Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:05, 30 January 2012

Archives

Year 2007 Year 2008 Jan-Sep 2009 Oct-Dec 2009 Jan-Mar 2010 Apr-Dec 2010 Jan-Jul 2011 Aug-Dec 2011

De-facto challenged PROD

Hi. :) To modify Template:ProdContested a bit: The article Ii (IRC client), which you seconded for WP:PROD, has been restored. If you do not feel the current article resolves your concerns, you may wish to nominate the article for a full deletion discussion at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion.

(Another editor has created a new version of the article which is very similar to the old. I restored the history to alleviate some copyright concerns.) --Moonriddengirl 11:49, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the notification, I appreciate it. :) -- Atama頭 21:16, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

COI of user

Please see the additional information added to a COI case.

http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_41#User:snowded

I realize that it's an archived report, which is not the proper way to express these concerns newly. But I hope you can tell from the information shared there what's going on and will take appropriate action or advise me on how to do so.

The rule violations in the article are frequent and absurd, and it's a big problem for Editors trying to express the subject matter with NPOV and truthfully.--Encyclotadd (talk) 19:35, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I have defended Snowded in the past, as I would for any editor who acknowledges a conflict of interest, operates within Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines, and contributes positively to the project. However, I will take your complaint seriously and try to look into it further when I have an opportunity to. I'm somewhat inactive at Misplaced Pages but still help out with specific issues now and then and don't mind taking this on. -- Atama頭 21:21, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

If he was straight forward about his competition then I would feel very differently. But that's not the case. He describes his company as primarily a software business. But in fact he doesn't make a dime from the software, he makes his money selling seminars about a methodology "conflated" (to use his own term appearing off Misplaced Pages) with neuro-linguistic programming. His methodology is thought to be identical.

There's good reason why he says they're considered the same. His methodology incorporates things like story telling (narrative), metaphor and pattern recognition. Those ideas are so close to NLP concepts that one may wonder if there is any difference at all. Compare his story telling to NLP's nested loops ("loop" means "story"), his metaphors to NLP metaphors, and his pattern recognition with NLP's approach to embedding indirect suggestions, and you will find the overlap he is describing with the word "conflated" is substantial.

The problem doesn't stop there. He financial interests lead him to edit mischievously. I wish you could feel my frustration when he substitutes the Skeptic Dictionary definition for the Oxford English Dictionary definition. There is a notice board complaint already. Worse he repeatedly removes anchoring from the article. I don't know if you have studied psychology. But if you have, imagine trying to make sense out of cognitive behavioral therapy without mentioning classical conditioning and Pavlov's famous example. It's exactly the same thing-- one cannot be understood without the other.

One way Snowded obfuscates is by refusing to reference anyone who is licensed to practice NLP. That obfuscates because it excludes EVERYONE knowledgeable! Seminars are the only way to learn communication models. You can become skilled at tonality, posture and ryhthm from books alone, communication techniques have to be practiced with others. Virtually all NLP seminars give certification to all participants. So Snowded auto-reverts any references to anyone who hast studied the model!

Most people inside and outside of the world of education consider Ed Cox to be a fairly important man. After all, his Sylvan Learning Center educated two million children. Because Ed Cox attended some seminars and received a certificate, Snowded will not allow his ideas into the article. These are ideas appearing on the website of a peer reviewed journal.

There are also a variety of connections between Snowded and the 2006 banned accounts. Simple Google searches reveal that banned HeadleyDown is the name of a town in which a Snowden home has existed for decades, a stone's through from where he was born. Banned Brighton is a university he was invited to speak at, in which banned B110 appears to have been a classroom in which he spoke. The entire Hong Kong Skeptic Club on Misplaced Pages was banned and he is both an adjunct professor at Hong Kong University and a Skeptic club participant. Snowded advocates for precisely the same sources and POV as HeadleyDown. It doesn't take Sherlock Holmes to connect these dots.

The conflict of interest has creating a lot of contentiousness and problems in this article, and I hope now can be the time for that to be stopped.--Encyclotadd (talk) 07:54, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

If you want any evidence as to my actual place of birth, where my family have owned property or my connections with a Hong Kong University let me know. There is a veritable spew of accusations added to the Archive, copied from an NLP web site which appears to be the co-ordinating point for a series of SPA accounts that have emerged over the last year or so. Encyclotadd being one of the latest (Links available). Encyclotadd also has two warnings from an experienced amin for constantly making this accusation in multiple locations. An RfA brought some more experienced editors to the NLP page and they have all told Encyclotadd that the OED definition (I am accused of removing it as evidence of CoI) cannot be included, and this has been confirmed by the Clerk at the dispute case which Encyclotadd also raised. In that summary Encyclotadd was also reminded to read various policies relating to personal attacks etc. By the way, I acknowledge that I work in a field which has a small overlap with one of the application areas of NLP. I don't know of any actual conflict of interest, other than that I have expertise in some of the fields. Again if you want any information from me feel free to ask. I harbour some hope (I am an eternal optimists) that if you did take a look at this it might finally put an end to a constant chain of accusations by an editor whose emotional commitment to NLP can't be challenged, but whose willingness to work in Misplaced Pages rules is becoming increasingly problematic. --Snowded 06:36, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

It's not necessary for you to provide them because the Hong Kong University connection is made on your Misplaced Pages biography page. It's a very big question mark for me that an estate is named after your family in the town of Headley Down, and that you are an adjunct professor at Hong Kong University who associates himself with the Skpeptic Society, since Headley Down and the socks were Hong Kong University Skeptics. That's huge coincidence. You advocate for the same POV and references as Headley Down. Snowded, Enough is enough already.--Encyclotadd (talk) 07:54, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I think I've looked into this matter enough that I can respond to the points made at this talk page and the COIN archive.

First, of all, you've insisted that Snowded's business is conflated with NLP. Even if it was, that wouldn't matter. I think you may have glossed over what I already stated in the COIN archive 2 years ago, which still applies today. We don't discriminate against subject matter experts. A real estate agent is allowed to edit articles related to real estate and that's not a COI. Even if his business was involved in NLP, in an adversarial manner or otherwise, we wouldn't discourage him from editing the article. What we would discourage is any edits that would directly promote his business, or possibly harm a direct competitor. I see no evidence of that, and have never seen evidence of that. I think Snowded has been pretty conscientious about not stepping over that line.

Let's put it another way. Let's say I run a farm that sells green apples. I edit an article about red apples, and remove some opinion a person wrote that said that red apples are the tastiest and healthiest apples around. I counter with information from the FDA that discusses the health benefits of various types of apples to show there is no difference. Should I be dissuaded from doing so because it is feared that I don't want people buying red apples anywhere in the world? No, that's taking COI too far.

Let's say, though, that my neighbor Bob has another farm and he grows and sells red apples. He's in direct competition with me. Bob's web site is added as an external link to the article. Technically I could argue that the link adds no value to the article, and could even be considered spam, but if I were to delete that link myself that would be very dodgy per our COI guideline and would at least raise eyebrows, and I'd be better served asking someone else to do it.

I hope that helps explain the difference. COI concerns are raised when a person has a very close connection to what they are editing about. But we don't take it to be so broad as to automatically exclude someone from editing about an entire field because it is related to their personal or professional interests. It's often counter-productive to do that.

Secondly, you said that Snowded "tried to cover up his admission of conflation". He removed a comment from his own user talk page, which is allowed. So I don't consider that suspicious, I'm sure that Snowded has been around long enough to know that deleting a comment off of his talk page doesn't effectively cover up anything.

You've made a lot of comments about material he has added or removed from article space. I'm not interested in weighing in on content issues, especially with such controversial subject matter. Even if I wanted to get involved, I have no more authority than you do in such matters. If you feel those edits are incorrect, get support from other editors involved with the article.

The last issue isn't really COI related at all, but it's something else that is very important to me, and that's the accusation of sockpuppetry. It is suspicious enough for me to look into further. It's difficult, however, because HeadleyDown hasn't edited in nearly 6 years. I have a lot of experience in dealing with sockpuppets and can sometimes sniff things out based on behavioral evidence. All I can go by is my gut, and looking through the edits by HeadleyDown and a random sampling of sockpuppets, it doesn't feel the same. HD was pretty consistent in the way he left edit summaries (or failed to) and Snowded was different from the very start. He also signed his posts differently, used subtly different language... It just doesn't seem like the same person. The other thing that makes it very unlikely in my eyes is that both Snowded and HeadleyDown edited a variety of topics, yet the only overlap between the two is NLP. There are literally no other articles that the two share in common. Considering the large number of contributions from both accounts that's fairly remarkable.

So one of two things has occurred. Either they are different people, or HeadleyDown took a break of a couple of months after the last sockpuppet ceased activity and returned in such a way that he changed his problematic behavior completely and stayed out of trouble, making over 20,000 edits to the encyclopedia without being blocked once, and even disclosed exactly who he was and what he did for a living, staying productive over the next 6 years. If you could prove without a shadow of a doubt that they were the same person, and brought that matter to a noticeboard, I doubt anyone would bat an eyelash. As it is, I'm personally of the opinion that they aren't the same person.

Please know that I'm not brushing this off flippantly, I spent a great deal of time looking into your concerns, and took an especially long time looking at the sockpuppet accusation. And at this time I think that you have not breached any policies in making these requests, I think you were justified in asking me, so I'm not going to give you any warnings about harassment. But I just don't think that Snowded has done anything actionable. I will, however, caution you about pursuing this too strongly, and some of these accusations could backfire. For example, you're making some of the same accusations as ANJPL, see this page for example, who was himself a sockpuppet of Irvine22 and held the same opinion of NLP and Snowded that you do. I'm not making an accusation, but others might for the same reason you're accusing Snowded. So I'm telling you just one person to another, not in my capacity as an admin, but please try not to be so insistent on having sanctions brought against Snowded. -- Atama頭 19:41, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your lengthy and thoughtful response.

I realize Snowded has made friends in this community, and that his behavior outside the NLP article may be substantially better. That should not color your view of what's been transpiring in this context.

The connection between Snowded and Headley does not have to be determined by a "feeling." The connection can be made factually and circumstantially.

Headley Down is a neighborhood containing an estate named for the Snowden's, a short drive from Harrow, another banned account, both of which are a short drive from where David Snowden was born. Here are the banned accounts near Snowden's birthplace on Google Maps: http://maps.google.com/maps?saddr=Harrow,+UK&daddr=Headley+Down,+UK+to:Ongar,+Essex,&hl=en&sll=51.640577,-0.049761&sspn=0.346019,0.95993&geocode=FY8OEwMdFcj6_yn5ByWgWBF2SDHZW-KZiU_XJA%3BFar4CwMdZMnz_ykFTaJ_pDN0SDFh9aLwN7ea-Q%3BFWb7FAMd69gDACltBN7bSJbYRzGToaIwtwXk3A&vpsrc=0&mra=ls&t=h&z=9 I can pinpoint for you that B110, a third banned account, is a classroom Snowden was using at the time. Snowden and banned Headley Down are both Skeptics affiliated with Hong Kong University. Snowden and Headley Down both advocate for the identical references in the fourth paragraph in the article lede.

Snowden's behavior elsewhere on Misplaced Pages may have improved since he revealed his true identity in 2006. But his behavior in the NLP article absolutely has to be stopped.

He describes NLP seminars as indoctrination and torture to prospective attendees of his own seminars, then he replaces the Oxford English Dictionary definition with the Skeptic definition in the lede. He is the solitary reason you have had six years of contentiousness about the article. I have no doubt that if you ban him from the article more meat/socks of his will reappear. But at least the administration can have a clear idea of who is responsible.--Encyclotadd (talk) 21:52, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm not a "friend" of Snowded, I may have interacted with him a few times over the years I've been on Misplaced Pages, usually where his conduct was being questioned and I determined it was based on someone with an opposing POV who was trying to paint him in a negative light in order to be able to get their own POV established. Which seems to be the case again. I don't like being accused of siding with someone I barely know because he's a "friend". I'm used to attacks (I'm an admin after all) so I'm not offended but it's not helpful to mischaracterize my actions in such a way. Your tendency to attack people who disagree with you does not bode well for you. By the way, it seems that the result of the discussion a the DRN was that Snowded was justified in his actions about the OED definition's exclusion from the lead. -- Atama頭 22:16, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I apologize for insinuating friendship. That was an incorrect thing for me to have suggested. My strong feeling about the edits being made to the article reflects substantial study - the obfuscation has unfortunately taken place (except in 2006) without this community even realizing it. But in order for this community to realize it the whole group would need do a lot of reading. It's a little like realizing someone is obfuscating molecular biology to English students. Tricky thing to do, and yet the obfuscation is taking place nonetheless. That's why the obvious Headley Down, B110 (basement 110), and Harrow banned accounts are tempting to bring up. But this isn't the place for me to bring that up and I appreciate that you have done your best to make sense out of what's going on here and appreciate your weighing in, though you did not arrive at the conclusion that I was hoping you would.--Encyclotadd (talk) 00:12, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately it's not the kind of issue that one administrator can help with. You may be correct about Snowded's improper editing, but nothing he's doing from what I can tell is actionable. He's not violating any policies or even guidelines. The best you can hope for is to try to sway other editors to your side. I gather that you're hoping for a quick resolution to what you see as a problem by either getting Snowded blocked, or banning him from contributing at the article. But I don't see either happening. I think your only recourse is to compromise with him as best as you can, and to try to sway other editors to your point of view with a proper appeal to Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines. I know that you're relatively new to the site so that can be difficult, but proper knowledge of procedures will come with time. -- Atama頭 00:57, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your time Atama. I really appreciate it.

It probably puzzles the administration that an article about a psychological and communication model can become nearly "the most contentious" on Misplaced Pages. There is no important public policy on the line, as there is with abortion. There are no souls that will or won't be saved by people studying "hypnotic" language patterns or considering a psychological model some feel are suggested by them.

It's true that some people believe they have been helped by hypnosis (such as with smoking cessation or phobias) and will speak up to try and help others. Obviously people with competing financial interests will speak up as well.

But that shouldn't lead to the amount of contention this community has been experiencing. Something else is obviously going on.

This has been a tremendous learning experience for me about Misplaced Pages. I hope in the future my efforts can contribute to a better community and encyclopedic website. Thanks again for your time.--Encyclotadd (talk) 03:38, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

WP:COOPERATION

Hi Atama, good to see you around. Just wondered if you'd seen this project and a related facebook group where the PR industry want to work with us and edit to the book. I thought you might like to join in with the discussions. SmartSE (talk) 18:42, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I've found myself with a little breathing space in my personal and professional life and decided to hang around Misplaced Pages for awhile, and that project looks very interesting to me. I'll check it out! -- Atama頭 18:45, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Your ANI Closure - Determination?

Inre your closure of my ANI petition, I assume you are aware that I was seeking a determination as to the WP propriety of the arbitrary removal (twice) of my "POV Section Dispute" tag. That is decidedly NOT a "content" dispute but rather a WP dispute resolution "process" dispute. While those in opposition did, indeed, attempt to raise issues of "content", that was neither my desire nor at my behest. While it's your prerogative to close the ANI as you see fit, I believe I am entitled to some determination as to the specifics of my ANI petition. Is my placement of a "POV Section Dispute" tag legitimate per WP:POLICY or is it not? Thank you. JakeInJoisey (talk) 02:51, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Here's what Template:NPOV says:

• Do not use this template unless there is an ongoing dispute in an article.
• The editor placing this template in an article should promptly begin a discussion on the article's talk page. In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant, then this tag may be removed by any editor.
• The purpose of this group of templates is to attract editors with different viewpoints to edit articles that need additional insight. This template should not be used as a badge of shame. Do not use this template to "warn" readers about the article.
• This template should only be applied to articles that are reasonably believed to lack a neutral point of view. The neutral point of view is determined by the prevalence of a perspective in high-quality reliable sources, not by its prevalence among Misplaced Pages editors.

I think that the only point in contention is that last one. When people said that the tag didn't belong, I think they felt it was because that last point wasn't being followed. Another thing mentioned in the template documentation, "Removing this tag may be tendentious—just like placing it on the article may be tendentious—but it is not an act of vandalism." At this point I don't think that either you or the people who wanted to remove the tag have engaged in any activity that requires sanctions. And that also means that I don't think your placing the tag initially was meant in anything but good faith.

However. You did go a bit overboard a bit, I think, in the ANI thread. This edit in particular seemed a bit hyperbolic, and I can easily imagine that kind of talk rubbing people the wrong way. Bringing up "genocide" seems intentionally incendiary, along with excessive use of CAPITALIZATION (with underlines no less). The template documentation mentions that NPOV complaints should be based on what is found in sources, so requests for such shouldn't be dismissed as "wikilawyering bunk". And honestly, the whole thing seemed like grandstanding, a la WP:SPIDERMAN. Not trying to be overly critical, but just some advice, try not to get into that mode. It's like tossing gasoline around. -- Atama頭 09:26, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the courtesy of your considered and cogent reply. While your observations might serve to inspire numerous points of discussion, I'll not impose them on either your talk space or your patience and will suppress (not without some difficulty) my inclination to do so...save for what I perceive to be the most salient and pressing issue. I will try to be as brief as possible.

I do not institute an ANI petition lightly. In my almost 7 years of editing in WP, most of which is associated with the most highly contentious subjects, I think I can count my ANI petitions on one hand (it could, perhaps, be 2 hands). My strongest and, I think, demonstrated preference is for talk resolution, not administrative intervention. While I'll not waste your time further in a defense of my rationale for seeking administrative redress in this instance, your "determination" has left me both bemused and in somewhat of a quandary.

As you are hopefully aware, administrator DGG had already made what I perceived to be a "determination" that the tag was legitimately placed and should remain, a determination he has now reiterated on the article talk page. That DGG had actually made a "determination" was challenged by User:Snowded and, in deference to that assertion, I refrained from re-tagging the section pending further clarification from DGG...and so-stated that intent within the ANI. While awaiting that further clarification, subsequent "content" argument continued to be appended to the discussion and it was to those arguments that I responded, a response which then inspired your closure with the conclusionary (and, IMHO, Scarlet Letter) "This board is not for content disputes, and there is no need for administrative action."

I believe that assessment to be both a fundamentally unfair and inaccurate characterization of the dialogue and conclusion previously attained within the ANI and transforms my petition for redress, favorably considered by a prior administrator, into a "content dispute" inappropriate for consideration within an ANI. Please reconsider the text of your conclusionary closure in light of those considerations. Thank you.

P.S. As to "genocide", I'm not confident that you are aware, perhaps, that the term is the one utilized as an example in the pertinent WP:NPOV guidance? That was my source for the employment of the word used to illustrate, IMHO, a valid, not hyperbolic, point. JakeInJoisey (talk) 17:50, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

DGG can make whatever determination he wants. But he can't state that the tag needs to stay on the article. Neither can I. Administrators don't have such authority. An admin can, at best, say that you weren't being disruptive in putting it there. If it's determined that you were being disruptive by placing it there, or others were disruptive in removing it, then an admin can warn or block editors. That's as far as an administrator can go with a dispute like this. Otherwise, the applicability of the tag is something that can only be determined by consensus between editors. As such, it's essentially a content dispute, and I stand fully behind the language of my closure. Any comment on whether or not the tag should stay is his opinion and holds as much weight as anyone else's. Oh, and yeah, I didn't realize that about the genocide comment, so feel free to ignore what I said there. :) -- Atama頭 18:01, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I should add, the discussion on the talk page of that article seems productive, the RFCs there are appropriate and properly done, and I hope that the conclusion of that discussion can leave people reasonably satisfied. -- Atama頭 18:18, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I agrre with you that the talk p. is the place to discuss this. And I hope everyone understands that unless I'm doing something only an admin can do, or am specifically stating I'm doing something as an admin, as I might with BLP, I only intend to make the same sort of statement as any ordinary editor. My opinion is the tag should stay on any genuine dispute unti lit's resolved, because I think any other rule leads to edit wars over side issues. My opinion holds to the extent it proves to have consensus, and no further, as with any admin or other editor responding to an RfC. I try to be careful in my wording when I give an opinion, because I know that sometimes people take it too definitively; if I failed to make this clear enough here I apologize. DGG ( talk ) 01:15, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, I for one figured as much, DGG, I've known you for a long time on Misplaced Pages and respect you and wouldn't have expected any less, that's why I assumed your comment was meant to be just your opinion. You're probably the last person I'd expect to try to flex admin "authority" over something like that. :) -- Atama頭 01:39, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Hopefully, and in an attempt to at least establish what is establishable from both my ANI petition and subsequent discussion both here and elsewhere, this will represent my last observation here on this subject. I believe it can be fairly represented that...

1. There is an ongoing dispute(s) in the article.

2. I promptly began a discussion on the article's talk page specific to my objection.

3. My purpose was to attract editors with different viewpoints to consider, under WP:NPOV, whether the content, as it is currently presented, adequately reflects that WP:POLICY guidance.

4. The article is reasonably believed to lack a neutral point of view as now evidenced by the comments of at least three editors.

5. Assuming that the above now clearly satisfies the stated WP criteria for the placement of a "POV Section Tag", I can legitimately, per the guidance of Template:NPOV, restore the tag pending consensus resolution of my POV objection.

DGG has expressed support for the continued placement of the tag "until the wording is fixed" as reflecting a "genuine dispute". He is also suggesting (if I correctly understand his remarks) a probable futility in the employment of this tag owing to the POV nature of the subject rendering a consensus-based, NPOV presentation difficult, if not impossible...a rather pessimistic outlook with which I take exception and intend to work towards disproving.

Thank you again for your time and consideration. JakeInJoisey (talk) 15:45, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Oops...

You deleted User:Hammersoft/Editnotice, which i wanted to have deleted (thanks!), but then deleted User talk:Hammersoft/Editnotice too, which I didn't. --Hammersoft (talk) 23:19, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Bonehead mistake, it's back now, sorry about that! -- Atama頭 23:54, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Could you take a look please?

Thanks for your recent assistance at the COI noticeboard. Could you possibly give me a second opinion at 1999 NATO bombing of Yugoslavia, where I recently blocked User talk:212.178.238.210 for repeatedly removing what seemed like reasonably-sourced material from the article. It isn't simple vandalism though as the IP (which resolves to Serbia) has made edit summaries like "(Reverting trivial and unimportant stuff. Yes, TRIVIAL and UNIMPORTANT!!)". I may be seen as involved as I had previously edited the article, albeit just a format fix. I see I also got involved in implementing a compromise version in the article last April. Looking through the article history, there has been a lot of edit warring over the inclusion of this material without any recent discussion in talk. Could you please take a look, review my actions, and give consideration to semi-protecting the article? Thanks a lot, --John (talk) 11:56, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm looking at it, I'll let you know. I probably won't get a chance to do much until tomorrow. -- Atama頭 07:10, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Actually, from a quick look so far, what I can say is this... I agree that the edits don't seem to be simple vandalism. On the other hand, the edits are definitely a problem. I can tell that the person behind the IP was also editing as 178.222.92.195 with the same edit-warring methodology, same change to content, and same edit summary. Even further back, it's probable that there are a number of edits from IPs in the 212.124.17x.xxx range that are that same person, they show identical behavior.

I don't think you're involved enough to question your actions. But since this editor has no problem hopping IPs, and they are even from different ranges, semiprotection might be the only way to feasibly stop it. It's a shame because 68.202.26.86 has done good work from what I can tell and would get caught up in that. If I do protect the article, I might have to suggest that they register an account, or at least bring suggestions to the talk page so that they can still contribute. Somehow I doubt that the troublesome IP editor is going to bother to do that. -- Atama頭 07:31, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your time. Is there an Arbcom remedy that covers this? Would that even help? As you say, semi-prot is a blunt tool for something like this. --John (talk) 22:40, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

WP:DIGWUREN would cover it, as Yugoslavia would have been considered an Eastern European country. Looking at this you can see that discretionary sanctions are in effect for such an article. In particular, that case establishes a low tolerance for editors who use such articles as a battleground. But that means playing IP whack-a-mole. -- Atama頭 23:05, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I see what you mean. It was just a thought. Maybe a longish-term semiprotection, and the good guys can request edits on the talk page or register an account? --John (talk) 07:01, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

The editor returned under yet another IP making the same edit, which I'm now treating as vandalism. I no longer believe the intent from this editor is to improve the article in good faith. I've also semiprotected the article for a month, which I do reluctantly but I don't see any other way to stop this. -- Atama頭 18:17, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your trouble. --John (talk) 20:07, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Euthanasia topic ban

Hello. I was thinking the euthanasia topic ban over me, was already over since november. Am I wrong? Thanks. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 14:49, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

You're technically correct and I've made the clarification at ANI. -- Atama頭 17:22, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Notice of discussion at the Administrators' Noticeboard

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Personal attacks and socking. Thank you. Edinburgh Wanderer 00:43, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry was trying to do talk back request. You clearly already know about the discussion.Edinburgh Wanderer 00:44, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

No problem. :) -- Atama頭 00:45, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry how many diffs do you want I've shown you that part of his unblock was not to use multiple accounts including ips. He has now left another attack on my talk page. This is quacking so loud. Personal attacks are not tolerated.Edinburgh Wanderer 01:00, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

That diff you posted to ANI showed me what was going on, thanks. That's what I was originally asking for. I don't think it rises to the level of requiring an immediate block, but any comments like that which occur after my warning will lead to a block. The comment on your user talk page was milder but still pushing it. If anything else comes from that IP which involves an actual personal attack just let me know. -- Atama頭 01:10, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Edinburgh Wanderer 12:17, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Delicious Carbuncle

I agree it's a serious charge, and I've set out the background at WP:AN/I#Delicious Carbuncle harassment and outing: block or ban proposal for your and others' consideration. Prioryman (talk) 23:22, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for letting me know. Obviously the claims against DC aren't completely unfounded, but so far I'm seeing that the community is divided on what sanctions, if any, are appropriate. -- Atama頭 17:56, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Atama, I have my doubts that any admin will be willing to wade into this mess, but since you commented at ANI, I will ask. Prioryman made false and inflammatory statements which he claimed he would apologize for if they proved to be incorrect when he reviewed evidence from Russavia. He now knows that they were incorrect, but has yet to strike them. Additionally, he has replaced one further false statement with another. I have chosen not to participate in the ban discussion, but I am displeased by the possibility that I may be banned on false pretenses. I suspect that my participation in that discussion would make AN/I virtually unusable due to the inflamed passions of some editors there, but there is a limit to how long I will stand by and let these false statements stand. Are you willing to ask Prioryman to make good on their promise? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:49, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm not going to force someone to apologize; as I've learned from wiser people than myself a forced apology isn't an apology at all. I've been somewhat following the discussion though I have yet to offer my opinion and probably won't, but I'll try to look into the accuracy of those statements. -- Atama頭 19:56, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

For the record, it's not the apology I'm interested in. This likely won't be clear to you without seeing the archived WR thread from Russavia, but there quite simply is no "deeply homophobic discussion" for me to drop Fæ's address into. My post was in fact the start of a thread that no reasonable person could see as homophobic. Not redacting the address information from a WHOIS record was an oversight on my part and I have already stated that I should not have posted the WHOIS record with that information included. Note that it was redacted soon after. The domain in question was not at that time registered via a proxy registration service although that changed soon after my WR post. No technical or other means were necessary to access it. Thanks for taking a look. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:05, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

NATO Flag usage on the Kosovo War Page

My friend, I have a question. If the NATO flag usage is copyrighted by using ] then am I allowed to use the {{flag| or {{flagicon| fashion? It doesn't seem to be a copyright. Thank you and please answer at the greatest time. TsarSrbinu29 (talk) 18:10, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

This question is academic because the NATO flag doesn't have a copyright since it "only consists of simple geometric shapes and/or text" and is therefore in the public domain. We actually have a place for discussion on how to treat non-free flags, see here. The template itself states that any reproduction of such flags on Misplaced Pages which are "low-resolution images" that "illustrate the symbol in question" are fine. A flag icon would certainly fall under such criteria so it shouldn't be a problem. -- Atama頭 18:48, 30 January 2012 (UTC)