User talk:Fr33kman/Archive 4

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

The following archive is the discussion of a dispute related to the placement of a logo on the page Otago NORML between two editors XLerate and 139.80.33.95 (possibly, but not certainly; User:Otepoti history) with myself (fr33k man -s-) as mediator. It is the second such dispute, with myself mediating both, and arose because the Otago NORML student organization at the University of Otago in New Zealand has two color schemes for the logo; one is blue/green and is on their main website and the other is blue/gold and is listed as their official logo here. The dispute has been about which logo to employ in the article. The first discussion is located at Talk:Otago NORML and was resolved in favour of the blue/gold logo. This discussion is archived as unsolved and preserved intact. fr33k man -s- 19:04, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

malicious changes to a page you provided a third opinion on

Hi There, I saw that you provided a third opinion a while back for the image on the Otago University NORML page, and it appears that the editor you had asked to revert their changes has now come along several months later and made the same changes again, changing the logo for this organisation back to the improper unoffical logo with the wrong colours. I tried to change it back, but either it won't let me or I just can't figure out how. Can you help? 139.80.33.95 (talk) 00:39, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi, i have rollbacked the edit and have also warned the user about their behaviour. Let me know if it continues and I'll take it further. Thanks for you help! fr33k man -s- 02:29, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Thanks for your prompt response. But it seems you have reverted a different change than the one I was referring to. The change I was referring to was the one made by XLerate on the page for http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ounormllogo.png not any change to the Otago University NORML page itself. So the logo still displays just fine, but it is the wrong image as the source file has been changed and I am unable to revert it. I tried to register to be able to revert it, but newly registered users aren't allowed I found out (That was the change by Dunsterdamaged that you reverted). Would you be able to revert the source file for the image to the blue and gold colour scheme as opposed to the green colour scheme, in line with the third opinion you provided on the Otago University NORML talk page? Cheers. 139.80.33.95 (talk) 04:04, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your assistance. Cheers 139.80.33.95 (talk) 04:46, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

These claim of vandalism is false. The main page of the website had the green logo when I made the change, with the comment using the university colours failed WP:V. This needs to be considered in the wider context, which has seen WP:BLP against university staff (diff, diff), and members of NORML arrested and issued trespass notices from the university.[1]. Look to the contribs of 139.80.33.95 and you can see a WP:SPA, that editor also refuses to reveal what associations they have with Otago NORML (WP:COI). I've also pointed out WP:SOAP to the IP, we've seen numerous attempts to put NORML propaganda in the University of Otago article. ~~Feel you're helping the bad guy here.~~ XLerate (talk) 04:49, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Can you provide the official link to the organization? The official logo that we agreed upon before is still up and live. Also, your use of the rollback tool is in violation of the rules for using rollback. Rollback is only to be used against non good-faith edits that are blatent vandalism; it is never to be used to revert decisions you don't agree with or edits that were made in good faith. Rollback is an anti-vandal tool and not an editing tool!! I am still considering whether or not to report you, which will result in the rollback right being removed from you. Please explain! fr33k man -s- 04:53, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

A lot of misunderstanding, I pressed revert with the comment you can see "no evidence university colours are main logo". I understand rollback, different from revert, is only for obvious vandalism, please show one edit diff in violation of rollback use. The vandalism claim is not truthful, the logo on the main page (http://www.otagonorml.com/) was green at the time and it is green again now, after having the white background for a short time today. The white background logo failed WP:V at the time I pressed revert. XLerate (talk) 05:22, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Firstly, pressing revert is using the rollback tool as it is only available to rollbackers, so using it the time you did is a clear violation of the rollback policy. I have asked the organization itself to comment on which is their official logo and I'd suggest that we all take their response (when it comes) as the official line. Obviously, I have no personal vested interest in this subject other than in its damage to Wikipedia. I do suggest that you review the rollback tools usage and fully understand what it does before you use it again. I understand that it can be confusing but the onnus is on you to ensure that you use it correctly. The correct way to have dealt with the situation was to use the "undo" link rather than the "revert" link. Revert uses the rollback tool and it is only for non good-faith edits that are vandalism. fr33k man -s- 05:29, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi there. Can you provide a suggestion for how to mediate this dispute? XLerate has been lurking on any contribution that I make, usually reverting my edits and making non-civil and unsubstantiated accusations (check out edit summaries and talk pages). I am obviously new to Wikipedia and I have so far only added information regarding subjects that I feel like I know a bit about. After Xlerate accused me of being a single purpose account I tried to add info to some other pages, but a lot of the information I know is also known and has been added by other people. It is very disconcerting for me to have my first experiences on Wikipedia be wild accusations and continuous edit wars with what appears to be a fairly senior editor. It is pretty clear to me that XLerate has formed a biased opinion about the subjects which I have contributed to so far, but choses to use aggressive tactics instead of discussion to resolve what is essentially a content dispute. The few times we have had discussion I am usually referred to a page that cites WP guidelines that either don't seem relevant or don't indicate that I have done anything wrong. I have tried to adhere to the rules and spirit of Wikipedia as best I know how, but I am still having continuous conflicts with XLerate. How can this be resolved? Sorry to drag you into this. 139.80.33.95 (talk) 05:31, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Firstly, I'd recommend you create a user account. Although I am one of those people that don't believe that a user must create an account in order to be a valuable asset, it might be a way forward here. If you'd like to you can also take you case to an administrator (I'm not an admin, I do mediation and have admin-tools available to me) and seek their advice on the subject. But serious consideration should be given to creating and using a user account in order to bypass this sort of thing. There does seem to be a subset of users who don't seem to like IP editors; I'm not one and I'm totally against it! Let me know if I can be of assistance! :-) fr33k man -s- 05:37, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I suggest you also contact the proctor, http://www.otago.ac.nz/proctor/, he may be able to give an official answer on the logo topic. XLerate (talk) 05:38, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that suggestion. I've contacted their "contact us" email address in the first instance, but will consider the Proctor if I get no joy. I don't like doing this as it is a technical violation of WP:NOR but there doesn't appear any other way forwards on this one. It's not like a copy of their logo is available in a newspaper or magazine somewhere, or is it? Do you know? fr33k man -s- 05:49, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I think you can see, the police with assistance from the university have arrested and issued trespass notices against NORML members. The Otago NORML article has seen attempts to libel the proctor and others at the university, violating WP:BLP. The copyright on the university logo is with the university, not NORML, I understand legally they can't be too similar, like doppelganger accounts here. XLerate (talk) 06:12, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that we are actually concerned with whether or not this is or is not an official group at the univesity (as far as the logo is concerned), or even if they have or have not trespassed on the university's physical premises. I think we can only concern ourselves with what is this groups stated official logo. I don't think we can even be concerned with whether or not they are in infringement of copyright, but again, only with what is their logo. It does seem likely that the logo has changed colours (I doubt that would satify a judge that they are no longer in violation, if they are, as it is still similar to the lay person), but we still have to remain concerned soley with the logo they are using as their logo. If Wikipedia receives an official request from the university to remove the logo from our website, we would of course deal with that request. In the meantime we are unable to determine whether or not this is the case. fr33k man -s- 06:20, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Ok, the logo argument I make is the university may check the NORML main page for infringements, but may not see other "logos" hidden away on some orphaned page. Therefore the logo to use here is the same that appears on the NORML main page. And it ought to be persistent - today we saw the white logo there for two hours in conjuction with the start of this dialogue, but a short time later was changed back. As I said on my talk page, if the white logo survives for the week on the NORML main page then I don't have an objection to it. XLerate (talk) 06:28, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Frankly, it's not about what you do or do not have an objection to, it about what we can prove that the organization itself is using as its logo. It is not our concern as to whether or not the university may find that other sites have used the lgoo that the group has infringed upon, that is a problem for them and their lawyers. It is the same as if the New York Times looked at this grouop and decided that they'd use the orange logo as they saw the page that the group called the orange logo their official logo. The onus is on the NORML groupat the univeristy and not third-party sites that are merely "quoting" the group. Are you in conflict of interest here; you seem as if you may be? Are you a lawyer for the university? fr33k man -s- 06:34, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi Fr33kman, thanks for the latest comment on my talk page, it's appreciated. Was a little surprised at first but I can see you've been responding in good faith with the information supplied. I strike my earlier "helping" comment, please keep up the good work :-) I've also had my fill for one day, I agree with the topics raised like WP:NOR. XLerate (talk) 08:50, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

New proposal

Gents (I assume you're both male?), I have had a response from Otago NORML confirming that the blue/gold logo is their official logo and the green is just for show. This is still original research and even if it wasn't it is still not a reliable source and so doesn't work for verification. So, we have a problem. I'd suggest scrapping the logo as it doesn't add anything to the article and doesn't aid the reader (who is the only important person in this debate) in any way to understand the organization further. I'd suggest putting a picture of Abe Grey in its place; perhaps of his arrest. A picture of Mr Grey would lend much more assistance to the reader than the organizations logo (which they can find on their own on the Otago NORML website). Abe Grey is a NZ national news figure in his own right and so would qualify for his own page here on Wikipedia and the article can further link to that page. Comments? fr33k man -s- 20:32, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi There, thanks a lot for your arbitration. It seems as though we may have reached an agreement? As for your new proposal, I think the logo is appropriate where it is, as if you look at other wiki pages for prominent clubs at the University of Otago (e.g. Otago University Tramping Club) you will see that they display the logo of the club in the upper left corner. So I think it should stay for consistency with other similar pages in the University of Otago category. As for displaying a picture of Abe Grey, I'm not sure that he is the leader of the group anymore so it might be confusing to have his image at the top of the page, but I do agree that a page on Mr. Grey is probably warranted, which if created should include his image. Thanks again so much for taking the time to help us resolve this. Cheers 139.80.33.95 (talk) 21:11, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

btw: Can you answer my concern as to what organization you are part of please. You IP address resolves back to a computer on the university campus fr33k man -s- 23:04, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi fr33kman, removing the logo altogether and replacing with a photo of Gray being arrested is fine with me, thanks for this. I'm going to look at having the defamatory comments expunged from the history, one solution to the WP:NOR could be to cull the article back to a stub and give it a fresh start. XLerate (talk) 22:11, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps an article RFC is in order? fr33k man -s- 23:04, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm a student at the University, I'm not affiliated with any particular organisation. Also I found an article in the weekly campus Critic magazine from last year that shows the NORML club's logo and talks about it, should I cite this as a source? Cheers 139.80.33.95 (talk) 00:23, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, please do, that would be helpful. Please use the {{cite}} template. You're being a student explains the campus IP address, how's school going? fr33k man -s- 01:22, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Summer school is just ending, Orientation week for the normal school year is just a few weeks away, which is when all the craziness starts. 139.80.33.95 (talk) 01:30, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

What are you reading? Anything interesting? I read medicine and biochem fr33k man -s- 01:32, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm a law student. Some of it is very interesting, some of it is the most boring thing you could imagine! 139.80.33.95 (talk) 02:35, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh cool! I did a Postgrad Dip in medical and common law during intercalation and loved it. (I "love" to argue and felt if I failed med-school I'd become a barrister yelling at folk in the dock!! [Isn't it true Mr X that it was yourself that instigated the attack upon my client!!!] I think you do too (in a good way) ;-) Medical law is scary, thank the Lord that negligence is practically impossible to prove ;-) fr33k man -s- 02:46, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Logo size reduction

I have also reduced the size of the logo to 32K, a more rational and kinder format. fr33k man -s- 01:32, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

The student magazine Critic is not such a reputable source - in 2006 an issue was banned by the New Zealand Censor[2]. Nor is it is independant in this context. The 2008 issues are online: http://www.critic.co.nz/virtual_critic. XLerate (talk) 09:02, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I'd say this can be said of many publications, from newspapers to student magazines at any university. The Critic has been quoted by reputable sources elsewhere, and I wonder if we can (as an encyclopedia) decide such matters and "play favourites" accepting one student newspaper and not another? What do you think? fr33k man -s- 03:18, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Assume you're familiar with WP:SOURCES, admittedly getting censored may reflect more on content choice than fact-checking, but it doesn't help. I think student magazines are more susceptible to personal opinions than for example daily newspapers. But in this case it fails independence - Critic is the magazine of the OUSA, the OUSA represents students including Otago NORML members.[3]

I'd like to follow your suggestion of deleting the logo altogether, unless the issue and page number of Critic to confirm the claim above is forthcoming in the next week. I have looked and don't see it, I gather having an infringing logo here is a legal concern for this project. How do you feel about this? XLerate (talk) 04:05, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I'm familar with WP:SOURCES :) I haven't been able to find the page reference either, and I've done a "site:critic.co.nz jpg" and "site:critic.co.nz gif" via Google (but then we shouldn't have to do the research, that should be up to the editor who wants to add the fact). The problems with student newspapers are, in my opinion, two fold; 1) some are very reputable and are often quoted, others are not (personally, The Toike Oike of the University of Toronto comes to mind); and 2) some of the contributors to them are highly reputable and some are most certainly not (I won't give examples for this point). Where do we draw the line, do we censor some and not others? (Many reputable newspapers have fallen foul of the censor in their day, sometimes it says more about the censor than it does about the source.) What exactly does "reliable" mean any way? (One thing to one person, another to someone else!)

I guess the one question I have (as a neutral outsider) is, does the image that is used actually matter? If so, why? (I'd, personally like to see Abe Gray in the article, because although he may not be the leader any more, he certainly was central to their success as a notable organization!). I guess we have to wait for 139.80.33.95 to chime in. (Whom I really do wish would create a user account [just so we have "someone" to talk to, but I've always been of the opinion that anon's should have the same rights as the rest of us because some people (in some volatile countries) might need to remain anonymous.] Wel'll have to wait until they respond. I'll leave a {{talkback}} on their talk page in the mean time. :) fr33k man -s- 06:11, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

The Critic is certainly a reputable source in this context. It is the primary source for most campus goings on, and a quick look at the articles about this topic from the Otago Daily Times, supposedly a reputable source, will show that the ODT was merely reporting on what they read in the Critic! The issue in question that displays the logo is Issue 24, 15 September 2008, page 15. It seems a bit strange to me that all of this scrutiny is being leveled against an article about a particular student club at the University when this standard does not appear to be applied to articles about other clubs a the Uni (see Otago University Tramping Club) or even the student's association itself (see Otago University Students' Association). Can someone explain this discrepancy to me? 139.80.33.95 (talk) 21:42, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Can you, firstly, provide the location of the source? We need to verify it really. I did multiple searches and couldn't find any picture in the Critic that showed the Otago NORML logo. Thanks fr33k man -s- 23:29, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

The url is here, it has a black and white logo. XLerate (talk) 00:24, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

The logo is black and white in the Critic article because not all of their pages are printed in colour. Evidence of the publication of the image in a reputable source that refers to it as the club's logo was what was asked for. The colour issue has already been addressed I thought? 139.80.33.95 (talk) 01:13, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Student newspapers are not inherently notable and therefore unlikely to be WP:RS. I have searched and can find no policy that states they are reliable sources. I still think this is original research. Perhaps you can find some guideline or policy that allows their inclusion? Most student newspapers aren't even permitted pages on Wikipedia, a reliable news source would be allowed such a page. fr33k man -s- 01:46, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

It strikes me that as the primary source for the reporting on this series of events, that the Critic student magazine has crossed the threshold of notability. Their reporting was continually referred to and re-reported by the Otago Daily Times (ODT) and several national televised news outlets. If several already established reliable sources are often referring to another publication and repeating that publication's statements verbatim does that make said publication a de facto reliable source? The Critic also won three or four ASPA (Aotearoa Student Press Association) awards as a direct result of their coverage of the NORML protests and the fact that their original reporting had crossed over into mainstream media so many times last year. I can see why as a general rule student newspapers would not automatically be counted as reliable sources, but I think that the Critic has proved it's mettle at least in the context of information about this series of events. What do you think about this? Just as a philosophical question, there have been several instances where the Critic has reported on something and then the next day the ODT has picked up the story but has gotten some of the details wrong either because of confusion or misinterpretation and sloppy reporting. In such an instance, if the cause of confusion was obvious when reading both publications side by side, would the ODT's version of events be considered reliable enough for referencing in WP and the Critic's version not reliable? Even though the 'reliable' source was in turn relying on Critic for getting their information? I can see how all of this can get very complicated in terms of trying to make general rules, but if looked at on a case by case basis it seems like the Critic is a source of reliable and fact checked information in this context. 139.80.33.95 (talk) 21:08, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

It seems that these assertions would probably prove notability. Since the Otago NORML page has established notability and the organization is refered to in seven Wikipedia articles, references to its activities in a student newspaper that is referenced by national media in NZ is likely to prove notable. In addition the article Critic (magazine) exists (although is very poorly referenced). I'd suggest at this point that the logo stands. Please put the reference from Critic into the article using a {{cite}} tag, and I'd recommend that you add some coverage of Critic's coverage of Otago NORML in the Critic (magazine) article with references and I think that we can call the situation closed. I'd also recommend the addition of some coverage of Abe Gray in the Otago NORML article, perhaps with a picture, as he was certainly central to their success in the media. I also think that he deserves an article in his own right; Abe Gray. I think that XLerate should respond, but this should end the dispute in my view. Thanks! fr33k man -s- 21:26, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

All very good suggestions. I'm on it. 139.80.33.95 (talk) 22:52, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Having the green logo is fine, as this is the only colour scheme that can be verified. As I said when I made the change, no evidence university colours are main logo. XLerate (talk) 22:46, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

This statement confuses me. The colour has been discussed extensively and evidence has been provided that the blue and gold is the official colour scheme. I thought we had reached a resolution? 139.80.33.95 (talk) 22:54, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Where is the evidence? XLerate (talk) 23:26, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I think that the gold/blue logo should stand as it still remains in place on the "Official Logo" page at Otargo NORML's website. True, asking them for verification is OR, but don't you think they would update the official logo page if it had changed? It's kind of a moot point really isn't it? To the best of my knowledge, the university has not asked Wikipedia to remove it, nor have they asked Otago NORML not to use it, have they? fr33k man -s- 23:39, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

An analogous situation might be how Google changes the logo on the main search page quite often; do we take each change as being their new logo and change it on Google related pages across the web? fr33k man -s- 23:41, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

No the gold/blue was only there for a few hours, please try hard refresh/clear cache of browser. The green one has been there for the last five months. XLerate (talk) 23:49, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I really am trying hard to help solve this dispute XLerate, but wouldn't they have changed their official logo page if they had officially changed their logo? I wonder if it really matters which logo is used. I would like to ask why this means so much to both of you? Are either of you officially agents of either Otago NORML or the university itself? Just wondering because it's a very small thing to get upset over really. It's not like anyone is going to be fuming about what color logo a student organization used when they are on their death-beds is it? The problem we have is that the only two color logos we have are both self-published works and hence niether are actually reliable. The only independant logo we have for this organization is the black and white one in the Critic; perhaps this is the version we should all use as a compromise? fr33k man -s- 23:59, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi Fr33kman, my objective here is to prevent WP:SOAP, which I believe the wrong logo is a part of. I don't work for the university. This has dragged on far too long already - there is a green logo on the website and has been for the last five months, we can finish this topic by using the logo we can verify. XLerate (talk) 00:10, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Additionally, as I said on my talk page, if the blue/gold lasts for more than one week I will change it to blue/gold myself, no problem. XLerate (talk) 00:12, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi. You said "if the blue/gold logo lasts for more than one week", lasts for more than one week where, on the "official logo page", because from my recollection it's been there for months. fr33k man -s- 00:33, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry Fr33kman, the main page (www.otagonorml.com), not some other page hidden away from scruitiny. XLerate (talk) 01:00, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

The arguments made by XLerate are without merit, he says he is trying to prevent WP:SOAP, but none of the edits as they now stand would actually qualify as soapboxing. In fact, deliberate obsfucation of information about a particular group, especially engaging in aggressive edit wars without appropriate justification, could in itself be considered a manifestation of soapboxing in the opposite direction and is a clear indication of bias. XL says he is trying to prevent soapboxing, but the way he is going about this is to make accusations and conjecture and then reverting edits without having a constructive discussion. Deliberately hiding information that is legitimately added to Wikipedia in conformation with the rules and guidelines is a form of soapboxing and shows bias. I agree that the whole logo thing is a rather trivial item to be having such a long discussion about, but for me it is about principle. I came along to WP as a new user, tried to make some constructive edits that tied existing WP topics together and then XL decided he didn't like the information I was adding and set about reverting all my edits and making wild accusations about me. After having to go through the hassle of dragging other editors into the discussion my edits were upheld because XL's accusations were baseless. Since then he has set about nit picking every single edit I make accusing me of bad faith while completely ignoring other closely related examples of other WP articles that violate strict interpretations of rules/guidelines. From where I am sitting as a newbie editor, this really feels like an abuse of the WP process. Thank god there are other more constructive editors who are willing to try and resolve such a petty dispute. Can XLerate please explain how the blue and gold coloured logo qualifies as soapboxing other than the fact that it rubs him the wrong way? In the absence of any logical response from XL I would recommend that the blue and gold logo stays as we know for a fact that this is the official logo of the group. Also a question, if I were to go discuss this with an organiser of the group (they have one of their weekly meetings in 2 hours) and explain the dispute that is going on would that be against the spirit of WP? 139.80.33.95 (talk) 01:37, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Okay. Well it seems that there may be an impasse between the two of you then. Both logos are self published but I wonder if that is a problem here as the article for Google contains the much recognized logo but no reference to the logo except to www.google.com, and therefore self published. Is the logo that is supposed to be used, the one that the organization in question says is to be used; (I can assure you that they did answer that the blue/gold logo is their official logo via email). I wonder if there is a policy whereby the logo of an organization is taken to be the logo on their main website page and not to any other page below www? I think that if this went to the community for RFC that they would say that the logo on the sites "official logo" page should be used or their main page? I'm kind of stumped as to where to go from here; perhaps a WP:MEDCAB case, or else another WP:3 might be helpful (but I don't see them coming up with a solution other than what's been suggested). The only two suggestions I can still make are; a) get rid of the logo altogether and replace it with a picture, or b) use the black and white version of the logo as seen in the Critic. Even the black and white version is problematic as other versions so obviously exist. I don't know what to do next!? fr33k man -s- 01:19, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

The following is their reply via email

Hi Fr33kman,

Thanks for your inquiry. The logo with the blue and gold colour

scheme of Otago University is our official logo

(http://www.otagonorml.com/node/303). We haven't changed it, the

green coloured logo is merely a modified version to match the colour

scheme of our website. I think our members will be amused that this

would be the subject of a dispute on Wikipedia. Hope this answers

your questions.

Sincerely,

The NORML Team

But, that is OR so is also problematic.

Thoughts? fr33k man -s- 01:19, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I really think the colour logo should be kept because it was added in good faith and has been verified as much as possible. XLerate's desire to have the logo changed/removed is based on his personal opinion and is therefore in bad faith (e.g. he THINKS the University would be upset about it). 139.80.33.95 (talk) 01:43, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

The green logo best meets WP:V, it has been static on the Otago NORML main page for some time, the Google logo fluctuates. Fr33kman with your blessing I want to put the green logo back, if another one lasts 7 days on the Otago NORML website main page then I'll change it myself no problem. The IP editor can get in touch with NORML directly if he feels so strongly about it, ask them to change the logo on their website main page, take the matter up with them instead of behaving disruptively here. Ok? XLerate (talk) 01:10, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Whilst I have no issues with the logo reversion, the anon might (ie: he will). He, of course, won't be able to revert it, and I won't do it for him again. If he needs it reverting then he'll have to create an account and wait for it to become autoconfirmed. I agree that it fits WP:V, but I also think that the blue/gold one does also. I'm stumped as to how to continue with this dispute (a first for me!). If he does create an account I'd caution you both to remember WP:3RR, especially since you (XLerate) may consider an WP:RFA at some point. (btw: I would be able to support you in this, and that support is unrelated to anything in this dispute.) Also, if this dispute does continue, I'd recommend that one or both of you consider either an article WP:RFC or else logging a WP:MEDCAB case and letting someone else take a crack at it. I would be available to either process for evidence if asked by either of you or a future mediator. Issues of WP:SPA (against the anon) have been raised and I tend to agree with them (although can an anon really be considered an account in the normal sense?) 129.80.33.95 I would ask you to consider the actions you do here and consider how other editors might see your edits (which are almost all about Cannabis [which I make NO judgement about]). Both of you should also review this dispute and consider how a neutral third -party who has had nothing to do with it might consider whether or not there were issues of WP:SOAP and WP:POV on both your sides! All the best to you both and good luck! :-) fr33k man -s- 01:42, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Update: The logo color-scheme on the Otago NORML website has been changed back to blue/gold. fr33k man -s- 19:21, 20 February 2009 (UTC)