Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Macedonia: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
EyeSerene (talk | contribs)
20,213 edits
EyeSerene (talk | contribs)
20,213 edits
→‎2011: two more
Line 608: Line 608:
*{{user|SamiraJ}} warned, edit warring on [[Kaloyan of Bulgaria]], per [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SamiraJ&diff=prev&oldid=448837268 this notice]. [[User:EdJohnston|EdJohnston]] ([[User talk:EdJohnston|talk]]) 23:49, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
*{{user|SamiraJ}} warned, edit warring on [[Kaloyan of Bulgaria]], per [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SamiraJ&diff=prev&oldid=448837268 this notice]. [[User:EdJohnston|EdJohnston]] ([[User talk:EdJohnston|talk]]) 23:49, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
*{{user|Wisco2000}} warned, edit warring on [[National Liberation War of Macedonia]] and at [[Saint Naum]], per [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Wisco2000#Edit_warring_at_National_Liberation_War_of_Macedonia this edit]. [[User:EdJohnston|EdJohnston]] ([[User talk:EdJohnston|talk]]) 05:05, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
*{{user|Wisco2000}} warned, edit warring on [[National Liberation War of Macedonia]] and at [[Saint Naum]], per [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Wisco2000#Edit_warring_at_National_Liberation_War_of_Macedonia this edit]. [[User:EdJohnston|EdJohnston]] ([[User talk:EdJohnston|talk]]) 05:05, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
*{{user|Reanimated X}} notified of ARBMAC (procedural warning; no history of disruption) [[User:EyeSerene|<span style="font-family:Verdana;color:#4B0082">EyeSerene</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:EyeSerene|<span style="color:#6B8E23">talk</span>]]</sup> 10:23, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
*{{user|Lunch for Two}} notified of ARBMAC and strongly warned about edit warring on [[National Liberation War of Macedonia]] and elsewhere. [[User:EyeSerene|<span style="font-family:Verdana;color:#4B0082">EyeSerene</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:EyeSerene|<span style="color:#6B8E23">talk</span>]]</sup> 10:23, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Revision as of 10:23, 15 September 2011

Shortcut

Case Opened on 00:10, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Case Closed on 02:25, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Watchlist all case pages: 1, 2, 3, 4

Please do not edit this page directly unless you wish to become a participant in this case. Only add a statement here after the case has begun if you are named as a party; otherwise, your statement may be placed on the talk page, and will be read in full. Evidence, no matter who can provide it, is very welcome at /Evidence. Evidence is more useful than comments.

Arbitrators, the parties, and other editors may suggest proposed principles, findings, and remedies at /Workshop. That page may also be used for general comments on the evidence. Arbitrators will then vote on a final decision in the case at /Proposed decision.

Once the case is closed, editors may add to the #Log of blocks and bans as needed, but it should not be edited otherwise. Please raise any questions at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Requests for clarification, and report violations of remedies at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement.

Involved parties

Statement by Fut.Perf.

The next big nationalism case after Azerbaijan-Armenia, Eastern Europe etc. There are three main disputes between four neighbouring nations here:

The players in this edit war are a relatively small number of established ringleaders, plus a large and volatile group of short-lived accounts. The balances of edit-warring firepower are such that the four nations involved have established a local pecking order of POV-pushing: Greek tendentious editing can generally get away with murder; Bulgarian tendentious editing will have its way as long as it's not against the Greeks; Albanian editors get their way because Greeks and Bulgarians come to their aid just to annoy the Macedonians; and most Macedonian editors are immobilized to such a degree they can hardly get an edit through without having it reverted immediately - leading to predictable outbreaks of sock attacks and other forms of retaliatory disruption from their side.

We need topic bans for a couple of ringleaders and revert paroles for at least a dozen others, plus administrative carte blanche for dealing with new disruption, à la Armenia-Azerbaijan.

Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:54, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:Kékrōps

User:Future Perfect at Sunrise's claim that "Greek tendentious editing can generally get away with murder" is baffling, given that the "fragile consensus" he mentions has been struck at the expense of the Greek position, and any dissent is immediately censored. The name Macedonia is used throughout Wikipedia in a way that is highly offensive to Greeks, especially Macedonians; see Macedonia naming dispute for further information. Furthermore, his portrayal of one side as the perennial victims is unhelpful in a complicated dispute of this nature. User:Kékrōps 10:54, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Avg

It is true that this is a very sensitive issue to all parties involved. However, being sensitive does not equal being nationalistic. The recent surge in edit warring occurs because tensions are extremely heightened outside Wikipedia. These weeks or even days are a turning point in the Macedonia naming dispute, since UN is drafting a final plan to be accepted by both RoM and Greece before RoM's entry to NATO. Apart from that, I'm disappointed that User:Future Perfect at Sunrise is clearly taking sides in this dispute. Perhaps he's been long enough to these topics to have lost the balance he should have as an administrator? As a Greek I feel insulted by the use of an expression such as "Greeks can get away with murder", especially without any diff supporting it. So I certainly support this is escalated, in order for ArbCom to establish some guidelines for both editors and admins. --Avg 14:55, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Francis Tyers

I concur with the point of view of Fut.Perf. In areas such as this, uninvolved admins need more leeway to forcefully arbitrate disputes and get rid of obvious trolls. Part of the problem comes from demographics and wealth, there are more Greeks, and more Bulgarians on the internet than Macedonians. This follows through to Wikipedia. There is a tendency for both Bulgarians and Greeks to "gang up" on Macedonians as Fut. Perf. describes.

Talk pages also generally get filled with nationalist rubbish and personal attacks / comments, one example of the off-topic stuff that goes on in most pages here. Fortunately Fut. Perf. had the good sense to remove this particular lot, but there is so much more.

Topic and article bans would be very welcome for the more disruptive users. Particularly those found engaging in "tag-team" reverting to avoid the 3RR.

I'd like to add that it isn't all users, many Greek, Macedonian and Bulgarian users manage to work on articles together perfectly well (see for example Macedonia (terminology) as suggested by Niko below). I'd like to add that not "practically adopting" the Greek position does not mean the same thing as "practically adopting" the ethnic Macedonian position.

Statement by Ireland101

I fully agree with the comments of Fut.Perf. The whole issue with Macedonian related articles has gone too far. As mentioned before the fact that members of the other ethnic groups gang up or "tag-team" against the edits of Macedonian users is quite apparent and troubling. This has gone so far that I have even seen ethnic Macedonian users leave Wikipedia because of this sort of injustice. Although some Greek users may not agree Fut.Perf is correct when stating that Greek users can get away with almost anything. The edits speak for themselves as in almost any conflict the Greek side has won. The several users that push the Bulgarian POV are quite successful mainly due to their organization. It is rare that I see edits from Macedonians that aren't reverted within 10 minutes. Besides the fact that it is proven that many of these users use socks I think some more investigation needs to be done as I suspect multiple users may be using those accounts to achive what they have. And as Fut.Perf also mentioned it is quite disappointing to see these users supporting the Albanians just to annoy the Macedonians. A solution must be found for this. Ireland101 21:26, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Li4kata

All people in Macedonia have a origin ethnic and this ethnic must be clearly showed. E.g. many Bulgarian revolutionaries are considered like ethnic Macedonian in Republic Macedonia. One of discussed people is Boris Sarafov. He is regular Bulgarian military officer, born in Region of Macedonia (present-day in Bulgaria). Some notes:

1. Boris Sarafov in your Memoirs he defined himself like ethnic Bulgarian. Boris Sarafov heve never defined like other ethnic.

2. In Republic of Macedonia defined ethnic origin according to born places. E.g. all members of Internal Macedonian Revolutionary Organization, born in Region of Macedonia are defined like Macedonians (ethnic) and this members born in North Bulgaria or Adrianople Thrace like Bulgarians. Art. 1 from Internal Macedonian Revolutionary Organization Regulation says, that in organization can member Bulgarians only. For more information see IMRO.

3. Boris Sarafov's brother Krastyo Sarofov is one of most popular and favorite Bulgarian theter actors. In Bulgaria Krastyo Sarafov National Academy for Theatre and Film Arts is the only one Theatre and Film Arts institution of higher education for all Bulgaria.

4. In Bulgarian SS. Cyril and Methodius National Library are preserved a lot of IMRO documents and personal correspondence of Boris Sarafov and all Bulgarian national heros from Macedonia, where they many times are defined themself like ethic Bulgarians. I see that for some of Bulgarians national heros there are already for several sources proved them ethnicity. What is need number sources, which put finish of this madness, to be defined some for ethic Macedonian, after he defined himself like Bulgarians! --Li4kata 10:56, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Jingiby

I will answer to Future with citations from two persons.

- The first one is from Krste Misirkov, the most prominent figure of the ethnic Macedonian national awakening and as he was proclamed from Macedonian Academy of Sciences and Arts - Macedonian #1 of 20th Century. The citatation is from his mostly known work "On the Macedonian Matters" from 1903, were the central issue was - the existence, or not, of a Macedonian nation distinct from the Bulgarian nation.

"...We spokе Bulgarian language and we believed with Bulgarians is our strong power...The future of Macedonia was in the spiritual union of the Bulgarians in Macedonia... The Macedonian Slavs ware called Bulgarians...The biggest part of the population ware called Bulgarians... All spoke that Macedonians are Bulgarians...".

- The second one is from the former Vice-President and Premier of Republic of Macedonia and now Bulgarian citizen Ljubčo Georgievski.In late summer of 2007 Georgievski published his book "Facing the truth" in Bulgaria. In it he reveals his attitude to Macedonian identity and Bulgarian past in the Republic of Macedonia:

"Why are we ashamed and flee from the truth that whole positive Macedonian revolutionaries traditions comes exactly from Bulgarian Exarchate's part of Macedonian people. We shall not say a new truth if we mention the fact that everyone, Gotse Delchev, Dame Gruev, Giorche Petrov, Pere Toshev - must I list and count all of them - were Bulgarian Exarchate's teachers in Macedonia."

And now we have to change their ethnicity, or what?Jingby 15:51, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Alex (202.10.89.28)

I agree with Future Perfect. The fact that there is a pecking order disgusts me and this issue needs to be resolved. I am not saying Macedonians are always the victims but on Wikipedia it seems to be the case.

While Greeks take offense at hearing the name Macedonian referring to the ethnic Macedonians, ethnic Macedonians take offense in not being called Macedonians. The Greeks have the identifier "Greek" and some of them use "Macedonian", the Macedonians only have "Macedonian" and that is where the problem lies. But my question is, why did Greece not have a problem with the Socialist Republic of Macedonia? They used the name Macedonia (not Currently Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia) yet Greece and Greeks did not care. And from the official codification (not invention) in 1944 of the Macedonian language up until Macedonian independence, there was no protest from the Greek side. It all happened after independence, when the Greek Government stated that Macedonia is Greek and Greeks started claiming that the use of "Macedonian" in connection with the newly independent country was offensive. After a while, what you claim and what you think can become the same. This may have happened with Skopjan and Slavomacedonian on the other side. Problem is, we can't change anything in terms of what is offensive now.

But in other parts of the world (even Melbourne, which has the most Greeks outside Athens), everybody knows what people mean when saying Macedonia. I went to a school where 1/3 of students were Greek and 1/3 were Macedonian - we learned our respective languages in the school, and no Greek (student, teacher or parent) referred to Macedonians as Slavs or Skopjans, but simply Macedonians. If you ask any Greek, regardless of geographical region, where they come from, they will say Greece, not Macedonia, not Thessaly but Greece. The ones that say Macedonia refer to the country, and even Greeks know this. I have even seen nationalist (or maybe just racist) Greeks saying "Macedonians Suck" - and that is a partial resolution (Greeks can hate Macedonians, yet call them by their name).

The Bulgarian users like to edit everything to do with Macedonians - even indisputably non-Bulgarian things like the SR Macedonia/SFR Yugoslavia place of birth thing. That is another problem.

And Future Perfect is not taking sides - many Macedonians find many articles unsatisfactory. Unfortunately, if Bulgarians and Greeks find articles unsatisfactory, they have the power in numbers to change them in the long run. Alex 202.10.89.28 07:47, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by strich3D

I can agree with Future Perfect. Macedonian editors are immobilized because they are in much smaller number than Bulgarian and Greek editors and have worse organisation. For example Bulgairan editors- in fact one account: ForeignerFromTheEast which is controlled by more people and is 24h ON. An answer for Jingiby, quote from foreword from Krste Misirkov's book "On Macedonian matters": " As a succesor of idea for full separation of our concerns from concerns of the other Balkan nations and for fully indpendent national and cultural evolution, I wrote this book on macedonian central dialect which from now will be Macedonian literary language". strich3D

Statement by HxSeek

I praise FuturePerf's righteous actions regarding the state opf this article. He is coorect, as it is very obvious, that there is an heirarchy of collaboration, if you will, between editors of different ethnic affiliations. It seems that our Bulgarian fellows seem to have hijacked the articles. Especially ethnic macedonians article, it is full of Bulgarian history and reads like some kind of nationalist newspaper article trying to convince masses as to how obvious it is that Macedonians are Bulgarians. One might even accuse them of sheer arrogance, placing edits such as "Macedonians are ethnopolitically disoriented Bulgarians". Now, I have always maintained respect for the regular Bulgarian editors, Jingiby, etc, etc. They are certainly knowledgeable and raise good points, but a line is crossed when the intentionally steer the article into their own agenda. Eg [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Macedonians_%28ethnic_group%29&oldid=167334772#World_War_I}

As for the Greek position, their focus is on the anything referring to the name and history of macedonia. I have already attempted to outline fallabilities in their whole arguement in the naming dispute article. Initially, the Slav Macedonian perspective section was a mere 2 lines, versus pages of greek perspective. I elaborated. To my surprise, it was not mass reverted, albeit it was certainly watered down to suit a more Greek-acceptable position, whilst the Greek perspective remains 100% pro-Greek and un-diluted.

This issue needs to be resolved. The whole ethnicity and historical debate has many facts which can be interpreted many ways. I am keen on working cooperatively and do not deny other perspectives, but the Greek and Bulgarian editors need to allow a Slav macedonian perspective to be heard without labelling it 'nationalist' or 'pseudoscience', becuase that's just a case of the pot calling the kettle black. Yes, there are some Macedonian editors who exxagerate, etc, but i see mysel to be conservative and factual. Hxseek 22:33, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Dzole

Im with FutPerf on this, I explained my pov on the Incident Page but I'll repeat some points that I find very important:

the Bulgarian editors listed above (some are missing actually), beside their tendentious behaviour, insist on keeping highly questionable sources:

There are several other examples scattered throughout Wikipedia. By allowing the use of such sources, Wikipedia is ruining its own credibility. I vote that Wikipedia's BOTs should be programmed to automaticaly consider such links as spam and to subsequently remove them.

Regarding the behaviour of the Greek editors: a personal Greek user page on Wikipedia that can be considered as contentious and provokative: User:Asteraki. Quote: This user is able to contribute with an Intermediate level of Bulgarian southwestern dialect of FYROM.(end of quote) Refers to the Macedonian language as to Bulgarian language. Also the user had a sub-page which seemed to be a political pamphlet at User:Asteraki/VARDARSKA-(FYROM) (refering to Republic of Macedonia as Vardarska Banovina etc.). See this also. Despite all, the user remains active on Wikipedia.

I tried not to get involved in any edit-warring recently until this problem is solved, but my inactivity is abused by User: Jingiby who continues agenda pushing and adding questionable sources for example to Mala Prespa and Golo Brdo (also see the Talk page).

P.S. A notable problem is the article National Liberation War of Macedonia where the Bulgarian editors have tried to add very contentious statements which are almost near to neo-nazism, such as that the Bulgarian Axis-allied army was greeted as a liberator in Macedonia during the WWII.[2] They supported their statement with a WWII Bulgarian source published in 1941 (МАКЕДОНИЯ 1941, "Възкресението" - С. Нанев, 1941 г.) ---- Dzole (talk) 21:05, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Preliminary decisions

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (4/0/0/0)

  • Accept. Kirill 18:32, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Accept. Paul August ☎ 04:46, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Accept. We can take a look and help some perhaps, but the most effective way to address these issues is to attract more impartial editors/admins to these article to help mediate content disputes and explain content policies to newbies. Would be helpful for some experienced users to watchlist related categories. FloNight♥♥♥ 11:55, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Accept. James F. (talk) 22:02, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Final decision

Principles

Purpose of Wikipedia

1) Wikipedia is a project to create a neutral encyclopedia. Use of the site for other purposes—including, but not limited to, advocacy, propaganda, furtherance of outside conflicts, and political or ideological struggle—is prohibited.

Passed 7-0 at 02:25, 3 December 2007 (UTC).

Decorum

3) Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably and calmly in their interactions with other users, to keep their cool when editing, and to avoid acting in a manner that brings the project into disrepute. Unseemly conduct—including, but not limited to, personal attacks, incivility, assumptions of bad faith, trolling, harassment, and gaming the system—is prohibited. Users should not respond to such behavior in kind; concerns regarding the actions of other users should be brought up in the appropriate forums.

Passed 7-0 at 02:25, 3 December 2007 (UTC).

Editorial process

4) Wikipedia works by building consensus through the use of polite discussion. The dispute resolution process is designed to assist consensus-building when normal talk page communication has not worked. Sustained editorial conflict is not an appropriate method of resolving disputes.

Passed 7-0 at 02:25, 3 December 2007 (UTC).

Findings of fact

Area of conflict

1) The disputes presented in this case, while focusing specifically on issues related to Macedonia, are part of a broader set of conflicts prevalent over the entire range of articles concerning the Balkans; see, for example, the Dalmatia case and the Kosovo case. Many of these conflicts are grounded in matters external to Wikipedia, including long-standing historical, national, and ethnic disputes in the region. The area of conflict in this case shall therefore be considered to be the entire set of Balkan-related articles, broadly interpreted.

Passed 7-0 at 02:25, 3 December 2007 (UTC).

Remedies

Discretionary sanctions

1) Any uninvolved administrator may, on their own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict if that editor fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, the expected standards of behavior, or the normal editorial process. The sanctions imposed may include blocks of up to one year in length; bans from editing any page or set of pages within the area of conflict; restrictions on reverts; or any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project. Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning with a link to this decision.

Passed 6-0 at 02:25, 3 December 2007 (UTC).

Appeal of discretionary sanctions

2.1) Discretionary sanctions imposed under the provisions of this decision may be appealed to the imposing administrator, the administrators' noticeboard, or the Committee. Administrators are cautioned not to reverse such sanctions without familiarizing themselves with the full facts of the matter and engaging in extensive discussion and consensus building at the administrators' noticeboard or another suitable on-wiki venue. The Committee will consider appropriate remedies including suspension or revocation of adminship in the event of violations.

Passed 7-0 at 02:25, 3 December 2007 (UTC).

Enforcement

Logging of sanctions

1) All sanctions imposed under the provisions of this decision are to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Macedonia#Log of blocks and bans.

Passed 6-0 at 02:25, 3 December 2007 (UTC).

Log of blocks and bans

Log any block, ban or extension under any remedy in this decision here. Minimum information includes name of administrator, date and time, what was done and the basis for doing it.

Useful user talk templates: {{uw-balkans}} (assumes good faith) and {{uw-balkans2}} (use after disruption)

December 2007 - February 2008

  • Arising from some 3RR and edit warring issues, I have placed the following users on notice of this decision and the discretionary sanctions.
  • The first three users are not accused of anything but their edits within the area of conflict require them, in my opinion, to be on notice of the decision. The final two users broke the 3RR and I have blocked them both for that as well as giving notice of this decision. I will be checking back to ensure that things continue to go smoothly or if not to proceed to impose the relevant sanctions. Stifle (talk) 12:36, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I emphasize that these are protective notices only. Stifle (talk) 09:13, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have created a user warning template, {{uw-balkans}}, patterned on Stifle's warning above. Sandstein (talk) 12:05, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've removed this template off the main WP:UTM page until we can have some discussion on this warning first before it goes live. As it says above ....editor fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, the expected standards of behavior, or the normal editorial process. the first line of this warning is ...administrators were given the power to impose discretionary sanctions on any user working on articles concerning the Balkans. which does not look anything like the sanction statement. We do not impose sanction on any user also we already have to the warnings in pleace to deal with the three pertinant points in the sacntions and the uw-balkans warning is, in my opinion , over dramatic and reactionary, hence I would prefer to see a greater discussion. Also does this mean we are going to have a uw-kashmir, uw-northernireland, uw-armenia, uw-cyprus etc? Cheers Khukri 13:07, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think having that on the WP:UTM page is probably a bad idea bearing WP:DENY in mind. As to Khukri's point, are there ArbCom discretionary sanctions rulings in place on all those other matters? Stifle (talk) 16:02, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

March 2008 - May 2008

Blocked indefinitely by Rodhullandemu for using a sockpuppet (Kendobs1‎ (talk · contribs)) to evade the above block and abuse editors. - Ev (talk) 14:33, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reduced to 7 days per User_talk:Jawohl#Topic_banned. Rudget (review) 15:15, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

June 2008 - August 2008

September 2008 - November 2008

  • User:Rjecina blocked for 24 hours for continuing to smear other editors on Balkans-related articles as 'banned users' despite final warnings not to do so (block message & evidential diffs here). EyeSerenetalk 10:37, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • 70.80.93.11 (talk · contribs) blocked 7 days for edit-warring and disruption on several articles related to Kosovo after being made aware of this arbitration case via {{uw-balkans2}}. J.delanoygabsadds 22:51, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

December 2008 - February 2009

March 2009 – May 2009

June 2009 – August 2009

September 2009 - December 2009

  • Topic ban broadened - see below. Toddst1 (talk) 15:27, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Broadened topic ban rescinded per [31]. Original topic ban left untouched, but per agreement, any "Continued disruption relating to any WP:ARBMAC related topic or civility issues will result in an automatic indefinite block." without possibility of appeal. Toddst1 (talk) 01:40, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Topic ban partially lifted on request: allowing LAz17 to make noncontentious edits to demographics data, while continuing to avoid interaction with User:Ceha. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:28, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bersus (talk · contribs) blocked 2 months for continued blanking, removal of cited Balkan-related content without explanation or seeking consensus. Changed sanction from 1RR/week to topic ban on all Balkan-related content. Toddst1 (talk) 20:06, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Guildenrich (talk · contribs) blocked 2 weeks for non-compliance with topic ban. Moreschi (talk) 01:03, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Blocked 6 weeks and then indefblocked for block evasion through IPs. Moreschi (talk) 18:54, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Toroko (talk · contribs) indefinitely blocked for continued disruption at 1102, among others. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:16, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

January 2010 - March 2010

  • At 12:44, 22 January 2010 indef-blocked for ban violations.  Sandstein  22:23, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

May 2010 – December 2010

  • The above ban has been commuted for both parties. The parties are now banned from editing articles related to the Balkans, broadly construed, for two weeks. Parties are also restricted to one revert per 24-hour period for four months. These restrictions are to run concurrently. The WordsmithCommunicate 15:19, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Tadija (talk · contribs) unblocked: procedural error by this admin. Sanction lifted as well. Strong final warning issued in lieu of block. Toddst1 (talk) 14:34, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Anonimu (talk · contribs)'s topic ban lifted due to technicality - not issued ARBMAC warning. Toddst1 (talk) 19:55, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Broadened topic ban rescinded and original topic ban left untouched, but per agreement, any "Continued disruption relating to any WP:ARBMAC related topic or civility issues will result in an automatic indefinite block." without possibility of appeal. See above Toddst1 (talk) 01:41, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

January 2011 –

See [40]. T. Canens (talk) 04:04, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Article Level Restrictions

Log of warnings

This is an incomplete list of editors who have received the warning (by means of the template {{subst:uw-sanctions|topic=b}} or otherwise) required for the imposition of discretionary sanctions.

2010

2011

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Macedonia&oldid=450618991"