User talk:Horologium/July 2012

Spratlys
First off, thank you for at least taking action. Now, the last such edit by a user who is actually autoconfirmed (being "close to becoming autoconfirmed" is still non-confirmed) in control of their account was on 31 May, and before that, many months earlier. While such problematic edits have not resumed immediately after expiry of protection, they originate from many sources, including Vietnam and the Philippines. If SPI can conclude that the Vietnamese (Filipino) editors are all linked, there may be a case for ArbCom. Otherwise, I think ArbCom is a mess to sift through and should be avoided. What the regulars have to fend off with is not at all like the Senkakus or Ireland&mdash;virtually no one uses "East Sea" or "West Philippine Sea". GotR Talk 23:25, 10 July 2012 (UTC)


 * At the risk of violating WP:BEANS, he is not autoconfirmed because he has only seven edits (which can be fixed in less than a minute); he is well beyond the date restriction which is the usual throttle for vandals. As for my main point, this article is probably a candidate for Article Probation, which (although it can be enacted through community consensus) is usually an ArbCom action. It doesn't matter whether its one editor editing through a series of proxies (or meatpuppets acting under the direction of a single editor) or simply a matter of nationalism run amok, this is a long-standing issue which needs to have some type of "official recognition" to resolve. I was involved in the second Macedonia arbitration, which involved similar issues (including a non-stop parade of IP editors enacting nationalistic-style edits), so this is something with which I have some familiarity. (Another, possibly more relevant, arbitration was over Liancourt Rocks, which had the same tussling over the name of a specific geographic location and the names of the bodies of water surrounding them). While "East Sea" is seldom used to describe the Sea of Japan outside of Korea, it became a flashpoint in the Dokdo/Takeshima tussle that resulted in the arbitration case. Blocking IP editors on sight for violating article probation will likely fix some of the problems on the article, as registered editors are suddenly caught up in autoblocks, which is easier than trying to get a checkuser request. After a short spell of autoblock hell, most of the single-purpose nationalists will give up, which will make it easier to drop the banhammer on the remaining hardcore nationalists.  Horologium  (talk) 00:50, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your protection of Andy Dick
Thank you for your handling of my request for semi-protection of Andy Dick. You clearly took the time to dig into the history a little bit. I think your indefinite semi-protection was exactly right, even though I did not mention it in my request. IMHO, your action will save a lot of grief in the future and help uphold the standards that Wikipedia should strive for. Many Thanks again! --Arg342 (talk) 10:27, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Colorado
Can you change the [move=autoconfirmed] to [move=sysop]? With the first anybody that has his account confirmed can move the page. Thank you in advice. Tb hotch .™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions.  17:01, 11 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I misread the protection log when I restored move-protection; I thought it was only move-protected for non-autoconfirmed. I have fixed that now.  Horologium  (talk) 13:24, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Flag of Western Sahara

 * Pictogram voting support.svg Fully protected&#32;for a period of 1 month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. I almost decided to IAR and block all three of the involved users for edit warring, but I decided to make them discuss the issue first. The one-month protection is intended to make them talk; once an agreement is reached, I have no problem with any admin removing the protection, but the edit war will stop now.  Horologium  (talk) 01:55, 11 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Four involved users to be exact, three versus one, and that one will not relent no matter how long you protect the page, no matter how much discussion takes place, no matter if we just got done with an RfC on the matter . I will appreciate a month of not having to deal with that specific page (though I'm sure he'll go on filling countless other pages with nonsense), and I look forward to your participation when the month is over and he begins slanting the page once again to put his country in a ludicrously false light. ¦ Reisio (talk) 21:39, 11 July 2012 (UTC)


 * My concern was that there was not a whole lot of discussion going on (partly due to the lack of communication from the one in the RFC), and the participation of a pair of editors who have already been blocked for edit-warring on Western Sahara-related articles (including one who received a broad topic ban on the subject), not to mention all of the nonsense in that thread from WP:AN. SmartSE expressed a view similar to mine, but in a more tactful fashion; administrative action does not require me to resolve a dispute; that is why talk pages exist. Moreschi had it right; nationalistic disputes are an incredible PitA, and I've promised myself not to get involved in them again, short of protecting pages and blocking obvious edit-warriors. I simply lack the patience to deal with single-minded nationalists, regardless of my personal views on a subject, and I'm not going to get sucked into this one because one of the involved editors taunts me on my talk page. You all have a month; hammer out an agreement or continue to pursue dispute resolution.  Horologium  (talk) 14:09, 12 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I sympathize :p but I wish instead of brushing it under the rug for a month for someone else to clean up (or more likely also brush under the rug) you'd just figure out which side is in the wrong in your eyes and ban them from editing for a month instead. &brvbar; Reisio (talk) 01:12, 13 July 2012 (UTC)