDK 09:03, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
  33. — Arjun 16:16, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
  34. Straightforward block of a troll, handled responsibly... Addhoc 18:23, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
  35. Mailer Diablo 18:59, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
  36. – Chacor 10:01, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
  37. Frivillous case. If I were a judge and this a trial, I'd fine the plantiff for wasting the court's time.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 11:36, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
  38. I endorse what Samir has said, and would like to further point that the overturned decisions (in AfDs) were based on new evidence that emerged later. Clearly, there was no bad intention involved on Sir Nick's part. — Ambuj Saxena (☎) 14:15, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
  39. Not much to add, really. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 11:17, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
  40. Nick and I have had disagreements, but this RfC is bogus. User:Zoe|(talk) 01:12, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
  41. Agree with thread-starter re. this intervention. Appropriate 100%Droliver 17:59, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
  42. One of the more interesting aspects of administrating the English language Wikipedia is that it happens to be a second language for a tremendous number of people around the world. In an instance not too different from this I was asked to issue a username block because an editor claimed someone's username meant testicles in Hindi street slang. I have no expertise in Hindi street slang, but the account history was pure vandalism. I banned that one and I would have banned this one too. DurovaCharge 18:18, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Comment by Malber (talk · contribs)

I did not write the material regarding Kuntan. That was submitted by User:Cindery. I don't know enough about the issue to endorse her comments, however I feel that NHN's handing of the fallout from the block (particularly the posting of the offensive image on a talk page) was less than civil. If an editor who was less popular in IRC did that he would have gained an immediate 48 hour block.

I think there should be concern over the fact that the list of endorsers of this statment looks very similar to the list of participants on #wikipedia-in. —Malber (talk • contribs) 04:14, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Malber, please assume good faith. Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 09:32, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
I haven't once been to #wikipedia-in. User:Zoe|(talk) 01:13, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
And I don't use IRC. I tried once. It confused me. -- Samir धर्म 00:20, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't think stating the obvious is an assumption of bad faith. Also, not one of these people has made a case--citing any actions of Kuntan/Kundan after Sundown--that he did anything on-wiki worthy of a block. Dakshaaayni has said that Nick suspects someone of making an off-wiki "attack page." I suspect that that is the reason for the block. I actually don't know what policy pertains to off-wiki actions, if any, but WP:PI should be observed, and clearly, process is blatantly not being followed here. There is no viable case against Kuntan for username, and I don't see 1) a viable case against him for "trolling" 2) worse, anyone even making that argument --just echoing the personal attack word "troll." If there's an case against him for something off-wiki, then make that case. Unjustified out-of-process blocks alienate regular editors--those who write 80% of Wiki articles. Admins should be concerned with what is good for Wikipedia--retaining that 80%--and not narrowly focused instead on whatever personal benefit they may derive from voting for each other--I think it makes Wikipedia look stupid. As in, junior-high stupid. Sorry, but that is my honest view (and I am not alone in holding it). Cindery 18:10, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I was referring to his jibe regarding #wikipedia-in - it was uncalled-for, and assumed bad faith on the participants of this RfC. Sorry for any confusion. Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 09:39, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
That Cindery doesn't see the case against blocking Kuntan boggles the mind. Calling me junior high stupid is as sophomoric an attack as I've seen in a while; just because everyone disagrees with you, doesn't mean that you should resort to personal attacks, Cindery - Samir धर्म 15:01, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Per Heliogand's claim that IRC evidence exists justifying a block, I have done exhaustive google research (and looked up the off-wiki personal attack policy:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks#Off-wiki_personal_attacks). I see nothing re Kuntan on IRC except two questions he posted, one about categories, another about speedy deletions. What I *did* find is what may be the alleged "attack page"--an "Encyclopedia Dramatica" entry about Nick's IRC name, and written as you, Samir. (I.e., I see that someone at "Encyclopedia Dramatica" has chosen your Wiki username as their usename.) If that was written by Kuntan, it is my opinion that he is junior high, anyone responding to it in any way is junior high, etc, etc. It all happened off-wiki; it was schoolyard-silly; it should have just been ingored; and the loss of a single editor like crl13 was not worth retaliating on-wiki. And the huge abuse-of-process time wastage of other editors is not worth it either. If I am incorrect in assuming/suspecting that the "Encyclopedia Dramatica" hijinks are not behind the "username" and "troll" blocks of Kuntan, someone please provide, as SA Jordan has requested below, info re IRC, and explain how the IRC evidence qualifies as on-wiki misconduct, here and at ANI.

FYI: "I think it makes Wikipedia look stupid" is not a personal attack, as it is an opinion not directed at anyone specifically/personally, and is describes actions. You have already been cited, Samir--by Shimeru--for attacking people for questioning/analyzing the block of Kuntan. I don't think it's helpful for sorting out the block of Kuntan. Please remember "light not heat." Thanks, Cindery 15:30, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Note: Samir on the subject of "Encyclopedia Dramatica": [55]

I have blocked User:Clt13 (who has been inactive of recent) as a sockpuppet of User:Kuntan as established by off-wiki evidence. This has been discussed previously with another administrator. Mail me for more information. — Nearly Headless Nick 09:50, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
So now Cindery is backing up Encyclopedia Dramatica. Who's next, Willy on Wheels? -- Samir धर्म 21:13, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Noting that Nick blocked Kuntan approximately two weeks after the date of the suspected ED piece is not "backing up" ED, as you are aware; it's a statement of fact. Whether there's a causal relationship is indeterminate. What's fascinating about your "sticking up for a troll!" diversion-attempt-histrionics is that, the louder and more implausible they become, the more I think they confirm what you are trying to deny.

Cindery 00:42, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

So now I'm histrionic. Want to take any other potshots, or are we done until recess? -- Samir धर्म 23:16, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Do you dispute that accusing people of "sticking up for trolls!" with greater and greater "outraged" vehemence-- instead of addressing facts-- is a histrionic-diversion-attempt? Where again, did you say those diffs that support your block of Kuntan without process are?

Cindery 00:06, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh, but Cindery, you keep on choosing to dismiss them for some reason. Kuntan was just joking around with his fake article about a place named after people who sodomize children: [56]. Or when he vandalizes a user page: [57]. Or when he mocks Kerala leaders and Kerala wikipedians: [58], makes fun of bread from Kerala: [59], and creates a disgusting user page with now deleted masturbation pictures: [60]. Oh, and his sockpuppets were just joking around as they mocked people on talk pages: [61], mocked the English skills of other users: [62], used sockpuppets to back himself up on my talk page [63], used sock-puppets to double vote on RfA's: [64] (where he makes fun of articles written by an admin candidate, and revels in cooking the goose of a unanimous RfA) and [65], his littany of socks: Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Kuntan. Don't forget to dismiss his edits as said socks: [66], [67], and of course the fake test messages to admins purporting to be Sir Nick [68], and the trolling on AN by posting messages as two socks on the same thread Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive59#User :Samir (The Scope) and process. And there's so so much more, including edits to admin User:Bhadani's user page: [69], [70]. But of course, you'll find an excuse for all of this, because apparently I'm just being histrionic when I say that choosing to defend this is supporting a troll -- Samir धर्म 04:45, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
“fake article about a place named after people who sodomize children” - maybe satirising your claim about the meaning of the real place name “Kuntan”? -PC

No, your diffs haven't been dismissed, they've been looked at (something no one else but SA Jordan appears to do--they just take your word that he's a "troll" without looking at the diffs, or the discrepancies between what you claim the diffs show and what the diffs actually show. Nor do you refer to the rest of Kuntan/Kundan after Sundown's contributions--you cherrypick a few out of context, and exaggarate or invent wrongdoing to attach to them. Under analysis, none of your accusations hold up, which is why you didn't bring them to ANI or RfC.) Several things are clear: 1. Nothing that Kuntan did up until the point that you called him a troll justified the use of the word--calling him a troll on your talkpage was a flat out personal attack. 2. Not only was his name not a username violation (which is why you didn't pursue a username RfC) but he changed it--under pressure and harassment from you, Nick, and Deepu that bears a strong resemblance to trolling by you and Nick. You harassed him to change his name; you harassed him about his name after he changed it; and then you blocked him for his prior name without process. 3. After he was treated so badly, he appears to have called Nick an asshole. (Uh, who could blame him? Here's some handy grown-up advice: if you don't want people to call you an asshole, don't call them names first. "Wikipedia is not censored for minors." :-) So, if you post a picture of the finger at someone and call them a troll, it's rather hypocritical to then claim "he called me an asshole!" is a huge and unexpected insult to your tender sensibilities. And let's look at the issue of "troll-farming," too, shall we? If you gang up to harass/troll/block someone who is not actually a troll--and your defintion of a troll is someone who would call you an asshole after you did that--you will create "trolls" where none existed before. It looks to me like you scapegoated someone--falsely accused him of being a troll and blocked him, for the fun of taking out your aggressions on someone--and that your only evidence that he was ever a "troll" is that he responded after-the-fact. This is why process is important, and not blocking editors with whom you are subjectively engaged in a conflict etc., is policy--so that situations like the one between you and Nick and Kuntan are defused, rather than escalated, and productive editors are not alienated/lost in the fallout of personally-motivated abuse-of-process. Cindery 19:42, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

So now you've accused three admins of harassment and trolling, and me of personal attacks, all because you want to back up some guy who created a bunch of sockpuppets to go and troll all over the encyclopedia. This wasn't a situation. It was one editor who was booted out of the project because of clear evidence of misbehaviour that you've chosen to ignore. You're no working class hero backing up the productive editors here. You are disrupting to support trolling. There's a big big difference -- Samir धर्म 00:04, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

"Working class hero?" -- I live in Manhattan. "back up some guy who created a bunch of sockpuppets"--so soon again with the "sticking up for a troll!" diversion! You have a very limited repertoire of defenses: one. No matter how many times you falsely state that thinking following policies, procedures and guidelines is "sticking up for a troll," it will still not divert attention away from the fact that you didn't follow policies and procedures regarding Kuntan. Let's go over the point again about Kuntan's sockpuppets: before or after you called him a troll, harassed him about his prior username, left the picture of the finger in the discussion? (Answer: after.) And what does that have to do with the fact that you are advised not to call editors trolls/escalate conflicts/block editors with whom you are having a personal conflict? (Answer: "it's very damaging to Wikipedia.") And it's the very definition of circular argument: your justification for his "trolling" is what he did after he was falsely accused of being a troll, personally attacked, harassed, and blocked, etc.: trollfarming. Cindery 00:49, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppet User:Clt13 existed before I called Kuntan out on trolling. Hoax article about city named after boys kept for sodomy existed before I called Kuntan out on trolling. User page vandalism occurred before I called Kuntan out on trolling. RfA where he talks of cooking the goose of Deepu's RfA and mocks the user's contributions occurred before I called Kuntan out on trolling. Making fun of another user's English skills occurred before. Violations of WP:BLP on a talk page occurred before. And now he's blocked for trolling. Seems logical to everyone here but you. Get over it. -- Samir धर्म 01:05, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
And backing up such trolls is the epitome of troll farming. -- Samir धर्म 01:06, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
  • That isn’t a “sockpuppet to evade a ban” violation - as you say this was before you called him out.
  • “Hoax article about city named after boys kept for sodomy” - this is what you & Deepu said the real town Kuntan’s name means.
  • “User page vandalism” - a joke comment he deleted himself.
  • “Violations of WP:BLP on a talk page” - BLP applies to article pages... or else your PAs on talk pages would be BLP violations too - those you attack are living persons too. -PC

...1. "sockpuppet" Clt13 is not a sockpuppet. Nick claimed, based on something called "Orkut," that --for the first time ever!--"Orkut" could be used to establish a "suspected sockpuppet." There is zero community consensus for using Orkut in lieu of checkuser, and it is highly dubious. 2. "Hoax article," again, was not considered by *anybody* --except for you--to be "trolling," or to be "about a city named after boys kept for sodomy." 3. People are allowed to give thei opinions about the candidate at RfAs--candidates are usually specifically asked how they handle conflicts with users/if they have had any, and people who have had conflicts with the candidate are nor prohibited from saying so--that is not "trolling." 4. Asking somebody if they speak English is not the same as making fun of their English skills--it's not even clear incivility. (and it's certainly not "trolling.) 5. "Violations of WP:BLP on a talkpage" is inherently absurd, for the reason pointed out above. Cindery 01:38, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] SAJordan's comments moved from main page

Click above link to see all. Or see replies to Samir, Armadillo, Bakaman, Aksi_great, Guy, Tintin, and Heligoland.

comments from Cindery: I can see the diffs provided above by Samir now, and they do not wow me with Kuntan's "terribel wrongdoing"--the "vandalism" charge against him was a message he posted which said "I feel like doing a little bit of vandalism. I hope you won't mind the extra work."---this appears extremely mild, humorous, and could even be interpreted as friendly. Am I missing something? The second charge against him looks like it involves very mild incivility on his part--was there a warning for that? (I can't see his talkpage.) I don't see multiple hoax articles--I see only one, a very brief hoax, and the purpose seems to have been humor, not malice. (Was there nontheless a warning for that?) Regarding the name, again, Kuntan pointed out that it had multiple meanings, and then changed his name, and objected to being called by his prior name--I still do not get why he was blocked for his name after he changed it (and while it had multiple meanings)? Again, he was not the subject of a "community ban"--he was indefinitely blocked for his username until a few days ago, when he was blocked as a"troll." I do not see evidence that anything he did added up to "being a troll." It looks like he made many useful contributions, and that there could have been grounds for warnings to him re: one instance of incivility and perhaps keeping his sense of humor in check (although, personally, I do not object to humor.) "Trolling" implies that he was trying to upset people with the hoax article/his message to Deepu--it looks to me like he was trying to make people laugh, not upset them. "Trolling" also implies that he did a *lot* of trying to upset people--I see no evidence of that. Based on what I know, it looks like a case wasn't brought against him on ANI or RfC because there was no case to bring. Again, am I missing something? Please point out, if so. Cindery 01:08, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Any user threatening to vandalise Wikipedia is liable to an automatic ban, the length of which is at the discretion of the blocking admin, but it's not unusual for vandalism only accounts to be blocked indefinitely. --Kind Regards - Heligoland | Talk | Contribs 01:18, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

1) it wasn't a vandalism-only account, or ever accused of being one (have you looked at his contribution history?) 2. his "vandalism" was to post a message stating "I hope you won't mind a little vandalism"--it wasn't vandalism, it was clearly a joke. Cindery 01:25, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

No admin in their right mind is going to allow an account threatening vandalism to go unchecked. Joking about vandalism is unwise, it's as simple as that. Doing some research, there is additional evidence from the IRC channels which if presented which totally and utterly back up the block of the account. As you may be aware, I can't really say any more though. --Kind Regards - Heligoland | Talk | Contribs 01:43, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
Of course, secret evidence which neither the defendant nor the jury can examine or contest, merely be told that it's there. That's the standard these days, isn't it? Some places, anyway. Like Guantanamo.
By the way, please stop posting with that Inappropriate Username "Heligoland", as you have been notified of its WP:USERNAME violations here and here. – SAJordan talkcontribs 02:47, 31 Dec 2006 (UTC).
The evidence is readily accessible on the internet. In the process of trying to find out the various translations for Kutan, I came across an IRC log. All the information is widely accessible, just not permissible on site. --Kind Regards - Heligoland | Talk | Contribs 20:35, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
Could you provide the URL and specify the timestamps to check, maybe give some idea of what it is we're supposed to be looking for? – SAJordan talkcontribs 03:21, 1 Jan 2007 (UTC).

Your justifications seem to be getting increasingly more and more far-fetched--a serious "vandalism" threat would be reported on ANI/there would be a warning. Precedent was just established re IRC and blocks: the info must be described in order to justify a block. Cindery 02:25, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Also, I've taken the time to review Kuntan's edit history. He made many useful edits. And: he began editing on September 17, 2006. He was still a very new editor at the time that any of the accusations Samir has cited against him were made. On September 18th, he posted the harmless joke vandalism message to Deepu. No warnings were issued to him. Later the same day, the 18th--his second day of editing--he reverted it himself. The AfD "hoax" was not only brief (and funny: [71]) but he apologized for it. Tintin thanked him for "beautifully exposing what is wrong with AfD," and also for exposing that it was a hoax, because otherwise the article would have been kept: [72] (Kuntan stated that he was not trying to expose not what was wrong with AfD, but to draw attention to why/how many articles about Kerala were nonsense.) Tintin noted that it was probably a WP:POINT violation, but no one accused Kuntan of "trolling." Although Kuntan personally apologized to Armadillofrom hell: [73], Armadillo is the only one who expresssed anger (which is WP:BITE, especially considering that Kuntan had been editing for two weeks, admitted the hoax, and apologized). Kuntan did not participate in any more AfD discussions for the purpose of exposing AfD discussions about Kerala articles as absurd, that I could see. There seemed to be an ongoing dispute about whether his name was obscene although it had other meanings, in which he genuinely felt harassed, and an ongoing dispute about classism/castes regarding an article about the Nair family, in which Kuntan felt that caste bias was an issue/POV problem in the article. It's not exactly clear to me what happened between Sept and Dec., except that the ongoing harassment over his username was something Kuntan brought up at Deepu's RfA, and that was when Samir and Nick became involved, called him names, told him to leave Wikipedia, posted the finger, etc. Sometime after that, it appears that Nick and Samir joked between each other regarding ED: [74] The date I see on the ED "attack page" is November 23. Kuntan was blocked in December for "username."

Cindery 03:51, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

You missed the sockpuppets, the trolling on RfA's and on ANI that the responsible administrators took into account when blocking Kuntan. It all adds up to an indefinite block. Accusing ArmadilloFromHell of WP:BITE violations is improper -- Samir धर्म 20:52, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Per the diff supplied by Armadillo himself WP:BITE isn't just appropriate, it's the only logical response: Kuntan was a two week old editor. He apologized. His farce was not malicious (but quite witty, and Tintin thanked him for it.) No one--including Armadillo--called Kuntan a troll. It's very clear that Kuntan was made into a troll later. Again, let's see the diffs for the "trolling," and hear why there was no ANI discussion if it was such a clear case, and why he was blocked for username, not trolling, etc. Also, the checkuser requests and results, with dates. Cindery 01:05, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

His farce wasn't malicious? He created a fake page about a city that he claimed was named after boys used for sodomy, and equated the same for his username. Then he lied on an AfD for the article. Then he vandalized the user page of the editor who called him out on it. Not witty to me; that's about as malicious as you can get! Looks like trolling to me, and yet you choose to support this guy? Sounds like you have a vendetta against Sir Nick over YouTube links and are using even the most farfetched arguments to try to defame him -- Samir धर्म 00:22, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
“a fake page about a city that he claimed was named after boys used for sodomy” - the same claim you made about the meaning of “Kuntan” - a REAL town’s name - so he made a satire of it. -PC

Sorry--no one who has read the diffs agrees with you. (Me, Tintin.) As you can see above, no one thought it was an article that had anything to do with sodomy--that never came up in the discussions, with anyone. Tintin, again, thanked Kuntan for the article because it "beautifully exposed what is wrong with AfDs," and also for admiting that it was a hoax, because otherwise the article would have been kept. You've got your dates screwed up on "vandalism"--K posted the silly message to Deepu two weeks prior. It's also important to note that 1) Kuntan was a new editor 2) he never created another hoax AfD or left another joke message about vandalism 3) no one accused him of malice. Your accusations only work if no one goes and looks at these edits in context--you're greatly distorting them. Now that I've pointed this out twice to you--with diffs--I think continuing to make false accusations about them would be in bad faith. Cindery 01:11, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Making hoax articles like the one Kuntan made is an entirely blockable offense. Sockpuppetry on RfA's is entirely blockable. Stop ignoring the evidence. -- Samir धर्म 01:25, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
New editors are not blocked for innocuous hoaxes--as you can see, the admins involved didn't even see fit to warn him: they thanked him. He never made another hoax article. So no, you cannot retroactively block someone for that--it's completely unjustified; it's pathetic even to pretend to make the argument. I don't see "sockpuppetry on RfAs."

Cindery 01:44, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

And Kuntan continues to disrupt. On this very page! -- Samir धर्म 01:07, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
If it is Kuntan--good. He is not a community-banned user, and he has a right to participate in dispute resolution, where his block is being discussed. The accusation has been made (quite er, histrionically) that he "made an article about sodomy!" In his defense, he is saying he included a joke about the slang meaning of Kuntan, because he had already been hassled about it. In ALL of the discussions about this hoax article, no one considered that an issue. (It has only been made an issue now--clearly a retroactive definition has been given to his action. Out of context, you can say, that was proof he knew it had a slang meaning! At the time, he was satirizing accusations that the slang meaning was the only meaning.) Tintin thought Kuntan was trying to show what was wrong with the AfD process. (The point of the article was not the name of the town, but the fact that the place it refers to is completely unnotable--a bustop outside Calculla, basically. Knowing nothing of Calcutta, people nevertheless made arguments for why the place might be notable in the absence of references...)
Cindery 01:25, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
For the record - I’m not Kuntan. -PC
There's really no point arguing with you. You fail to see reason even when 41 people including admins and bureaucrats tell you that you are wrong. I suggest you cease your disruption -- Samir धर्म 01:29, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Not a single person has looked at the diffs and made an argument which supports your position. Cindery 01:46, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Outside view by Samuel Blanning

Of the disputed AfD closings:

  • List of big-bust models and performers was overturned after being nominated at DRV, relisted, and the AfD speedy closed.
  • Dave Gilbert (game designer) is currently at DRV. Opinions are split.
  • Ice Age (band) was overturned after being relisted and kept at AfD.
  • Critical Mass (Catholic rock) was restored after new evidence was presented; a deletion review had one endorsement and one overturn of the original discussion.
  • Scene (subculture) has not been nominated for DRV.
  • Hilal Khashan was overturned after being relisted and kept at AfD.
  • Graving has not been nominated for DRV.
  • W00t is currently on DRV with a majority for endorsement.

So out of 8 that supposedly justify an RfC, 2 were not even nominated (so we can assume there is no case against the closing), 1 is heading for an endorsement, 1 was split but without particular disapproval against the closing, 1 is heading the same way. I do not believe the remaining 3 constitute a serious problem with Nicholas' AfD closing, although there were a few errors that I'm sure he will learn from. (That does not include the first closing in the list, incidentally). He appears to have a much better grasp of AfD closing than the RfC requester, who refers to AfD here as a vote, which it is not, and claims in all all but one of the AfDs listed that Nicholas was at fault because he closed against the numbers.

Users who endorse this summary:
  1. Duja► 12:31, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
  2. Also, I can't see anything positive that will come of this, so can we just get back to editing articles? Taxman Talk 13:46, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
  3. — Lost(talk) 13:50, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
  4. I think the Scene (subculture) AFD is an example of good judgement. All of the keep !votes were basically "I like it" or "it does exist!" 2 or 3 questionable AFD closers makes for bad support of "admin abuse." ---J.S (T/C) 17:02, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
  5. Bakaman 17:10, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
  6. Admins make some mistakes, that's why we have a process to review AfDs. -Amarkov blahedits 17:13, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
  7. Aksi_great (talk) 19:41, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
  8. RfC requester fundamentally misunderstands the nature of AfD closure and compounds it by confusing honest (and reversible) mistakes made in good faith with abuse of powers. Baseless claim. Guy (Help!) 20:01, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
  9. Samir धर्म 01:59, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
  10. Jkelly 02:44, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
  11. GizzaChat © 06:19, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
  12. This is another invented fault based on poor understanding of how things work, just as the requester was unable to properly request an RfC. —WAvegetarian•(talk) 10:26, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
  13. Sir Nick and I don't see eye to eye on some of these, but I don't see any abuse. DRV works. Eluchil404 12:57, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
  14. Srikeit 13:25, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
  15. Bishonen | talk 14:00, 30 December 2006 (UTC).
  16. Freedom skies| talk  16:54, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
  17. Gwernol 21:32, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
  18. Mistakes made in good faith != admin abuse. Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 22:38, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
  19. Indeed. Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 09:33, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
  20. Terence Ong 18:17, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
  21. Sir Nick, unlike the requesters of this RfC understood the purpose of AfD by applying his common sense and weighing arguments rather than base his decision on a simple count of !votes. At no point did he try to obstruct the complaint process rather he continously refered those who objected to deletion review instead of arguing on his talk page. None of those AfD's have been closed out of process as detailed by Sam above. MartinDK 08:04, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
  22. Same thing. — Nearly Headless Nick 08:35, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
  23. Mailer Diablo 19:00, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
  24. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:29, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
  25. – Chacor 10:02, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
  26. Nick has a uniquely strong-willed approach to AfDs and other processes which, while (obviously) the cause of some conflict, is demonstrably taken with the best interests of Wikipedia at heart and based on considerable experience here. While he could probably stand to calm down (err, is that the right expression? I don't think so...), Samuel Blanning's analysis seems quite correct. Daveydweeb (chat/review!) 11:05, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Comment

  • A large number of overturned AFD decisions does seem to indicate that the Admin should show more caution. --Barberio 18:26, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Outside view by weirdoactor

I will comment on one of the disputed AfD closings; W00t, and on the claims of incivility.

I filed the DRV for W00t. Do I think Nick acted maliciously here? No. Do I think he reviewed the AfD in full before acting? I can’t say, but I will assume good faith. I will say that the “Delete” votes were weak, with only a few citing actual policy. I thought it was odd that the history was deleted; but again, I don’t think Nick acted maliciously here. My guess would be user error; I see absolutely no any reason that Nick would have for intentionally deleting the W00t history.

One odd thing; shortly after I posted on Nick’s talk page about the deletion, I received a strange message from Daakshayani, a user with whom I had no contact previously. I find it interesting that a “non-sock puppet” would try and draw me into a discussion of whether of not to delete the categories of their alleged puppet master. Pretty much fails the smell test, in my humble opinion.

Is Nick uncivil? No. He can occasionally be terse, or perhaps impatient, but I don't find him to be uncivil. If being terse or impatient were punishable as incivility, I myself would be guilty on more occasions than I would care to recall, as would many, many users. Should admins be held to a higher standard of civility? Absolutely not. Possessing the mop does not give one patience above and beyond that of mortal editors; and admins have to deal with more…let’s say “asininity” than your average user, and in my opinion can be forgiven if they are snippy from time to time. I’d say from my own interactions with Nick, and those I’ve observed that he is, to quote the great Patrick Swayze, “Nice until it’s time to not be nice”.

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. -- weirdoactor t|c 18:57, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
  2. Calling it incivility worthy of an RFC is a bit of a stretch. Don't interpret this to mean that being nicer wouldn't be good. -Amarkov blahedits 21:37, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
  3. I agree the AFD debates were not closed in bad faith, and there is only so much patience one can have. Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 22:44, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
  4. — Nearly Headless Nick 08:36, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Users who mostly endorse this summary:

  1. I disagree only with the last part. I think we would be better served by the words of Theodore Roosevelt: "Speak softly and carry a big stick." ---J.S (T/C) 20:24, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
  2. I concur in J.Smith's sentiments...and, well, how can one not prefer TR to Patrick Swayze? Joe 05:31, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Not entirely outside view by Argyriou

I supported bringing at RfC against User:Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington, but I do not agree with all the grounds listed in the RfC as it was brought. I also worry that many of the people who will be viewing this RfC will be predisposed to dismiss arguments by the people bringing it, due to tangles they've had with administrators in the past, and that this case will not receive a fair hearing.

In my view, the primary problem with Sir Nicholas is that he does not have the temperament to be an administrator. He consistently confuses his opinions for Wikipedia policy or for community consensus, and becomes dismissive or hostile when called on it.

[edit] Sir Nicholas does not understand copyright policy

The following are statements Sir Nicholas has made which show that he does not understand Wikipedia copyright policy:

  • The user Mahlenmahlen must mention on his YouTube page which shows the clip, or on his user page, if YouTube provides one; that he is either free-licensing it or releasing it in the creative-commons. Such assertions that he was the uploader of the file on YouTube cannot be under any terms of reasonability be accepted.[75]
  • What exactly are you talking about? We do not need consensus on Talk:Barrington Hall for deciding if we need to keep YouTube video links on this website. [76]
  • YouTube links are not reliable as any person with an internet connection can upload a file on their website.[77]
  • Unless the video's copyrights are exclusively owned by YouTube, no – you cannot link to the site.[78]
  • YouTube links are either copyright infringements or not reliable.[79]

[edit] Sir Nicholas mistakes his personal views for consensus

The following are actions taken and statements made by Sir Nicholas where he completely ignores any arguments opposing his position to paint a false picture of consensus:

  • Deletion of List of big-bust models and performers against consensus.[80] While many of the keep arguments were WP:ILIKEIT, there were arguments which stated that the material was notable, had reliable sourcing for at least some of the article, and was capable of being NPOV.
  • Close with Keep against consensus in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dave Gilbert (game designer) 1. [81]
  • Yes, Tvoz, there is a difference of opinion on this matter, and all the administrators who are comfortably aware of the policies and guidelines of this place have their reasons as to why YouTube links should be removed. Have a look here User:Dmcdevit/YouTube (admin), User:J.smith/YouTube (admin).[82] (reply)
  • Please do not disrupt Wikipedia. A consensus has been reached on the WP:ANI page.[83] . It should be obvious that if there is any consensus on this issue, it is not that all YouTube links are inherently defective and should be removed.

[edit] Blocking Policy

  • I hate to drag in the case of a notorious troll and sockpuppetteer, but when one blocks a troll, one should block the troll for trolling (or particular instances thereof), not for the specious grounds that the troll's username is obscene in a non-English language. Part of the point of process is to communicate accurately to others what is and is not acceptable conduct. Had there been a user named "Kuntan" who was actually a productive contributor, the username block wouldn't have occurred in the same way. Uninformed users seeing the block would get a very poor view of the quality of our administrative process.
  • Sir Nicholas' block of User:Malber was blatantly out-of-process; so much so that Sir Nicholas even said that he shouldn't have been the one to block Malber. If Malber's actions in the RfA were objectionable enough to warrant a block, why did no other admin step up to block Malber?

I think this presents sufficient evidence that Sir Nicholas has insufficiently accurate knowledge to perform well some of the tasks in the purview of an administrator, and lacks the temperament to refrain from acting where he should not act. Argyriou (talk) 23:44, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary
  1. Nick should not be an admin. Posting photos of "the finger" before blocking someone and blocking editors with whom he is in personal disputes make that clear. His incivility towards editors with questions/objections to You Tube links, disruption at Barrington Hall regarding a link verified by the copyright holder (who happens to be a senior Google engineer), and his mistaken belief that "I am a law student" trumps Wikipedia policy (and copyright law) merely make it even more clear. Perhaps he would be a fine editor--but he shouldn't be an admin. Cindery 01:18, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
  2. - the Barrington hijinks reveal an inappropriate attitude for an admin. --AStanhope 04:48, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
  3. —Malber (talk • contribs) 04:36, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
  4. - I have no knowledge or opinion about the disputes regarding the blocking of users described above. But I endorse the position that Nearly Headless Nick should not be an administrator, from my personal experiences with him that had nothing to do with the other disputes. I believe that those with admin powers should be held to a higher standard than come-and-go editors, and need a certain level of maturity. However, in my few interactions with Nick, I found him to be:
    1. condescending: his "all the administrators who are comfortably aware of the policies and guidelines of this place have their reasons as to why YouTube links should be removed" was addressed to me and sounded like an attempt to intimidate and dismiss the valid question I was asking about some links that he had summarily removed without specific explanation, because ";all the administrators" who know everything agree with him. This is both inaccurate and insulting, and not the way an admin should address any editor, or any question. As I responded to him [84], telling me that wiser heads than mine "have their reasons" is classic totalitarianism and shockingly unacceptable coming from an admin in response to a respectfully worded, genuine question - and that question had to be posed because he had not bothered to give an explanation on his removal. I am not a newbie here as he apparently assumed, nor am I male as he also assumed (and I find that offensive too) - I have over 1500 edits on over 400 articles in 3 months, and a reading of my user page would have informed him of my gender. This is the least professional interaction I've had with any admin. This makes me question if his temperment is what is needed in admins.
    2. inaccurate: "YouTube links are either copyright infringements or not reliable" was also addressed to me and is an absurd and incorrect statement. It was unhelpful and dismissive of a genuine question I was raising. I might point out that this was not a part of any other disputes Nick may have been having with other editors about You Tube. I have nothing to do with Barrington Hall and haven't even read the page, let alone be a part of the dispute. I specifically said I didn't want to get involved in the EL border wars, but that I was asking for a specific reading on the specific links that he removed, because those links were not random external link window-dressing, but were integrated into the article and illustrative of the text. I didn't claim to know if these links were or were not in violation - I asked if he knew when he removed them. This response - so totally incorrect and out of touch with reality - makes me question whether he has the knowledge that is needed of admins.
    3. overstepping of boundaries: Without explanation - with neither a note on my talk page nor an email to me, and with an edit summary devoid of content - he came onto my talk page and removed another user's message that was intended for me before I even had a chance to see it. Here's where: [85]. This was a note that someone I do not know left for me, pointing me to something that he or she thought I might be interested in reading. I think it is grossly out of line for anyone to edit anyone else's user talk page - and especially so without attempting to notify the person whose page it is. This was an abuse of power - especially egregious coming from an administrator. If he had a compelling reason to remove it - and I don't know if I think that is ever acceptable - then he had a responsibility to contact me regarding it. He should have sent me a note stating why he was taking the extraordinary step of removing content from my talk page, and making sure that I knew about it and that this highly outrageous action had ironclad justification. Instead he snuck onto my page and made a stealth edit, with the un-illuminating summary: "Reverted edits by Simbirskin (talk) to last version by Vera, Chuck & Dave". Also, as further evidence of the arbitrary nature of his original removal of the message from my page - I reverted it when I saw it and I see that he left it alone after that. So I guess it wasn't such a vital removal after all. No explanation, no apology, nothing was forthcoming. This calls into question his impartiality and his understanding of boundaries, both of which are vital in an admin.
I therefore feel that he is not suitably mature to handle the powers that admins are given. Tvoz | talk 00:08, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
  1. I completely agree with Cindery. That's the long and short of it. 24.106.234.138 14:37, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Comments
  • I don't endorse the sentiment that Nicholas should have his "mop" revoked, but I do think many of his reactions should have been tempered. In my personal admin-ship-philosophy, even as we are blocking a troll, deleting vandalism, or defending an action we believe is right, we need to be courteous and respectful (tis something I aspire to, but don't always reach) ---J.S (T/C) 00:42, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I want specifically to avoid commenting on what should happen to Nick's admin bit. I want to believe that he and I and all of you have the capacity to learn from our mistakes, even if sometimes it takes a lovingly swung clue-by-four upside the head to shake us (and our stubborn preconceptions) up a bit. I think there's a problem here, and it needs to be solved, but I'm not going to declare that only one solution is possible. I think that some decisions need to be reviewed and overturned. I think that some practices to do with blocks and deletions, accusations and incivility, and using the admin bit where personally emotionally involved, need to stop. I think the emphasis on punitive rather than corrective action, assuming bad faith rather than good faith, presuming guilt rather than innocence, and blocking/deleting communications rather than opening them, is not helpful, and needs to be turned 180 degrees — which can be a slow and difficult process that meets much resistance. It's possible that simply staying away from some topics and participants for a while might help "temper reactions", as J.Smith put it. I don't really know, and I can't really know, in advance of events. Perhaps Nick will have a sudden change of heart on his own; such things have happened. Perhaps a delegation of trusted elders can perform what in other contexts is called an "intervention" or a "Dutch Uncle talk". Perhaps mentoring by some stern and strict old Wiki-sensei in the ways of Admin-Fu will impart a more rigorous discipline and the Tao of When to Recuse. Or perhaps being bullied and badgered mercilessly and unfairly by someone bigger and badder would make him resent that breed so much that he resolves never to be anything like that. Many possibilities. It all depends on what it takes to turn on the lightbulb floating overhead, which means it really depends on Nick. My approaching him seems to have done nothing. Someone else, singular or plural, might have a better outcome. Whoever else tries, I wish you (and him) luck. – SAJordan talkcontribs 06:41, 30 Dec 2006 (UTC).
  • The second consecutive outside view in J.smith's modifications of which I join. Joe 05:32, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Half in half outside view by Guy

In response to the points put by Argyriou and some others above:

  • Block of Malber. If anyone else had done it, there would be no argument. Malber was being deliberately provocative (call it trolling if you like).
  • Deletion of List of big-bust models and performers against consensus. Majority is not consensus. Consensus in this case is that all articles must be verifiable and stated from a neutral point of view. Sir Nicholas is far form the only established editor to conclude that a list founded on a group of editors' personal definition of what consititues "big", and with inclusion based on utterly unreliable sources, completely fails those policies. This was a defensible (and in my view completely correct) deletion, and illustrates precisely why AfD is explicitly not a vote: supermajority of WP:ILIKETITS absolutely cannot overrule policy. Nick's interpretation of the debate was valid and not abusive in any way even if you disagree with it.
  • Close with Keep against consensus in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dave Gilbert (game designer) 1. Reasoning was given, there was not much input to the debate and some of it lacked reasoning (citing WP:HOLE is all very well, but the article did make an assertion of notability so it doesn't really apply). So this is a defensible close, with reasoning given.
  • Barrington Hall. This was one of the most stupid disputes I can recall. As a point of principle, we should not link ot offsite media which may violate copyright, or for which copyright status is unknown, it is contributory infringement and places the project in legal jeopardy. Almost all YouTube links on the project at that time violated copyright in some respect, we did the same thing with YTMND for the same reaosn (soundtracks were almost without exception copyvios). Arguing about it will not make this inconvenient fact go away. Nick was absolutely right to state this, and if instead of arguing the participants had simply done what they did in the end - correctly identified the copyright status - there would have been no porblem. In matters of copyright, obduracy tends to be met with more obduracy. Sicne this appears to be the basis for much of the criticism of Nick, and the foundation of this entire process, I feel its important to be completely clear here: no amount of consensus among editors, no amount of re-stating "it's not a problem" without proving it, no amount of "but we like it", will ever make it right to link to offsite media which may infringe copyright. Removing such links is always permissible, and the burden is solidly on those seeking to include the links to justify them to those who challenge them. If we're going to trout-slap Nick for this then we're also going to have to trout-slap a lot of others, including Dmcdevit and me, because as far as I'm concerned if I see any link to any offsite content where the copyright status is not unambiguous (and unambiguously clean) then I will remove it and I will work on keeping it removed unless and until the problem is actually fixed.

So. Nick has been a bit bullheaded when provoked. Me too. The whole Barrinton Hall thing was a dialogue of the deaf from the beginning and is not indicative of fitness for adminship, and no credible evidence has yet been cited of abuse of powers, only of making calls that people disagree with. Let's have a straw poll: of those editors participating in this RfC, who has never once made a call that others disagree with, and then defended that call? Not me, for sure. Guy (Help!) 11:26, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Users endorsing this summary

  1. Srikeit 13:24, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
  2. That summarises it all quite well. Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 22:50, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
  3. Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 09:35, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
  4. This doesn't mean that he should have blocked Malber. -Amarkov blahedits 18:34, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
  5. ---J.S (T/C) 20:21, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
  6. — Nearly Headless Nick 08:32, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
  7. Terence Ong 08:34, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
  8. Donald Albury 12:50, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Comments

  • Being 'bullish when provoked' is not, nor ever has been, grounds to ignore Wikipedia:Civility. --Barberio 18:28, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Guy seems unfamiliar with the Barrington dispute: the link was verified by the copyright owner, who is a senior Google engineer. (Um, Google owns You Tube.) Nick deleted the link after it was verified by the copyright owner, and claimed "I am a law student. I understand copyright law." I would not hire a law student to represent me in a copyright case against a senior Google engineer over a You Tube link dispute (and not just because law students haven't passed the bar yet and can't represent anyone in court :-) Cindery 00:01, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Come on, lay off Mimsy, I'm watching the video now and there's no copyright statement anywhere to be seen. He was acting in good faith trying to remove links to copyright violating materials. There really is no need to be quite terse and uncivil about all this, there's actually no need to drag anybodies qualifications or knowledge into this (and I know Mimsy started it all), it's a simple case of YouTube not having a simple way to show the copyright of the clips they host (oh how I long for a copyright notice like Flickr has), and Wikipedia for not having any way to confirm to a central project that the link is fine, that permission is given by the copyright holder for the clip to be shown via YouTube. --Kind Regards - Heligoland | Talk | Contribs 01:28, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

The response was to Guy, not Nick. But no, Nick was not acting in good faith in so far as 1) he knew the link was disputed, per talkpage discussions with me 2) he knew the copyright owner had posted on talkpage of article, affirming permission to use the link 3) he was aware of lengthy talkpage discussion at the article talkpage 3) he was aware of the EL discussions, in which consensus was against deletions under EL. But I also think it's wise to mention source credibility: a senior Google engineer v. a "law student." Do we want an admin who will inadvertantly cause problems like this, because he edit wars/believes he is "right" even if consensus is against him, policy is against him, editorial consensus is against him, and a copyright holder is against him? No matter how much info he got that his actions were disputed, Nick insisted on trying to impose his view. He doesn't seem to consider whom he might be upsetting when he does this. Today, a senior Google engineer over a You Tube link, what next tomorrow? Nick's apparent attitude that "editors don't count" isn't an asset to the project, in my view--one never knows who those editors are. Admins shoud have the good judgement to treat all editors with respect. Cindery 02:52, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

  • You are completely missing the point. The default, with disputed material, and especially with links to material with disputed copyright, is not to include. Think of it in these simple terms: when in doubt, keep it out. There is absolutely no way that any kind of consensus can override copyright policy, so the way to fix it was to unambiguously settle the copyright issue, not to arm-wave and shout and count the number of people who want it in. Nick was acting correctly, and I would have done the same (even if not in the same words). The refusal of editors on the Barrington Hall article to accept these facts is a point against them, not against Nick. Guy (Help!) 13:44, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Uh, no 'I would say youare completely missing the point, and seem not to have read any of the EL discussions, understand what a link is, (or Wiki Copyright policy)...or Barberio's comment that the YT deletion project may be attracting liability to the project. Add it up: senior Google engineer + You Tube + reckless edit warrior "law student." (Please see also below Spartaz' --a member of the deletion minority--comment that continuing the YT discussion in general should happen on that page.) The point where Nick is concerned is: do we want an admin who attracts liability to the project via extremely disruptive edit warring against policy and consensus with the attitude "editors don't count"...when he has no idea/doesn't care who those editors are? Today a senior Google engineer over a You Tube link, what next tomorrow? I say he's a loose cannon; not worth the risk to wiki as an admin--Barberio states he should at least be censured. Perhaps he can be on "YT project revert parole"--allowed only one revert in any You Tube link dispute in which no other member of the deletion minority has also made any reverts, or simply on YT project parole--not allowed any reverts, or the appearance of soliciting them from any of his friends in the project or on IRC. Cindery 14:20, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I think you should also take note, Guy, that a member of the five-person deletion minority, JSmith, advised Nick to drop the Barrington matter (but he continued edit warring anyway):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Sir_Nicholas_de_Mimsy-Porpington/Archive/Archive08#Sometimes_it.27s_time_to_dropit_and_move_on... Cindery 14:55, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

  • I haver read the debates, and also read the debate at WT:EL. There seems to be a small group of editors who believe that linking to offsite copyvios is just fine as long as we look the other way and whistle. Wrong. Guy (Help!) 11:48, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Outside Comment by User:Barberio

This is just a note to clarify part of this discussion relevant to YouTube linking.

There has never been accepted policy or guideline that Youtube links are automatically undesirable. It is and always has been, both in guideline, and policy, to take each instance of suspected copyvio content on a case by case basis. This issue has been raised multiple times on Wikipedia_talk:External_links and consensus has held to a 'case by case' review, and specifically rejected any 'assumption of guilt' for Youtube links.

A significant minority of admins have acted upon a contrary belief, and use "it's on Youtube, and most Youtube content is copyvio" as the only evidence needed to remove a link. (This has required a special notice to be applied to WP:EL to try and halt this behaviour.) Some of these editors have worked together in use of AWB for semi-automatic link deletion. When coupled with a misunderstanding of the guidelines, and a inappropriate attitude, this behaviour has been quite disruptive, and generated a fair amount of bad will.

It is my personal opinion that involvement in this kind of behaviour has been a black mark to all admins involved, and they should at the least have some amount of censure for being disruptive. --Barberio 13:36, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Users who endorse this statement

  1. Nick repeatedly deleted the link at Barrington Hall because it was a You Tube link--after the copyright holder, a senior Google engineer, verified it as a valid link, and editorial consensus of regular editors of the article was to keep the link. This was incredibly disruptive to the article. Cindery 15:31, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
  2. I haven't looked too much into the YouTube issue, but if it's about linking to a site that contains content where the licensing is questionable, then we would have to remove all links to sites that contain images and text with questionable licensing. This would remove a majority of cited sources. —Malber (talk • contribs) 04:34, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment

  • Removal of YouTube links is possible by any editor and in most cases, they are removing links to YouTube in good faith, trying to prevent legal action being taken against the WikiMedia Foundation. The disruption comes from those who aren't prepared to check the copyright status of videos being uploaded. There are over 10,000 outbound links to YouTube so there does need to be some urgent need to swiftly sort out 10,000+ potential contributory copyright infringements. --Kind Regards - Heligoland | Talk | Contribs 14:07, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
    • My comment is, aside from my personal opinion on the actions of certain admins, a simple report of the current consensus view as reflected in the WP:EL guideline, that some Admins have rejected that consensus, and the result of their actions. You may certainly disagree, and believe that Youtube is a urgent and immediate threat that needs such special methods, but this should be taken up in consensus discussion first to gain support for those methods. WP:EL currently has a specific warning on this issue, placed there to try and stop this behaviour. This warning will stand, until the issue dies down, or consensus is shown to support these actions. --Barberio 15:39, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
      • There's no need for special measures, 10,000 links aren't going to take that long to sort through and when we do, we can find out what links need to be removed and what links can stay. I'd agree that perhaps anybody removing links to YouTube now without reviewing the content could be classed as disruptive and warned, but we're only talking about a few links here, if the copyright status is uncertain it's up to the person adding in the link to ensure it's properly licenced on YouTube and suitable for linking to from Wikipedia. We'd never ask an editor or an admin to determine the copyright status of an image here so why the difference with links. --Kind Regards - Heligoland | Talk | Contribs 17:44, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Outside view by Shimeru

(edit conflict) While I generally disagree with the contentions put forth in this RfC, I do find certain aspects of it troubling.

Kuntan appears pretty clearly to have been a troll, and deserving of a block on those grounds -- but not necessarily on the grounds of his name. It particularly troubles me that the points raised in defense were ignored, the request for comment on the name closed early and deleted out of process, and SA Jordan attacked (by another admin) for "wasting time defending a troll" (apparently "getting close to the point of disruption") when he pointed the fact out. Admins should take process more seriously than this, even if the end result is overwhelmingly likely to be the same. Blocking for name rather than conduct gives the appearance of ignoring process in order to take the easy way out. I feel it would have been better to do it correctly than to do it expediently.

On AfDs, Nick seems within his discretion for the most part. I would hope that he'd take the contested and overturned decisions as an indication that more careful consideration might be warranted, but I don't see anything abusive or malicious in his closings. The only one I find troubling is the discussion where he closed as keep, citing sources that hadn't been raised during the debate. While I commend his research, it would have been more appropriate to !vote keep or strong keep, bringing up those sources, and to allow another admin to close the AfD. That would have avoided any appearance of a conflict of interest.

Finally, on civility, Nick is at times brusque and at times sarcastic. So am I. So are a lot of editors. Could Nick take an extra moment to read over his comments before he posts them, when he's feeling annoyed, in an effort to avoid coming across that way? Yeah, probably. Is Nick crossing way over the civility line? I don't think so. (Additional comment at 23:56, 31 December 2006 (UTC): I do feel the image linked above was uncalled-for. I don't believe there's an established pattern of incivility.)

I think Nick is, for the most part, an able administrator, who has made some honest mistakes. It seems to me that his primary fault is acting too hastily in some cases. I would encourage Nick to take a little more time before applying an edit or an admin action to be sure he's considered it fully and is acting in accordance with process. But I do not believe that he is acting in bad faith or abusing his admin powers.

Users who endorse this summary:
  1. Shimeru 01:15, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
  2. Just H 01:45, 31 December 2006 (UTC) Seems like a good person who is just a little too zealous. However, he's an admin, and admins have to hold themselves to higher standards, so I hope he improves in the future.
  3. I'm not "at war" with Nick. I just wish he would observe a lot of the constructive criticism that Shimeru has eloquently stated. I think a lot of his supporters could do well to do so too. —Malber (talk • contribs) 04:29, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
  4. Yay, something Malber and I agree on. -Amarkov blahedits 18:33, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
  5. ---J.S (T/C) 20:25, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
  6. Joe 05:34, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Users who mostly agree with this summary but dissent with regards to a few points
  1. Thank you for understanding my intentions. About the image, it was intended for Samir and he definitely did not show any resentment. Please have a look at my archives, incidents where I was even discourteous would a rarity. I have been consistently civil with newbie users and others. However, it is always irksome when some user who has consistently been uncivil, leaves civility notices on your talk page (on the lines of WP:KETTLE). As for the "attacking SAJordan part", SAJordan has been a consistently civil editor, however I feel that he has been keeping a constant correspondence with the indef-blocked user Kuntan via email or other means, he also nominated Heligoland's username for an RfC at WP:RFC/NAME, because he was in dispute with him. The username was allowed later. This goes on the verge of being WP:POINTy. Just so you know. — Nearly Headless Nick 08:47, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps less incivil than ill-considered, then. I can see it as a joke, but... well, it's like shouting obscenities at your friends in public. They might not mind, and take it with good humor, but will an audience? Anyway, I want to make clear that you are not, to my mind, regularly incivil. For that matter, some of the instances I perceive as borderline may be a misreading of your intended tone; one of the pitfalls of plain text. I wasn't accusing you of attacking SAJordan, either, although I did see the RfC you mention (though not until after I posted the above). I agree it was WP:POINTy, but I don't think that negates his previous, more reasoned points, which should have been (or maybe "should be" -- I confess I'm not following that particular issue too closely, so I'm not sure whether he ever got his answers) addressed. In any case, glad you took the above in good spirits. Shimeru 20:55, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Provisional statements

This is slightly unorthodox for an RFC, but this one has been a little muddled, so I've distilled this down to a handful of simple statements people can certify. Please certify each statement individually. Note, these are not recommendations for any kind of action to be taken, just findings of fact. (Please note, I'm only certifying some of the following statements.) --Barberio 00:48, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

It should be noted re "edit warring at Barrington Hall that Nick returned a month later to restart the dispute (i.e., the link was disputed, the copyright owner verified the link, a great deal of discussion ensued, the link was restored. Then there was a month of calm...until Nick returned, apropos of nothing, to edit war over the link again. The person accused of edit warring with him was User:NE2, a completely neutral party, not a regular editor at Barrington Hall. Editors at Barrington Hall are concerned with Nick's edit warring because it happened twice. What can be done to prevent him from returning once a month to disrupt this article, is our question (and why would Wikipedia want an admin who would do any such thing...)
Cindery 18:41, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

1) Administration activity is not exempt from WP:CIVIL and administrative duties should be handled in accordance.

Certified by:
  1. --Barberio 00:48, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
  2. --Cindery01:15, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
  3. —Malber (talk • contribs) 04:21, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
  4. – SAJordan talkcontribs 04:23, 31 Dec 2006 (UTC).
  5. --Argyriou (talk) 05:16, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
  6. -Amarkov blahedits 18:32, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
  7. --Shimeru 20:36, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
  8. Ofcourse. — Nearly Headless Nick 09:13, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
  9. No. Really? yandman 09:24, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
  10. Terence Ong 09:32, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
  11. Donald Albury 13:09, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
  12. If anything, admins should aspire to be more civil when wearing their admin hat than they would be as editors. I recognize that admin duties can be thankless and tiresome, and that no one is being paid, but like police, admins end up taking a lot of actions that can inspire resentment, and a little sugar-coating beforehand can help keep things running smoothly. TheronJ 16:51, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
  13. I agree with TheronJ above. Eluchil404 08:10, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
  14. – Chacor 10:17, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
  15. As TheronJ. Joe 05:54, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
  16. --NuclearZer0 13:46, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

2) Being an admin is not an entitlement to edit war, and administrators are expected to engage in dispute resolution.

Certified by:
  1. --Barberio 00:48, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
  2. --Cindery01:18, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
  3. —Malber (talk • contribs) 04:21, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
  4. – SAJordan talkcontribs 04:23, 31 Dec 2006 (UTC).
  5. --Argyriou (talk) 05:16, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
  6. --Shimeru 20:36, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
  7. Sure. — Nearly Headless Nick 09:13, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
  8. Aye. yandman 09:24, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
  9. Terence Ong 09:32, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
  10. Donald Albury 13:09, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
  11. TheronJ 16:51, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
  12. Eluchil404 08:10, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
  13. – Chacor 10:17, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
  14. Joe 05:54, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
  15. --NuclearZer0 13:46, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

3) Admins should only use administrative actions in line with policy, or community decision.

Certified by:
  1. --Barberio 00:48, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
  2. --Cindery01:18, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
  3. —Malber (talk • contribs) 04:21, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
  4. – SAJordan talkcontribs 04:23, 31 Dec 2006 (UTC).
  5. --Argyriou (talk) 05:16, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
  6. Donald Albury
  7. Of course, WP:IAR is policy too. – Chacor 10:17, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
  8. That's precisely the role of an adminstrator; he/she acts only to implement actions for which a consensus exists amongst the community (which consensus, of course, is borne out in the context of a specific discussion or evidenced by the existence of certain policies and guidelines). Joe 05:54, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
  9. --NuclearZer0 13:46, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

4) User:Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington has failed to follow WP:CIVIL while undertaking his admin duties.

Certified by:
  1. --Cindery01:18, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
  2. —Malber (talk • contribs) 04:21, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
  3. – SAJordan talkcontribs 04:23, 31 Dec 2006 (UTC).
  4. -- (qualify with "at times") Argyriou (talk) 05:16, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
  5. At least on one occasion. --Shimeru 20:36, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
  6. As Shimeru. Joe 05:54, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
  7. --NuclearZer0 13:46, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

5) User:Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington edit warred over a link to YouTube in Barrington Hall, refusing dispute resolution.

Certified by:
  1. --Barberio 00:48, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
  2. --Cindery01:18, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
  3. —Malber (talk • contribs) 04:21, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
  4. --Argyriou (talk) 05:16, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
  5. -Amarkov blahedits 18:32, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
  6. Joe 05:54, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
  7. This is probably one of the worst, when an admin feels they can just use their abilities and title and refuse dispute resolution. It is the sign that the admin see's themselves as above the frey. --NuclearZer0 13:46, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

6) User:Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington enacted a block in a way inconsistent with policy.

Certified by:
  1. --Cindery01:18, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
  2. —Malber (talk • contribs) 04:21, 31 December 2006 (UTC) (on my block, do not endorse this with regards to block on Kuntun)
  3. – SAJordan talkcontribs 04:23, 31 Dec 2006 (UTC).
  4. (on Malber, at least)-Amarkov blahedits 18:32, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
  5. --Shimeru 20:36, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
  6. Yes, I did and I am not proud of it. I plan to start an RfC on Malber's conduct anytime soon, to clear things out. — Nearly Headless Nick 09:13, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
  7. We all make mistakes. yandman 09:24, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
  8. Terence Ong 09:32, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
  9. TheronJ 16:51, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
  10. One only. Eluchil404 08:10, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
  11. As Eluchil404. Joe 05:54, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
  12. This should be signed by everyone, they admitted it themselves. --NuclearZer0 13:46, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

7) User:Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington enacted multiple AFD decisions that went against the consensus decisions made, or where there was no consensus.

Certified by:
  1. --Barberio 00:48, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
  2. —Malber (talk • contribs) 04:21, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
  3. -- (two, anyway) Argyriou (talk) 05:16, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
  4. -Amarkov blahedits 18:32, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
  5. --NuclearZer0 13:46, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

8) User:Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington has taken no inappropriate actions beyond honest mistakes.

Certified by:
  1. Guy (Help!) 13:57, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
  2. I sure hope so. — Nearly Headless Nick 09:13, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
  3. Terence Ong 09:32, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
  4. Donald Albury 13:09, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

9) User:Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington's actions were defensible, even if one disagrees with individual actions.

Certified by:
  1. Guy (Help!) 13:57, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
  2. -Amarkov blahedits 18:32, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
  3. Srikeit 02:56, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
  4. For the most part. --Shimeru 20:36, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
  5. — Nearly Headless Nick 09:13, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
  6. Terence Ong 09:32, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
  7. Donald Albury 13:09, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
  8. For the most part. I strongly encourage Nick to try to be extra civil in the future when bopping people with the mop, even with people he considers trolls, and to carefully consider the results of DRV in closing future AFD debates, but I agree that his actions appear to be defensible. TheronJ 16:51, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
  9. Eluchil404 08:10, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
  10. – Chacor 10:17, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

10) People in glass houses should not throw stones. WP:CIVIL is a guideline which one is supposed to follow, not use as a stick with which to beat others and many if not all the complainints in this case have also violated WP:CIVIL.

Certified by:
  1. Guy (Help!) 13:57, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
  2. Many not all. --Spartaz 14:04, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
  3. -Amarkov blahedits 18:32, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
  4. Can I sign my name twice? ---J.S (T/C) 20:32, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
  5. The violation of WP:CIVIL by others does not, however, justify its violation by the subject of this case. --Shimeru 20:36, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
  6. Srikeit 02:56, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
  7. Aksi_great (talk) 15:57, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
  8. Absolutely. — Nearly Headless Nick 09:13, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
  9. Yes, yes and yes. yandman 09:24, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
  10. Terence Ong 09:32, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
  11. Donald Albury 13:09, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Comment :
  1. I'm not sure what this statement is meant for. Clearly, it is accepted behaviour to warn people of their incivility, see {{civil0}}. Neither is the incivility of others a defence for incivility. --Barberio 21:23, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
  2. Two wrongs don't make a right and those with the banhammer should be held to a higher standard. —Malber (talk • contribs) 23:07, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
  3. I think that "unclean hands" shouldn't be a defense to WP:CIVIL. You should be civil even to people who are acting like jerks. (The jerks, of course, should also be civil). TheronJ 16:51, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
  4. The proposition that many who have apprehended incivility in certain of the comments of Nick or others have themselves at some point been incivil is surely not without factual basis. I share, though, Barberio's concerns about precisely what this point means to intimate, and I join, of course, in the views of Theron and Malber.
  5. This is an encyclopedic project, not kindergarten, noone should be pointing at anyone sayiong "he started it" --NuclearZer0 13:46, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

11) The onus is firmly on those seeking to include content, to justify its inclusion. Content should not be re-inserted until objections have been satisfactorily addressed. Credible objections made in good faith should not be ignored.

Certified by:
  1. Guy (Help!) 13:57, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
  2. --Spartaz 14:04, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
  3. This is... weird for an RfC, but...-Amarkov blahedits 18:32, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
  4. True, but unrelated to the Edit War issue, where the objections were addressed, but discussion or dispute resolution was rejected. --Barberio 21:07, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
  5. However, once justification has been presented, that content should not be re-deleted until evidence backing the objection has been obtained. Good faith works both ways. --Shimeru 20:36, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
  6. — Nearly Headless Nick 09:13, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
  7. That's the rule, folks. yandman 09:24, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
  8. Donald Albury 13:09, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
  9. Absolutely. TheronJ 16:51, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
  10. Eluchil404 08:10, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
  11. – Chacor 10:17, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
  12. Agreed and it seems "Credible objections" were not raised in this case. When those objections at first were put to rest, it became edit warring and possibly vandalism. --NuclearZer0 13:46, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

11a) It is asserted that Nick's actions were "incredibly disruptive" on Barrington Hall. "Disruption" only occurs when people start edit-warring. It takes two (or more) to disrupt an article. The rule is: bold, revert, discuss. The link was boldly added, reverted by Nick, and then this was reverted - which was the first step in the disruption. To avoid disrupting an article, wait until all credible good-faith objections are settled on talk before re-inserting content and links. In other words, it wasn't just Nick who was "incredibly disruptive" on the article, and it is fatuous to suggest that he was the sole cause of the problem.

Certified by:
  1. Guy (Help!) 14:14, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
  2. -Amarkov blahedits 18:32, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
  3. ---J.S (T/C) 20:32, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
  4. It takes two to tango. But it's still quite clear that Nick was edit warring. --Barberio 21:07, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
  5. Srikeit 02:56, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
  6. Aksi_great (talk) 15:57, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
  7. There was no revert-warring. The first edit was in November 2006, the other two were a week apart in December. The one in the middle was not intentional, and made in good faith while using WP:AWB. – [86] — Nearly Headless Nick 09:13, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
  8. Per nick. yandman 09:24, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
  9. I agree with Nick. TheronJ 16:51, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment

  1. It doesnt take two to edit war, you can have one person reverting a group of 5, those 5 which are not edit warring. Anyone who has been through a RfAr knows that it doesnt take two. And two wrongs do not make a right, noone should be attempting to say its ok for admins to edit war ever. --NuclearZer0 13:46, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

12) Content and links with disputed copyright status should and must be removed and remain removed until such time as the copyright status is unambiguously established to be clean. No amount of supposed consensus can override the much wider consensus behind copyright policy, since violating copyright (either directly or through contributory infringement) places the Foundation in legal jeopardy.

Certified by:
  1. Guy (Help!) 13:57, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
  2. --Spartaz 14:04, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
  3. -Amarkov blahedits 18:32, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
  4. ---J.S (T/C) 20:32, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
  5. Srikeit 02:56, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
  6. Aksi_great (talk) 15:57, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
  7. — Nearly Headless Nick 09:13, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
  8. We don't want Jimbo in Raiford, do we? yandman 09:24, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
  9. Donald Albury 13:09, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
  10. Subject to the caveat that the dispute regarding copyright status has to be substantial and reasonable. TheronJ 16:51, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
  11. Eluchil404 08:10, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Rejected by:
  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) Subsequent discussion moved to talk page by Argyriou (talk) 20:05, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
  2. 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) Subsequent discussion moved to talk page by Argyriou (talk) 20:05, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
  3. --Argyriou (talk) 06:20, 2 January 2007 (UTC) Disputed or unknown copyright status is not sufficient reason to remove an external link; only a strong reason to believe that the link is copyvio is reason to delete the link.
  4. At least as regards the question generally, Argyriou, IMHO, has it quite right. Joe 05:54, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

12a) Past disputes have seen users impersonating copyright holders in order to try to get content or links included; it is reasonable to require more than simply the word of an editor who wishes to include content.

Certified by:
  1. Guy (Help!) 13:59, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
  2. -Amarkov blahedits 18:32, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
  3. ---J.S (T/C) 20:32, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
  4. Srikeit 02:56, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
  5. Aksi_great (talk) 15:57, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
  6. — Nearly Headless Nick 09:13, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
  7. Yup. yandman 09:24, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
  8. Donald Albury 13:09, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
  9. Depending on the specifics, certainly. TheronJ 16:51, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
  10. – Chacor 10:17, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Rejected by:
  1. --Argyriou (talk) 06:20, 2 January 2007 (UTC) in the case of links, only. The burden of proof for links is on the person claiming copyvio.
Based on? The onus is always on those seeking to include content. Where are any exceptions documented? And if there were exceptions, why would content which may put the project in legal jeopardy be one of them? Guy (Help!) 23:44, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
  1. This isnt policy, I hope it would never become policy to assume bad faith in editors because of the minority. I am surprised an admin would write that and that others would sign it. --NuclearZer0 13:46, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

13) AfD is not a vote. Admins are expected to close debates using their discretion and based on the balance of evidence. Numerical (even supermajority) support for a result which conflicts with the much wider consensus which underpins policy and guidelines, cannot override those policies and guidelines.

Certified by:
  1. Guy (Help!) 13:57, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
  2. --Spartaz 14:04, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
  3. -Amarkov blahedits 18:32, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
  4. ---J.S (T/C) 20:32, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
  5. --Barberio 21:07, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
  6. MartinDK 22:37, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
  7. Srikeit 02:56, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
  8. Argyriou (talk) 06:20, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
  9. --Shimeru 20:36, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
  10. Aksi_great (talk) 15:57, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
  11. — Nearly Headless Nick 09:13, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
  12. -- yandman 09:24, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
  13. Donald Albury 13:09, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
  14. Especially core policies and key policies such as copyright and BLP. TheronJ 16:51, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
  15. Eluchil404 08:10, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
  16. I would not say "cannot override", but rather "should not override". – Chacor 10:17, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
  17. Probably with Chacor's qualification. Joe 05:54, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
  18. Within reason, 27-5 says there is something more that should have been looked at, if it was 10-8 and you vote against majority that is fine, but an overwhelming majority, unless pushed by sockpuppets or canvassing, should have stood. --NuclearZer0 13:46, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

14) In some cases where the debate is complex or the issues not clear-cut, administrators closing debates have been known to make mistakes. A deletion review process exists to fix this. All admin actions can be undone. No admin is required to be infallible.

Certified by:
  1. Guy (Help!) 13:57, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
  2. --Spartaz 14:04, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
  3. -Amarkov blahedits 18:32, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
  4. ---J.S (T/C) 20:32, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
  5. MartinDK 22:37, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
  6. Srikeit 02:56, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
  7. --Shimeru 20:36, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
  8. Aksi_great (talk) 15:57, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
  9. — Nearly Headless Nick 09:13, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
  10. Donald Albury 13:09, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
  11. Yes, but I assume that Nick is taking DRV reversals into account in making future AFD decisions. If an admin is getting reversed at an unusally high percentage for an extended period of time, he or she might be better off mopping elsewhere. TheronJ 16:51, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
  12. Admins do their best. Eluchil404 08:10, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
  13. I trust that Nick, having had occasion here to receive feedback from the community apropos of his (ostensibly generally quite fine) use of the tools, will follow Theron's prescription, at least for some non-trivial period. Joe 05:54, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
  14. Correct but we should not think its ok to do as we please in one place because there is an appeals process. --NuclearZer0 13:46, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Rejected by:
  1. The existence of an appeals process does not mean lax attitudes and behaviour in handling a process is acceptable. While perfection is imposable, people making mistakes should take responsibility for them, and seek to avoid making them again. --Barberio 21:07, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

15) The majority of Nick's disputed deletion closures appear to have at least some credible support from editors in good standing, so are not "abuse of powers", simply judgement calls which are disputed by others.

Certified by:
  1. Guy (Help!) 13:57, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
  2. -Amarkov blahedits 18:32, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
  3. ---J.S (T/C) 20:32, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
  4. MartinDK 22:37, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
  5. Srikeit 02:56, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
  6. --Shimeru 20:36, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
  7. Aksi_great (talk) 15:57, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
  8. Also notice those who are asserting "This user does not understand copyright polices", and those who take arguments of "conspiracy theories" and "organised Wikipogroms to eliminate YouTube links from Wikipedia" as a part of consensus. Users are made administrators for a reason, and that reason is obvious. — Nearly Headless Nick 09:13, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
  9. -- yandman 09:24, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
  10. Donald Albury 13:09, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
  11. All of Nick's AFD judgment calls seem reasonable. TheronJ 16:51, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
  12. Not just a majority a super majority. Eluchil404 08:10, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
  13. – Chacor 10:17, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

16) Kuntan's block has wide support. whether it's for trolling or username is irrelevant. We do not wikilawyer about arbitrary distinctions when it is obvious that the user was here to pursue a personal agenda rather than to build a great encyclopaedia.

Certified by:
  1. Guy (Help!) 14:01, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
  2. 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)
    Long comment by SAJordan moved to talk page Spartaz 11:19, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
  3. -Amarkov blahedits 18:32, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
  4. ---J.S (T/C) 20:32, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
  5. Reserved support. However, the Malber block was still inappropriate. --Barberio 21:07, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
  6. Absolutely Srikeit 02:56, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
  7. Strong support - Aksi_great (talk) 15:57, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
  8. Also, those users who are lawyering for him, should cease their correspondence with him immediately. — Nearly Headless Nick 09:13, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
  9. Strong support. yandman 09:24, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
  10. Donald Albury 13:09, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
  11. Eluchil404 08:10, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
  12. – Chacor 10:17, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Comment:
  1. Argyriou (talk) 06:20, 2 January 2007 (UTC) While Kuntan's block probably is appropriate (I haven't bothered to check; I trust people on this), publishing the proper reason for the block is relevant. Samir did the right thing by removing Nick's block and re-blocking for behavior.
  2. I think Argyriou is probably quite right here. I'm also not sure that I join in Nick's admonition, if only because this RfC hasn't been categorically disruptive, such that the motives of Kuntan and his putative interlocutors notwithstanding, it has served some constructive purpose relative—however tangentially—to the improvement of the project. Joe 05:54, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Rejected by:
  1. --Shimeru 20:36, 2 January 2007 (UTC) Distinctions matter. Process is important. Failing to follow process carries the danger that other editors will perceive that an admin is placing himself above process -- "above the law," so to speak. While there may be good reasons to WP:IAR occasionally, nobody should be maing a habit of it. And for a case that was evidently so clear-cut, I cannot imagine that ignoring the process was necessary. And failing to follow the process subsequently on SAJordan's RfC gives the impression of trying to cover up. It may be that Kuntan deserved the block -- I'm not disputing that. But handling it out of process raises questions that would not be raised if the little bit of extra time had been taken in order to handle it properly. Also, I am wary of "the end justifies the means" as an argument.
    Kuntan left many messages in Malayalam. The issue was discussed with editors who are *competent* to deal with it and those who have the trust of the encyclopedia. Please review the contributions of those sockpuppets listed in the categories as linked on User:Kuntan. — Nearly Headless Nick 09:13, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
  2. This is why there are notes and difs, so trails can be left justifying. This is almost as bad as a block that was wrong leading the person to troll and a reblock for trolling. The truth of the matter is the admin makes a case for blocking, if they are wrong they should admit it, if they then bring up a new reason, its fishing. --NuclearZer0 13:46, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

17) Wikipedia is not censored for minors - any image is considered suitable viewing for any editor.

Certified by:
  1. --Kind Regards - Heligoland | Talk | Contribs 13:39, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
  2. Understanding that this does not say you can post any image to talk pages as freely as a picture of a brick. -Amarkov blahedits 04:45, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
  3. Argyriou (talk) 06:20, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
  4. Of course, this does not mean that one should go about posting any image anywhere one pleases, nor does it exempt one from WP:CIVIL. --Shimeru 20:36, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
  5. The image was intended for Samir, who did not resent it. — Nearly Headless Nick 09:13, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
  6. Why is this a fuss? It was for Samir. yandman 09:24, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
  7. The appropriateness of a paricular image in a given context is subject to discussion and consensus, but aside from vandalism and obvious attacks, is not an infraction. -- Donald Albury 13:09, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
  8. – Chacor 10:17, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
  9. As Donald Albury. Joe 05:54, 8 January 2007 (UTC)


17a) Posting an image of an obscene gesture in a discussion is equivalent to posting the text of an obscenity in a discussion.

Certified by:
  1. Argyriou (talk) 06:20, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
  2. --Shimeru 20:36, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
  3. Yeah. So? He was joking with Samir, not telling him to fuck off. yandman 09:24, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
  4. Yes, it's equivalent. And anyone who thinks Nick was not entitled to his joke can fuck off :o) Guy (Help!) 11:04, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
  5. TheronJ 16:51, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
  6. I don't see any particular point to this—JzG and Yandman properly suggest that the specific factual background here renders this relatively irrelevant—but it is, of course, accurate on its face. Joe 05:54, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
  7. This should be obvious, if I post a cartoon on someones page with Elmo saying "Fuck You", then it should be taken as WP:CIVIL violation. So its not about the image, but what the image was saying. Noone is saying the image itself violated image policies, the use of the image violated WP:CIVIL. --NuclearZer0 13:46, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

18) Removing links to material where the copyright status is unclear, regardless of claims to the contrary by any editor, does not constitute edit warring. Until such time as appropriate copyright can be asserted to be irrefutable beyond any doubt, any link to any material believed to be violating copyright should be removed.

Certified by:
  1. --Kind Regards - Heligoland | Talk | Contribs 13:39, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
  2. Srikeit 02:56, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
  3. "Reasonable" is a better wording than "any", but... -Amarkov blahedits 04:45, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
  4. Yes. This is consistent with how we handle all other intellectual property problems. Guy (Help!) 23:42, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
  5. — Nearly Headless Nick 09:13, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
  6. Donald Albury 13:09, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Rejected by:
  1. Argyriou (talk) 06:20, 2 January 2007 (UTC) I reject the premise of this claim. If Nick had merely removed a link with unclear copyright status, he would not be facing an RfC. There are no complaints about the behavior of Tom Harrison or J.Smith, who also remove large numbers of YouTube links, but who actually discuss their actions when challenged, and who assume good faith when other editors restore those links.
  2. Irrefutable by any doubt is too strong, IMHO. I could come up with some doubt as to most of the copyright releases I see. I would say "established by reasonable measures," assuming that "reasonable" is interpreted sufficiently strongly. TheronJ 16:51, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
  3. Completely wrong and the link was removed after the copyright holder was established. --NuclearZer0 13:46, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

19) It is accepted that false claims of copyright ownership are frequently made on Wikipedia in relation to images and video footage both uploaded to the site and elsewhere. It is therefore proper to ask an editor not to upload media or link to media until such a time as irrefutable proof of ownership is produced is reasonable and proper.

Certified by:
  1. --Kind Regards - Heligoland | Talk | Contribs 13:39, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
  2. Srikeit 02:56, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
  3. -Amarkov blahedits 04:45, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
  4. Yes, this is entirely consistent with policy and best practice. Guy (Help!) 23:41, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
  5. Aksi_great (talk) 15:57, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
  6. — Nearly Headless Nick 09:13, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
  7. Yup. yandman 09:24, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
  8. Donald Albury 13:09, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Rejected by:
  1. Argyriou (talk) 06:20, 2 January 2007 (UTC) for links only.
  2. Irrefutable is way too strong. TheronJ 16:51, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
  3. This isnt policy, where is this stuff coming from? --NuclearZer0 13:46, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Accepted in principle:
  1. I agree that "irrefutable" is way too strong, but I do agree with the notion that unless some kind of sensible proof can be made, we should not be giving leeway to such editors uploading/adding such copyvios. – Chacor 10:17, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Resolution

RfC is about resolving disputes. This RfC is not resolving anything. Those who came here with the intent of censuring Nearly Headless Nick appear to want a remedy which this forum cannot supply (desysopping). Nor are they showing any evidence of amenability to persuasion, as seen in the continued opposition to the block of Kuntan, an account which was used solely for disruption, trolling and personal attacks. I have yet to see a good edit cited from this account. It seems pointless to continue the arguments, especially since some of them are by now historical and superseded by events. If the complainants want to pursue this I suggest they take it to ArbCom. I don't see much profit in further entrenching already entrenched positions. Guy (Help!) 12:28, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Your reading into the motives of the people involved constitutes a personal attack. It is not acceptable to put words into other people's mouths, or describe them as having ill intents. Failing to accept your side of an argument is not a sign of refusing to listen to it. Saying "If you don't like it, take it to the ArbCom" does not help the discussion.
I do not want or expect a desysopping of Nick. My choice of remedy at the moment would be a hefty warning, and a semi-probation notice that if these kinds of issues cropped up again they would be taken more seriously. --Barberio 12:43, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Motives? Who said anything about motives? What I said was that this RfC shows a singular lack of any progress towards changing the mind of any of the parties, and the only resolution requested to date, desysopping, is outwith the remit of this process so it's pointless to ask. Guy (Help!) 17:45, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm afraid I have to agree with you on this one JzG, I try to justify the block of Kuntan, and I end up with demands to change my own username Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/User_names. --Kind Regards - Heligoland | Talk | Contribs 13:17, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
SAJordan's web of disruption is growing. If this behaviour continues, I'd suggest a community ban -- Samir धर्म 14:52, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

General note: please see the talkpage of this article (which contain Samir's personal attacks on SA) and the "Encyclopedia Dramatica" issues above. Cindery 18:06, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any personal attacks? I do see a gigantic block log that you've accrued that makes it hard for anyone to take anything you say seriously. And what does Encyclopedia Dramatica have to do about this? -- Samir धर्म 21:17, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

1. blocks were recent and thanks to you, Samir:-)...as soon as we began investigating what turned out to be the link between you/Nick/Kuntan/ED. 2. Re "what does ED have to do with this"--I dunno, didn't you tell someone who asked you to ask Nick? 3.personal attacks (and very hostile ranting) below: "the problem here is you" to SA, etc:

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) 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)

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

Hmmm...what if...what if, the problem here is not SA, but that you made an out-of-process unjustified block against Kuntan to cover up Nick's unjustified out-of-process block of Kuntan, and don't want anyone to ever talk about it because you can't justify it?

Cindery 01:35, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm, isn't it easier to, I don't know, pay attention to the evidence, and realize that Kuntan is trolling and that his block has community-wide support? Have you read this RfC and how no one buys your argument? Maybe it's time to stop wasting everyone's time with frivolous RfC's. -- Samir धर्म 05:08, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

There is very clear support in the RfC that blocking Kuntan for username was not appropriate. (Including the fact that, ahem, you unblocked Kuntan for username). You are still ignoring Shimeru's request to do things "correctly, rather than expediently"--or do you worry that if anyone besides SA or I actually looks at the diffs/there is any analysis or discussion, you will be held accountable for reblocking Kuntan as a "troll," when actually, you were trolling him? Cindery 20:19, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Uhm, read the RfC closer. Especially the arguments raised by the people that say that Kuntan's block was apt. And the comments from people that say that you're disrupting. And feel free to hold me accountable for blocking Kuntan. Here's the redlink for you: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Samir (The Scope) -- Samir धर्म 00:25, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Proposed resolution

Note, before any resolution is applied, Nick should have a chance to respond here. He has been notified of the RFC, and a week from now (7th January) should be sufficient time to respond. --Barberio 13:00, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

User:Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington is informed that he should take more care in his administration duties. He is reminded that edit-warring and personal attacks are not acceptable for any reason, even if there are mitigating circumstances. No punitive actions beyond this censure will be taken, but further instances of inappropriate behaviour will not be tolerated.

Support:
--Barberio 12:53, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. This begs the question of whether the behaviour was inappropriate, or if it was inappropriate, whether this was a result of ill-faith or whether simply an honest mistake. I see little evidence of anyone other than those who were already upset with Nick, being persuaded of the merits of the case against him, and there are several credible assertions above that much of the supposed misconduct is simply casting around looking for isolated incidents on which to pick (and God knows if you're going to start doing that then none of us are probably safe). Little of it rises above the level of trivial. Guy (Help!) 17:45, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Oppose

I would support Arbcom at this point. I think the misuse of blocks against both Malber and Kuntan--and especially, posting a picture of the finger before blocking Kuntan and personally attacking Malber in his apology for wrongfully blocking Malber--as well as intransigently edit warring at a specfic article support Arg's assertion that Nick doesn't have the "temperament" to be an admin. It appears to me that Nick doesn't merely "make mistakes," but that he has shown a pattern of misusing adminship to "settle personal scores." This has a negative effect not just on the people to whom he directly does these things, but to Wikipedia/other editors. It doesn't mean he's a bad person or would be a bad editor, but, he shouldn't be an admin. Cindery 18:06, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

You have noticed, haven't you, that Kuntan is now indef-blocked by someone else? I have yet to hear anybody other than a Nick-basher find anything good to say about Kuntan. Take that to ArbCom and they'd likely give him a barnstar for blocking a troll who needed blocking. Guy (Help!) 18:56, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
You seem to be missing the point that Nick and Samir appear linked in the ED issue re Kuntan, (and on Samir's talkpage, where Nick posted "the finger") and that retaliating on-wiki for off-wiki actions has a deleterious effect on the community, not just the person singled out as a "troll." (I have just been reading the Arbcom case re Mongo and ED...) A block for username by Nick turned into a block for "trolling" by Samir doesn't absolve Nick of misusing the blocking policy--on the contrary, I think it makes it more obvious.

Cindery 19:13, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

You seem to be missing the point that Kuntan was not here to build an encyclopaedia. As I say, I have never heard a good word about that particular account from anyone other than a Nick-basher. Guy (Help!) 19:19, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
The Arbitration Committee have made several decisions/findings/recommendations relating to ED - please see Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/MONGO#Links_to_ED --Kind Regards - Heligoland | Talk | Contribs 19:45, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

This looks to me like an example of a good edit from Kundan after Sundown: [87]. Re Heligoland: yes, I just cited that Arbcom case-I don't understand what you're trying to say. (Or maybe you were just providing the link?) Cindery 19:50, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Just providing the link. --Kind Regards - Heligoland | Talk | Contribs 19:57, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks.--Cindery 20:07, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Request for a 48 hour cool down

I see no reason at all to take this to Arbcom, and think they would not take any action beyond a notice to act with more care that could be given by us here. I think this has clearly turned into a case of entrenched opinions on both sides, and I suspect is being used totally inappropriately to push positions on the Youtube issue. The Youtube issue is separate to this RfC, and there is no reason to keep discussing it or bringing it up here. If this is brought up as a request for Arbitration, I will make a statement that it is my view that this case is being used inappropriately by both sides in a conflict to push a particular opinion on how to handle youtube links.

The issues at hand were the simple ones of conduct, and even there the conduct was not in my opinion grave or abusive but just mistakes to be corrected. That's not to say there was no wrong doing, but it was not grave enough to warrant it needing any special actions beyond a simple notice to Nick to try and moderate himself a little more.

I'm going to ask for all sides on this to back off for a period of 48 hours from now to cool off. The Wiki will not collapse if this issue is not handled immediately, and people are all acting far too rashly. --Barberio 22:09, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Outside view by Sugaar

I'm most concerned about use of indefinte block on a matter of a disputed username. I am also most concerned about blocking threats by sysops and block exerted by sysops being parties in a dispute. In general I'm against blocks unless absolutely unavoidable and that's what policies state and what sysops should abide by. Yet blocks are used too often in unclear cases, creating more confusion and anger than anything else.

I am most concerned also that resources as this RfC and ArbCom are just plainly useless because the unspoken "de facto" policy is that nearly anything and administrator does is accepted and even defended against all evidence by a most worrying Wiki-estabilishment of sysops. No cabals here: just bureaucracy mentality and oblivion of the consensual and grassroots fundamentals of Wikipedia.

I believe that assume good faith should be applied specially towards contributors and not specially towards administrators, who should be more accountable than anyone else (and they aren't).

If there was a problem with a username, it should have been solved via RfC. I'm not going to give opinion on deletions agains supermajority, because I have not followed the cases, but it's clear that administrators must obey and not command the community. When administrators become bosses, we have lost all perspective and we are dooming Wikipedia. This may not be apparent yet... but it will in few years unless we start acting now and restoring the grassroots fundational values of Wikipedia. Wikipedia may need administrators but definitively it needs valuable contributors who feel they are respected and not bullied by unconsiderate power-greed admins. --Sugaar 09:25, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I take it that your comments are directed in general and not at me? — Nearly Headless Nick 09:36, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
I think Sugaar is still worrying about a short block months ago which has been endorsed by dozens of admins and a request to have developers remove it from his history rejected by ArbCom. The phrase "get over it" sums up community reaction pretty well. I don't think the point is relevant here. Guy (Help!) 10:52, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
I find that to be an utterly unconvincing ad hominem argument, which in no way undercuts what Sugaar had to say. (It's sort of like saying, "Guy's rampant, escalating incivility was recently discussed ad nasuem on ANI, and although Durova thought he should be blocked, his friends agreed that it was ok for him to tell people to "fuck off," etc., because he was under stress. Therefore, pretty much everything Guy said anywhere the first week of January should be disregarded, because he was clearly just in a bad mood, and felt he had a free pass to vent all over the place/be as rude as he felt like being to anyone and everyone about everything." )

Cindery 00:17, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Durova blows the referee whistle

This section is way off track. Sugaar hasn't mentioned his block here - he raises a legitimate topical issue. If someone feels like raising my name at another admin's RfC I'd appreciate a few words to that effect at my user talk page so that I can comment. Any connection between this situation and my warning to JzG is very tenuous. As I comment above, I stand by Nick's action on this point. I issued a similar indef block myself although ultimately the basis I chose was that it was a disruptive attack account. If we ignore the username here and look at the account history, everything else validates Nick's action. I'd share Sugaar's concerns if this looked like a productive (or at least reformable) editor. DurovaCharge 18:32, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] OK, so this is what it comes down to

Distilling out the "oh yes it is" / "oh no it isn't", and the occasional legitimate philosophical differences which do not appear to be specific to Nick, such as YouTube links, what we are left with is this: Nick blocked Malber and admits he should not have. He apologised, but some people don't think that was enough. Nor was Malber's conduct beforehand precisely a shining example.

What issues remain to be resolved in respect of this incident? Guy (Help!) 11:17, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Nick never apologized for the block, he apologized the the admin who unblocked. But as I've stated before, I don't really care about that, and even disregarding the YouTube links issue you know this is not all about blocks. Even if you think any of the AfDs were closed per policy, the consensus should have been considered, and admonishments to improve the articles should have been given. Closing as "No consensus" would have been the least disruptive action to take.
Have you nothing to say about his incivility? Regardless of what you think about my behavior, even you as his most voiciferous defender can't claim that he has behaved better than, say, Tony Sidaway. And that RfC was entirely about civility. You say that AfD is not a vote, and yet you judge the merits of this RfC on the basis of how many friends Nick has had come to defend him. You characterize this as an attack coming directly from me, yet more than five other editors have certified the complaint. Most of the evidence was not collected by me, I just presented it. Now Nick is threatening a retaliatory RfC against me. I used to admire you as one of the fairer admins. Based on you're onesided and unyielding support of Nick I'll have to reasses that opinion. —Malber (talk • contribs) 13:47, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
You're just not willing to give up your grudge are you? Your behavior has been at least as bad as his. He needs to reduce the sarcasm and biting tone, and you need to improve your civility too. You should both get over it, and learn to be polite even if someone else isn't. The way this RFC has gone I should think it would be blatantly obvious it's not worth spending more time on, and people should get back to articles. Those are the only reason we are here. - Taxman Talk 20:02, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
I would love to let it go and get back to editing. But with Nick threatening a retaliatory RfC that I'll be compelled to respond to, can I? —Malber (talk • contribs) 21:27, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Easy. You simply drop it. Don't make any more comments, no matter what, and everyone agrees to take the good advice to heart and go on editing and improving articles. If you do that, I'm asking him to do that same thing. If you both do, there's no need for wasting time on another one. You're both good enough editors and otherwise reasonable enough that if you drop this issue and work to improve so you avoid similar in the future, you'll be ok. - Taxman Talk 23:53, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, "An RfC may bring close scrutiny on all involved editors." It's an occupational hazard of filing a user- or admin-conduct RfC. By filing the RfC and bringing an intense level of community scrutiny to Nick's actions, you took a calculated risk that your own "prior mistakes and bad decisions" might be subjected to the same treatment. MastCell 21:54, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

That wouldn't be a retaliatory RfC. Malber's case is of some complex civility issues and WP:POINT, which have been taken too far and for a long time. It is time, the community decides. — Nearly Headless Nick 09:52, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Wowowow, didn't behave any better than Tony Sidaway, eh? For your information, Tony Sidaway is worth more than ten of you on Wikipedia. For one, he did not have a consistent habit of making WP:POINTs. His incivility was rather unfortunate, but I cannot be compared with him. I have not even done half of what he did (and perhaps does) here. After 37347 edits and 26 months well-spent nurturing this encyclopedia; this is insolence at best. — Nearly Headless Nick 10:33, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Outside view by Werdna

This RfC is not on one specific dispute, rather an attempt by Malber to find as much dirt as possible on Sir Nick. Obviously, he's found quite a bit - but each individual issue needs to be brought up separately, rather than as a lump sum character assassination.

Addendum: Malber has called this an "oversimplification" — which it is. I'm not going into the details of the actual content here, simply making my opinion on the manner in which it has been presented known.

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. — Werdna talk 11:59, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
  2. --Barberio 12:13, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
  3. Although I think that some others need to look at their motivations as well. --Spartaz 12:17, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
  4. Terence Ong 13:50, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
  5. – Chacor 10:07, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

User who mostly agree with the summary:

  1. Although, I don't think he's really found quite a bit. — Nearly Headless Nick 12:41, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Users who endorse that this is unnecessarily rude, although somewhat true:

  1. -Amarkov blahedits 03:25, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Outside view by Tango

Nick has made mistakes, but admins actions don't have to be correct, they just have to be justifiable. Nick's justification for his actions is good enough for me - there are procedures to go through to have admin actions undone, and they don't require any kind of punishment of the admin that made them.

However, Nick has been repeatedly uncivil and needs to stop being so sarcastic in his dealings with users he disagrees with. I don't think it's reached the point of requiring desysopping, but it has reached the point of requiring a very firm warning.

--Tango 15:50, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. Endorse on the incivility issue. Nick needs to also consider civility in closing AfD discussions and weigh apparent community consensus along with policy. —Malber (talk • contribs) 16:22, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
  2. --Barberio 20:05, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
  3. -Amarkov blahedits 03:26, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Users who think this comment is revenge for Nick's unraveling of Tango's abuse of admin powers at Goa Inquisition on WP:ANI

  1. Bakaman 23:36, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Comments

Uncivil? Isn't that something on the lines of WP:KETTLE, when you called MONGO "a fool" yourself – [88]? I never resorted to name-calling, or incivility for that matter. However, I agree I was sarcastic, blunt and discourteous. But WP:COURTEOUS probably does not redirect to WP:CIVIL. Or maybe I am mistaken? Specifically point out the diffs of my "uncivil-ness". — Nearly Headless Nick 09:28, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I said he was making a fool of himself, that's not calling him a fool. There is a difference - primarily, I was critising him actions, not him. Your sarcasm is incivil. --Tango 16:22, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
That's what you think. :) — Nearly Headless Nick 08:52, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Closing

I think everyone has said everything they wanted to say, and this is as resolved as it's going to be. Can we have a general agreement that this issue is closed? --Barberio 22:11, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Agreement to close the issue:

  1. --Barberio 22:11, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
  2. Samir धर्म 22:25, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
  3. Community consensus on the appropriateness (or lack there of) of Nick's various actions is reasonably clear; as it the lack of the need for any formal remedy such as desysoping. Eluchil404 08:13, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
  4. end this bull.Bakaman 23:37, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
  5. If you insist on resolving this, go to ArbCom; we'll accomplish nothing more. -Amarkov blahedits 01:51, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
  6. Enough! Enough! There is no progress being made, with a very few editors insisting on pounding the same points into the ground over and over and over ... If anyone is unhappy that Nick has not been hounded out of WP by this, take it to arbcom, but don't be surprised at the results there, either. -- Donald Albury 03:35, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
    I have been inspired - User:Dalbury/What to do with a dead horse -- Donald Albury 14:26, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
    Nice... already briefly covered under tendentious editing, but probably bears expansion based on events here. MastCell 20:24, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
  7. I agree now. We no longer seem to be discussing anything and there is a clear community consensus that the dead horse has been well and truelly flogged. --Spartaz 06:30, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
  8. Terence Ong 12:58, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
  9. Per Dalbury. KillerChihuahua?!? 13:54, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
  10. Without weighing in on the issues discussed, it seems everyone's arguments have been made, nothing further productive is being accomplished here, and things are degenerating into argumentativeness. MastCell 20:28, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
  11. alphachimp 07:00, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
  12. Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 10:23, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
  13. TheronJ 15:30, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
  14. The point where JzG and I get dragged into debate is the point where this needs to close. DurovaCharge 18:33, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Not in agreement to close the issue:

# Actually, this is just starting to get interesting now that other editors not involved in this dispute are finding time to look in after the holiday period. Why close it when its finally getting a wider view? I also notice the YT debate is also getting extra attention apart from the usual combatants - which is good because it was all getting a little entrenched and stale there. All to the good imho. Everyone who is anti-Nick has had their chance to get lots of kicks in while general attention was on turkey and new year's resolutions. Why close this now that the wider community has time to wade in and add outside perspectives? Spartaz 22:28, 4 January 2007 (UTC) Now endorse closure. --Spartaz 06:30, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

  1. I'm not very familiar with RfCs, but we don't seem to have actually achieved anything, so closing now is giving up on the issue - is that what you intend? --Tango 22:49, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
    There is no enforcement to an RFC, there is no official "end", per se. An RFC ends if there's agreement to end it, really. – Chacor 09:50, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
    We don't need to reach an agreement on any enforceable sanctions, but we should achieve something from this discussion, and I don't think we have. --Tango 16:24, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
    Hmm! The point of an RfC is to offer comments. The participants are then free to make what they will of the comments offered. If the community has a problem with a user as expressed in an RfC, and the user does not modify her/his behavior to address that problem to the satisfaction of the community, then further steps in dispute resolution are available. I guess though that it's not over until everyone gets tired of talking. Dragging out an RfC when most of the community thinks there is mothing more to say is likely to irritate the wider community, however. -- Donald Albury 13:32, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
    So you want to close it because you think it's failed? If that's the case, say so. I can't see that this has achieved anything, and whatever you may say, RfC's are meant to achieve something, otherwise they wouldn't exist. --Tango 14:11, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
    Please read what I wrote again. An RfC cannot come to any binding resolution. It is a discussion. There is no way to impose remedies on anyone. If the participants in an RfC fail to reach a consensus, there are no further steps within the RfC. If some editors are not satisfied with the results of an RfC, they can open a request for arbitration, but arbitration cases, if accepted by the ArbCom, often bite those who file the request. -- Donald Albury 03:32, 8 January 2007 (UTC)