User talk:Horologium/May 2009

Request for protection

Hello Horologium! What is your assessment of McKeesport, Pennsylvania? There has been an ongoing problem on that article with vandalism by IPs and new users. Do you think that it should be semi-protected? If so, could you please protect the article. Thank you for your time. ~ All is One ~ (talk) 19:15, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

I took a quick look, and the level of editing (all edits, not just vandalism) is far below the level where protection would be appropriate. In fact, there have only been two editors in the past five days, and one of them appears to be a vandalism-only account. (All eight of his edits were to the McKeesport article.) Generally, articles with edit levels as low as that one are not semi-protected unless there is a persistent BLP violation or a long-term vandal at work, and I don't see either of those on that article. Just keep it on your watchlist and revert the stupid stuff as it gets added. Horologium (talk) 21:01, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Will do. Thanks for the education. I am not sure of all the levels for something like that. I really appreciate you looking at the article. ~ All is One ~ (talk) 21:51, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

No problem on the education. It's part of the responsibilities that come with the mop. (grin) Horologium (talk) 01:04, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Navy question

Hi, I see you're listed at Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by military branch#U.S._Navy, and— Well, first of all, thank you so much for your service. But that's not why I'm writing.  :-)  I wonder whether you can answer help to answer my question currently at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Miscellaneous#US_Navy_procedure_when_boarding_a_vessel? Thanks.—msh210℠ 22:18, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I responded at the reference desk. Hope that my response helps. Horologium (talk) 23:19, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

It does, and thank you.—msh210℠ 19:18, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Greece

Greetings, Horologium. Well, I knew it would happen. The very day you've taken full protection off of Greece, there are editors writing "Former Yugoslav" while the issue is in arbitration. (Taivo (talk) 03:55, 17 May 2009 (UTC))

Yes, it would be good if somebody could lay down some ground rules about how the unavoidable reverts should be handled. Any advice? Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:32, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I locked the article again. There was a grand total of *one* useful edit (El Greco fleshed out a citation, converting it from a bare reference). This is why we can't have nice things... Horologium (talk) 10:36, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Gah. That's of course not a long-term solution, but maybe it's just as well having it this way until the arbcom case is sorted out (there's hopes we might have a draft proposed decision within the next one or two days, so it might be reasonably quick.) I do hope the arbs are going to somehow address the problem; if not, somebody else will: the article can't be protected forever, but no matter how solidly confirmed and documented a consensus we have for "RoM", there will always be editors willing to revert it to "FYR...", so some rules for dealing with it will have to be devised. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:52, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I am working up some evidence and an addition to the workshop right now to add a proposal to tighten the abuse filter. It won't address this particular issue, but it might eliminate the blind FYROM edits for which the IP editors have a particularly affinity. (The abuse filter logs them, but tweaking it to block those edits will stop that particular abuse.) This edit was was a bit more sophisticated, and it was by a registered editor. I'm not sure if I can come up with a formulation to block that kind of edit without affecting legitimate edits as well. There is no reason (ever) to replace "Macedonia" or "Republic of Macedonia" with the five letter acronym "FYROM"; that can be stopped easily enough. There might be instances where one of the two needs to have "Former Yugoslav" added in front, though. Hopefully, my evidence and proposals are not too late for the arbitrators to consider. Horologium (talk) 11:05, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Open Greece at last. This is becoming more and more ludicrous. --—Ioannes Tzimiskes ^Talk 12:07, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

No. I will not unprotect it until there is a consensus on the talk page. Horologium (talk) 03:19, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Good call. Until the users involved can work things out, leave it protected. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:14, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I see that other editors have already proposed the unlocking of Greece and you have refused. I also want to add my "vote" to those who wish for the said article to be unlocked. In my view :

1. The article has been locked long enough. This Arb will not come to a conclusion soon and even if it does it will rule for an even slower process... Having such a high profile article locked for months (will you maybe keep it for years?) is not the solution to the arbitrated problem. There are only TWO references to RoM in the article and from these once as RoM and once as FYRoM. Greece is a country article and thus it is ever evolving. Not keeping it updated is a more serious threat to Wikipedia.

2. The ArbCom has already imposed an injunction, so a semi protection will suffice since IPs will not be able to edit and regular editors will not touch the names unless looking for trouble (and get an immediate ban maybe?).

3. It adds to the idea that for some reason there is a crusade against Greek and Greek sympathizing editors. It seriously looks as though we are using this edit lock to put pressure on this community to agree unconditionally with the "other" POV, when we know that edit warring and vandalism is going on in countless articles that have to do with the name and history of any of the Macedonias and we (rightly according to my opinion) do not choose to implement similar policies.

So, I sincerely think that another way should be found to safeguard this (or any other such) article. Protecting it for months is not the way.

GK1973 (talk) 12:07, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

See my response on the PD talk page. — Rlevse • Talk • 12:43, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Confirmation for Jon Awbrey

Yes, I am the same person who claimed to be an administrator at The Volokh Conspiracy. No, I'm not going to tell you my name. Horologium (talk) 19:41, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Blocked

I have blocked you for 24 hours for this edit at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Macedonia 2/Workshop. Rlevse was very clear in his warning that no further incivility or nonsense will be tolerated. There is no need for comments such as "This is not a difficult distinction to grasp; please try to follow along" which only serves to inflame the situation. KnightLago (talk) 16:44, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Understood. See you tomorrow. Horologium (talk) 17:09, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

How do you feel that your block log sparkly newish Jaguar just got banged up on the highway? I moved into a Ford Pinto to avoid the stress. How about some boxed wine? You can scream "tip it!" like Kathy Griffin's mom. --Moni3 (talk) 17:24, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

This is fucking ridiculous. I'm sorry to see this new failure of the arbcom process to maintain any degree of rationality. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:43, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Do not endorse block of Horologium. R. Baley (talk) 22:41, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I am not going to contest this block, but I am rather irked that I got blocked for one slightly snarky comment, after repeated efforts to keep the focus on what I proposed, rather than allowing the same editor to change the subject yet again. Another editor (who is sympathetic to me) is blocked for comments on this page, which is even more astonishing. I am not known for being a raging dick, or displaying rampant incivility, but the editor to whom my comment was directed was trying to equate changing "Macedonia" to "FYROM" on totally unrelated topics with a tussle over Greece vs. Macedonia on the article on Macedonia (ancient kingdom). Really, a wake-up call was needed, and my response was not out of line. I will ride out my block, but the clerks are focusing on the wrong people here. At this point, I wash my hands of the situation; once again, civil POV pushers carry the day. I will be striking my proposals from the workshop when my block expires, because I get blocked trying to prevent hijacking. Horologium (talk) 23:05, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

And one last observation: blocked users cannot even view the abuse log. Interesting. Horologium (talk) 23:38, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi Horologium, I am a bit concerned by your statement "I will be striking my proposals from the workshop when my block expires". Just today we have had another user try and remove all of their contributions to a case, and this was reverted. Wholesale removal of all your proposals would not be a good idea.

If some of your proposals are really not helpful, removing them sensible. However if they are within reason, but you no longer support them, you can note that on the Workshop - that would stimulate further discussion. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 01:03, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, please don't strike your contributions. Even if you want to wash your hands of the case (can't say I blame you) your contributions have been very useful to the case as a whole. It would be a pity to lose the useful parts of a workshop that has far too much useless junk in it. -- ChrisO (talk) 07:45, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

This was an awful and ridiculous block. If this had been an ordinary block (instead of a special ArbCom-endorsed block!) and you had posted an unblock request, I would have unblocked you without thinking twice. Your comment wasn't even close to the bounds of incivility. --Akhilleus (talk) 00:24, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

This block reminds me of a male Equus hemionus. I agree with you, your proposal was being hijacked by POV pushers. But please don't remove it. The arbitrators (I trust) will see past the crap. In fact, your proposal was one of the few that the main arbitrator actually commented on so far. (Taivo (talk) 00:24, 19 May 2009 (UTC))

Yes, I see past that. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:03, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

All users in the Macedonia case were very clearly warned here by an arbitrator to stop the mudslinging, insults, etc and act in a professional manner with regards to the case. The block here is well justified as arbcom needs to draw a line due to the behavior on that case. You would think that being its the arbitration committee folks would be on their best behavior, but apparently this is not the case. Please refrain from "snarky" comments for the duration of the case. Thank you. —— nixeagle^{email me} 00:43, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Nixeagle, I think you can assume that everyone who has commented on this block read Rlevse's warning. I certainly did, and I don't think Horologium came close to violating the warning. --Akhilleus (talk) 00:53, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Everyone's made their point. If Horologium is not going to contest it, I feel further heated debate here will just fan the flames. If Horologium requests an unblock, I am not opposed to it, but he needs to take that step. I've also asked the clerks to look at the civil POV pushers Horologium was referring to. And yes, I think Horologium made an excellent proposal on the workshop, so please don't remove it. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:03, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm willing to unblock Horologium, but I'm unsure whether I'm able to reverse a block made by an ArbCom clerk. Could a clerk or arb please comment? --Akhilleus (talk) 01:13, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Am watching 24 at the mo. . .will be back at 02:00 UTC. Though I have never seen any policy reason why a clerk's block (or an AC member's either, for that matter) can't be reviewed and undone. R. Baley (talk) 01:31, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

• My prior comment should not be construed as saying Horo was in the right with his snarky comment. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:03, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Just for the record, the wording "throughout the project" and "often" on unrelated pages, and the generic title of the FOF... I thought it covered the cases of vandalism that I have given. In all the megabytes of the workshop page a few more diffs and comments, I would not consider it hijacking, just commenting. There is nothing wrong in having all the discussion about IP vandals under a single FOF. I didn't oppose the essence of the FOF, just wanted it to be more complete. Shadowmorph ^{^"^} 05:33, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

The FoF was specifically related to the specific cure that Horologium was proposing--a filter that blocks changes of "Macedonia" to "FYROM". That was what everyone kept telling you--to put your differences somewhere else because they could not be "cured" by the specific remedy that Horologium was proposing. You just kept "not listening", so that's why we called it hijacking. Horologium's single fix is technically very easy to do, but the variety of stuff that you were throwing into the mix is not. You just weren't "getting it" (and, by your comment, I'm not certain that you understand the issue even now). (Taivo (talk) 07:22, 19 May 2009 (UTC))

I think Shadowmorph does get it but wants to dilute the FoF by striking a false balance to try to get the blame shared more equally ("it's not our fault, the other side is doing the same thing!"). I read his comments as being, in effect, a plea of provocation. -- ChrisO (talk) 07:45, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Is "diluting" the word for what everyone did on all the other FoF comments?. What I don't get is when it is appropriate to comment and when the comments are hijacking. Maybe I really do not get what how I am supposed to operate after all. I never claimed a quantitative balance for you to call it false. I asked for a neutral treatment of IP vandalism regardless of the numbers. There are several loosely related pages about antiquity where that vandalism could happen (e.g. Cyril and Method example[1]). I bet the Greek IPs are more, so what? I have not tried to hide any side of the vandalism - I never sided with the vandals to use the word "our" like in "not our fault". I have long been keeping a distance, referring to the Greeks in third person. I have never promoted the whole subject to a matter of ethnicity. I never provoked anyone. I just pointed out something that should be included in the FOF. I wasn't the only one (Radjanef and Avg did the same). The vandalism against Greece should be easy to include in the same fixing remedy. It could fire up when the words "Greece" and "Greek" get deleted in an article or specifically when replaced with "Macedonia(n)" "Makedonija" "Makedonski". I never questioned the ability of anyone to "get" anything. If one could stop assuming bad faith by me then one could read what I have said. I am sorry if I caused any trouble to anyone. Never mind, I have made my point. Shadowmorph ^{^"^} 08:31, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

For what is worth, my argument was included in the proposed decisions. Horologium, I'm sorry for the trouble. Shadowmorph ^{^"^} 16:48, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't blame you for the block; you weren't the one who was (mildly) incivil. If I knew I was going to be blocked, I would have really let it rip. (small grin) It seems like a really ridiculous reason for which to be blocked, after three years and 13,000 edits. So much for the clean block log. Horologium (talk) 18:48, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Suspicious?

What do you make of this: [2]? The very first edit was accusing someone else of sockpuppetry - so obviously was not a new editor. LadyofShalott 02:38, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, obviously not a new account, and Keetoowah is not blocked. I strongly suspect that he is User:Eleemosynary, but a checkuser is not going to work, because Eleemosynary's results are stale at this point. Just keep an eye on him, and if he becomes disruptive, he can be blocked. So far, he seems to be sticking the the Scott Thomas Beauchamp controversy, which I haven't been involved in editing. Horologium (talk) 11:37, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Eleemosynary was my suspicion as well. I wondered if you'd think the same. I haven't been involved with that article either (and don't want to start now), but I still watch Matt Sanchez, and noticed his edit there. If it's not Eleemo, it's a sock of someone! Thanks for the input. LadyofShalott 15:05, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

incivility?

Maybe it's just me, but this comment and the ensuing one seem just as incivil as the one that got you blocked. I wonder if anything will happen? --Akhilleus (talk) 12:46, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, it is, but a)I don't think it will be addressed and b)I don't care at this point. As you probably can imagine, I'm rather disillusioned at this point on the whole arbitration process. 29 proposed remedies, none of which address the original dispute, and the only one that accomplishes an unambiguous net good for the project (the abuse filter idea I proposed) has been watered down to a wimpy "The community is urged to..." The community can't come to an agreement on this issue; that's why it's at arbitration in the first place! Any proposed change to the filter will get filibustered just like all the rest, and ChrisO and Fut.Perf will not be permitted to participate in the discussion (due to the topic bans that may be imposed upon them). Ugh. Horologium (talk) 12:54, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I know. I've been soured on Wikipedia's dispute resolution mechanisms for a long time; they rarely produce good results--quite often the best-case scenario is a weaselly "compromise" that generates unreadable and uninformative articles; more often the result is that committed editors are driven away from particular articles, topic areas, or the project as a whole. I suppose that nothing better can be expected of a process that focuses on editor behavior rather than article content; it's pretty much a given that anyone who invests the time and energy into a long-running dispute is going to say or do something objectionable at some point during the argument (especially when the standard for objectionable behavior is arbitrary, and inconsistently applied according to the whims of the arbs and clerks). --Akhilleus (talk) 14:10, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Quite. Perhaps someone should request that the Arbcom rename itself the Arbitrary Committee - truth in advertising and all that? -- ChrisO (talk) 17:28, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good to me ;-) — Rlevse • Talk • 17:41, 25 May 2009 (UTC)