Wikipedia talk:Centralized discussion/Macedonia

Welcome. Alcohol is served :)

File:Chinaspritecans.jpg

Also some 雪碧 for the teetotallers.

Structure

So, let's collect ideas on how to proceed further, in terms of process and infrastructure.

My own suggestion:

1. Create subpages for the five principal areas of discussion:
   1. Page title of the main country article
   2. Naming conventions for page titles of sub-articles of the country
   3. References in other articles
   4. Greece-related articles
   5. International organisations articles
2. In each subpage, collect a small number of competing proposal guidelines
3. Hold initial content discussion on the talk pages of each proposal subpage
4. Collect consensus material on another subpage, "/guidelines", which will grow into the final result (hopefully)
5. Possibly create another subpage "/evidence" to host things like usage statistics, a repository of source links and so on.

Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:15, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Each of the five pages should be about all four meanings of Macedonia as the 29.1.1 page says.

1. 1. Page title of each of the four macedonias
   2. Naming conventions for page titles of sub-articles of each of the four macedonias
   3. References in non-contemporary context
   4. Specific country-related articles (Greece/Bulgaria/Republic of Macedonia)
   5. Other contexts (e.g.International organisations articles)

That would be better than having 4 meanings * 5 = 20 total pages. The rest seems ok.

I see your point, but the other Macedonias are hardly as contentious. We've always handled those just fine, with just ad-hoc disambiguation as a matter of common sense. In #4, only the one pairing has ever been an object of discussion. The whole discussion exists only because Greek editors wanted to make that one situation (ref to the country from Greece-related articles) a special exception case. If you want to merge that case with the other mutual pairings, you are basically already conceding there should be no special rules – which is fine with me, because then we don't need to discuss anything. #5 is moot for the other Macedonias, because they are, by their very nature, not participants in international organisations. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:39, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I am just following what the remedy says. Of course some parts of the discussion would be easier - one sentence would cover them. Lets finish once and for all with all of them (well at least for some reasonably large amount of time since "consesnsus can change" in the future). I think that was the spirit of the decision. Made some edits to the top. This effort is not only to answer the questions about the country about but the whole entangled naming issues. And of course the question of primary topic should be addressed since it was only recently and contentiously introduced. Shadowmorph ^{^"^}

Of course, concomitant issues regarding the "other" Macedonias can be treated as they come up. But it's still unnecessary to complicate the initial summary of the questions with things that won't be contentious. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:59, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I have an idea, I found this Template:Resolved issues. Can we use it to give out the definitely non contested issues like: FYROM (the acronym not the long form) cannot be used in most circumstances (unless e.g. to avoid repetition of the long form of the term in certain articles). Or Macedonia (region) is the accepted title of that article... not sure that there won't be any drama about which to include. If anyone objects we can take it down. Shadowmorph ^{^"^} 09:21, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Sure, good idea. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:32, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

BTW, not sure if you've seen it, but I've started drafting sub-pages. Do you think the format is okay like that? Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:34, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Can't keep up with the pace right now. I'll see them in a while. So where does that template thingy goes best? A separate section in the page covering resolved issues?Shadowmorph ^{^"^} 10:29, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Okay, let's take a break. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:36, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Citations

The page should make some use of the {{Reflist}} tag. I added it. However citations should be used moderately.Shadowmorph ^{^"^} 10:28, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Proposal

BTW, when the discussion does start, I would strongly prefer that we structure it similarly to the arbitration's evidence section. That will minimise indent replies, making the discussion more easily readable and less prone to hostility. Let me know about your views on this. I am taking a break too... --Radjenef (talk) 10:47, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Could you clarify what you mean? I think it's a lot easier for readability if a reply to a comment is indented right below rather than in a section much further down called "Reply to X". BalkanFever 11:11, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

The Workshop page was a bit chaotic, many overlaps and no taxonomy.The Proposed Decision page was nice but the community is not a fixed number of arbs that vote on versions and voting like in a poll you-know-what, is unworkable.

I would say something like the PD page but with no "opposers" and no "abstains". Revisions (offsets) of proposals were handy. Each proposal (for each specific issue that needs to be addressed) can have multiple rationales signed by multiple users. The competing proposals can be like A) B) C) and the revisions will be A.1) A.2) etc. The evaluating admins can tag issues about each proposal (tag A.x) with "no basis" etc. or "current rationale wording violates that and that"

By taking a look at MOSMAC I can hypothesize that it failed because it was an effort to collaboratively write an article ("essay") with no structure (other than typical policy texts). This one in contrast should be an effort to address specific issues with specific proposals. Opposing views do not have to mix. That way the ones in agreement with one proposal do not have to repeat the same arguments over and over again.

Rationales should be bullet points. Every new bullet under rationale should be about a new and unique way to justify the proposal. The number of the ways is not important but in that way all opinions can be expressed and evaluated without repetition and overlaps.

I would further suggest that each user that participates should at least try to cast a "second choice" to avoid maximum polarization. Those are my thoughts for now.Shadowmorph ^{^"^} 12:15, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

The purpose would be to put as much weight on the arguments supporting each proposal rather than the number of "votes".Shadowmorph ^{^"^} 12:17, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not convinced we should invite "vote"-style comments at all, at least in a first phase. Remember the whole purpose of the exercise is to finally make this NOT a vote. Perhaps we should have an initial phase that really is just hammering out the proposals and documenting the arguments. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:55, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

It was a "vote" at Greece that initiated the latest round of arbitration, so I agree with Future Perfect, no votes, no vote-like comment behavior. (Taivo (talk) 13:18, 12 June 2009 (UTC))

Decision mechanism

I've been thinking further about how we can actually bring about a decision here. On the one hand, we have a very clear mandate that this should not again become a "vote", with all the block voting effects and the type of dynamics we saw in the Greece poll and elsewhere. That's the íntention behind Bainer's proposal. So, theoretically, one way out would be if we just left it to the referee-admins to act as content-arbitrators, i.e. assess the soundness of our arguments, purely on the basis of their own personal judgment. However, the remedies also say that the referees ought to be assessing not just arguments, but "consensus". So, they will probably not feel confident simply "judging" things, but will want to see a consensus formed among others. But how can they assess consensus if we don't previously have a stage where we collect people saying "yes, I agree with X", i.e. giving vote-like statements? But once we allow that, how do we prevent yet new floods of people coming in with stereotyped "agree with X"/"as per Y" statements based not on an independent assessment of the arguments but on pre-existing political motivations?

I believe the only workable solution is to clearly separate the roles of participants with pre-existing involvement in the debate on the one hand, and outside uninvolved observers on the other. This means: we (people with previous involvement in related disputes, active participants in the Arbcom case, and editors with known affiliations with the nationalities in question) should only act in the presentation and documentation of the proposals and arguments. Then, in a separate step, we should have a stage where other people should be invited to say: "yes, I'm more convinced by X than by Y". But that role should be restricted to previously uninvolved editors. I'd say, we could set a condition like that they should be established editors (with minimum X edits before the beginning of this process), uninvolved in the dispute, and not from one of the ethnic groups involved. Their "!votes" would then serve as a neutral measurement of how convincing our arguments are.

Would that be acceptable? Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:55, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm thinking, we have each interested person post in their own section on some subpage, and say "This is what I think, and this is why I think it." Enforce a limit on length, say, 2000 or 2500 words per person or something, and move all discussion to the talk page of that page, kind of like the /evidence page is on an Arbitration case, but allowing for more personal opinion/analysis. By disallowing direct replies on the page itself, it would be much easier for the referees to determine consensus and the strength of the arguments. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 14:11, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

But the practical consideration is, if we really want to recruit more outside uninvolved people to chime in, we can't really expect each of them to write 2000-words essays on each of the questions. Also, there are only so many ways of re-stating the same arguments; we don't really want twenty people to say the same things in different words, just in order to prove that each of them has independently formed their opinion. There is, at some point, a legitimate place for a person to just say: "I'm for X, as per Y's arguments" (roughly in an RfC-"endorsement" style). Such endorsements provide the visible demonstration that somebody's arguments have convinced somebody else. Only, we don't want people with preconceived, external political motives doing that; "endorsements" can only fulfill their legitimate role of validating an argument if they come from outside. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:26, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

(ec) I'm still uncomfortable with the voting aspect of Future's proposal. There's just no way to keep the "drive by" and "bloc voting" aspects out of it. I like J.delanoy's limited length discussion without direct commenting. More like legal briefs. It may also keep anything heated from developing. "Consensus" is not a majority vote, but a coming together. So perhaps the next step after writing the briefs could be for someone less involved to read all the statements and write out a "this is what everyone agrees on" statement based on the briefs. Then the contentious matters will be clearly focused for either further discussion or clarification. More consensus might develop out of that process. In the end, there will be things that are still not agreed upon. Those are the matters that the arbitrators will simply have to adjudicate. (But we knew that from the beginning.) (Taivo (talk) 17:34, 12 June 2009 (UTC))

I'm happy with them adjudicating – if they will be willing to do that. I'm not so optimistic about consensus developing, among those of us who are already parties to the dispute. In core questions, we already know it just won't happen. As for keeping the block voting out, it can be done to a large degree if we can exclude Greek and Macedonian voters. To forestall an objection: that doesn't exclude them from the process; I'm just saying they (and we) shouldn't be the ones who endorse, but the ones who put their arguments up for the test of endorsement by others. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:40, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Now I've got to sound a bit like Tasos. Who is Greek? Who is Macedonian? And is it really possible (or realistic or "right") to exclude them? I think that we need a very strong neutral clerk involved. The ArbCom process seemed pretty clearly focused--stick to policy and don't drag anything else into the arena. If we have a strong neutral clerk, then he/she can be the gatekeeper for all comments. When a comment is not focused on policy and strays into politics, they can delete the comment or move it into a separate corral for "irrelevant" matters that are ignored. I don't think that any of the involved editors should perform that task. (Taivo (talk) 17:51, 12 June 2009 (UTC))

Ah, I misread your comment, Future. You weren't talking about excluding them from "filing a brief", but from the endorsement process. I still think that's problematic for technical reasons since there is a very large Greek diaspora (and virtually no Macedonian one). (Taivo (talk) 17:53, 12 June 2009 (UTC))

So, here's a more complete proposal on how to proceed to keep the process focussed, trying to bring together the best aspects of what each of us has proposed so far:

• We stick with the subpage structure I started creating this morning.
• On each subpage, active participants are welcome to file a concrete proposal, roughly like the ones I added already in some cases.
• For each proposal, the proposer adds a summary rationale explaining how it is based on policy, linking to evidence data and so on. These should be restricted in size. That would correspond to what I think you were describing with your "like a legal brief", and what Radjenef meant with "like the evidence page".
• Other editors are free to "co-sponsor" such a proposal, by adding their own supporting argument to it, but those secondary statements should be even more narrowly restricted in size, and it should only be done if the co-sponsoring statement actually contains something new. (No mere "me too" statements at that stage.)
• (Possibly:) Opposing participants are allowed to add a very brief summary statement against each proposal. The number and size of such counter-statements should be strictly limited.
• From that point onwards, threaded discussion will be handed off elsewhere, to a dedicated section of a discussion page which will be linked to from the proposal for convenience.
• Finally, there will be an endorsement section for each proposal, roughly like on a user RfC, with a list of outside editors signing that they find the argument convincing. This section may only be used by established and previously uninvolved editors (and ideally, excluding editors from the nationalities involved).
• The referees will have the task of judging the soundness of the arguments presented in the initial statements, aided in their assessment by the poll-like effect of the outside endorsements (but not reduced to counting votes).

Thoughts? Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:12, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Two other issues: we need to reduce as much as possible the scope for disruption (e.g. of the sort that might result from off-wiki canvassing) and we need to be as transparent as possible. To those ends, I suggest:

• IP editors and editors with accounts created before the end of the ARBMAC2 case should be (politely) excluded from participation. I am somewhat uneasy about allowing existing SPAs to participate, but excluding them probably isn't practical.
• Participants in this process should publicly state at the outset, for the record, their nationality and whether they have any affiliations to the disputing countries or nationalities, e.g. ChrisO UK (no Macedonian or Greek connections). By being open about our affiliations, we can better address the issue of editorial blocs identified by the Arbcom here. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:12, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

My understanding of the process is that it goes like this:

1. we present the info in that page that all people can agree to (consensus) and leave out the decision on which clearly we cannot agree.
2. present alternatives
3. some uninvolved users/admins (but not SPA or new accounts) will make the decision.
   

Notice that in all this process there's no need to present which side you are on or your nationality... man with one red shoe 07:04, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

But this leaves only two categories of consensus levels: either full consensus across all participants (something that rarely happens anywhere in the wiki world, and is unlikely to happen for more than a few minor aspects here), or apparent complete standstill and relegation to "stalemate resolution". But I expect the referees won't be willing to do that. They are supposed to resort to their own judgment as "stalemate resolution" only as a last resort. First of all they are supposed to read "consensus", and that certainly includes wiki-style "rough consensus", so we need to find ways to clearly document the existence of such, including the opinions of neutral outside observers who won't have the time and energy to engage in a sustained discussion effort and tinkering with proposals, but will nevertheless be crucial to provide us with the sort of outside sanity check we need to break the deadlocks. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:38, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

(moved comment) I don't think this (outside endorsements) is a wise addition to the process. It is just a "vote" with a different name and will be subject to the same problems encountered at Talk:Greece with the infamous poll. There is no way to ensure that "endorsers" are truly "uninvolved" or not motivated by nationality or politics. I also don't see how it might help well-informed arbitrators who will be adjudicating the final decision anyway. I'm just distrustful of our (or a clerk's) ability to screen every passing endorser for prior neutrality or uninvolvement. Watching the stream of new accounts and single-purpose accounts line up to make their voice heard at ARBMAC2, I'm leery of opening the doors to anyone who wanders by. (Taivo (talk) 07:09, 13 June 2009 (UTC))

But there are things which everyone will agree on that we can mark as "already has consensus" (the names of Macedonia (Greece), for example). Consensus can actually be determined without voting. For example, one editor can write a list of things which he or she thinks everyone will agree on and post it in a section called "Consensus". If anyone doesn't agree, they simply say so. If no one says anything, or if only one person objects to this or that, then we have a wiki consensus. Consensus isn't about a majority, but an overwhelming majority, so there's no need to "vote". I think that even right now, someone who's been involved in this discussion for a while could already write a list of things that everyone agrees on already. (This is a key early step in all books on negotiating and in business negotiating.) Then we focus on discussing just the non-consensus issues. (Taivo (talk) 13:14, 13 June 2009 (UTC))

sure, that can be done. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:31, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I've started doing something with the {{Resolved issues}} template that Shadomorph dug up somewhere. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:49, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with what Taivo says, I think that voting and commenting leads to division, let's try to buld a consensus about the basic facts first without voting by keeping the article like a normal article (without comments and sign ups inside it) man with one red shoe 17:26, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

So, I take it the consensus for the moment is we will have no "vote-like" elements at all, at least for the time being? I guess that's okay for the initial phase at least. We can still introduce a more poll-like phase at a later stage, if it turns out to be necessary, and concentrate on more pure discussion style work first. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:47, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

"Arguing for the enemy"

As the proposals and rationales have been growing on some sub-pages, I'm beginning to feel that I find some of the arguments adduced for the "opposing" proposals much more worth taking seriously than others, and a few red herrings are finding their way into the pages. Do you guys think we could find a way to edit each other's proposed rationales together, with a view not to defeating the "other side's" argument, but first of all with a view to condensing it into those arguments that we all agree are the most valid? It would be a lot more efficient for later stages of the process if in some place we had a "cleaned-up" view of the argumentation, where each proposal is supported only by those arguments about which we can all agree they are the ones that are worth taking seriously, free of obvious red herrings or false factual premises and so on. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:01, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Tagging articles

Somehow those who want to participate will have to be directed to here. See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Macedonia 2#Tagging articles. This has to be done first for the sake of fairness.  Andreas  ^(T) 12:33, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I have so far given notice at WP:AN, the ethnic conflicts noticeboard, Talk:Greece and Talk:Macedonia. I'm not really convinced we should notify all the talk pages of all the hundreds of articles where the country is mentioned in passing, that's just not very practical. But a few of the most pertinent sub-articles would probably be good, that's true. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:53, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Tagging is a remedy, so its implementation is mandatory. Here is my suggestion:

~  Andreas  ^(T) 12:58, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, the remedy clearly says it is "up to the community to decide how to go about it", so I can't see mandatoriness. And in any case, its intent seems to be more to notify editors of the 1RR restriction than of the discussion process. But sure, if you want to make mass notifications, go ahead. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:04, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

About your tag draft, I don't think it's very productive to link the newbies to the arbitration case first thing, especially not through a cryptic abbreviation like "1RR". In any case, I'd prefer to use such tags only once a conflict or edit-warring danger has materialised on a given article. Let's keep the 1RR warning and the discussion notification separate issues. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:07, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

After a week it would be a good time to update the disputed title template at Macedonia to link here.Shadowmorph ^{^"^} 13:20, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I personally don't think it's a good idea to have a link in the template. This discussion doesn't need any more "drive by" comments from editors who don't know the background, the requirements, etc. and are just passing through to stir the pot. (Taivo (talk) 13:30, 12 June 2009 (UTC))

Indeed. The kind of "outsiders" we want are people who actually understand wiki policy and its application, not newbies who may or may not have simply read the policy pages. BalkanFever 13:36, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Very much so. The tag as it stands right now would simply direct all the Macedonia-obsessed drive-by editors to this discussion, with predictably disruptive results. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:14, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Kafka Liz (talk) 13:31, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

User talk template

Maybe it's better to not tag the articles, but notify individual editors through a user talk warning when there's a danger of edit warring. I created a template {{uw-1rrMac}}. It currently says the following:

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Please do not edit-war over the terminology used to refer to Macedonia, as you did at Example. Wikipedia has a policy of using the most common name generally used in English to refer a country, and/or the name that a country chooses to use for itself, no matter if these names are politically acceptable to third parties (see the naming-conflict guideline). The Arbitration Committee has decided that all edits affecting the Macedonia naming issue are subject to a one-revert restriction: no editor is allowed to undo another editor's action more than once within 24 hours. In cases where a binding consensus guideline has been reached, editors restoring the consensus version are not subject to this restriction.

Thanks! ~~~~

There are additional parameters that can be used to warn against particular types of anti-consensus edits, such as inserting abbreviated "FYROM". Optionally, it can also include a link to this discussion (that would be especially useful when posted to an established editor who might have something legitimate to contribute here, but I wouldn't normally use it for hit-and-run IPs.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:14, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually the tag (which is required by ArbCom anyway) which you developed above was fine except for the last sentence about the ArbCom and this discussion. Delete the last sentence with the link and I don't have any objections to it. The warning is a good idea, too, but again, leave the link to this discussion out of it. (Taivo (talk) 12:42, 14 June 2009 (UTC))

Yeah, one would assume that an established editor with something legitimate to contribute wouldn't be edit-warring over the name. Sure, there are a number of reasons for which they might make a single revert, or they could be reverting vandalism, but those who need to be told not to edit-war by the template most likely won't be such users. BalkanFever 13:02, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, uhm, it seems such a remote possibility, but hard as it is to believe, I've heard rumours that Macedonia revert wars between established users have on some rare occasions happened. You and me and everybody else here present would of course never have had anything to do with that. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:10, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Lol, point taken, but I meant in future (too tired for a pun). Humour me: can you think of any user, existing or hypothetical, whom you would need to tell not to edit-war about this with the above template, and would expect to contribute constructively here? That's different to simply informing an established editor, who may have unknowingly involved themselves in this mess, of the centralised discussion. You don't need a template for that. BalkanFever 14:15, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Disagree on comment about scholarly usage and evidence

The comment about "scholarly usage uses Macedonia to name the ancient kingdom" is not referenced. The current "evidence" of this is based on JSTOR. JSTOR digitally archives journals dating back through the entire 20th century and generally does not contain the most recent 5-10 years of the journals it includes. Therefore the counts at JSTOR are skewed in favor of non-Republic uses of Macedonia because of the heavy inclusion of pre-1990 issues and the non-inclusion of the most recent issues. Better evidence of this is needed if this is going to be one of the "consensus" bullets. Right now, I do not agree with this point. (Taivo (talk) 22:56, 12 June 2009 (UTC))

Another problem I have with the comment about scholarly usage is that any scholar who works (or wants to work) in Greece, and wants official permission from the appropriate Greek government office to conduct their research, or gets funding from the Greek government or a Greek research institution, is going to be forced by that reality to use "former Yugoslav" in all their publications or else risk any possibility of working in Greece in the future. This reality would also skew the scholarly citations that might otherwise read simply "Macedonia". These two factors lead to the evidence for "Macedonia" usage among scholars being skewed. This is probably a minor bullet since scholars aren't going to come to Wikipedia for information anyway. I suggest that bullet be deleted because the information is not really verifiable. (Taivo (talk) 23:18, 12 June 2009 (UTC))

The ancient kingdom is generally called Maceonia or Macedon in works by classical historians and classicists. I don't think this is controversial, but I could easily be wrong. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:33, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I suggest that assertions like this should be signed with the username of who added them. There are some other "facts" that I might be contested.Shadowmorph ^{^"^} 06:05, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

No, that's the worst idea, let's try to build a document that we all agree with not having different statement contested and commented over and over, that exactly why we don't sign them. man with one red shoe 07:20, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Taivo, your second comment, I think, is over-dramatising it a bit, and I'm not certain it is true. In any case, the issue here was not so much what the scholars' preferred naming choice is when referring to the country, but what their most frequently meant referent is when they use the name. And the usage of "former Yugoslav" in academic sources is so relatively rare that it hardly distorts the statistics for that latter question. Also, there's little reason why the statistics should be much distorted particularly by people working in close academic contact with or dependence from Greece; we are not talking about specialised fields like archaeology here. – BTW, I have another google statistics for web content of .edu domains somewhere; will upload it on Monday. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:29, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I added an additional element to that, while that might be true that's clearly driven by context, if somebody talks about "ancient Macedonia" they will use Macedonia without any reason to disambiguate the name, if somebody talks about "Macedonian soccer team" they don't have any reason to say "no, we are not talking about ancient Macedonia, we are talking about Former Yugoslav..." Context is clear in those scholarly works about ancient Macedonia, same for Wikipedia, we don't need to use "Ancient Macedonia" every time we refer to it in an article about history, just like we don't need to disambiguate Macedonia when we talk about clear current issues, there's no chance to confuse Macedonia soccer team with Ancient Macedonia soccer team for example... man with one red shoe 17:35, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Agree with the contextualization. A sociology or political science or agricultural journal won't be talking about ancient Macedonia, just as an archeology journal won't be talking about modern Macedonia (much). (Taivo (talk) 19:52, 13 June 2009 (UTC))

Nationality declarations

Some editors have suggested participants in this process might want to declare their own ethnic affiliations to avoid suspicions of block votes. The idea has met with some objections. Self-declarations that have already been listed (voluntarily) have been moved to a subpage. This will not form part of the final decision-making process. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:55, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

: Yea, like moving them to a sub page is any different. Just adds one click. Oh and if we are keeping one POINTy discussion we have to keep the other response sections too with all of my responses. My comments cannot be summarized as "some objections", sorry. That declarations should be moved to each user's userspace where they belong. I have made every effort to begin here with a cool spirit. It is not me that began to poison that. I truly am sorry.Shadowmorph ^{^"^} 07:05, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I want to move on.Shadowmorph ^{^"^} 07:08, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad you decided that, I was preparing a large plank to hit your head with... :D man with one red shoe 07:09, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Future is a gentleman and he saved the day. Dr.K. logos 07:11, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Good move. My motive in self-declaration was simply to clarify things. Many of the users I've encountered have decided (according to their various viewpoints) that I must be Turkish, or Armenian, or Greek, or... Rather than adopt the Schartz-Metterklume method, I thought I'd just say who I was for once and for all. Kafka Liz (talk) 12:55, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much Kafka Liz for your elegant and principled answer. It really means a lot to me. Let's try to allow Lady WP:AGF to recuperate in the hopes that she returns some day to these pages. Hopefully when she gets better she can expel cynicism and bad faith once and for all. Dr.K. logos 13:13, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks to everyone who's cooperating with this proposal, as transparency can only be a good thing in this process. I'm sure the appropriate conclusions can be drawn from refusals to be transparent. -- ChrisO (talk) 14:24, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Generally speaking, I'm not sure any conclusions can or should be drawn. Many users, myself included, are reluctant to disclose any personally identifying information online. My personal philosophy is that all necessary conclusions can be drawn from the content of a user's edits. For myself, though, I've grown tired of hiding or appearing to hide things. Kafka Liz (talk) 14:41, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Definitely agree with Liz. Now if we could move on from this and concentrate on the rest of the centralised discussion (the parts that will solve problems) that would be great :) BalkanFever 15:00, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Kafka Liz once more. Thank you BalkanFever. I expected no less from you and you did not disappoint me. As far as transparency, let's not confuse the issues. I consider myself to be exceedingly transparent. I edit under my real name. I consider this to be very transparent. Let's not confuse transparency with usage of anti-intellectual metrics to score cheap and silly conclusions. Other than that I echo BalkanFever: Let's move on. Dr.K. logos 15:12, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Id rather we all go with Percy Shelley, we are all Greeks.Shadowmorph ^{^"^}

Sure, then we'll be free to construct fairy tales that votes like in talk:Greece have nothing to do with the national POV of the participants. man with one red shoe 17:38, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Nobody said that, I actually said I find that a natural thing. Americans do it too. However here we don't vote. Here we will talk by the books, right? Shadowmorph ^{^"^} 18:47, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Let's hope so. man with one red shoe 19:13, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Danke schön

Danke schön Future for erasing (moving to a subpage) the nationalities section. Dr.K. logos 06:56, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Having settled this (hopefully), let's return to the more substantial issue about what to do with our national affiliations: could I hear your thoughts on section "Decision process"? Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:58, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I did not have time to study it in depth but from what I saw so far I really like your proposal. Good work Future. Tasos (Dr.K. logos 07:01, 13 June 2009 (UTC))

I need a bit of time for a detailed reply and maybe a few suggestions. Dr.K. logos 07:05, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I added my thoughts, I don't think it's necessary to say which side you are on, we just need to present what we agree upon, and then present alternative solutions in neutral language and then let other people decide. man with one red shoe 07:06, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Ireland

I would suggest to have a look on what is going on at Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration#Ireland naming question as an example on how to go about. I would not say we have to follow that example, just look at it to get ideas. In the case of Ireland, the discussion is moderated.  Andreas  ^(T) 01:07, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

In reading through the Ireland statements, you can see why I don't think "endorsements" are anything that we want to try here. It's very hard to find any of these statements that aren't supported by about half the endorsers and opposed by about half the endorsers. It simply throws the whole discussion into a very stark and polarized light. (Taivo (talk) 12:57, 14 June 2009 (UTC))

Macedonia referee appointments

The arbitration committee has appointed a group of three admins it is sure will make a good team to help solve the issues here. The admins are: User:Fritzpoll, User:Shell Kinney, and User:J.delanoy. To an amicable resolution...for the committee. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:21, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Good choices all - I welcome their involvement. Thanks for letting us know. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:32, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

No problem. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:34, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

One additional thing that would help - the centralized discussion badly needs to have someone overseeing it clerk-style to deal with problematic conduct by participants. Is there anyone who you could find for that role? -- ChrisO (talk) 01:08, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Is there anyone you know of off hand who is interested? J.delanoy^gabs_adds 04:07, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I concur with ChrisO. Furthermore, the present whole structure of discussion looks a bit chaotic as it is difficult to navigate around and there are multiple threads developing at the same time. Worse, it seems that the whole discussion has started in the wrong order. If it first settled the wikipedia name for the country, then all else would be much easier to sort out. The Apple of Discord is left on the tree while discussions are spread all over the place. Probably, the current discussion has already painted the entire picture and it may be time to somehow go straight for reaching a consensus on the name of country article. This will reduce the number of A, B, C,... etc. "solutions" and ensuing redundant arguments. Esem0 (talk) 04:48, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I'll ask around and see if anyone's interested. Please do the same, if you can. -- ChrisO (talk) 06:57, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

The three referees are empowered to handle the behavior problems here, contact them on their talk page if you to get their attention. It's best if those participating in the discussion don't as they're involved. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:41, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Dealing with disruptive participants?

Resolved

 – contact one of us if there is a problem, and we will handle it case-by-case. Fritzpoll (talk) 09:10, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Frankly I'm on the verge of withdrawing from this process because of the disruptive behaviour of one particular participant. Is there any mechanism for asking for someone to be excluded from the discussion on the grounds of disruption? It is yet more of the wikilawyering and bad-faith nationalism that we've seen before, and for which Kekrops and Avg were topic-banned. It's very discouraging to see that despite everything that's happened some people's behaviour still has not changed. -- ChrisO (talk) 06:52, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Don't know if we are talking about the same person, but I'm out of the discussion, I much rather prefer to talk to the walls than to be nitpicked to death. man with one red shoe 07:43, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

This was of course predictable. The argumentative smokescreen (or drowning-the-debate-in-drivel) tactics has always been successfully used in these debates. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:02, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. It's a deliberate tactic, of course - flooding out everyone else with reams of argumentative drivel. We saw this in the arbitration case and now we're seeing it here, from the same individual. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:11, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'm actually not convinced of bad faith on his part; but it's still quite disruptive. It's just his hyper-active ways in debate. The problem is that his argumentative logorrhoea drowns the good arguments on both sides. I would much rather have a shorter and much more convincing summary of the arguments opposed to my own side, so that outside readers will be quickly able to take it all in and judge, than these reams and reams of just-slightly-besides-the-point ramblings that will neither convince readers nor allow them to be convinced of the opposite, but will just turn them away shaking their heads instead. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:32, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't WP:ARBMAC apply to this page? --Akhilleus (talk) 17:05, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Sure, it does. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:09, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Just to be sure, who are you talking about? J.delanoy^gabs_adds 01:50, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

See my email. (Taivo (talk) 02:25, 16 June 2009 (UTC))

I've read most of the contributions of the person that you don't dare to speak about (really, why this mystery?). It seems that the definition of disruptive behaviour, given by the person who provoked this mess (my turn to introduce some mystery) and who was warned in multiple occasions, leading eventually to desysop (my turn to throw some mud), coincides with argumentation against "our position" which may be valid so let's throw some mud and discredit the opponent side. Tactics of throwing mud right and left has been occurring very often in this affair, and this proposal is one of those attempts. Congratulations gentlemen, your effort to reach consensus on an issue like that, has taken Wikipedia to another level (lower that is). We find once again the same persons that were admonished, warned etc... to participate in the resolution of this issue, yet they accuse another person of "disruptive behaviour". That's a great start. Also, any naming policy that you use to justify transfer to the article to Macedonia is good since it is wikipedia policy, whereas any policy that serves the positions of the other side becomes "wikilawyering". This is a great example you give as distinguished members of the wikipedia. Demonstration of bad faith has reached a new high. Congratulations.

Regards. Another "nationalist" "disruptive" greek user. El-greco (talk) 07:28, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

After that lovely rant, I can't see that there's anything useful in keeping this thread open. It seems to me we should directly ask our referees for action if action needs taking; does this sound like a plan? I really think it'd be best to mark this archived this now. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 08:08, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Some rules regarding the presentation and discussion of proposals

Having observed some of the recent discussion, J.delanoy, Shell Kinney and myself have agreed a set of rules to be applied to the proposals on all the subpages of this debate. They are as follows:

• People can submit as many proposed solutions as they like - if identical, or near-identical ones appear, they can be condensed by the three of us into a smaller number as necessary. There will probably be some practical cutoff time after which a new proposal won't get enough time to be discussed, but there isn't a strict limit for now.

• Proposals should not refer to other proposals directly - there is no need for comparisons of this kind within proposals as the natural option should emerge from the subsequent discussion

• Proposals to be discussed on the appropriate talkpage, with rapid archiving of procedural threads that have been resolved

• No proposals to be struck out or moved by other editors - part of the reason we're here is to evaluate consensus in relation to the guidelines, per the Arbcom case. A mixture of discussion and policy review will weed out unworkable proposals, whilst giving everyone the opportunity to air their views.

This will mean that some of the existing proposals have to be reworked slightly, but there is no longer a need to debate these procedural points, and you can get on with presenting and discussing the options to move forward independently. Any comments, complaints or concerns, let us know. Fritzpoll (talk) 16:03, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable. Any views on modalities of how to edit "opposing" rationales, as we've been doing? Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:07, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

If it's in good-faith and doesn't lose the meaning or is to comply with the rules we've set out, I don't see a problem; provided you accept that in the former case, if the editor reverts to their old version, then you'll need to accept that and discuss changes calmly Fritzpoll (talk) 16:16, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Does this mean that we should cease to enrich the "arguments against" sections or that they will be moved to the talk pages? Shadowmorph ^{^"^} 16:57, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I would prefer that you make your arguments against a proposal in the form of your alternative proposal, but if you want to directly discuss another person's proposal, the talk page would be the place for that. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 18:32, 16 June 2009 (UTC)