Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:18, 29 November 2010

Image:Josiascunningham 150.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Josiascunningham 150.jpg, has been listed at Misplaced Pages:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Damiens.rf 15:49, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:King leka.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:King leka.jpg. You've indicated that the image is being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why it meets Misplaced Pages's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for each article the image is used in.
• That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Misplaced Pages:Media copyright questions. --FairuseBot (talk) 05:39, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Disputed non-free use rationale for Image:Geraldinealbania.jpg

Thank you for uploading Image:Geraldinealbania.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image on Misplaced Pages may not meet the criteria required by Misplaced Pages:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Misplaced Pages:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Misplaced Pages policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 21:57, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Prince LekaII.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Prince LekaII.jpg. You've indicated that the image is being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why it meets Misplaced Pages's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for each article the image is used in.
• That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Misplaced Pages:Media copyright questions. --FairuseBot (talk) 02:10, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:3rd Lord Lurgan.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:3rd Lord Lurgan.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Misplaced Pages constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Misplaced Pages page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:42, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (File:Rockport school.gif)

You've uploaded File:Rockport school.gif, and indicated that it's used under Misplaced Pages's rules for non-free images. However, it's not presently used in any articles. Misplaced Pages policy requires that non-free images be either used or deleted, so if this image isn't used in an article in the next week, it will be deleted.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Misplaced Pages:Media copyright questions. 13:45, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Alan Clark.jpg)

Thanks for uploading File:Alan Clark.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Misplaced Pages under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Misplaced Pages. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Misplaced Pages (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Misplaced Pages page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:34, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Lady Brookeborough.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Lady Brookeborough.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Misplaced Pages under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Misplaced Pages. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Misplaced Pages (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Misplaced Pages page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. SchuminWeb (Talk) 00:41, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Unblock

Counter-revolutionary (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Notes:

• In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
• Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=Reasons: Abusing multiple accounts denied; threatening behaviour denied (and unlikely givern editor's editing patterns); the block was not appropriate in the first place, was excessive and is not in any event any longer serving a purpose; natural justice; time served |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=Reasons: Abusing multiple accounts denied; threatening behaviour denied (and unlikely givern editor's editing patterns); the block was not appropriate in the first place, was excessive and is not in any event any longer serving a purpose; natural justice; time served |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=Reasons: Abusing multiple accounts denied; threatening behaviour denied (and unlikely givern editor's editing patterns); the block was not appropriate in the first place, was excessive and is not in any event any longer serving a purpose; natural justice; time served |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

I'm confused, User:Kittybrewster. This block is more than two years old- has this user contacted you to request unblock? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 01:54, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes. Kittybrewster ☎ 02:02, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Can we hear this from Counter-revolutionary? Perhaps in conjunction with a rebuttal, rather than just a denial, of the allegations? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:16, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

How does he rebut it? What can he do? Kittybrewster ☎ 02:25, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Speaking for himself would be a start, followed by some attempt to counter whatever evidence was used to impose the block. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:31, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

He can't counter checkuser "likely" with evidence. He is not a computer geek and doesnt know how ip addresses work. He has said (above)

* I thought I best give you my side. The accusations against me have come as a complete, and unwelcome, surprise. When the Sussexman/Lauder case arose it was noted I edited other accounts, non-abusively, and was asked to stop this as a condition of my continuing to edit; I complied with this (as could be seen by a checkuser). Those accounts have since not been used in any way, nor have I edited any other account.

One must ask several questions: 1. Why would I choose the name User:Nick_Corsellis_QC? 2. Why would I risk such trolling knowing full well it could be discovered? 3. When have I ever in the past used crude language, swear words, etc (something I detest) such as "F**k you" and "Me gonna stab you"!? 4. What grudge would I hold against Alison and the other user to make such comments? Further to this I have never even heard of User:Centrx. 5. Take a look at User:Giano II's post concerning User:Nick_Crosellis_QC on User:Alison's page. He says he "knows" who the account belongs to, certainly a bold claim for an account with 2 edits. User: Giano II then demands a checkuser, which draws the conclusion that its a "generic British Telecom IP address with no other users on it." I'll be the first one to admit about knowing nothing about IP addresses but I wonder how the checkuser has reached the conclusions it did, given there were "no other users on it." Clearly, however, it has reached this conclusion. This leads me to one of several conclusions; 1. the checkuser system is entirely flawed, 2. the checkusers have "set me up" (I think this is most doubtful and do not advance it as a serious proposal), 3. some other editor(s) have "set me up", I don't know how, but it seems to me a plausible explanation if at all possible. Finally, on the charges against me it is said: * supported by the technical evidence, similarity in your areas of editing and past conduct, and by the timing of your edits and those that account. Given your previous blocks for sockpuppetry and harassing behaviour * To this my reply is: * Similarity of areas of editing: there is similarity of only one edit (out of two), User:Alison's talk page, on which I have never been abusive. * Past conduct? I have never used such crude and abusive language on the WP. * The timing? From what I can see the timing is within an hour of my edits, not a few seconds.

I assure you that this account has nothing to do with me.

Is more needed? What? Why?

• Admins - let's not decline this too quickly, please? I'd like to address this in depth, myself. I have a lot of technical data from when the Lauder checkuser was run & I know exactly what part Counter-rev played in all that. However, I've never yet heard from C-R on how he could explain certain matters. On the Corsellis issue above, my leaning may be somewhat towards option 3. - I've seen it happen before & it's really not C-R's style - but right now, my main concern lies with what happened over the Lauder incident and how a significant number of accounts all voted from the same IP to attempt to bring down Giano's ArbCom attempt, back in the day. On the whole, I'm not opposed to unblock - not at all - but there are unanswered questions. I'd also like to hear from User:WJBScribe, the blocking admin. It's been over two years ago now ....

• Link to CU discussion from my talk page

- Alison 07:06, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

• I've been in contact via e-mail with User:Carcharoth regarding the unblock, I understood he was liaising with the relevant committee. In the wake of the Lauder/Sussexman debacle, it was decided I could continue to edit. From what I can remember, I was blocked following a comment made on Alison's page, which was somehow attributed to me. I did not write this and have no idea about the circumstances in which it was written; it it wholly unconnected to me, Given that years have now passed, I'd be grateful if I could edit once more. Thanks. --Counter-revolutionary (talk) 08:33, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Can I just also point out that, to my knowledge, C-R has never actually been formally banned from WP, and that a block, though indefinite, does not necessarily imply infinite - Alison 09:28, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Alison, as I understand it the Sussexman/Lauder issue was dealt with previously and the result was that I was allowed to continue editing. As I see it, I was blocked solely on the basis of the remark made on your user page by Corsellis. This was not me. Counter-revolutionary (talk) 10:28, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Okay, if ArbCom clarify that with you (FloNight should certainly know, as will Fozzie) then that's great. I know you had been editing since the Lauder debacle, then the Corsellis edits occurred. If we're just down to the Corsellis edits, given that over two years have elapsed, I'm sure something can be sorted. Don't want to pre-emp ArbCom or anything, but .... - Alison 11:03, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

A return of this editor would not be condusive to the well being of the project.  Giacomo  11:32, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

I have absolutely no insight into the Lauder/Sussexman debacle, or the technical evidence, but I would support the argument that it is extremely illogical, from a behavioural point of view, that Counter-revolutionary would be responsible for the renamed user edits. If these are the only basis for the continuing block then I would support a, perhaps conditional, unblock. If there are other confounding issues relating to Lauder/Sussexman sockpuppetry, I would suggest an appeal to ArbCom. Rockpocket 13:23, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Really bad call as far as I'm concerned. --Domer48_'fenian' 14:08, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

I acknowledge all of that, Dormer48, but the block was for an unrelated incident, which I deny. --Counter-revolutionary (talk) 14:11, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

"Considering the level of abuse here, including canvassing, logged out editing, and legal threats, I see no reason to be coy about accounts that currently appear to be well-behaved but are obviously the same individual. Thatcher 12:11, 18 February 2008 (UTC)" The CU came back as:

 Confirmed

1. Sussexman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
2. Chelsea Tory (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
3. David Lauder (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
4. Counter-revolutionary (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
5. Christchurch (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
6. Immanuel can't (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

What more could I add. --Domer48_'fenian' 14:17, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

You're correct, you cannot add anything. This is all widely know, agreed and acknowledged; the action taken on foot of this was, however, that I could continue to edit. I was blocked for an unrelated incident. Counter-revolutionary (talk) 14:19, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Your conduct which preceded the block, justified it. Your previous conduct, "Considering the level of abuse" and the reason for your block cannot be considered to be an "unrelated incident."--Domer48_'fenian' 15:01, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

No. Those accounts are three people, Domer. 1. Sussexman 2 CounterRev 3 The rest. 2 years + have now passed. Kittybrewster ☎ 15:19, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Not according to Thatcher. --Domer48_'fenian' 15:23, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Thia account most certainly should not be unblocked. GoodDay (talk) 15:47, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Kittybrewster is saying CR isn't Sussexman, perhaps they could explain this ? Specifically the post by Alison at 20:52, 9 July 2008 where she states the the unblock request from Sussexman came from the exact same IP address and the exact same computer as an edit by CR 7 minutes later, and that is just "one tiny example" and there are "many, many more". Another issue needing explanation is FloNight's post at 21:08, 9 July 2008 saying "The independent checkuser that I did in April showed similar patterns to the one Alison describes. Another arbitrator reviewed account contributions on specific dates and saw obvious links WITHOUT checkuser evidence. These accounts have been looked at independently repeatedly and every time the same conclusion, these accounts are linked and have been used abusively. With each review the evidence of a link gets stronger" --Domer48_'fenian' 16:22, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

The explanation is that sussexman and counter both gave their passwords to David Lauder. The point is 1 this was over two years ago and 2 that Alison recognises that the abuse by Counter rev was minimal. Kittybrewster ☎ 16:36, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Sock puppetry was committed & that's unacceptable. It's very difficult to AGF in such situations. GoodDay (talk) 16:39, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Suck it and see. AGF. Kittybrewster ☎ 16:44, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Good day, Good Day and welcome to the fray! I understand your concern regarding the multiple accounts, etc. however, following the discovery of this I was not blocked - it was decided that I could continue editing (whereas David Lauder, etc. were blocked). I continued editing until a user made some rude comments on Alison's page. Somehow, it was concluded that this was me. It was not. In any event, it has been two years since this event. Counter-revolutionary (talk) 16:47, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Having the same IP, rather clarifies who's who. GoodDay (talk) 16:49, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

So does having a different IP on 99.9% of occasions. Kittybrewster ☎ 17:01, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

My advice (though not good advice) to the individual using this indef-blocked account, is to evade the block with a new account (but only 1 new account) & dissassociate him/herself from his/herself's Wiki past. GoodDay (talk) 17:08, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

I really do not know if an unblock here is appropriate; I would be happy to accept Alison's advice either way, were she to give it. I would point out, as you may well know, that creating a new account may well be defined as block evasion, which would be seriously counter-productive if discovered.--Anthony Bradbury 17:56, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Like I said, my advice on this, isn't the best to follow. GoodDay (talk) 18:09, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

For my part, I do think that a natural justice appeal is worthy of consideration. After two years what is being achieved by continuing the block? It is also with asking, if this guy is a serial and disruptive sock-puppeteer, why is he not just setting up a new account and being disruptive? Anyway, give the guy a break and see what happens. Also, C-R, drop me an email, been a long time.Traditional unionist (talk) 21:06, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

A good question, and perhaps I might pose it differently. Why not start up a new account, disassociate from the negative elements tainting this one, and edit constructively? I can think of only one good reason, that is if the editor intends to contribute in the same area's and the same manner as this one and does not wish to have claims of sock/meatpuppetry made when the two are linked. This would be legitimate, except that there are elements of partisanship and disruptive behaviour in this editing area. This is clearly evidenced by the editors, generally, commentating here for anyone with even a passing knowledge of these issues. Personally, I cannot see how the area might be improved by the return of this editor. I oppose an unblock. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:46, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, part of the reason there may be opposing editors stacking up here is that very reason of editing in a contentious area. It's not so much 'disruptive editing' as 'having the wrong POV'. Jes' sayin' .. - Alison 23:58, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

The person behind the account-in-question, was dishonest with the community, by not admitting he/she had multiple accounts. He/she gets a thumbs down from me. GoodDay (talk) 06:07, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I do not deny I used multiple accounts. I deny I wrote the comment in question on Alison's page. I'm happy to use a new account, but would wish to make edits to areas which I edited in the past, albeit to a lesser extent. Counter-revolutionary (talk) 08:22, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

At the time, when you used them, you didn't make it known. GoodDay (talk) 16:35, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Despite Alison's suggestion of bad faith on editors reasons for commenting here, the fact remains and she ignores is that this editor is a confirmed sock abusing and disruptive editor. That Kittybrewster offers a ridiculous explanation for the socking, and CR feels that the block was uncalled for shows a level of disassociation from realty that is astounding. --Domer48_'fenian' 17:07, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

In the aftermath of the sock-puppeteering I was allowed to continue editing. The block was due to a one comment made on Alison's page. I have attempted to assure you that this was not made by me; Alison seems to be of this opinion herself. In any event, this occurred two years ago. Surely one should be able to return to Misplaced Pages and continue editing during good behaviour. I would imagine this would be preferable to, as you've suggested, starting a new account and evading the block. Counter-revolutionary (talk) 17:20, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

After over six years in dealing with Troubles issues on here, Domer, WP:AGF can only take you so far :/ - Alison 18:06, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Ok, to clarify further; C-R was proven to have colluded with David Lauder and co., about two years ago. While technically not a 'sock', per se, he gave access to his account to the LauderHorde and they used it to try to sink Giano's ArbCom bid. That much has been established, C-R has already copped to it and ArbCom are fully aware of it. Subsequent to this, C-R was allowed to go back to editing and that was that. It was a pretty heinous thing to do & nobody denies that. I'm sure C-R even sees this now.

However, that's done and dusted. This block relates to an account that made a total of two edits ever. The main issue re. this account was not the edits, but its original name in which it abused the name of a prominent barrister. I think even you'll agree, Domer, that the edits made were so out of character for C-R as to cast serious doubt on the claim that it was him. Frankly, and I've said this already, it looks like a classic Joe job or setup. Even that notwithstanding, two and a half years for a block is more than enough, IMO - Alison 18:03, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I will oppose the unblocking of this account. If the community 'however' decides to allow its unblocking, then so be it. I recommend that a proposal of 'unblocking' be put to the community. GoodDay (talk) 18:16, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

• Requests for unblock