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

message: We need to bring this in focus. One of the requirements is that we show that an attempt was made by more than one user to resolve the dispute. Because the abuse is so wide ranging this may be difficult. I made one attempt to reason with Mimsy on his AfD actions which he then threatened me with a block. I think I can take other diffs where other users requested a rationalization for a deletion against consensus and was rebuffed with "Take it to DRV." We'll need two diffs for attempts to resolve the Kundun username dispute. I can provide diffs where attempts were made to smoothy resolve my block dispute and Mimsy displayed an attitude that a further punitive block was needed due to my prior bad acts. We need to focus this in an provide better diffs for unsuccessful dispute resolution or this will never get off the ground. —Malber (talk • contribs) 13:16, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's patently untrue. This shows that you have little or no idea what you are talking about. "Rollback" is simply an automated reversion. It removes nothing from the history. If he had gone to the trouble to delete his talk page and remove certain revisions from it you would see evidence of that in the admin logs. You don't. Please stop making flagrantly inaccurate claims to back up your position of attack.—WAvegetarian•(talk) 23:44, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course it's probably futile since Nick is simply making all of India admins to meat-puppet support, right?—WAvegetarian•(talk) 01:55, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Infact it was nock who got some Indian users baned on WP:RFArb.Bakaman 23:39, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Focus 

message: Nowhere in the description of the issue states that AfD is a vote. The term "consensus" is consistently used. —Malber (talk • contribs) 13:22, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Outside view by Samuel Blanning 

message: Kund(t)an is a common north Indian name.
Kuntan has a notorious meaning in Kerala
The two words are quite different, putting a hole in Malber's argument. Also, swear words in Malayali can have a different meaning in Hindi/Punjabi. The Indian "kuntan"s Malber has cited are all North Indian and none are Malayali. Perhaps we should consult  or  as to the local norms in KeralaBakaman 04:46, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I find it exponentially more important that the user in question created a page explaining that their username meant something offensive. Obviously it's not that they were innocently blocked, unaware that their is had an offensive meaning. -Amarkov blahedits 05:27, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If I may interject, I find the reference to a town in Malaysia totally spurious in this argument.  Although the languages of Southeast Asia and India are not completely unrelated, the language of Malaysia differs significantly from Malayalam, the language of Kerala.  There is a temptation to believe that some editors might be confused by the similarities of the name Malayalam and the country Malaysia, thinking the languages must also be similar.  --BostonMA talk 20:32, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: kundan/kuntan

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

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

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

message: :On Tintin's "I have explained it to Malber and Jordan two or three times now and they never replied to that. I can't be bothered again." Tell the whole truth, Tintin: you posted to the RFC/NAME about Kuntan, and 51 minutes later (before I could even read your comment) Samir deleted the entire RFC so that no-one could comment any more. I asked him to let the RFC and its discussion resume, and he refused, deleting even the link I'd posted to the history copy. Complain to Samir that you want replies re-enabled. – SAJordan talkcontribs 07:37, 30 Dec 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[User:Tintin1107|Tintin]]

message: Since when did RfC have enforced resolutions? -Amarkov blahedits 17:05, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesn't and (on reflection) I guess we should avoid seeking quasi-arbitration solutions to this. As it is, I guess this RFC is dying on its feet. --Spartaz 20:10, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A request for comment is nothing more then a "Request for comment" and it's scope is basically limited to "comments" and "requests for."  But... people can offer non-binding recommendations. ---J.S  (T/C) 16:19, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Resolution? 

message: Header says it all. Please object below and I'll not do it. --Spartaz 21:51, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: CommentHmm Account created today and only activity is to join a wikiproject and object to delinking this? However, its an objection and probably from a pre-existing user, so I will not delink as yet. --Spartaz 11:16, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Go ahead anyway - the purpose of an RfC is to encourage a user to improve, not to gain leverage regarding past actions. Addhoc 11:05, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Delink, it appears clear that this RfC has no merit, and it's just being used as a tool for Cindery to continue her disruption. -- Samir धर्म 03:35, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm gonna give it another 24 hours and delink if there are no further objections. We really do seem done here. --Spartaz 21:44, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Any Objection to my delinking this from the RFC page? It seems to have passed its sell by date.