Misplaced Pages

:Requests for comment - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 81.79.249.207 (talk) at 07:49, 24 August 2005 (→[]). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 07:49, 24 August 2005 by 81.79.249.207 (talk) (→[])(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff) Shortcut
  • ]
For general comments and feedback, use Misplaced Pages:Village pump, and choose the proper subsection.

Ultimately, the content of Misplaced Pages is determined by making progress toward a community consensus. However, the size of Misplaced Pages prevents community members from actively following every development. As a result, sometimes it's useful to request broader opinions from the rest of the community.

This page is a way that anyone can request other Wikipedians to help them resolve difficulties and disputes in articles or talk pages. Anyone may visit any of these articles, to help them reach agreement. A good quality RfC can help contributors resolve differences, add different insights, give comments and opinions on how others might see some wording, and so on. When listing a dispute here, you should also place a notice on the appropriate talk page.

It will help the RFC process if everyone who lists something on this page tries to help out at least one other page listed here.

Dispute resolution
(Requests)
Tips
Content disputes
Conduct disputes

Overview

When to use an article RfC

RFC is appropriate when you want other Wikipedians to visit the page, to allow a consensus or a better quality of decision, to help resolve a dispute or break a deadlock.

Before adding an entry here:

  • Whatever the nature of the dispute, the first resort should always be to discuss the problem with the other user. Try to resolve the dispute on your own first.
  • Don't forget to follow Wikiquette. Wikiquette is more important in resolving a dispute, not less.

User conduct RfC

  • For disputes over user conduct, before requesting community comment, at least two people should have contacted the user on their talk page, or the talk pages involved in the dispute, and failed to resolve the problem. Any RfC not accompanied by evidence showing that two users tried and failed to resolve the same dispute will be deleted after 48 hours. The evidence, preferably in the form of diffs, should not simply show the dispute itself, but should show attempts to find a resolution or compromise. The two users certifying the dispute must be the same users who were involved in the attempt to resolve it.
  • Do not fill out an RFC as "step one to arbitration". An RFC by itself is a nonpunitive method of dispute resolution. Use it to resolve your dispute.

Alternatives to RfC

How to use RfC

  • To request other users to comment on an issue, add a link to the Talk page for the article, a brief neutral statement of the issue, and the date.
  • Only with the date, don't list the details, and don't submit arguments or assign blame.
  • On the Talk page of the article, it can help to summarize the dispute.

Responding to RfCs

  • Try not to be confrontational. Be friendly and keep calm.
  • Mediate where possible - identify common ground, attempt to draw editors together rather than push them apart.
  • If necessary, educate users by referring to the appropriate Misplaced Pages policies.

Article content disputes

List links to talk pages where participants cannot reach consensus and are thus stalling progress on the article. Discussions with no recent comments may have dried up, and will be removed.

  1. List newer entries on top.
  2. Link to the Talk page.
  3. Sign entries with the date only. Use five tildes: ~~~~~.

Split by topic area

For greater convenience of users, RFC has been split by topic area. Please go to one of the subpages listed below, or visit Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/All which transcludes all of them. Editors are encouraged to keep the subpage for their area(s) of specialty on their watchlist.

All issues related to a topic area, even if about the article title or inclusion of images, go in the section for that topic area. If you think the current topic areas are confusing or insufficient (or too broad or too narrow), please discuss this at the RFC talk page. If you believe an issue to be miscategorized, please move it to the appropriate section.


Comment about individual users

This section is for discussing specific users who have allegedly violated Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines. In order to request comment about a user, please follow the instructions to create a subpage in the appropriate section below. Disputes over the writing of articles, including disputes over how best to follow the NPOV policy, belong in the Article content disputes section above.

Deleting uncertified user RfCs

Requests for comment which do not meet the minimum requirements after 48 hours from creation are considered "uncertified" and will be de-listed. See Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_comment#User_conduct_RfC for the minimum requirements. The subject RFC page will also be deleted, unless the subject has explicitly requested it to be retained.

Archives

Old discussions are kept in Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/User conduct disputes archive.

General user conduct

Discussions about user conduct should be listed in this section unless the complaint is specifically about the use of admin privileges or the choice of username. To list a user conduct dispute, please create a subpage using the following sample listing as a template (anything within {...} are notes):

  • /Example user - Allegations: {one or two short sentences giving the dry facts} ~~~~~

The boilerplate for the dispute page itself is at /Example user. Candidate pages - still need to meet the two person threshold
List newer entries on top

Approved pages - have met the two person threshold
List newer entries on top

  • Dai Grepher pushing POV, ignoring consensus, vandalizing user pages
  • Bensaccount Defiance of NPOV policy to report views, insisting "Science is not a point of view."
  • /User:Robert McClenon - POV pusher, engages in aggressive personal attacks against others, misuses RfC pages to bully, intimidate and harrass
  • /Erwin Walsh - VfD Trolling, Personal Attacks, Bias, Removes Warnings from own Talk Page. Acetic Acid 05:48, August 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • /24.147.97.230 - Anonymous editor using multiple IP adresses in revert war, incivility, disregard for consensus
  • /Agiantman - Personal attacks, lack of civility, accusations of sockpuppetry, POV pushing with respect to members of the Kennedy family.
  • /NSK Gaming the system, disruption, attempting to promote his http://www.wikinerds.org/ web site under the guise of "contributing" his own, copywrited material and demanding a prominent back link to his web site; plus personal attacks on UninvitedCompany.
  • /Silverhorse - Complete disregard for naming standards of British monarchs; was just anon IP, now has registered and is now moving pages around.
  • /-Ril- - Continued defiance of all editors who try to work with him, engaged in revenge reverts and filing of RfC, disruption and multiple 3RRs, trolling and stolking. --Noitall 09:52, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • /Maoririder - Continued refusal to stop submitting single sentence articles borders on trolling. 18:03, August 9, 2005
  • /12.144.5.2 - Continual defiance of Misplaced Pages style policies bordering on vandalism. 01:21, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
  • / Rainbowwarrior1977 - Engaged in personal attacks, RfA fraud, article vandalism, userpage vandalism, misuse of CSD templates, sockpuppetry, insulting and/or attacking edit summaries, attacks on other users, particularly admins, who correct his actions. 23:33, August 7, 2005
  • /Necromancing - VfDing pages to illustrate a point, uploading copyrighted material then claiming fair use without citing source for verification, does not seem to respond to any communications left on talk page. 03:01, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
  • /ComCat - Bulk VfDs, of which a large percentage are clearly not VfD material.
  • /DotSix - Revert wars, 3RR violations, removing other users' comments, personal attacks. 01:52, July 27, 2005 (UTC)
  • /Famekeeper - Lack of civility, using article talk pages as soapbox to extent of interfering with their use
  • /Boothy443 - Disrupts Misplaced Pages to prove a point that "Admins are evil", and engages in frequent personal attacks, showing a general lack of conduct in the Wiki way. Hedley 14:53, 24 July 2005 (UTC) (RfA started 14:53, 24 July 2005 (UTC)).
  • /Gabrielsimon - revert wars, POV pushing, disregard of policies, accusations of abuse to other editors, undeterred by several blocks due to 3RR violations
  • /Pastorrussell - Claiming ownership of article, POV pushing, 3RR violations in revert war over NPOV banner
  • /Ultramarine - POV warrior, continual reverts and 3RR violations, refusal to work towards any kind of consensus, conflicts with multiple editors, is on a self-proclaimed crusade to purge wikipedia of what he considers improper views
  • /SNIyer1 - POV pushing, constant removal of information, failure to respond or acknowledge requests for dispute resolution, use of sockpuppets, multiple 3RR violations
  • /Germen - Edit warring on Islamophobia, POV pushing, inappropriate behaviour.
  • /Nightscream - POV pushing, Revert-warring, Violation of 3RR, Lack of wikiquette, Not responding to constructive discussion, Ignoring comments.
  • /Striver - POV pushing, severe sectarian bias, incivility
  • /Flowerofchivalry - POV pushing, Revert-warring, Violation of 3RR, Lack of etiquette, Lack of wikiquette, Resorting to personal attacks, Abuse of (nonexistent) power, Not responding to constructive discussion, Ignoring comments and warnings, Utilizing anonymous IP addresses to further revert-war, Inability to procure evidence and support
  • /68.170.0.238 - the "stop drinking soda" vandal, persistent POV edits, numerous warnings, vandalism

Use of administrator privileges

This section is only for discussions specifically related to the use of sysop rights by Misplaced Pages:Administrators. This includes the actions of protecting or unprotecting pages, deleting or undeleting pages, and blocking or unblocking users. If the dispute is over an admin's actions as an editor, it should be listed under the General user conduct section above. To list a dispute, create a subpage using the following sample as a template:

  • /Example admin - Allegations: {one or two short sentences giving the dry facts} ~~~~~

As with disputes over general user conduct, at least two people must certify that they believe there is a legitimate basis for the complaint. If the listing is not certified within 48 hours of listing, it will be deleted.

Candidate pages - still need to meet the two person threshold

Approved pages - have met the two person threshold

List newer entries on top

Choice of username

If you believe someone has chosen an inappropriate username under Misplaced Pages's username policy, you may create a subpage here to discuss whether the user should be forced to change usernames. However, before listing the user here, please first contact the user on his or her talk page and give them an opportunity to change usernames voluntarily.

Tools  : Special:Listusers, Special:Ipblocklist

New listings here, please.

User:Fenian Swine

Even though the User claims to be a Fenian, the name itself is an attack, and should not be allowed. Zoe 23:58, August 20, 2005 (UTC)

Considering the name to be "an attack" is your POV. This is a spurious listing. Have you advised the user of this listing on his talk page Zoe, in accordance with guidance listed above? I didn't think so. Best go do it now so the 'defendant' can be heard. --84.66.120.77 07:23, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
Too late, I've done it for you --84.68.18.21 15:48, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

See also: Comments on WP:AN. --84.68.18.21 15:57, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

I am concerned about this user's behavior. Not only the negative response to several requests to change the name, which does appear inappropriate, but other behaviour as well. He nominated a user with fewer than fifty edits for admin. When I posted a polite question asking why, he gave a short reply, but not in English. This is not from an inability to use English but it appears more a refusal to respond to requests and questions. Jonathunder 16:03, 2005 August 23 (UTC)

He responded in Irish which, though kinda rude when addressed in English, somewhat corresponds to the Fenian image. Dunno why he uses the name myself - it's a bit juvenile - but he probably means no harm. - Pete C 17:34, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
Ok, so I checked what he said here, and it was Tá brón orm faoi seo, which simply means, "I'm sorry about this". Just FYI - Pete C 18:34, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
Thank you for the translation, Pete C. That helps. Jonathunder 19:40, 2005 August 23 (UTC)

Sorry, "get over it" doesn't cut it. Your name is offensive. Change it. Period. Zoe 23:54, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

In other words-administrator abusing power,again.I will not change it.I assume your American.--Fenian Swine 00:03, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

People from more than one nation have advised you to change the name, F.S. Not that one's nationality has any bearing on the matter that I can see. Frankly, I'm not as concerned about your user name as I am about the tone of your responses. Please be polite and assume good faith. You'll be much more likely to get a positive response from others. Jonathunder 00:14, 2005 August 24 (UTC)

I have not been shown respect eg Your name is offensive. Change it. Period. by who else but Zoe.In other words she is unwilling to listen to my argument.Also this argument was started behind my back and I only found out about it through an anonimous user.That shows a huge lack of respest and I'm only willing to show zoe respect when she shoes it to me.signed serious editor --Fenian Swine 00:20, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Can we open a subpage for this argument, please? Some of us have this page watchlisted. Robert McClenon 00:23, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
Fenian Swine doesn't read like an "attack" to me. On the chance that it might be some set-phrase slur, however, I googled it, and it's not. It appears to be an allusion to the movie Michael Collins, in which it was part of a throw-away self-reference, not a term of ethnic abuse. A little context goes a long way. If the same name were adopted by an anti-Irish bigot, of course, the bigotry itself would be grounds for action. Unless there's a blanket policy against irreverence, therefore, the name doesn't seem to rise to the level of offensive. Seems pretty tame actually. In conclusion, I would ban the swine for his semiliterate American-bashing instead. Cheers. Squib 00:30, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

America bashing.I must be missing something huge here.When did I bash america.--Fenian Swine 00:34, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Maybe I misperceived an association between your charge of abuse of power and your connected comment, "I assume your American." (Though I wasn't being entirely serious in any event.) Squib 00:42, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
No I just wanted to see if she was a Fenian or whether she was American.--Fenian Swine 00:57, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
Because after all, there are only two types of people in the word: Fenians and Americans. </sarcasm> Acetic Acid 06:59, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

I see that Zoe has unilaterally blocked this user name. There is no concensus here for that action, nor one at WP:AN. I request, therefore, that A.N.Other admin unblocks this user name until a concensus is reached. --81.79.249.207 07:49, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

User:음낭

This user keeps adding a redirect of 음낭 to Kim Jong-il, who is currently the leader of North Korea. I cannot read Korean, so I can't confirm whether this is a good-faith edit or not, but assuming that it is, we shouldn't allow 음낭 as a username as it is the name of a well-known international statesman, jguk 22:52, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

That says something other than Kim Jong-il ("Um-nang", roughly), so the username itself isn't offensive, AFAIK. – ugen64 06:59, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
Oh, heh, guess my Korean's not quite up to speed... – ugen64 07:08, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
This would be the equivalent of redirecting chimpanzee to George W. Bush. As such, I'd suggest something be done about this guy; he seems to be a vandal. - 206.114.20.121 19:01, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

User:Ombudsman

User:Ombudsman's username seems likely to create the false impression that he or she holds an official or authorized user advocacy role. Ombudsman appears to be disinclined to choose a different username voluntarily. --PHenry 23:47, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Not only is this a relatively obscure term in English, but as well none of the wikipedia "roles" that do exist(aside from bots) involve special usernames. I don't see any problem. siafu 00:05, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
7.8 million hits on Google isn't really what I would call "obscure." --PHenry
It's only obscure if you've never studied any sort of economics or business studies. Alphax  09:28, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
or read a newspaper. Or watched a news bulletin. Or read the internet. I agree. The name should not be used. It carries a meaning that may mislead members as to his status here. FearÉIREANN\ 23:39, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
"obscure"? Hardly. The argument that no confusion is possible because Misplaced Pages roles aren't indicated by usernames also falls a little short; if this argument held water we wouldn't instruct people not to take usernames like User:Administrator and User:recent changes, because experienced Misplaced Pages users would realize that those aren't roles performed under those usernames. The salient point, however, is not whom it doesn't mislead, but whom it does. I've been one of several editors to communicate my concern to Ombudsman over his choice of username, but he erased my words. -- Antaeus Feldspar
Rather than refer to what "could" happen, I'd invite you or anyone to present a user who has been genuinely confused by this username. It's not offensive, was by all appearances chosen in good faith with no intent to deceive, and is at worst only marginally misleading. Misplaced Pages does not have an ombudsman, and I feel confident it never will. Would you be satisfied if, perhaps, he placed a disclaimer on his userpage? I'm getting the impression, however, that the contention here has more to do with his removing comments from his talk page than anything else. siafu 23:50, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
Did we wait until someone was confused by User:Administrator to say "Don't pick a username like User:Administrator"? The answer is no. -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:44, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
That would probably be because on Misplaced Pages:Username it states "Do not choose names such as recent changes, Administrator, or any other part of the interface or commonly used terms on Misplaced Pages." Since it doesn't say "Do not choose a name that's a position title out in the real world that wikipedia does not and will never have", or anything that would indicate that "Ombudsman" is an improper username, I would expect there to be a much more compelling reason to object to this username, much less object as strenuously as you have. siafu 02:18, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
One might begin to wonder what is motivating you to turn such a vehemently blind eye to the concerns that have been raised here. Yes, experienced Misplaced Pages users will be fairly well aware that a) even though an ombudsman is a very common thing for a journalistic or otherwise information-distributing organization to have, Misplaced Pages is probably not one of them, and b) even if it was, Misplaced Pages does not make a practice of identifying the roles that users serve via their usernames, and hence an actual Misplaced Pages ombudsman would probably not be named User:Ombudsman. Now all we have to do is wait until experienced Misplaced Pages users are the only Misplaced Pages users there are, and there won't be any problem. -- Antaeus Feldspar 03:45, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
The reason I'm not giving credence to these concerns is because as far as I can tell, there are no real concerns. Certainly, somebody could confuse his username for an actual function, but somebody could confuse something like User:Emperor, or User:Boatswain, or even User:Curator, but it's not very likely at all. This is a request for comment; my comment is, and has been, that there doesn't seem to be any issue here-- the likelihood of anyone confusing User:Ombudsman for an actual wikipedia ombudsman is quite slim; this isn't like User:Administrator where it's the name of a common wikipedia term and actual wikipedia position. As you said above, it's an issue of whom it does mislead-- the answer is apparently no one. Furthermore, if you're in favor of forcing this user to change his or her username, you need to make it clear why that's necessary; since there's nothing in policy that indicates it would be a problem and the chance of it being confusing is still nebulous at best, there's nothing to to turn a seeing eye to. There have also been a couple of irrelevant arguments raised here against User:Ombudsman, included his being "disinclined" to change his name (why shouldn't he be?) and that he deleted comments made on his user talk page, which belongs in a different section having nothing to do with usernames. So, in short, what is the big deal with the username, the deal that's demonstrably serious enough to warrant changing it? It's not offensive, it was created in good faith, it doesn't go against any other policies regarding usernames, and it's not likely to confuse anyone. siafu 04:39, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
I thought it important to note that I had corresponded with Ombudsman about the possibility of changing his/her username before posting about it here, as we are encouraged to do as standard practice, and that s/he was not receptive to the idea. In what way is this "irrelevant"?
If one views Misplaced Pages as akin to a publication--hardly an unreasonable perception--one would not expect it to have authorized emperors or boatswains or curators (though in the case of Misplaced Pages a curator wouldn't be beyond imagining), but a new user might well expect it to have one or more authorized ombudsmen. And in fact Misplaced Pages does have members' advocates, who act much like ombudsmen (though I think a members' advocate is more like a cross between an ombudsman and a barrister, or something like that).
Ombudsman is not a member of either the Association of Members' Advocates or the Mediation Committee--although I note that s/he does include the same dispute resolution box in a prominent place on his/her user page. Ombudsman has also taken to posting welcome messages on new users' Talk pages , though s/he is neither an administrator nor a member of the Welcoming Committee. Whether Ombudsman is taking these actions out of an intent to deceive or a good-faith desire to be helpful, I believe they help create a nontrivial potential for confusion. --PHenry 19:02, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
I'm not all that new a Misplaced Pages user, and if I saw a post from someone named Ombudsman I would assume that this was an official position, not a username. While I tend to question everything and would probably research such a person's position and power, many others do not. And no, the term is not obscure. It's commonly used by companies, government agencies, and charities. In fact, when I first glanced over this entry, on my way elsewhere, I first thought it referred to a problem with a Misplaced Pages official role, not a username dispute. Emperor, Curator, or Boatswain are not titles which a reasonable person would expect to find associated with Misplaced Pages (except, maybe, Curator); Ombudsman certainly is.
Further, there's the question of why someone would choose such a username? The only purpose that can be inferred, especially in connection with the "welcome" messages being posted, is an attempt at posing as an official. Trying to disguise oneself as an official of any type is rarely looked on with any favor by any community. In real world communities, it's generally a crime to impersonate someone such as a police officer, even if there are ways to distinguish you from the real thing, like a badge that says "Captain Crunch" on it. The same factors that operate in the physical world, such as the abuse of assumed authority or the breakdown of genuine authority, are just as important, if not more important, online where we live by trust. Worldwalker 20:53, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

I for one think there's a real problem with this username. The Boston Globe has an ombudsman, and you contact the ombudsman at ombud@globe.com, i.e. this is a precise analogy where the username indicates the official position.

Ombudsman is a perfectly ordinary English word. AHD4 defines it:

1. A man who investigates complaints and mediates fair settlements, especially between aggrieved parties such as consumers or students and an institution or organization; 2. A government official, especially in Scandinavian countries, who investigates citizens' complaints against the government or its functionaries.

If I got a message from someone whose username was "ombudsman" I very well might think it was from the organization's official ombudsman. Just like sales@whatever.com or info@whatever.com or support@whatever.com, it sounds like it is denoting an organizational function, not a personal identity. Dpbsmith (talk) 20:30, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

I believe Dpbsmith has given the most concise explanation of why the name should be changed. Now, I don't think it matters whether the name was deliberately misleading or not. As the rationale for the prohibition of certain names states, "This might include legitimate names and long-established internet pseudonyms that can be misconstrued." As I see it, that means this name, since it can be misconstrued. Although just a little tweaking would be sufficient to fix it, I'd say. Maybe add some heavy metal umlauts and make it User:Ømbüdsmän? The Literate Engineer 06:48, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

I was one that assumed User:Ombudsman had an official role in wiki. He even encouraged this confusion by prominently placing a box of links on his user page for Wiki Dispute Resolution. It wasn't until I read his bizarre edits on pyschiatric treatment (he is aligned with Tom Cruise on that issue) that I figured something was up. Just as names like User:Administrator should not be permitted, User:Ombudsman should not be permitted. --Agiantman 20:21, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
I also agree with those who find this choice of name deceptive. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 21:32, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

I admit to not reading well, most of this. Let me try tob reak this down into its important elements as I see them.

  1. Has anyone been decieved by Ombudsman's user name?
  2. Has Ombudsman deliberatly attempted (succeding or not) to decieve anyone with his/her user name?
  3. Is anyone likley to, in the future be decieved by Ombudsman's user name?

--Tznkai

That would be yes, irrelevant and yes. (Comment: for the future, four tildes (~~~~) would auto sign and date your entry). ←Humus sapiens←ну? 02:36, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

We don't allow m:Role accounts. The name should go. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 03:54, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

  • I have requested that he changes his name. He looks like a good contributor so I hope he won't mind. Radiant_>|< 14:58, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

Another name for Ombudsman is Mediator or adjudicator, and Misplaced Pages does have mediators, so the name may be confusing for newbies to the site. The term is not that obscure, many Universities and Government departments have officials called Ombudsmen: I haven't looked over whether not Misplaced Pages has an article on Ombudsman yet, but if that article puts forward that Ombudsmen are authorities or official roles, then I think we should assume it would be confusing for a user to have the name. --Mysidia (talk) 02:24, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

  • slaps forehead and hits head on table* I can't believe this is up here... — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 14:09, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
    • So much for freedom of expression and freedom of speech... I can't belive people are actually discussing this. This reminds me of a time when I chose ComradeFidel as my screenname in AOL back in 2000 and they deleted it without any explanation. I tried corresponding with them, but received no reply. Sense of humor has to be taken into consideration, when people try to strip somebody of their username. KNewman 17:48, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
      • Fortunately, I've never had the problem, as my name is a combination of parts of my full name. However, I don't see what's wrong with having a username for a function that will never be performed (as stated above). — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 03:20, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
        • Well, the point seems to be moot since the guy hasn't logged in for over a week. I personally don't see it as much as a problem (if I had, I would have done a {{usernameblock}}), however given the sheer amount of comment this got, I thought it was best to politely ask the ombudsman to reconsider. Radiant_>|< 07:32, August 24, 2005 (UTC)
 Categories: