Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Macedonia 2/Proposed decision

Arbitrators active on this case

To update this listing, edit this template and scroll down until you find the right list of arbitrators. If updates to this listing do not immediately show, try .

Request for clarification: Motion on Macedonia 2

Statement by Avg

Since the relevant page has not been initiated yet, I put my request here and I kindly ask the clerks to move or refactor if necessary. I would like to ask the Committee if the injunction on renaming articles can be expanded in avoiding renaming how the Republic of Macedonia is referred within an article. Please advise if I have to notify any/all parties involved about this request.

Comment to Statement by ChrisO: The proposed motion clearly mandates to revert any rename, so that would obviously include vandalism, in order to return to the status quo ante. Not only it doesn't prevent, but it encourages reverting any user who unilaterally modifies the name, in order to restore the article's current status, pending resolution of the issue in ArbCom. Its purpose is the exact opposite of what you are advocating.

Statement by Man with one red show

This is a good idea, please extend the injunction. Hope this will also make clear that this issue (which was actually the initial issue) will be examined too and will not be let without a clear resolution. man with one red shoe 03:16, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Question by jd2718

Please clarify: "within an article" or "within the article"? The latter is quite clear, but if the former, could this extension be limited to parties to this arbitration? Jd2718 (talk) 05:18, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Fut.Perf.

I'm open to such a moratorium, but I ask that if it is enacted, it should be with a clear rule that violations can be reverted. That's because the situation is asymmetrical: most moves to rename, say, an instance of "f.Y.R." to "R.o.M., or an instance of "R.o.M." to plain "M.", have been coming from established users in good standing, who would feel bound by such a rule, whereas renames in the other direction, especially to "FYROM" and variants, come from a shadowy army of hit-and-run single purpose accounts, socks and IPs, who can easily risk a warning or a block. If we couldn't revert those, the wiki-wide situation would be shifted in a matter of few weeks; see the activity registered daily at the abuse log. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:14, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Further to the discussion ongoing above, especially Carcharoth: I don't think enforcement is a problem in the sense that you risk having participants blocked by involved admins. Come on, we involved admins may be wiki-suicidal, but we're not that wiki-suicidal. But yes, enforcement is an issue, and I repeat my plea above, when it comes to regulating how reverts to the status quo ante are to be done. If I read Rlevse's motion literally, it would seem that such reverts could be done only by uninvolved admins? That would introduce a huge bureaucratic overhead. Are we going to have to run to ANI for every little piece of everyday semi-vandalism to be cleaned up? Plus, there would also be the issue of where to draw the line between "normal" POV-pushing and true vandalism. For instance, just today I had to revert this: [1]. Now, say what you will, this one I do consider vandalism in the full sense, and there is simply no way on earth I'd accept an injunction that would prevent me from cleaning up this kind. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:50, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Taivo

I agree that a moratorium is good in principle, but completely concur with Future Perfect's assessment that the problems are often one-sided and waged by sock puppets, anonymous IPs, and other hit and run types. As an example, two different anonymous IPs removed a Macedonian alumnus from Staffordshire University within the course of 48 hours. While Staffordshire University would, conceivably, not be included in "Macedonian-related topics", it is indicative of what happens to anything labelled "Macedonia" or "Republic of Macedonia" without provocation, without justification, and without any type of control. We must be able to revert these types of nationalistically motivated hit and run anonymous attacks. (Taivo (talk) 06:43, 20 April 2009 (UTC))

Statement by ChrisO

I concur with the above, but I'd like to ask the arbs for a further clarification - does this motion still permit reversion of the anonymous hit-and-run vandalism that is occurring daily, renaming "Republic of Macedonia" as "FYROM" and its inhabitants as "FYROMians"? If not, a lot of our articles are going to deteroriate badly. -- ChrisO (talk) 06:53, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

(add) This diff is a perfect example of what I am referring to - Greek editors repeatedly deleting any reference of the term "Macedonia" for POV reasons and using the unexpanded acronym FYROM in its place. Note the edit summary. Please also see User talk:Rlevse#Persistent vandalism and disruption for an overview of the problem, which is widespread and fairly intensively ongoing. -- ChrisO (talk) 07:51, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrator views and discussion

• Comment In order to reduce the drama, I'd say yes, it includes the term within the article. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:07, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Should this be left as a stand alone request for clarification, or merged somewhere into the main RFAR above? KnightLago (talk) 00:15, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I'll leave it here, and move and start a new motion, in effect a sub motion to the first one. Arbs please continue this discussion/voting above. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:18, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

---

Why these disputes can't be resolved

This case pretty much serves as a warning to all not to get involved in national disputes. I was relatively peripheral to this case, and no sanctions are being proposed against me. It's still been WikiHell for me. As for those who've been willing to stick these disputes out and argue long-term for neutrality, they're up for sanctions. If this decision goes through, it'll be a giant leap toward making sure no one is willing to take stands against filibusterers under penalty of being sanctioned. The more mild-mannered, non-rouge admins (which I usually am, though this case has pushed that a bit) rarely have the tenacity to stick these sorts of things out, and it appears those are the only kind ArbCom is willing to allow these days. These sanctions here, should they go through, plus the earlier admonishment of Moreschi, are paving the way for POV-pushers. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 04:41, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

No, no, you got it all wrong, they were not POV-pushers, they are people upholding the highest standards of Wikipedia and they won't let Wikipedia be in error and use the wrong name, they also defended the policies tooth and nail like they didn't have anything dearer in the world than Wikipedia's policies, they also know the intricacies of policies and guidelines and made sure nobody makes a mistake in misapplying them, they edit war only because they love Wikipedia and its rules, it has nothing to do with the fact that they abhor a specific name of a country ... and it just happened that this was the only subject that interested them on Wikipedia... it also happened that involved (OMFG!!!) admins got mad for no good reason on these righteous and good willing people and behaved in a manner improper to admins. They should be punished for disrespecting Wikipedia bureaucratic rules that don't allow admins to do the right thing unless their actions are blessed by a chorus of people (who happen to be the same non-POV-pushers that we referred to before, or "uninvolved" admins who couldn't care less of the issue and would say "the best solution is to let things as they are" or ask "what's the consensus, what do these fine, good-willing and unbiased editors say?"). I foresee only good things coming out of this situation. man with one red shoe 05:24, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

The red carpet has been out for POV-pushers for some time, so there's nothing new there. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:12, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

"plus the earlier admonishment of Moreschi." The "admonishment" of Dbachmann a year before was the sign that the rot had set in. If this is the way things are going to be, then I think we should just create a Caveat lector template to stick on the affected articles, otherwise Wikipedia will be operating under false pretences. For example: "This page is owned by a bunch of national chauvinist, ethnic and racial obsessives or subject to uncontrolled feuding between special interest groups. Therefore its contents may bear no relation to the information you will find in standard English-language academic works on the subject. In fact, its contents may bear no relation to objective reality at all. However, we would like to reassure our readers that the authors of this article - despite being tendentious nutjobs - are very, very polite. Thank you." --Folantin (talk) 10:47, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I would really like to know about what specific articles you suggest the above template. I would also like to know to what specific people does the word "nutjobs" refer to. Could you please spell it out to me? Unless of course you are joking, but I can't tell. Shadowmorph ^{^"^} 12:35, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the above. I tried to write a general comment along these lines yesterday evening, but gave up after becoming rather angry at the exasperating ridiculousness of the whole situation. In vast areas of Wikipedia, the editing environment is so toxic that few "neutral" people dare to touch them, let alone commit the gargantuan amounts of time & patience that trying to fix them always entails. The result is risible content representig everything from simple bias to 19th-century-stlye approaches, to sheer ignorance & the latests visions of truth of outright nutjobs.

Only a few editors (including some of the ones mentioned or commenting at this very talk page) try to do something about it and deal with the tendentious people fighting ad maiorem [county/nation/ethnic group] gloriam. As a community, we fail utterly at supporting their dedicated, too often unappreciated efforts.

Now the Arbitration Committee has the opportunity to provide some help, and signal that their significant contributions towards Wikipedia's stated objectives are valued & appreciated (and partly among the main reasons why some content areas are not much, much worse than their current state). Instead, the proposed decisions indicate that an unrealistic ideal of civility in the face of utter disruption & tendentiousness is of more importance than actual encyclopedic content.

We should be encoraging others to accompany ChrisO's & Fut.Perf,'s efforts, and aim to transform ethnic battlefields into encyclopedic articles. Instead, the proposed decisions clearly indicate that we will be much better off leaving those entries (and whole areas) alone, and editing articles on koalas (at least until someone writes a blog asserting that the true nature of koalas is Macedonian, or Greek or Irish or Polish or Sanskrit or Persian or Martian or -worst of all- Argentinian). - Ev (talk) 19:14, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

You have to be a masochist to edit - let alone administer - these articles. I've had e-mails from experts who are too frustrated or cowed to enter these no-go areas. Let's face it, given the immense expenditure of time and the personal harassment you are likely to suffer, the rewards are not that great. And now there is the added threat of punishment, which mugs are going to want to get involved? The trouble is, Wikipedia can't decide whether it's a social-networking site or an encyclopaedia. If it's the former, then civility and behaviour policies come to the fore; if the latter, then reliability of information and ability to edit objectively are the important things. Wikipedia's byline is still "The Free Encyclopedia", but I think in the interests of accurate product description we're going to have to change that.--Folantin (talk) 19:41, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

They're so difficult to resolve because each side is convinced by hundreds, if not thousands, of years of ethnic strife that their version of the truth is being twisted; and that is a very difficult thing to settle, both in real life and with in Wiki. — Rlevse • Talk • 19:51, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

We're not here to resolve "real world disputes". Britannica doesn't attempt to do that either. We are here to report on what reliable scholarship says on a given subject. That's why we have policies like reliable sources, no original research and "undue weight". It's quite clear there are editors who attempt to be objective in line with the above policies and those who are merely here to soapbox. We should be encouraging the former and booting off the latter. --Folantin (talk) 20:06, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Um, this may apply to certain problem areas on the wiki, but I don't see how it applies to the dispute under consideration here. Unless, that is, you think that ChrisO, Fut. Perf., and the other non-Greek, non-Macedonian, non-Bulgarian, non-Slavic editors that have gotten involved here are somehow motivated by "ethnic strife". Your comment seems to imply that both "sides" here have equally valid truth claims, and I don't think the evidence presented at the evidence page even remotely supports that. --Akhilleus (talk) 20:03, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I was making a general statement about ethnic wars on wiki, not just this particular case. As for this case, your points are very valid, but for many of the editors, but not all as you point out, the roots of this conflict do go way back in time — Rlevse • Talk • 20:11, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

That's a good point. Rlevse, this isn't a case of two rival ethnic groups (e.g. Koreans versus Japanese) on the wiki - it's a matter of one ethnic group, i.e. the Greeks, trying to impose their own POV on the wiki in rejection of the prevailing standards in the English-speaking world. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:11, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

"for many of the editors, but not all as you point out, the roots of this conflict do go way back in time." I doubt if this conflict really goes back that far. But ithis is irrelevant. Wikipedia is not a battlefield and editors who are so enamoured of The Cause that they can't edit objectively should be shown the door. There are plenty of other forums on the Net if they want a fight. --Folantin (talk) 20:18, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I really cannot understand all this "fanaticism"... So many are talking about the POV of one side or the other, how the nationalists constantly harass Wikipedia etc etc etc, yet just a month ago, there was consensus, in plain English, a situation agreeable to all parties. It seems that ethnic Macedonians and Greeks were both happy with calling the state Republic of Macedonia (its constitutional name, the very name Greeks abhor for it contains the word Macedonia) in all articles except the ones explicitly about their country. There was a disambiguation page leading the user to whichever Macedonia he wanted to look up and the edit wars were limited in the battlefield of history, an issue that is anyway out of the ArbCom's reach here. Users had no problem, nationals of the two states had no problem, neutral parties had no problem and then a supposedly neutral, yet very involved admin, decided to singlehandedly destroy that consensus. Where is the Greek POV here? That there are other Macedonias? Actually I cannot even relate with any ethnic Macedonian POV, since their position (being acknowledged with their constitutional name) had already been accepted by all Greek regular editors for years, despite their nationalist/patriotic/POVed/historical/well sourced/badly sourced objections. Were there editors who disrupted this status quo? Of course there were, as will be after any ruling of the ArbCom, but these were few in number and easily controlled because this consensus was safeguarded by all parties involved. And of course no such editor ever had the power invested to ChrisO to impose his disruption on Wikipedia for weeks or months. Instead of talking about this supposedly pre existent problem, this never ending ongoing disruption, first we should judge the status quo ante, determine its problematic points and judge whether we had a functioning consenus, which respected all parties, Wikipedia's encyclopedic standards included. If we really believe that calling the country of Macedonia by its constitutional name (against Greek POV) constituted a problem imposed by the Greek editors, then we should strongly propose (since, according to the Pillars we cannot impose) that another name be used... but do we really think so, or is it just the opinion of an involved minority (whether this involvement comes from an ethnic affiliation or a willingness to protect the "weak")? Whatever the ArbCom decides, accusing the Greek POV, because the country of Macedonia was called by its constitutional name (against the Greek POV) kind of sounds absurd... GK1973 (talk) 21:39, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Gk1973, you conveniently ignore the fact that this dispute did not start at Macedonia and it did not start with ChrisO. It started at Greece with the application of Wikipedia policy and eliminating "former Yugoslav" there in order to comply with Wikipedia-wide usage. This started with the resistance of Greek editors to the application of Wikipedia policy at Greece. (Taivo (talk) 21:46, 20 May 2009 (UTC))

Did it? As far as I remember the case, this whole situation has to do with some people's crusade to go against consensus and needlessly destroy preexistent consensus. You see Taivo, regardless any Wikipedia "policy" you may bring forward, actually the result of a joint effort and consensus between all editors (Greeks included) stated in some essays, consensus remains the ONE, INDISPUTABLE Wikipedia policy. Or are you claiming that all this renaming crusade is just a retaliation against Greeks not admitting RoM's constitutional name in the article about their country? And if you admit that your cause has started from the point Greeks did not accept the usage of RoM instead of FYRoM in the article "Greece" then why didn't ChrisO impose his will there? Why don't you just ask from the ArbCom that the acronym FYRoM inside "Greece" be changed to RoM? Sorry Taivo, but this makes absolutely no sense...GK1973 (talk) 22:10, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually, GK1973, there was no consensus about the use of "former Yugoslav" at Greece, there was only a cessation of efforts to change it for a time. WP:MOSMAC was never more than an essay, AFAIK, and even it says that there was no consensus" on the use of terms at Greece. But this discussion isn't really relevant here until ArbCom finishes its work and issues its final decision and remedies. Then we will see what is and what might be. (Taivo (talk) 22:19, 20 May 2009 (UTC))

To go back to the original question of this section, as long as new Greek editors come to Macedonia with this attitude, there will be the potential for problems throughout Wikipedia's Macedonian articles. I hope that after this entire process is finished (the process of determining a fairly solid Wikipedia naming policy for Macedonia) that an information block be permanently placed at the top of Talk:Macedonia to preempt these new editors in their zeal to honor the heritage of their motherland. (Taivo (talk) 22:34, 20 May 2009 (UTC))

As far as I understood the status quo was challenged by the other side, not the pro-Greek. Republic of Macedonia is a legit encyclopedic name (the constitutional name) that is still used throughout Wikipedia. Even ethnic Macedonians used the name trivially in their user pages when they could pipelink it any way they liked. One administrator - and I do mean only one - ChrisO, decided to change it and he did. Before ChrisO's move there was no indication that it would be supported. If you look at other people's comments, even Fut.Perf or ChrisO himself, "Republic of Macedonia" was accepted. Then overnight everyone shifted to "Macedonia" being the country as a primary topic against the more populous Greek subregion, the more populous greater region, and the ancient kingdom.

Now if no uninvolved admin is found to take the initiative and move the article back, ChrisO has managed to impose his personal opinion in Wikipedia and game the name-chosing system. The penultimate lesson of this is that "not everyone can edit". I guess while everyone tries to find neutral parties or seek a consensus anew the primary topic would still be locked and the page would be where ChrisO decided to put it. Naturally the occurrences of "Republic of Macedonia" would start to be replaced to "Macedonia". In that case the ARBCOM would have made a decision on content by proxy. Nothing in the PD is about the effect of the move. Therefore should the effect be legalized and endorsed, even when the process was against policy?

I am wary of what ChrisO's move will bring to Wikipedia from now on. Someone would say, for "simplicity", to make the hat link "for other uses see Macedonian (disambiguation)", just that, no need to explain anything, no need to distinguish (!) After all by the hit statistics, he will say, nobody cares. So why should Wikipedia direct anyone elsewhere? And lets delete Macedonia (terminology), since the word Macedonia has a very clear meaning in English ("it's always the country") and the views in that article only represent a fringe minority. Is that the way to proceed? Soon, the admins will be writing the articles themselves and locking them from changes. Just like if they wrote their very own publication. Just like it is done for a month now with the title.

When that happens then it's bye bye Wiki-pedia, hello Sysop-pedia.Shadowmorph ^{^"^} 09:23, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Shadowmorph, the debate on Greece wasn't about that at all, as I had already protected the page when the Macedonia move occurred. The fight was over "Republic of Macedonia" or "former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia". Some editors (mostly Greek) wanted "former Yugoslav" to appear in front of Republic of Macedonia throughout the article, which made the article on Greece different from every other country. The argument was over the (never consensus) opinion that Greece-related articles could use a different format for the name of the country's northern neighbor because of the political nature of the naming debate. It has absolutely nothing to do with ChrisO's later actions, and nothing to do with "Macedonia" versus "Republic of Macedonia". Horologium (talk) 11:52, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes but I didn't see anyone supporting the current situation when sometime ago it a move was proposed[2]. People did change their minds. Shadowmorph ^{^"^} 00:53, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

There was also this template here[3] that said any change of "Republic of Macedonia" without prior discussion will be reverted, that was in March 2008 and directed people to refer to WP:MOSMAC (calling it a consensus). The previous diffs are from the evidence page. Shadowmorph ^{^"^} 00:55, 22 May 2009 (UTC).

Shadowmorph, WP:MOSMAC was never approved and was just an essay. This has been clarified here on on the evidence page. It was an idea, not an approved policy. So basing your arguments on MOSMAC is like basing your argument on the Niagara River just before it plunges over the falls. You also keep referring to Macedonia. This whole issue begins at Greece and was already headed to arbitration at least a week before ChrisO moved Macedonia. So talking about Macedonia still when the fundamental problem is at Greece is rather meaningless. (Taivo (talk) 02:37, 22 May 2009 (UTC))

For me the fundamental problem is the sudden, abrupt and non-discussed overnight change of the primary topic of Macedonia - a 3000 years old subject topic - to suit the POV of a certain county and the the POV that many individual English-speaking nations support (not Australia and New Zealand, and no English-speaking alliance of nations). I don't think Wikipedia's choice of primary topic would be supported by English-speaking academia either (see this letter that SQRT informed us about).

The issue with the content of other articles (e.g. Greece) is secondary. I didn't say MOSMAC was approved, I pointed out what the template said: that it represented the consensus (I didn't write the template). I know MOSMAC failed. I didn't base any argument on it. Shadowmorph ^{^"^} 05:05, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Just a few things

Of the findings about me, several are factually misleading.

1. "Future Perfect at Sunrise's protected his own version of an article" claims that "the user he reverted" merely "duplicated a banned user's changes". The truth is that he didn't duplicate them, he was that banned user, and very obviously so. All IP edits on the Greek alphabet article on 23 and 29 November, including several that were ostensibly reverting each other ([4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10]), were edits by banned user Wikinger (talk · contribs), using various tricks to confuse editors (such as, making his intended change, then adding some vandalism to it from another IP to trigger legitimate editors to revert to his own intended version.) I semi-protected that article after several such attacks in a row, and after two good-faith vandal reverters had inadvertently fallen for the vandal's trick ([11], [12]). It has always been my understanding that using admin tools against obvious vandalism and disruption from banned users is legitimate independently of "involved" status. (Semi-protection was especially appropriate here as this is otherwise a very low-traffic article with very little legitimate editing going on.) This particular vandal was known to use elaborate tactics of impersonation and double personas, in ways that could easily fool or confuse "uninvolved" admins (like here, where he was successfully trying to impersonate User:ΚΕΚΡΩΨ), so it was necessary he be dealt with by somebody who thoroughly knew his pattern.
2. "Future Perfect at Sunrise blanking of Macedonians (Greeks)": I didn't "blank" the article, I redirected it. That was, indeed, a legitimate outcome of the preceding AfD. The AfD had seen consensus even among the more experienced editors on the Greek side of this conflict (Yannismarou, Avg) that the article in that form was not useful [13]. It had been correctly closed as "no consensus" because, technically, redirect votes are keep votes, but redirecting was then an appropriate editorial implementation of this outcome. Even independently of any AfDs, redirecting articles is always a normal, legitimate editorial action; citing it as allegedly disruptive behaviour is patently inappropriate. It should also be noted that when a new attempt was made at re-creating the article, I offered the editor my technical admin assistance for doing so [14], despite my reservations against the content, by performing a cleanup history merge between the two prior versions.
3. I challenge anybody to find legitimate diffs of where I have been "insulting [...] to ethnic groups". That is in fact a very serious, almost defamatory accusation against myself, to which I object in the strongest terms. The FoF cites a few diffs where I am criticising the political system of a country. How that should be construed as an "insult" against an ethnic group is beyond me. Seriously.
4. It is also claimed that I "admitted prior knowledge of ChrisO's intentions to rename the disambiguation page". This is false in several ways. (a) I didn't "admit", I freely "confirmed". The word "admit" implies it was something reproachable, which it wasn't. There was nothing wrong about Chris and me brainstorming a few ideas in an e-mail. (b) The exchange I had with ChrisO wasn't about the title of the dab page but about the country article itself. (c) I didn't know about concrete "intentions" or a "plan" of his. I knew that he had been considering the idea; I did not know that this had thickened into a concrete intention.
5. There is a FoF stressing that I am an "administrator involved in this dispute": Of course I am, but I fail to see how this is a relevant FoF for this case, since there is no indication I used my administrator tools to further my position in this dispute. The FoF cites instances where I am involved in editorial actions in this dispute (well, yes, of course); and it cites one instance of admin action (the Greek alphabet one) which (a) isn't related to this dispute at all (the Greek alphabet has nothing to do with the naming of Macedonia or indeed with any other political dispute), and (b), as pointed out above, constituted legitimate and straightforward protection against a banned user. If the intention is to say that "involvement" should be construed as widely as to cover any action on any article related to Greece or the Balkans in even the remotest way just because I am involved in some other Balkan-related dispute, then that would indeed be shifting the goal posts quite considerably.
6. Also misleading is the FoF about my RFC. (a) the RfC did not "focus on my tendentious editing". A completely baseless and unsubstantiated claim of alleged "tendentious editing" was indeed made during the initial filing of the RfC, but unanimously rejected by the community. If the Arbcom disagrees, I ask them to substantiate its own FoF with evidence to the effect that there was any "tendentious editing" for the RFC to deal with in the first place (although I note Rlevse might want to recuse from that part then, because parts of the preceding content disputes over images were with him and with a wikiproject he is heavily involved in). (b) I did not argue against the addition of a "standard conclusion". There was never a practice of "standard conclusions" of that type. My objection [15], [16] was against a newly invented form of conclusion that was not covered by policy and traditional practice and which I argued was demeaning and unjustified. This newly invented practice was indeed discontinued afterwards. The closer's comments were also not "left off", as the FoF falsely states, they were merely refactored into a format more in line with previous practice. (c) As for my substantial response to the RfC, or lack of it, it is here and here; I sincerely think nobody can claim I didn't show willingness to engage in constructive response to community concerns here. After that stage, however, the RfC petered out into a tired and worn-out troll fest that was indeed no longer worth reading. (Note that several of the parties who kept adding comments after that stage – Deucalionite (talk · contribs), Walnutjk (talk · contribs), Crossthets (talk · contribs) and כתר (talk · contribs) – were later indef-banned.)

Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:29, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Rlevse has now modified some of the findings with regard to myself, but left crucial accusations in. Again, I would like some explanation how a finding that (in my RfC, presumably) I showed "resistance to listening to the concerns of the community" is compatible with this and this, and in what sense Rlevse thinks the RfC was concerned with any "tendentious editing" of mine. Also, now that the Wikinger episode is off the table, where did I "abuse my admin bit"? I also object to seeing two diffs where I am mildly mocking a banned troll (by advising him not to eat too many penguins [17]) as evidence of being "incivil, intimidating, and insulting" (note that this is the same batshit insane "penguin eater" troll who did [18], [19], [20], [21].) Finally, I still haven't heard an explanation of what that "FoF" of my redirection of the Macedonians (Greek) article is doing there. If Rlevse thinks it was a disruptive editorial action, would he care to debate the content with me? Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:31, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh yes, and, I notice Rlevse took out the "ethnic" from the claim that I insulted some "ethnic groups", but left the "groups" in. So, just for clarification, what "group" am I accused of insulting, if it wasn't an ethnic one? None of the diffs Rlevse cites deals with a group. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:11, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Echos and other responses

I'd just like to butt in and comment on the first three points. This proposed decision points out a major problem with the arbitration process--namely, at this stage the arbitrators can introduce findings of fact and remedies that are unrelated or tangentially related to the discussion on the evidence and workshop pages, and the only opportunity the parties have to defend themselves against the new material is on the talk page of the proposed decision. Point 1 is a good example--was Greek alphabet discussed anywhere in the evidence or workshop? Does it have anything to do with the Macedonia naming dispute, anyway?

1) Yes indeedy, those IP edits were Wikinger, edit-warring with himself, as edit summaries such as [22] ought to make clear. Some possibly relevant discussion is at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive152#Ban_notice:_User:CBMIBM and meta:Meta:Babel/Archives/2008-12#Cross-wiki_hoax.3F_Greek_letter_.22Yot.22. Note the obsession with heta. Characterizing Fut. Perf.'s actions here as "protecting his own version of the article", as if there was a legitimate content dispute with an editor in good standing, is not accurate. If the ArbCom wants to say that it's inappropriate for an admin to use semi-protection against IP socks of a banned user on an article that the admin has edited, fine; but my impression is that it is normal for administrators to use semi-protection (and even protection) against vandalism and IP socking by banned users, even when the admin has edited the article in question. Again, this has nothing to do with what I understood to be the scope of this arbitration, the Macedonia naming dispute.

2) Redirection is, in my experience, a not infrequent outcome of AfD discussions, and a plurality of editors at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Macedonians_(Greeks) argued for stubbing or redirecting. Fut. Perf.'s action was a reasonable interpretation of the AfD. Fut. Perf.'s actions on this article are mentioned twice on the evidence page, and thrice on the workshop page--and it didn't form the basis of any proposals at the workshop.

3) Accusing Fut. Perf. of being insulting to ethnic groups is basically an accusation of racism. The diffs don't back this up. Calling a country a "banana republic with no academic freedom" isn't an insult to an ethnic group, it's an insult to a political entity--especially when Fut. Perf. made it clear in the previous sentences that he was referring to a (proposed?) Bulgarian law regarding transliteration. If I should hear that a government plans to make certain transliterations lawful, and others unlawful, "banana republic" would be one of my milder reactions. It's patently ridiculous, and worthy of sarcasm. The "banana republic" comments were mentioned twice on the evidence page, and twice on the workshop page (never as part of a proposal, only in comments), so why did they get picked up as part of the proposed decision? --Akhilleus (talk) 06:40, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

A point of comparison: in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Scientology/Proposed decision, some of the findings of fact against myself (which have been very strongly disputed) are based on an apparent principle that it's inappropriate to use admin tools on any article which you've ever edited, even if it's obvious vandalism or abusive editing. I don't think I have to spell out the problems with that principle. As User:Phil Sandifer has said, "WP:UNINVOLVED has never before been taken to mean that anyone who has substantially contributed to an article is forbidden from using any administrative tools on the article, no matter how long since their last contribution. This standard has no basis in policy." -- ChrisO (talk) 08:22, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Future Perfect called for a specific diff. Here is one from the evidence page "What I said was that your nation (and your wiki community) is collectively obsessed with this particular issue". I think "collectivelly obsessed" is an insult to that nation and its sensitivities. Besides "Banana Republic" about Bulgaria, you know, might not be okay for the people that constitute the population of Bulgaria. "Banana Republic" imho is a direct reference to monkeys, not even as light as an allusion. Maybe that term of his was misunderstood, but who is to blame? Shadowmorph ^{^"^}

To blame are those who don't know what a banana republic is and that it has nothing to do with monkeys. BalkanFever 09:06, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Good grief. Indeed. If that was indeed what somebody understood, I'm speechless. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:15, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Of course I know what you meant and what the term is. Still maybe you shouldn't use it since you are an administrator too. When insulting a political entity - a country - you have to respect that citizens of that country might be insulted too. Also what is "obsessions" to one is "patriotism" to another. Shadowmorph ^{^"^} 09:55, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

""Banana Republic" imho is a direct reference to monkeys", Shadowmorph, you don't know what a banana republic is if you think it has anything to do with monkeys. It refers to Central American countries whose main export is bananas and whose governments used to be regularly changed from one petty dictator to another with the monthly coup d'etat. Get your facts straight first, Shadowmorph. "Banana republic" is as far from being an ethnic slur as "seventh-inning stretch" is from being a medical term. (Taivo (talk) 11:02, 20 May 2009 (UTC))

Wikipedia is no place for "patriotism" either so the point is moot. BalkanFever 11:05, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I know what it is. Ok, I should have said "might be misunderstood for" instead of "is". I did say that it was misunderstood in the next sentence. Nobody should have to know what the derogatory term is exactly, especially any e.g. Bulgarian that has less knowledge of the English language.

"Monkey business" is used side by side by that terminology. Monkey Business Befitting a Banana Republic Banana republic / Monkey business in the IDF.

"Banana Republic" was recently used against Obama's view of America. Many were confused whether the term was racist. They thought of the connection I adressed, here, so think of my comment as referring to what that confused persons would think. Other places with the same discussions: here and "Is it racist to use the term 'banana republic' when referring to Obama's socialist views?". Again I didn't invent the connection to monkeys. You know what, I'm tired of defending my rationality because I noted that others could think of that term in that way...

Wikipedia is no place to insult countries either. There is no reason to scandalize the patriotism dormant in any editor with using weird terms and repeating them over and over again. No reason at all. All I can say is that Future must have seen too much frustration during his time here to not be able to restrain himself in his expressions now. Shadowmorph ^{^"^} 11:32, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Regarding expressions, there is also this illustrative bit. It could also connect with point 3 above, considering other writings in the Workshop and elsewhere. SQRT5P1D2 (talk) 12:14, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

SQRT5P1D2, that's not what he said, that is your interpretation of what he said. man with one red shoe 13:11, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Of course it's my interpretation. That's life: we all have our interpretations, but we don't decide upon them. :) SQRT5P1D2 (talk) 20:20, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

OMG he said: "What I said was that your nation (and your wiki community) is collectively obsessed with this particular issue" what's so bad about that when even your people admit that more than 95% of the Greeks has a specific opinion about the name of the neighbor? Do you find any similar rate in any other country except Greece and Macedonia? man with one red shoe 13:09, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

General agreement if any is different from "a collectively obsessed nation". Shadowmorph ^{^"^} 13:28, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Semantics... and an external observer is better positioned to call an obsession than an internal one. In the big scheme of things, people dying of hunger and so on (or other Wiki material that needs to be improved) being too preoccupied with a name of a country is an obsession, you can agree to disagree and dislike Fut. Perf. and my opinions, but making out of this a malicious and punishment deserving opinion is plain Wikilawyering... man with one red shoe 13:38, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) - I do know some other cases, just one example: the United States about war: "When the invasion began in October 2001, polls indicated that about 88% of Americans...backed military action in Afghanistan". Compare that to the international public opinion at the time. Anyhow, I wouldn't call that agreement an obsession and it did shift later on. Initially 90% of Greeks opposed any use of the word Macedonia by that country, now they don't. Shadowmorph ^{^"^} 13:42, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

This, what happened there, this... in the grand scheme of things. Shadowmorph ^{^"^} 13:52, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

You can link to these [23] [24] directly. Can't get more direct and official than that. Unfortunately, some people don't see the big picture, because the region they live in is not affected (now, what about Greater Mexico....). And it's not even a question of power, as one paramilitary attack by a small group, could unleash the ugly beast. Typical in Balkans. SQRT5P1D2 (talk) 00:15, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Forgive me for butting in...and I'm not sure where to post this. I am truly a klutz when it comes to wikipedia. However...I have watched the pages involved here for years and have come back to find this arbitration. As an outsider, I can not believe that any of this is happening. The pages related to Macedonia, any Macedonia are full of nationalist POV pushing that would put off anyone (not emotionally or nationalistically involved) even considering participating. My hats off the FPaS and any other editor who has managed to not walk away in disgust and frustration. I saw the "banana republic" comment as it happened and understood the incredible frustration that comes after years of trying to hold back the extreme POV pushing. My forehead would be bloody from banging it on the keyboard. Others I know feel the same way.

I had thought about finally learning how to navigate wiki in order to do some editing in the field I have some helpful knowledge in (as well as the library to back it up), but always hesitated because I didn't want to get drawn into the morass of modern politics forcing itself into a 2000 plus year old history ( my area of interest). There is a reason why, on many general interest forums, the entire modern subject is banned. It interferes with actual discussion and learning. When wikipedia is mentioned as a source I always tell people to read the talk pages first, so they can see just how skewed the actual article may be. That is tragic. There is a reason why wikipedia isn't considered a reliable source of information. And sadly, if good faith editors and admins give up or are removed, then there will be even less reason to do so.

There is consensus and then there is being overwhelmed by the POV of ONE government's policy and those who seek to push that view against the international and English consensus. It's screamingly obvious to "outsiders' with any knowledge of the situation. As for the use of FYROM and Skopje, well again, obvious. And a final "outsider" remark...as time has gone on "Macedonia" has come to mean the country to those in the English speaking world. I know it's hard to fathom for some, but outside of the Balkans and outside of academia, Macedonia the region in Greece or Macedon ( what the ancient kingdom was called in my American university studies) do not register as much as it does to those involved.

Again, forgive the possibly incorrectly placed comment. But I had to speak up. gingervladGingervlad (talk) 15:54, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Couldn't agree more. Nicely put, Gingervlad. Kafka Liz (talk) 17:37, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually, talk pages are very helpful. It's a wiki-pedia and this is the real world. Not just black and white, but with many shades of grey. Many sides of a story. Highly recommended: Kurosawa's Rashomon. SQRT5P1D2 (talk) 00:15, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Gingervlad, "Macedonia" has many meanings in the English language as does in the Greek or in any Slavic idiom. Nevertheless, I think that you have not followed this situation from the beginning. You say "There is consensus and then there is being overwhelmed by the POV of ONE government's policy and those who seek to push that view against the international and English consensus." Yes..there WAS consensus, but this consensus was not for the country to be called plainly "Macedonia" but "Republic of Macedonia". This was the consensus achieved and upheld for so many years. There was also a disambiguation page leading to all possible Macedonias, which ChrisO removed. You see, it was not the Greek POV that disturbed the consensus in Wikipedia but rather the actions of very involved people who declare themselves "sick of" the Greek attitude, as though they are some self appointed champions of the one and only truth... Wikipedia is supposed to work on consensus, because the "truth" is a very difficult thing to determine, especially when subjective, yet very strong, arguments (most uninvolved users usually ignore and most involved users choose to ignore according to their best interests) come in. This is why this whole issue is here. Because the ArbCom has to decide how Wikipedia will function from now on. Should it rule that disambiguation pages are not needed anymore or that established consensus (especially regarding sensitive articles, which although unimportant to the average American user, seem to matter a lot to large communities like the Greeks, the ethnic Macedonians, the Chinese or the Irish...) is weaker than the statistical skills of an admin, then we will have to abide by its ruling should we choose to continue to be members of the Wikipedian community. Such situations are abundant in Wiki and this ruling will affect them all. Yet, chances are that the ArbCom will not decide on the core of this issue but only point us all to some other discussion page to (again) reach a mutual agreement. What is sad? This agreement was achieved and it was not the Greek POV that brought on all this turmoil... GK1973 (talk) 08:48, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

GK1973. I am guilty of speaking in the macro sense rather than this specific case. Even today, on the talk page of "Ancient Macedonians", the contemporary political situation was brought into a discussion (the Slavs and Borza..even though no Slavs ( I take that to be the some generic catchall for all other parties in the Balkans) were participating). I do appreciate your posts in that convo, btw.. It doesn't belong there and has NO bearing on events and people over 2000 years old who no longer care what the land they lived on so long ago was called. That, to me, again shows that the NPOV is absent in that editor. As for the turmoil, it isn't new. It is why I chose not to edit at all...though I have watched the pages for years now. I do understand the larger implication, however...the naming dispute (the original reason for this arbiration) is but the tip of the iceberg. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gingervlad (talk • contribs) 19:11, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I understand Gingervlad, yet being NPOV is rather impossible, especially when you know (or think you know) what you are talking about... POV is a harmless term just meaning "point of view". Everybody has his own POV, all the more if one has academically or semi academically occupied himself with an issue. Being tolerant and reasonable is what is needed here and not some self acclaimed NPOVness... For example, in this conversation you are talking about, an "uninvolved" viewer could easily embrace the opposite aspect regarding the academic value of the said man's theories. Although not fringe, there is a huge distance between accepting a theory as one of a low probability or as a mainstream one... So, presenting it as generally accepted would be a huge mistake which would mislead rather than help. We are all POV pushers, we just have to develop a critical ability as to how probable the truth of our POV is among the relative academic community. Having to continually debate against those who overstress theories of low acceptance (even if not fringe), because they genuinely (or sometimes not) believe in them, can be stressful and lead to overreactions even when these are not justified to the "neutral" observer. As for history... people do care and they care a lot for many reasons. All peoples are defined by their history, history has been used as a means of propaganda for as long as mankind has existed, it IS a very important issue and should be approached with utmost care and respect to the truth and the existent evidence. It only takes a personal attack against your sense of historical truth to understand how important it is... GK1973 (talk) 20:43, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

GK1973, you said, "although unimportant to the average American user, seem to matter a lot to large communities like the Greeks, the ethnic Macedonians, the Chinese or the Irish". You don't understand the purpose of the English Wikipedia, then. The English Wikipedia is for English speakers. It is not the Wikipedia for Greeks, Macedonians, Chinese, etc. It is the Wikipedia for English speakers, the vast majority of whom are Americans, Canadians, British, Irish, Australians, New Zealanders, and South Africans. Greeks and Macedonians have their own separate Wikipedias which they can edit to suit their individual national POVs. So it doesn't matter one whit whether Greeks or Macedonians are offended by English common usage. (Taivo (talk) 19:53, 21 May 2009 (UTC))

Taivo..again you amaze me... Wikipedia is of course focused on English speakers, yet in the 21st century the term "English Speakers" of course contains huge numbers of citizens of non-English speaking countries... If you also count in all citizens of those countries (mainly USA and Australia) who originate from non English speaking countries, then you will easily see that the issue is much more complex than what you are trying to convince us it is... Unless your next proposal is that all editors who cannot display a passport from an English speaking country should be banned from editing, administrating or using Wikipedia or that these people have less rights to its content... Is this what you are proposing? GK1973 (talk) 20:20, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

GK you have typos above. Taivo, Australia and New Zealand use FYROM to refer to the country and Macedonia in Australia and New Zealand means the region primarily (geographically, historically, either contemporary defined or in antiquity etc). Just saying. Shadowmorph ^{^"^} 05:38, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

And watch out for the English POV. Shadowmorph ^{^"^} 05:42, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Australia and New Zealand may officially use "former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia", but that doesn't mean that the English-speaking population uses it as the name of the country. I would not be a bit surprised if the average English speaker in these countries uses and recognizes "Macedonia" as the name of the country. Don't assume common English usage just because the Foreign Ministry uses it in official documents. Remember that Wikipedia is not dependent on official terminology, but on what the average English speaker uses. And even if the average New Zealander uses "FYROM" in referring to the country (which I seriously doubt), Australia and New Zealand account for only a very small proportion of the English speakers in the world. And English POV (or "common usage") as far as names go is exactly what Wikipedia uses. Read the proposed decision carefully, Shadowmorph, and you will see that said exactly--that Wikipedia uses common English names and deprecates full formal names. (Taivo (talk) 05:51, 22 May 2009 (UTC))

But you're not saying anything, Shadowmorph, that hasn't been said dozens of times already. It goes nowhere fast. I'm not going to continue responding to this because it's pointless right now. The article is named what it is for the time being and won't be changed anytime soon. There will be a post-Arbitration naming committee set up (possibly) to develop a Wikipedia policy on Macedonia's name. Until then, talking about moving the page (again) is just sound and fury signifying nothing. (Taivo (talk) 05:58, 22 May 2009 (UTC))

Is it too late to suggest an additional remedy imposing a daily word limit on Shadowmorph? -- ChrisO (talk) 06:23, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry if I'm tiresome :-) Everybody here gets carried away in discussing this dispute. I'll try to be laconic if I'm not misunderstood. Shadowmorph ^{^"^} 06:31, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Recap

To recap FPAS's six points:

• 1) I already struck that one based on the new evidence
• 2) I already correct blanked to redirected
• 3) I already removed the word ethnic
• 4) Admit vs confirmed. Admit does not necessarily mean something reproachable occurred. Compare "I confirm I was at the store yesterday" to "I admit I was at the store yesterday". There's no appreciable difference in meaning. In the diff you say "Chris first mentioned to me that he was playing with the idea of the Macedonia page move about a day before the event" and on this talk page you say "I knew that he had been considering the idea". You clearly at least knew it was possible and being considered. I've tweaked the finding.
• 5) You admit you're involved, so it is indeed relevant
• 6) The tenditious claim was made at the RFC and 17 people supported the section where that statement was made, so it does indeed have a degree of support.
  • Re your two diffs in the follow up...statements like " yawn. Wake me up if something new comes up there, because I'm not going to watchlist it" certainly don't show willingness to work with community concerns but on the other hand the one diff you provided does show a step in the right direction, so I've added it. — Rlevse • Talk • 17:34, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but that doesn't address all the points I raised:

1. the redirecting of the article: the fact that this is cited as a FoF, and parts of its wording (e.g. "less than two hours after...") strongly insinuate that it is being judged as somehow disruptive behaviour. Why else is it mentioned at all? I ask you to please either substantiate why you think it's evidence of problematic behaviour, or strike it.
2. as I pointed out above, you struck "ethnic" but left "groups" in. What group did I insult, if it wasn't an ethnic one? Banana producers?
3. "Admit", according to my English dictionary, means in one of its main uses: "agree or confess that you have done something that you should not have done." Please replace it with "confirm".
4. Your wording about the RfC is grammatically ambiguous as to whether you yourself imply there actually was tendentious editing. It can be read as implying you making that claim. Please at least change that to "claims of tendentious editing" or something like that. (Although I really can't see how the term "tendentious editing" even logically connects to the facts that the RfC filers then described, and it indeed played very little role in all the following discussion.)
5. Your remedy proposal also still claims I "abused my admin bit", a claim that I understood was mainly referring back to the Greek alphabet protection. Since that is off the table, where else did I abuse my bit?
6. And I will state again that I strongly object against the "penguin" diffs in the incivility FoF. Look, Rlevse, I'm a friend of straight talk: if you want me desysopped for being an arrogant asshole with a short temper, just say so. Proposed remedy: "For being an arrogant asshole with a short temper, FPaS is desysopped." No hard feelings, no grudges. I can live with that. But the implication that I get desysopped for the way I dealt with the Penguin Eater troll is so extremely farcical I really find it demeaning. Not sure if you'd understand that, but it really makes for an absurd anticlimax. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:55, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Just made more tweaks. — Rlevse • Talk • 18:42, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Taivo

Another thing: the "admonishment" for Taivo is patently unnecessary. He made that mistake once, received a friendly note that it's considered inappropriate, and immediately removed the posts, voluntarily and gracefully. Not the slightest indication of there being a pattern in need of an Arbcom intervention here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:00, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I'm not worried about a "formal" wag of the finger in my direction. I made a mistake and the proposed decision simply says, "Yes, you made a mistake, don't do it again." I'm much more concerned about the excessive penalties being proposed for you and ChrisO. (Taivo (talk) 11:07, 20 May 2009 (UTC))

I'm not sure it's even correct, once you get an e-mail it belongs to you and you can do whatever you want with it including posting it in a newspaper. While it might not be always "moral right" it's well within the right of the person who receives a letter (e-mail or regular). man with one red shoe 13:15, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

In the ordinary world, you can do whatever you like with an e-mail once you get it, but Wikipedia custom and policy is that you don't publish private emails without permission from the sender. This is a principle that's been clearly stated in previous arbitration cases; I can't remember which ones off-hand. --Akhilleus (talk) 13:27, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Ok, here's one place to look: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Hkelkar_2#Private_correspondence. --Akhilleus (talk) 13:36, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

(E/C) Here's another one: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Durova#Private correspondence. Same principle, different case. Horologium (talk) 13:44, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

It looks like I was wrong, I read a bit about this subject, e-mail is indeed copyrighted, but it is not considered a "secret" either and there are fair use provisions. In any case, he got the "that's bad, don't do it" message and accepted it so it's pretty much end of story. man with one red shoe 18:35, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Private correspondence is what it is: private. We can't disclose what someone wrote to us in private, if we don't have his/her permission. Although this is not a court, FWIW many countries have legislation regarding this matter. I believe that the correct procedure would be to ask John Carter publicly (since it was related to the case) about his permission; if he refused, then Taivo could ask ArbCom about handling this. If I remember correctly MWORS, you were the one suggesting that e-mails can be forged? Of course, I don't question the validity of Taivo's claims, but I'm expanding my thoughts. As headers can also be forged and IPs easily change, there is no way of determining what really happened. Only when assuming good faith and believe that all parties are honest. SQRT5P1D2 (talk) 20:34, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Unless ArbCom is making up policy out of whole cloth, there is no basis for sanctioning Taivo (solely) for republishing email. There is no community consensus on such a policy as can be seen here (Wikipedia:Private_correspondence). And the only place (I know of) where it is talked about in policy, also notes that there is no community consensus (see Wikipedia:HARASS#Private_correspondence -in any case, no way this could be construed as harassment by Taivo). R. Baley (talk) 19:52, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Avg and Kekrops

Isn't there a disparity between the finding of fact that Kekrops and Avg have "disrupted the project through years-long systematic advocacy editing in issues of Greek national disputes" and the remedies banning them only for a period of months? -- ChrisO (talk) 08:16, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

ChrisO you appear also in many findings of fact showing your behavior since 2006 and the topic ban remedies about you are also for a pediod of months. Shadowmorph ^{^"^} 09:30, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

about Macedonians (Greeks)

Macedonians (Greeks) is about a regional group of 2,750,000 people with many living outside Greece, that in addition has to be disambiguated from an ethnic group that self-identifies with the same name. The group is important historically and ethnographically and involved in several wars even before modern Greece. Let me remind that articles about regional groups are not unheard of: e.g. Quebec diaspora (seperate from Canadian) and even going further to linguistic breakdowns of one regional group like French-speaking Quebecer and English-speaking Quebecer. That is done in special cases where disambiguation of various groups is important.

Future Perfect did blank the article and left a redirect to something related. Wikipedia:Blank says not to have blank articles. Before that, in the dab page of Macedonia he had said "Include |Macedonians (Greeks)| only if and when it is a stand-alone article". Then he went on and deleted the content of that article himself. The effect would be the ethnic Macedonians becoming the single reference about any modern peoples called "Macedonian" in the dab page. He thought the article was worthless (not specifying if he was referring only to 'the content' or the notability of the 'subject'). He had disagreements over whether the article has "legitimacy" Wikipedia:Blank also states "Rather than blanking an article, fix it!, or use the deletion process". It is apparent that Future Perfect as an editor was not interested in fixing it and as an administrator he wasn't helpful in allowing others to do that. Blanking the whole content without having prepared a better draft is not a constructive editorial action and it is not an uninvolved administrative action either.

I have to say that he did abstain after I have completely rewritten it and helped with technical matters[25]

See the votes from the AfD do your interpratations:

• Keep: 6 votes
• Redirect/Delete : 5 votes (voted for both options)
• Speedy Close: 1

I think my proposal to reduce it to a stub was reasonable, and it had support. Everyone was then engaged in this arbitration. Yet I managed to find the time necessary, from my own personal life to completely rewrite and enrich the article. Shadowmorph ^{^"^} 08:20, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

"I have to say that he did abstain after I have completely rewritten it and helped with technical matters", Shadowmorph, it sounds like Future Perfect's action in blanking the article was the appropriate action to engage your own creativity and research skills so that the end result was better than what existed before. And it sounds like Future Perfect helped you to complete that project. For that you think the proposed excessive punishment is justified? (Taivo (talk) 11:19, 20 May 2009 (UTC))

That is about my evidence, there are more about his behavior to justify a punishment.

I see it differently, I didn't ask to do the article under stress, there should be no WP:deadline. I don't think sparking anyone's creativity was the reason to blank, it wasn't apparent since when he merged the same article previously. I think he might have thought that nobody would bother fixing the article since even the Greek side didn't bother. For the record he didn't help with the article before, only after my work and only with the technical part of article history merging[26]. He did edit the article only once since[27]. Shadowmorph ^{^"^} 12:01, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Remedies 3.3.13 and 3.3.14

While Nick ts (talk · contribs) has contributed no useful edits, and has been blocked twice for edit-warring (N.B.–his first block was from me), I would think that it is inappropriate to admonish him by name when he is not a party to the arbitration case. FWIW, he has not returned since his second block, although his editing history has been spotty at best. Horologium (talk) 10:51, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

The same is true of Alfadog777 (talk · contribs), although his block log is clean and he has contributed to this arbitration proceeding. Editors not listed as parties to an arbitration should not be subject to remedies that identify them specifically. Horologium (talk) 10:59, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Without Chris O and FPaS what would these pages look like?

While there are others who've tried to deal with some of the problem, it's a fair bet that without these two admins, WP would be full of "FYROM" and "Former Yugoslav Republic..." but worse, "Skopjans," "Fyromanians," etc etc. But where in the proposed decision is the recognition of the contribution these two have made to this area? And where is the recognition that, without them, this part of WP would be significantly worse, reflect a hard-line nationalist agenda, etc, etc? Jd2718 (talk) 10:58, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I am sure that from the thousands of the other admins someones will fill in the role of the admin that reverts the POVs. Shadowmorph ^{^"^} 11:05, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Tut, tut, no need to resort to sarcasm. It would be an interesting experiment to see a couple of members of ArbCom (in their everyday capacity as admins) take over from Future and Chris for a while and see what happens to the articles. Of course, if these Arbs got frustrated and were the least bit "uncivil" or "rouge" then they would be subject to the same sanctions as any ordinary admin.--Folantin (talk) 11:09, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Been there several times, Ireland and Sri Lanka ethnic wars for example. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:18, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm reassured to know you'll be stepping in here then since you plan to desysop two of our best admins.--Folantin (talk) 11:19, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I know *I* won't be venturing into this area again. This whole experience has left a very bad taste in my mouth. Horologium (talk) 11:13, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Hear hear. Part of the problem with ArbCom is that, almost inevitably, few of them have ever wandered into the territory of national disputes, because those who do inevitably make enough enemies to have no chance to ever win an ArbCom election. The closest we've seen is Jayvdb, who managed to have a fair ethnic bloc oppose him not because he got involved in a dispute, but simply because he enforced some AC remedies in a national dispute-related case. Thus we have a crowd with no understanding of the way things work in these disputes arbitrating them, and this case is quickly shaping up to be one of the prime examples of how that goes wrong. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 11:22, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I am not so sure. It is a painful exercise dealing with swarms of editors motivated by national pride rather than an interest in producing an encyclopedia. I think there are instances of problems with how both admins operated, but who would be willing to step in? So far I don't believe anyone has shown the slightest interest. In another area of WP, an uninvolved and unknowledgable admin tried, with poor results. Alternatives... ? Jd2718 (talk) 11:25, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

The other alternative is to delete every article about Macedonia or Greece. No articles = no vandalism. BalkanFever 11:39, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Losing these two admins from this area would be a very difficult blow to recover from. AFAIK, I have seen four very actively involved admins in this dispute (Horologium was not as actively involved as the others)--Future Perfect, ChrisO, Yannismarou, and John Carter. Two have aligned on each side of the dispute. Do I need to point out that the proposed "remedy" will eliminate the entire population of admins from one side of the issue? That is no remedy or solution, especially when the other two admins are simply having a ceremonial finger wagged at them. While I'm sure that Yannismarou is a fine admin in other areas, at Greece he is hardly neutral. Indeed, in the straw poll conducted at Talk:Greece every other admin voting sided with "Republic of Macedonia" while Yannismarou supported "the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia". Without serious academic Balkan experts like Future Perfect and ChrisO to balance that out, there is a very real danger of POV imbalance. Desysopping these two admins, as proposed in this decision, would be a serious error and would weaken Wikipedia in a group of articles that need strong admin oversight from non-resident administrators. (Taivo (talk) 11:44, 20 May 2009 (UTC))

John Carter wasn't very active in this area prior to the happenings at Talk:Greece. BalkanFever 11:53, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I think John Carter said that he came only recently after Future's call to him in the Talk:Greece situation. John Carter, even after that very recent involvement in the talk pages, he refrained from moving any articles, even though he wanted to.

On the other hand check out how active other admins are in actually editing (not only discussing) those pages.

• Greece

1. El Greco (289 edits)
2. Future Perfect at Sunrise (234 edits)
3. ΚΕΚΡΩΨ (167)

....

60+ Yannismarou (18 edits)

(-) John Carter (0 edits - not in list)

• Republic of Macedonia

1. ChrisO (226 edits)
2. MatriX (149)
3. Telex (120)

...

50+ Yannismarou (20 edits)

(last) John Carter (1 edit)

from http://vs.aka-online.de/cgi-bin/wppagehiststat.pl

Shadowmorph ^{^"^} 12:23, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

• I wonder why Taivo said like Indeed, in the straw poll conducted at Talk:Greece every other admin voting sided with "Republic of Macedonia" while Yannismarou supported "the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia". Are you saying all admins should have done the way that you consider right? The amount of ChrisO and Future's activities on the area is not comparable to those John Carter and Yannis. On the other hand, Shadowmorph's statistics is totally missing vandal-fighting. Anyway I think the proposed remedies on Future are too harsh. I'm very worried.--Caspian blue 13:56, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Just to clarify what I meant about Yannismarou's vote. If there were something in policy that was ambiguous or poorly-worded, I would expect a regular distribution of admins voting on both sides of the issue. But when only one admin votes on X side and X side corresponds exactly with the national POV of the country in which he/she resides, then the pattern is noteworthy. Yannis is a good admin, but in issues directly related to Greece I think that his judgment might not be NPOV. I would be surprised if an admin were not influenced by strong POVs of their homeland. To his credit, Yannis never hid that fact. But it also means that there needs to be a neutral admin who takes an active interest in the subject matter to balance out the natural POV of a person in relation to their home. The proposal to remove Future Perfect and ChrisO from their positions as administrators would mean a removal of the neutral, non-resident admins in Greece-related articles. There would no longer be anyone regularly patrolling the abuse logs and reverting nationalistic vandalism in this area. (Taivo (talk) 16:03, 20 May 2009 (UTC))

Shadowmorph's numbers, while accurate, remove context and are disingenuous to the point of rather audacious sophistry. He pulls two articles and attempts to paint Fut.Perf and ChrisO as overly focused on Greek/Macedonian issues. One of the things that a quick look at the numbers misses is vandal fighting, as Caspian Blue notes. It also ignores the effect of tag-teamming, where there are five or six people pushing their PoV for every one attempting to maintain a neutral PoV. It also ignores the fact that most of the Greek editors who are being sanctioned are essentially single-purpose, with almost all of their edits devoted to Greek and/or Macedonian issues; while they may not have as many edits as Fut.Perf and ChrisO on those two specific articles, they have more edits (and a far greater percentage) on related topics. Horologium (talk) 14:26, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree with most of your points except on ChrisO's conduct.--Caspian blue 14:31, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

There's nothing in there about ChrisO's conduct. Horologium (talk) 15:13, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I meant not only your view in this section but also elsewhere.--Caspian blue 15:16, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

The only statement I have made about ChrisO's activities was at AN/I before the arbitration started, when I expressed dismay at the page move (and a related statement on my talk page). I'm pretty sure I haven't said anything else about it; I don't have strong feelings one way or the other about where that page is located. My involvement came about from protecting Greece after edit-warring over the name of the country to its north in the Greece article, my discussion came only on that page, and my contribution to the arbitration does not address the page move. Horologium (talk) 15:56, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, my English does not correctly convey what I wanted to talk about. But this conversation is going toward nitpicking on my short sentence and derailing. I did not only talking about your comment on "the page move" nor ChirsO, but all of your comment and view in the dispute. I have no strong position on the naming of the state too. I'm only interested in knowing why some users and admins have to have relied on wrong DR methods for the dispute. And I found your general view is agreeable.--Caspian blue 16:11, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

The numbers were mostly to defend Yannismarou and John Carter who were called equally heavily involved admins. On the other things Horologium said, I mostly agree. The numbers say nothing about what the edits were about. For what is worth John Carter's single edit there might be to revert vandalism. I didn't want to infer anything else than what the numbers are about: the number of edits, ho much someone has edited those main articles. Anyone is free to check out other articles and other users looking at the articles history rather than just the statistics, I gave the link too. Shadowmorph ^{^"^} 16:29, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

However the same tool shows the percentage of the edits that were marked as minor. Since vandalism reversion is marked as minor we could look at that too. Of course everyone should be judged by the quality of their edits. The fact remains that both of them were more involved than any other admin on a person to person comparison Shadowmorph ^{^"^} 16:41, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

This is a non issue. Once the community decides which will be the prescribed reference for the country in the different areas of Wikipedia, a filter can be set up to catch any reference outside the norm. Any edit can be reverted immediately by any admin once caught by the filter and offenders warned (or sanctioned) on the spot. Also I don't think that if the only edits involved were reverting vandalism, we would be in arbcom in the first place.--Avg (talk) 17:44, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Let me reiterate, I've been in ethnic wars, as have some of the other arbs. I know the pressures. As for the "academic experts" issue Taivo brought up, that highlights part of the problem. Admins who are highly knowledgeable in an area of articles should really be acting as editors, or as admins, certainly not both. If they act as editors, they will over the long haul, have more influence on the article content (to bring it to NPOV). Strong admin oversight is needed, but knowing as an admin when to step back and avoid becoming involved or avoid losing your cool; when to take a breather, when to say "discuss on the talk page", etc is difficult, but it is the right thing to do. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:19, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, if this is about me, show me where and when I acted both as an admin and as an editor in illegitimate ways (i.e. where it wasn't dealing with straightforward simple abuse). More generally, I believe the roles indeed cannot be separated that neatly. The whole idea of admins being "uninvolved" is commonly overestimated. You need admins that are more than just civility police and revert counters. You need admins who know the field and care about it. Who know the editors involved, understand their mentalities, can empathise with their ideological preoccupations, and, yes: who like them. Yes, damnit, I like Balkan editors, and I do think the people I deal with know that and appreciate it. Even if I yell at them from time to time. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:27, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Rlevse, what you say is probably a fine summary of the ideal wiki model that we're supposed to pursue. What is missing from this is a realization that the wiki model itself has abjectly failed in this case. The basic idea of a Wikipedia is of encyclopedists working together collaboratively and achieving neutrality via consensus. When a large group of those for whom neutrality is not a concern arrive to force a POV on an article, that model falls flat on its face. The fact that no authority over content similar to ArbCom has ever been established, since ArbCom has always accepted only conduct issues, has left those pursing neutrality with no options to deal with these issues. Can one truly be surprised that these rouge actions have occurred? The primary failure in this case is not that of some admins, but of Wikipedia as a whole to address the shortcomings in its model. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 10:36, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

The Wiki model has been failing to address the issue of articles being held hostage by gangs of feuding agenda-driven editors for years now. In fact, anyone could have envisaged this state of affairs from the start. This is the elephant in the room. The problem is that hardly any admins are interested in enforcing policies like verifiablity, reliability of sources and neutrality. The last few occasions I've asked for help on ANI, I've waited hours without a response and had to go elsewhere. I know about half a dozen admins who show any interest in such matters. Two of them are now threatened with desysopping. One of the real powerhouses in this area (Moreschi) is burnt out. On the other hand, whenever we have the latest outbreak of the Giano Wars then every admin and his dog magically appears out of the woodwork. If Wikipedia is just another social-networking site, then fine, but let's drop the "pedia".--Folantin (talk) 11:00, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

SQRT5P1D2's views

Regarding "meatpuppetry"

Assuming good faith is a core principle of Wikipedia. The term "meatpuppet" is derogatory and should be used only with care. Informing editors absent for holidays, using public friendly notices and not asking them to support any position, is not "canvassing" or "meatpuppetry".

Meatpuppeting means to recruit others editors to join a discussion on behalf of or as proxy for another editor. This has not occured.

Furthermore, per WP:CANVASS, the post in question was in the green area. It was one (1) message, the wording is neutral (and I offered an accurate translation immediately, followed by a detailed explanation), other editors may (WP:AGF) have their own opinions on the subject (and as we saw, they do). As for transparency, it is self-evident. If I wanted to hide something, I would post this privately on a massive scale and certainly I wouldn't include my own nickname in the message.

In the one (1) neutral public message I sent, I condemned nationalism (I requested "no sarissas, the referee will show you a red card"; that means "be rational and leave nationalism outside of the field", as sarissas were weapons that ancient Macedonians took pride in). I also wrote that ChrisO's actions were not made "according to the regulations on neutrality and naming by using credible sources, such as academic ones". How condemning nationalism and asking for conformance to the regulations on neutrality, justifies such accusations, is beyond my understanding.

Many people seem unaware of the fact that there were numerous blog and forum posts, as well as media reports (even TV stations reported about it), from others who took notice of what ChrisO did in Wikipedia. Several added their nationalistic overtones, like "Macedonia is ours" and asked for support. Nobody is responsible for what others do and I certainly have nothing to do with what others may did.

Various blogs and forums reported about ChrisO's actions. Is ChrisO the one to blame? Nobody is responsible for what others do and I certainly have nothing to do with what others may did.

To sum it up: Friendly notice = Limited posting (scale) AND Neutrality (message) AND Nonpartisanship (audience) AND Openness (Transparency). This is the case with my message, although I see how others could misinterpret a (registered) newcomer's actions, due to older parties' influence. SQRT5P1D2 (talk) 11:36, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Regarding "SPA"

Quoting from "SQRT5P1D2 is a Macedonia-focused single-purposed account":

"SQRT5P1D2 is a single-purpose account whose involvement with Wikipedia has been almost entirely been focused on editing a handful of Macedonia-related articles and this arbitration case."

This is not true.

A single purpose account (WP:SPA) "is a user account that edits either a single article, a group of related articles, or performs edits to a group of unrelated articles in the same manner on Wikipedia".

These are the articles I've edited so far:

• SmartGeometry Group (new)
• Generative Components
• Savina Yannatou
• Macedonia (terminology)
• Eugene N. Borza
• The God Abandons Antony
• Vassilis Tsabropoulos

As I've edited these today, I separate them.

• Chios
• Chios (town)

"Almost entirely focused on editing a handful of Macedonia-related articles", is untrue and unjustified, since more than 70% of the articles I've edited, have nothing to do with Macedonia. Participation in the arbitration case should be expected from those wanting to participate actively and has nothing to do with editing articles either.

I'm registered for less than a month and I was absent for holidays and business affairs for more than two weeks. My involvement in this case left me no time at all, when I was caught up reading policies, arguing with other parties and adding my own bits.

In addition, I tried to restrict myself from editing Macedonia (in a broad sense) related articles, except in two instances: one about weasel words, where I left a notice in the talk page and waited for someone to respond and the second about clarifying a derogatory term. I'm waiting for the case to be resolved and only then I'll engage in editing such articles. SQRT5P1D2 (talk) 17:23, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Measures against parties

I certainly don't condone actions against policy, but drastic measures against parties, when balancing a decision, could be more harmful than helpful in the long term. Of course, I could always be wrong, thinking in idealistic and/or unrealistic terms, considering the history of the case. SQRT5P1D2 (talk) 11:36, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Involvement in future matters

"Uninvolved" doesn't mean "qualified" or "neutral". And I'll leave it to that. SQRT5P1D2 (talk) 11:36, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Starting anew

You can't escape the past, especially in connection with discussions about controversial subjects. But nothing prevents you to aim for a fresh start. SQRT5P1D2 (talk) 11:36, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Responses to SQRT5P1D2

(This was pulled from the "meatpuppetry" section above to allow SQRT's thoughts to be expressed without interruption. My apologies for interrupting his defense section.)

Posting on a newsgroup is *not* in the green area. It fails three criteria: It's not limited (how many people read that newsgroup? Posting it there is the same as sending a separate e-mail to each of them); it's partisan in nature (based on the participation seen earlier, there is a high degree of correlation with being able to speak Greek and holding particular views on the arbitration subject); and it's not at all transparent (it was done off-wiki, even if you came here and notified the clerks; off-wiki commication is specifically deprecated at Wikipedia:CANVASS#Stealth canvassing). Horologium (talk) 11:46, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Hello Horologium and thank you for your remarks. In WP:CANVASS, the scale of posting defines what is limited, not readership (in any case, the group is small as Usenet is marginal nowadays, especially for greek groups; you can count regular contributors with your two hands). We're talking about one (1) posting. A public posting is not private mass-mailing. Regarding partisanship (and it helps if you read the translated message), nobody can prepossess what is the POV of a current or a prospective editor. That's why WP:AGF exists. Claiming that whoever understands the X language holds certain views about a subject, leads us to a dangerous area. Finally, transparency is defined by openness. There is nothing secret about this message. Nothing "stealth". No behind the scenes actions. Not to mention that in "stealth canvassing", there is the exception of a "significant reason". The case about Macedonia is significant enough. As some people would not see their talk pages, due to Easter holidays, a single public newsgroup posting could be more appropriate, as most mail and newsgroup clients are combined. I should also mention that, when I recently left two (2) notices in other editors' talk pages, others claimed "canvassing" (oh, the irony)! So, if I can't post one (1) message publicly off-wiki and I can't post two (2) messages publicly on-wiki, I really should consider using private means and hide all about it. But I don't think so. I'll stay here and argue about it, abiding by policies and trying to prove that I'm not an elephant. SQRT5P1D2 (talk) 12:36, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

So, in your posting to Usenet, you admit you were trying to issue an area-wide announcement for people to come and participate. By your own words, you used Usenet because people wouldn't be reading their talk pages. In other words, you were canvassing, which is issuing an announcement for people to go to specific articles for the purposes of influencing the discussion or voting. (Taivo (talk) 12:49, 20 May 2009 (UTC))

The "significant reason" in the accusation about the "stealth canvassing" is an exception ("the use of email or other off-wiki communication to notify editors is discouraged unless there is a significant reason for not using talk page notifications"). I clarified it, to avoid more confusion and I thank you for that. About the other bits in your interpretation, my response above stands as is. SQRT5P1D2 (talk) 13:04, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

One posting to a newsgroup, which is an open forum. See Slashdot effect, which is an example of what I'm talking about. The incredible swarm of new and unregistered users that descended on the talk pages shortly after that message was posted leads me to believe that it might not be so lightly read. Additionally, the scale does not equate to Wikipedia's talk page posting; even if the post was delivered to only 10 e-mail inboxes (the way that most people participate in newsgroups), that is the equivalent of sending the same message to 10 people on Wikipedia, which would absolutely fall under the canvassing prohibitions. That is one of the reasons why the whole off-wiki posting thing is so frowned upon, because it snowballs out of control. And AGF is not a suicide pact, nor is it justification for blindly ignoring the recent past; we had just conducted a straw poll on the talk page for Greece over the name of the country to the north, and every single Greek editor who participated had one view (with support from a handful of non-Greeks), and an assortment of editors from four continents had an opposing view. Stating that is not failure to assume good faith; it's being honest. Horologium (talk) 13:13, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Horologium, I think we shouldn't be diluting these self-defense sections with too much additional threaded debate. People who are facing sanctions will want their own sections where they can talk to the arbs undisturbed and make their voices heard without having them drowned in debating from their opponents or from the peanut galleries. I am certainly glad I have been able to put in my own side of the story in my own section above without having it interrupted and diluted; let's extend the same courtesy to SQRT too. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:35, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

The peanut galleries bit reminded me of Peanuts and Charlie Brown in the spelling bee contest. There were several instances in this case that we were all a bit like him. Anyway, you're right and I thank you for your comment. SQRT5P1D2 (talk) 20:17, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Horologium, no disruption at all. You did good.

Regarding the swarms of new users, I can't take the blame for what others did. Perhaps you missed this: there were several blog and forum posts regarding this matter. Other people took notice of what happened in Macedonia and acted the way they acted. I have nothing to do with that. (But as a humorous note, being frustrated and trying to catch up, I was thinking that the vote in the talk page was still on, while it wasn't and arbitration was already scheduled.) Another example? ChrisO is not responsible for media reporting about what happened in Wikipedia, adding their cheers and nationalistic overtones ("Macedonia is ours"). We're not isolated from the rest of the world.

I chose not to participate in Macedonia-related matters until the case is closed. Even today, in a talk page, I tried to explain it to other editors, who were thinking that I pulled off from the discussion without adding references backing my arguments. That's why I didn't follow what happened in Greece. Although I appreciate your honesty, I still believe you're wrong in your assumption ("whoever understands the X language holds certain views about a subject"). This is extremely dangerous. If you open that can, you don't know what will come out. Soon someone will blame religion Y, race Z and so on. You can't avoid it.

Onto your specific example... Why many Greeks hold strong views on these matters? Maybe that's caused by the flood of pseudohistory and propaganda coming from the other side (read this recent letter, signed by 200+ scholars). Maybe they or their relatives live a few kilometres from the northern border and when they see the prime minister of the neighbouring country bowing to an irredentist map, they don't feel safe at all. As english Wikipedia is not an english POV encyclopedia, national and cultural sensitivities inevitably fall into the equation. Especially if there is no clearly defined primary topic (region for thousands of years, multi-ethnic country for sixteen years).

Concluding, I'm not worried at all about an admonishment - and not out of disrespect. I'm more worried about children brainwashed by propaganda, learning to hate the others across the border. In any case, I believe that if someone examines closely the facts for the accusations against me, he/she'll understand that they're unjustified. SQRT5P1D2 (talk) 20:17, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Some words in defense of SQ. In the real world, voting is not considered evil, nor is encouraging one's fellow citizens to register and participate. Inviting people to join (what seems) a public process because they may be interested isn't discouraged there either. You have to be pretty well versed in WP to know this - I certainly didn't, as a newcomer - a lot of pages are structured as votes. You could assume good faith of a newcomer, especially considering how open he has been about his actions. Novickas (talk) 14:40, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I'd also like to second the remarks about using the word "meatpuppet". It's USENET-era slang and doesn't belong in an Arbcom decision. Novickas (talk) 15:47, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Missing ARBMAC FoF

ARBMAC (the original), with its remedies and an assessment of the results. Note, the enforcement page looks substantial. Also note, Avg was sanctioned once, Kekrops twice under ARBMAC. Jd2718 (talk) 11:43, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Concerning 1RR

The tag-team effect cannot be overstated in dealing with vandalism and POV editing in these articles. Note this edit where a (presumably) Greek editor changed "Macedonians", which is unambiguous in this context, to "Macedonian Slavs". I reverted it with a note that it was not ambiguous in context. Another (self-identified) Greek editor then immediately changed it to "Macedonians (ethnic group)" here. I edited it back to "Macedonians" and added a comment on the Talk page here. There is a clear potential problem here in that Greek editors who want to push their POV seem to clearly outnumber other editors. Tag team changes combined with 1RR can lead to problems very quickly. (Taivo (talk) 16:34, 20 May 2009 (UTC))

The proposal also practically conflicts with the one on "Stalemate resolution", which envisages binding enforceable decisions. That proposal as worded now would allow only uninvolved administrators to enforce implementation of the decision, i.e. to make the necessary reverts. But if, as here, an enforceable decision may affect many dozens of articles, and disruption to the decided outcome is likely to come from many IPs or occasional drive-by accounts, then this would mean that editors watching the implementation of the decision would have to run to the admins to ask for assistance on every such occasion. That is impractical. Cases for which a binding "stalemate resolution" has been found should be exempted from the 1R rule. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:37, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Good points, added stalemate and gaming provisos. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:08, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

"Efforts to GAME the system by tactics such as tag-team reverting may be reverted without penalty" is still impractical. If you leave it to editors of team A to decide whether editors of team B have been making "efforts to game the system", and thus to absolve themselves from 1RR, you're opening more than a can of worms. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:15, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

None of the proposed remedies, as far as I know, actually contains a link to WP:1RR, which is unfortunate because it doesn't necessarily say what one might think. There may be some ambiguity as to whether ArbCom's intent is to restrict each editor to one revert per article per day or to prevent all editors from reverting a revert. Personally, I believe the latter is far more productive in contentious areas, and less prone to abuse. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 13:47, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Request

Remedy 6 appears to be merely a proposal. Would you be willing to consider changing the wording of the proposed remedy, or add a new remedy, stating definitively that something will be done to resolve this dispute? Perhaps something along the lines of

Upon the conclusion of this case, interested editors will find three [or five, whatever] neutral administrators who will then review the case and issue a binding decision on how the country officially named "Republic of Macedonia" will be referred to on the English Wikipedia. These administrators will be encouraged to review the evidence related to the naming dispute given in this Request for Arbitration, and will be free to apply the relevant policies in the manner that they deem to be most correct. If after a period of 14 days, the involved editors cannot agree on which administrators should be chosen to review the issue, the Arbitration Committee will appoint the three [five, etc.] administrators.

I know this will probably be looked at as a drastic measure, but this dispute has been going on for more than three-fourths of Wikipedia's entire existence. There is absolutely no way that anything other than binding arbitration of this sort will end the issue. I would be willing to watchlist related articles and keep an eye on them, but unless I have something I can point people to and say, "This is how it is", I don't think there is much I would be able to do in order to attempt to stop the endless bickering. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 17:02, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Yep, I agree, otherwise this would drag forever and there will be ceaseless edit wars (although I can foresee edit wars from anon IP regardless of the result) man with one red shoe 17:27, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely agree. This is potentially the most important thing that will come out of this arbitration--a clear and unambiguous process to establish a clear and unambiguous Wikipedia policy concerning Macedonia's name within Wikipedia. (Taivo (talk) 17:32, 20 May 2009 (UTC))

We discussed something similar but the problem would be the policy that arbcom not mandate policy decisions, which is why the remedy is written the way it is. How much support is there for working akin to what j.delanoy suggested? The parties could also agree to this time limit themselves. — Rlevse • Talk • 19:55, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I think J.delanoy's proposal has a lot of merit. This issue can't be resolved though a process that is subject to filibusters or wikilawyering; it'd be much better if a small number of neutral, uninvolved parties can review the arguments and evidence and make a binding decision. I would suggest doing it as a centralized discussion. The format would obviously need to be decided in advance - perhaps re-using the arbitration format (evidence, workshop, proposed decision) might work? Finally, there is the question of who would participate. I know you've proposed topic-banning myself and FP, but we are both unusually well-placed to contribute to the process. We've both gathered a very large amount of policy and usage information in WP:MOSMAC2 - I just added a mass of new data yesterday at Carcharoth's request. In addition, I literally wrote the policy on this issue; the lines you quoted in your FoFs from WP:NPOV and WP:NC are ones that I wrote. Would you be willing to make a pragmatic exception to your proposed topic ban for the sole purpose of allowing one or both of us to contribute to this process? -- ChrisO (talk) 20:31, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I also think there is a lot of merit to J.Delanoy and ChriO's idea. To keep within the Wiki model and the remit of Arbcom, we need to be wary Arbcom deciding content. I'd give due consideration to ChrisO and FPAS working on these ideas if it came to fruition. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:22, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

"...the community should designate a neutral uninvolved administrator, or group of administrators, agreeable to all sides of the dispute, which should review the situation and resolve it by applying Wikipedia policy. All sides should faithfully adhere to this decision." Isn't the ArbCom a neutral, uninvolved group of admins, agreeable to all sides of the dispute? As a general rule it might be more convenient to not constantly harass the ArbCom with these issues, but since ArbCom IS involved, why not produce a ruling that all parties in this dispute should accept and abide by? I reckon we are all educated adults with a sincere willingness to improve Wikipedia and put aside our pride or self acknowledged expertise in matters such as this. ArbCom is perfectly able to reach a decision regarding the way different Macedonias will be addressed in Wikipedia and rule a more esteemed guideline than any personal essay issued before. Of course there will be voices against any ruling, of course there will be those who will continually replace any agreed use of the term with arguments that will range from pure babbling to long, well-sourced essays, but if we just openly state our trust in ArbCom and commit ourselves to stand by its decision as long as the present day geopolitical situation remains stable, then the decision will be upheld. If, on the other hand, certain parties only accept the ArbCom's ruling when it is agreeable to them, then, let them speak, so we can all decide how to deal with the situation. There was consensus before ChrisO's actions, there will be consensus after the ArbCom's ruling and we are all here to guard it, but in order to achieve this, a guideline from the ArbCom is needed, at least for those admins and users who trust its objectivity and good faith. GK1973 (talk) 21:01, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Arbcom doesn't rule on content issues, by tradition - that's not within its remit. I think it's also inaccurate to suggest that there has ever been consensus on this issue; the discussion on the workshop showed rather clearly that there wasn't and isn't. Hence J.delanoy's proposal. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:14, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I personally don't care which uninvolved admins take the decision, to speed up the decision I think the admins from ArbCom would do just fine, but I understand if they want to recuse themselves for reasons that pertain to this case (if they don't want to create an impression that this case decision and the decision regarding the name are somehow related) man with one red shoe 21:28, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

But the request to the ArbCom was not to only judge the involvement of the various users in this dispute. It was also to offer a solution/proposal/guideline. Has this been denied? I agree that it is a very important decision with many possible implications but if ArbCom is not to decide on the content, then why is the article in question locked from further editing? Isn't this an imposed content? Edit warring might have been "prevented" but then a situation is maintained while the admin who imposed it is proposed to be desysoped for imposing it... People, I am really sorry, but if we knew that the ArbCom would not decide on content, then why did we ask for it in the first place? Can somebody point me to the initial statements page to check what we all requested back then? (these are honest questions, since this is my first ArbCom involvement...) GK1973 (talk) 09:14, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Temporary injunction

Another request. Can we please extend Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Macedonia_2#Temporary_injunction in some form until a real solution to the naming dispute is found? I mean, I can't imagine any admin daring to move the page again, but it is much simpler to point irate new users at an active injunction than to have to explain why all Wikipedia administrators are trying to suppress The Truth™. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 22:42, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I think I made a proposal along these lines in the workshop. Further moves without a solution are only going to cause more controversy. It'd be far better to freeze moves for a temporary period - your proposal would envisage a short period, I presume, not more than a few weeks? - and get a solution in place first. I note that the proposed decision doesn't make any judgments about the status quo being right or wrong; that decision should be left until a solution is decided. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:52, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Inaccurate? For so many years no ethnic Macedonian, nor any Greek or neutral editor had any real problem with RoM being the name of the country nor with the disambiguation page. The few editors/IPs etc who worked against this consensus very quickly also consented or disappeared as is usual with various disrupting parachuters. When you say there was no consensus, do you by any chance mean that YOU did not agree with this situation? As for the ArbCom deciding, I just believe that should it reach such a ruling, we will be able to more easily accept and employ it. If it will not, then what is the point? To again start employing the same methods (discussion and editing) you already judged futile when you singlehandedly chose to take it upon yourself to impose a new status quo against every Wikipedian pillar and deny every concerned editor of their right to edit? GK1973 (talk) 22:50, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Dear J.delanoy, I suspect that there is a chance that the page will again move, should the ArbCom decide that ChrisO's edits were unnecessary or unwanted. But as far as the gist of your proposal is concerned, I definitely agree. Users and editors should know that there is an ongoing arbitration. GK1973 (talk) 22:55, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

For the record, I don't particularly care if the article is moved by the Arbitration Committee back to Republic of Macedonia or if it remains at its present location. I just want something formally forbidding page moves until something is done to resolve the dispute. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 23:12, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree. I made the point in the workshop that the name shouldn't be changed for the sake of it unless there was some compelling evidence of harm - our readers should come first. Since there's clear statistical evidence that the move has improved navigation by not forcing people to go through a disambiguation page when the vast majority are looking for the country, I'd say that there's no evidence of harm - quite the opposite in fact. Reverting a beneficial move for the sake of process would actually harm our readers. That's something we should avoid all all costs. (I would of course have no problem with the article being moved if that was agreed in conjunction with resolving the dispute, but it's not something we should do arbitrarily.) -- ChrisO (talk) 23:20, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

But Chris, while statistics can be used in many ways (I believe that Shadowmorph posted some interesting observations), this is an encyclopedia and there are many factors to take into consideration. For example, when most of the english-speaking world refer to the USA as "America", in America there is a dab page. Isn't it also the "common SEO english name for the lay reader that shouldn't bother with an extra click because the kitty will die" (cue .gif references circa '96)? :) FWIW, I'm working on a proposal for similar situations (not restricted to Macedonia) and if I'm satisfied, I'll post it here. SQRT5P1D2 (talk) 23:54, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Good lord, don't start this again. Post in your own section. I am sick of every minor request turning into a pitched battle. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 00:19, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure how to perceive the "post in your own section" bit, but I'm sure that since this case is open, requests should be justified and I responded to that. There are many similarities with things running in parallel and we can't have different measures. SQRT5P1D2 (talk) 11:07, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually, we probably can have (slightly) different measures, since both sides have listed examples supporting their arguments (Luxembourg comes to mind). From what I gather, J.delanoy is getting a bit sick of you repeating your points everywhere. Especially when it's in a section regarding the temporary injunction...BalkanFever 11:17, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I see no fait accompli. We can also have status quo ante (old accepted NPOV), instead of keeping status quo (new disputed POV) for a controversial move. If ArbCom decides that Chris was right, then we can move it again and take it from there for other articles, America, China, Ireland, Internet (WWW) etc. How's that? Status quo is technically a POV decision. About JD, I said that I was unsure about that bit and I won't prejudge what he wrote. If he feels that he should clarify it, that's fine. Regarding points being repeated, I see everyone repeating his/her points everywhere. Including this section. To this day, I'm unaware of any restrictions in the presentation of counter-arguments. SQRT5P1D2 (talk) 11:36, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

The case hasn't closed so it's still in effect. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:34, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I think this is understood by everone, but will it remain in effect between the closure of this case and the determination of whatever dispute resolution process will follow? Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:40, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I thought of that right after I posted my last comment. I'll post an extension as part of the PD. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:42, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Why doesn't the ArbCom revert the article to its prior status quo until the dispute is resolved? It might be mistaken as a sign that involved admins can resort to similar methods in order to impose a specific content for an unspecific amount of time. In this arbitration the "aggressor" is ChrisO's move. Reverting his edits until ruling would discourage similar actions in the future. Should the (final?) decision be that ChrisO's edits are necessary or welcome, we can always make them again, but should they be deemed disrupting, then we will have just encouraged other nationalist/involved/POVed/playful admins to act exactly as ChrisO did, since their edits will also most probably stand for months, even years, should any involved party sabotage any ruling of the ArbCom... I really would like an explanation as to the ArbCom's rationale regarding this decision. GK1973 (talk) 11:07, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Arbcom doesn't make content decisions. That is your explanation. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:05, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I think that needn't be perceived as a loophole to pass content using admin tools in a certain way. Shadowmorph ^{^"^} 20:21, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Considering that the drafting arbitrator for this case has proposed desysopping ChrisO, I doubt that this case will result in admins lining up to move controversial articles. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 21:00, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Bingo. That's exactly what many support. Status quo is disputed POV. Status quo ante was accepted NPOV. If other administrators fear of the consequences, as long as the current situation remains, technically the Community and ArbCom accept POV. SQRT5P1D2 (talk) 22:57, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

No, it was not and is not. Repeatedly repeating something that's untrue does not make it true, even though some would claim otherwise. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:02, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

You are right, using "Republic of Macedonia" in Wikipedia was a POV status quo. But this country's POV here: "constitutional name of my country... ...the name Republic of Macedonia is a reality in international relations"[28]. However, it certailny was the case in March 2008, in your own words, that "Prior discussion has determined that the name Republic of Macedonia will be used in that article" and WP:MOSMAC "conventions represented the consensus of editors". Shadowmorph ^{^"^} 06:03, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, I believe using "Republic of Macedonia" is a more NPOV status quo than the currently imposed status quo. And no comment on the the other half of your comment. Shadowmorph ^{^"^} 06:11, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Keeping ChrisO's edits is as much a content decision as reverting them. We all know this, yet again we are playing with words... With the ArbCom NOT having concluded yet I cannot say whether they will accept ChrisO's edits or not but I surely know that keeping them for an indefinite amount of time will encourage various crusading admins to behave in similar ways, EVEN if the ArbCom condemns his actions. There are many admins out there who would risk their admin status to "set things straight" for a time... In my opinion, I find not reverting ChrisO's edits until decision is made to be a CONTENT related decision very probable to damage Wikipedia in the future. How will we react should somebody rename USA to America (however right or wrong this might sound), eliminating the disambiguation page, having the respective article directing to the country etc? If some admin did the same to Ireland? England? China? If for some reason an admin should portray the Allies in WWII as the monsters who fought against a "peace loving" Hitler and then locked the articles... Don't try to persuade me that such edits would be "wrong". This is not the point of my argument... it being that according to the logic of how we are acting here, we should lock these pages and keep the edits UNTIL the ArbCom ruled after some months that a committee of third parties should form to propose a solution which would then be debated etc etc etc... And for months (even years), these edits would not be undone, because of "no conclusive ruling"... So..even in cases when the edits are "disagreeable", we would be forced to accept them as status quo in Wikipedia UNTIL the ArbCom decided... Does it sound logical to you? Does it sound sane? To be honest, I was hoping that ChrisO would himself propose for his edits to be undone UNTIL the ArbCom decided... Yet, most here, unfortunately, care more to push their POV (not meant in a bad way as explained somewhere above, but more as a childish stubbornness) anyway possible than protect Wikipedia... GK1973 (talk) 08:23, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I was hoping the same (ChrisO accepting status quo ante himself, at least until the case is closed), out of courtesy. Instead, I'm amazed about his reference to Hitler (Big Lie), in his response to me above. It's very disheartening to see no action against this. Should I believe that there are double standards here? Anyway, I have the feeling that many don't understand the concept of NPOV - or don't want to. NPOV is a practical, not a theoretical concept. It's not a perfect solution, but is the best solution, until a better solution is found. SQRT5P1D2 (talk) 11:07, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Most importantly the issue at hand is whether technicalities have undue weight and destructively interfere with the very purpose of Wikipedia. Shadowmorph ^{^"^} 12:43, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Response to J.Delanoy about Temporary injunction

Posting in my own section as requested.

We can't expect a wiki to be locked for extended periods of time against legitimate edits/moves (e.g. moving the article back). What will happen after the extension you suggest? If the problem is not resolved, should we extend it again?. How long should we repeat that process?. Should nobody be able to challenge ChrisO's choice, even though it was initially imposed against policy (WP:UNINVOLVED, WP:consensus to cite a few)? Would that still be "temporary". Wouldn't that translate as asking ARBCOM to endorse the initial move? Temporary solutions (like UN's use of former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia) usually chose a neutral choice or a status quo ante as temporary, not an imposed new status quo. Shadowmorph ^{^"^} 09:57, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

You do realise that WP:NPOV is a Wikipedia concept and not something from the real world, right? Because you keep misrepresenting the UN as some form of "NPOV" entity. BalkanFever 10:42, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Democracy also is not the best regime, but it's the best we have. The same goes for neutrality. There are many POVs, but NPOV is the best concept we have. If we can learn lessons from the ouside world (including the United Nations paradigm, where nations at war sit next to each other), there are only benefits. SQRT5P1D2 (talk) 11:22, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

The UN is more neutral than other official entities in these discussions. The UN has a POV, I did say there is a pro-UN position and a pro-WP:CONSENSUS position amongst us. The UN has a POV but it might be a more NeutralPOV than many of us in here. Nothing more and nothing less Shadowmorph ^{^"^} 11:35, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

In searching what best conforms to the Wikipedia concept of NPOV, who should we consult better? the CIA? Anyway I didn't say to use the UN term now. I say move the article back to where it was before anything else. Nobody disputed the previous title, even ethnic Macedonians used the title "Republic of Macedonia" instead of "Macedonia" in their Userboxes. It means that name is more neutral, lets use it until we can find what the taxonomy of articles should be with the help of any third opinion. That's what I say.Shadowmorph ^{^"^} 11:40, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Since the issue is going to be resolved through some sort of post-Arbitration committee, then we can assume that there is no solution now and therefore, by definition, no NPOV position. "Macedonia" is just as NPOV as "Republic of Macedonia" in this case. Once the post-arbitration committee has made its determination then things can be rearranged or left as is depending on the results. It makes no sense to be moving articles around until the naming resolution committee has finished its work. So there's a "new status quo"--so what? It's going to committee and will be decided there. (Taivo (talk) 20:18, 21 May 2009 (UTC))

I don't think that is the case but I will continue to participate in a process to find consensus, everybody has presented his arguments (and there is no deadline). There is lots of stuff in this arbitration for post-Arbitration reference. Right now I am cautious as to whether the above is seen as just a loophole for admins to make edits and lock them in place. Shadowmorph ^{^"^} 20:27, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Length of review

Question for J.delanoy: how long would you suggest the review should take? A few weeks, or longer? Would you want it to have a predefined cut-off point by which it has to be concluded? -- ChrisO (talk) 00:22, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't know. Most relevant evidence has already been mentioned in the /evidence page of this case, so I don't think it would be necessary for them to entertain new opinions. That alone would cut off several months. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 00:43, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Good point. It would of course have to be re-presented to the reviewers to get rid of the extraneous stuff about process, conduct etc, but that shouldn't take long. -- ChrisO (talk) 07:11, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Just to say that I agree with this proposal. If a neutral solution is found (and I'm sure neutral editors will come up with a neutral solution), all this will be a thing of the past. My only recommendation is that the neutral editors should have some background in dispute resolution and a very good knowledge of Wikipedia policies, so in fact my first choice would be the arbs (although not in an ArbCom context, in order to not mix ArbCom with content decision).--Avg (talk) 00:44, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

On desysopping

I am deeply shocked and more disappointed than I can say by the "remedies" proposed regarding ChrisO and Future Perfect at Sunrise. The idea that two administrators who have taken on the thankless and seemingly unending task of defending our core content policies - neutrality, verifiability and no original research - are deserving of censures including topic bans and desysopping is appalling, and the message it sends to the community at large, particularly to those who work in areas of ethnic dispute, is discouraging in the extreme.

Few administrators can fulfill the role that ChrisO and Future Perfect do, less because other administrators lack the necessary background knowledge (although this plays a part as well), but because most administrators just don't care. I know from experience that my requests for help from admins with these types of disputes rarely elicits a speedy response (initial report [29] and response some 6 hours and 71 intervening edits later [30]), if it meets with a response at all [31].

Future Perfect is one of the administrators here that I respect and admire most. He is a fine writer and an excellent scholar who invariably insists on accuracy. He constantly strives for neutrality in the historically complicated realm of Balkan-related articles and until recently has conducted himself with grace and civility. It is true that his temper has been rather short lately, but I firmly believe that this is a result of the pressures of this ArbCom case. Most users would have snapped long ago; I know I would have. I do not doubt that his usual equanimity will return once this case has been settled, and I hope that others will extend him the same good faith that has been shown to the other parties here.

There will always be nationalists who want to claim that their people are the oldest in a given region, or were the first to make some landmark discovery. There will always be those who want to blur history to make a nation's past appear more glorious, or less infamous. These desires sometimes spring from malice but more often from ignorance. What is certain is that there will always be more such tendentious editors than administrators to combat them. I would urge the arbiters to please, please not make the problem worse by crippling those few who have tried to take a stand for neutrality. Kafka Liz (talk) 21:38, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Liz: It's hardly a recent trend as you mistakenly believe. For one thing, look at his RFC, where you staunchly defended him too, and this was months before this arb case: ...I apologised for removing his posts, and then I just told him, in simple, neutral words, that this wasn't the right place for him. He never posted again. And that was the right result. This guy may have been the nicest person in the world, but he wouldn't have become a constructive contributor in a thousand years. (emphasis his), and [32], also months ago. This is a long pattern of his. As for ChrisO, this is his fourth arbcom case for the same basic reasons. Just how many times do you think he needs to be warned by the arbs? I'm not speaking in FPAS-speak, but if I were, to quote a comment he made on this very page, I'd say your view this is merely a recent trend "batshit insane". Sumoeagle179 (talk) 22:13, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Your own incivility is duly noted. I'm having a hard time seeing how you equate what I've written to the diffs previously described as "batshit insane": [33], [34], [35], and [36]. If you really can't see a difference, then I don't know what more there is to be said. Kafka Liz (talk) 22:50, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm with Kafka. As I pointed out, there are currently at best 4 admins who are at least semi-active in Balkan articles. Arbcom is suggesting cutting that number in half, and then announcing that if you've ever edited articles in the sphere, you can't use admin tools? I'd like to know who they suggest will fill the gap. Because I don't know of anyone who has the subject-matter knowledge, the patience to deal with POV pushers, and at the same time hasn't edited the articles in question. These remedies are the very definition of wikilawyering - enforcing the rules to the detriment of the encyclopedia. // Chris ^{(complaints)•(contribs)} 00:57, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I was an uninvolved editor when I protected Greece. I am no longer uninvolved, even though I have never edited Greece or Macedonia, and my edits to related articles are limited to wiki-gnoming here and there and reverting vandalism of the "FYROM" variety. However, I took a position on the whole naming issue, and suddenly I was considered so partisan that even my filing the arbitration case was being opposed. This sort of entrenched warfare is what other admins look to enjoy, and it's the primary reason I'm not coming back to this section of Wikipedia once the arbitration case is over. Horologium (talk) 01:04, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Well if I can comment on this, I personally proposed you[37] as a neutral filing party, even if you voted at the opposite side than me. I still believe you would be an excellent addition to the admins watching these topics.--Avg (talk) 01:11, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I've stated it elsewhere here and I will state it again. Removing Future Perfect and ChrisO from working as admins in the Balkan sphere would be a serious surrender to the POV warriors in this part of Wikipedia. And I seriously disagree with Rlevse's contention that academics should not be admins. Who better to oversee, supervise, and edit the articles on subjects for which you are one of the experts? Sometimes it takes a subject matter expert to recognize subtle forms of vandalism and POV pushing. (Taivo (talk) 01:23, 21 May 2009 (UTC))

I never said they shouldn't be admins, I said they need to keep from being involved admins (in wordier verbiage), while also acting as an editor, which all admins should do anyway--try to avoid becoming involved in a topic and acting as an admin in that same topic. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:35, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

You "never said they shouldn't be admins"? Haven't you proposed desysopping, i.e. that we shouldn't be admins? -- ChrisO (talk) 06:55, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, I guess that sentence was referring to "academics" in general, not to these two specific cases of freaking pathetic abusive admins, namely you and me. But more generally speaking, Taivo's point is correct: Even if one maintains that administrators (of course) shouldn't take admin actions to advance a position in a dispute they are an immediate party to, there is nothing wrong with administrators being generally active in topic domains of their interests. In fact, as I've been saying, complex fields like Balkan politics absolutely need that kind of involvement. You sometimes need someone who is thoroughly familiar with a dispute, including its content side, to distinguish disruption from legitimate conduct in a heated content debate. I dare say, if the Balkan articles hadn't had the permanent half-editorial and half-administratorial attention of an editor like me for the last two and a half years, they would be much worse now. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:11, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Your two specific cases are different from the general principle. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:54, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

And when these two are gone, and principles #8 & #9 are enacted, then what? A literal reading, along with the precedent set by remedy #5, would indicate that admins who edit a topic become intelligible to use their tools on that article. Where are you going to find new admins to patrol Balkan articles who have an understanding of the subject matter and yet haven't edited them? Are you expecting another Balkan expert to come along, build a wiki career that would make him a suitable admin candidate, but in all that time not edit articles in his/her area of specialty? I'd run an RFA myself, but it wouldn't do any good, since I've edited the articles. I'm just not sure the wider implications of this precedent, both for Balkan articles and for the project as a whole, have been thought through. // Chris ^{(complaints)•(contribs)} 13:07, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Don't worry. I'm sure every one of the arbitrators who vote to desysop Future and Chris will step into their shoes and administer the Balkans articles day in day out to show how it should be done. --Folantin (talk) 14:22, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, and since they enjoyed the company in this case they will enjoy it even more when it comes to collaborate and discuss their edits with the crowd, I look forward to this. man with one red shoe 14:30, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Chris, in the current Scientology case the Arbcom have already based their proposed decision on the principle that admins should not use tools for any purpose on any article in a topic area in which they're active currently or at any point in the past. It appears that the current Arbcom believes that active admins should not edit in the topic areas in which they're adminning and active editors should not use admin tools in the topic areas where they're editing. This is, needless to say, a novel idea. I suspect the admin community at large may have a view on it. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:48, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

..Topics are also "protected" by concerned users. I myself have reverted many vandalisms in the past as have all other involved editors here and sincerely believe that I have tried to be as NPOV as my background, schooling, logic, environment etc allows me to be. But offering immunity to admins, because "if they are gone, then the number of concerned admins will decrease" is something new to me... There are other admins operating in Balkan related topics and should these two (or one of them, or none) be desysopped, nothing will really change. This is the case in every other topic... I guess there are not many admins occupied with butterflies too, yet should one of them be deemed incompetent by the ArbCom, should he be kept in position, because then "every one of the arbitrators who vote to desysop him will step into their shoes and administer the Butterflies articles day in day out to show how it should be done"? GK1973 (talk) 08:39, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I couldn't disagree with you more. Sometimes ordinary users are not enough. If the butterflies topic was as sparsely patrolled and as viciously warred over as Balkan articles, then yes, my opinion would be the same. In any case, this prospect worries me enough that I've posted my concerns here. // Chris ^{(complaints)•(contribs)} 21:47, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

You couldn't disagree with me more because SOMETIMES ordinary users are not enough? I agree with you in that, but there are many admins who will do the job without imposing unwikilike policies. Without passing judgment on anyone (although I have clearly stated my opinion regarding ChrisO), "scarcity" of admins is NOT an excuse for an admin who is accused of improper administration. It would be better for Wikipedia if we understood that and started defending ourselves on grounds of the "legality" of our actions instead of "how much Wiki needs us, because we are doing the dirty work it cannot do by itself". No matter how right you think an admin might be in his judgment, there are few, yet specific rules that he HAS TO abide by. Should he choose to disregard them in his little crusade for justice/logic/POV/insanity (and I use these words as synonyms), he should be judged and if deemed guilty punished, even desysopped. GK1973 (talk) 08:30, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Some comments from Avg

I had a look at the proposal regarding myself. Please allow me to write my comments below and apologies for the size:

First, the FoFs. "Avg has disrupted the project through years-long systematic advocacy editing in issues of Greek national disputes, including the Macedonia naming issue" is not an accurate representation of facts. Of course I do not negate my involvement in the Macedonia issues, after all I'm a Macedonian myself and very interested in the subject, although I do negate that my opinion is "years-long systematic advocacy" which has "disrupted the project". Such a characterization means that my opinion is in stark contrast with Wikipedia policies in order to promote a certain POV. Instead, I have been very careful to stay within Wikipedia policies and have often suppresed my own POV in favor of the policies. The greatest proof of this is that I am actually a proponent of a solution that does not agree with my POV, but which I consider to be the best for Wikipedia. And of course I mean that, although my POV is for "former Yugoslav..." to be the standard name, I actively support the "Republic of Macedonia" name to be the standard for all articles except the legacy special cases of International Organizations and Greece. On another subject, the wording in the FoF presumes my involvement in Greek national disputes other than Macedonia. In which other disputes have I ever participated? This is creating a wrong impression.

Now let's have a closer look at the diffs supporting this FoF. I will go through them one by one.

[38]One can see that this is an empty title. There's absolutely nothing there and there never was. I have never put a single diff, even if I had gathered them, exactly because I considered this could enflame the situation.

[39][40]I have already replied in the Workshop about those and the same applies as previously. After consideration I chose to refrain from inflaming the situation and did not edit-war. So both here and above, I actually turned down the heat myself, even if in both cases I was responding and never initiating.

[41]This is a diff from 14 May 2006, so more than 3 years old(!). Back then I was fresh to Wikipedia (less than two months) and did indeed use "FYROMian", coming from a Greek background where this word is not considered offensive. However I soon afterwards substituted the word for "Slavomacedonian" and/or "ethnic Macedonian" after been notified that it might be offensive to some people. In fact I now strongly discourage its usage. Exposure to a non-Greek environment broadens people's horizons. Regarding the User:Greece666 issue, I could possibly put my comments in a more civil tone (again this was when I was a newbie!), however what struck me then is that a new user created the username "Greece666" (hence something along the lines of "Greece is evil") and then immediately entered into debates always on the opposing side of the Greek POV. And then on top of that he claimed he was Greek, which made no sense at all. This was a very very odd incident. Could I have avoided the confrontation? I guess I could have. I now do. If anything, I would say this shows I have vastly improved my behavior during my course in Wikipedia from 2006 till today. It makes no sense to be sanctioned for something I did in 2006.

[42]I stand by this diff 100%. This is exactly what happened. I would say the exact same thing right now if asked.

[43]Let's put it in context. This was a reply to this[44]. I don't need to comment further.

[45]Again, let's put it in context. It was a reply to this[46] and this[47]. If someone presents a false premise as a fact (rest of the World versus the obsessed Greeks), then this should be addressed.

[48]Just stating the obvious (look right above at ChrisO's comment).

[49]Yes, I considered that I should highlight what was going on and stand by Hectorian since he was threatened that a user conduct RfC might be opened against him. It's part of the series of threats that I was referring to my evidence.

[50]Aren't you here shooting the messenger? I'm pointing the obvious double standards. Fut.Perf. was quick to call for an indef.ban of a user from the opposing side of his dispute, but he did not ask for any measures against users from his side of the dispute, stating he was too involved.

[51]I chose not to edit war against Fut.Perf. but to take it to the talk page. Now regarding vandalism: Let me quote WP:VAN:"For example, adding a controversial personal opinion to an article once is not vandalism; reinserting it despite multiple warnings is". I see now that someone, weeks after my comment [52] added a clarification that edit warring is not vandalism. However, when I put my comment, this was not there and my understanding was that this was vandalism.

[53]I could answer to this one offline if asked. I don't want to further inflame the situation.

[54]A statement of fact. One only needs to follow the timeline of events. There is no assumption anywhere.

[55]A response to a statement just above that blocking a single IP has no effect at all, so the alternative was to block a whole range of IPs (which corresponds to thousands of users). And again just above, he seems to regret only for the fact that he was blocking IPs outside Greece (so the Greek IPs are ok to be blocked).

[56]Just read above. This has indeed been one of my FoFs and I referred the matter to the arbs here[57] (which incidentally is the next diff against me in here, for reasons I do not understand)

[58]As with almost all the diffs, this one was a reply. Just above, ChrisO is trying to shift the blame for his move from him to me personally.

[59]Not sure what is the problem of saying that these emails should be forwarded to the arbs (and of course not being made public).

In the next FoF I have discovered some inaccuracies.

Regarding the Greece666 issue from 2006, I have stated above what were my concerns, I explained my usage of the term FYROMian (which I now disapprove of and have long time ago stopped using it). I did not accuse him of being "leftist", how could I since I myself lean to the left, I only mentioned that a small leftist organization called OAKKE was the only one supporting Rainbow (political party), which is a fact. I finally state very strongly that in no way have I ever called him "Albanian", which is something I could never ever do! Please read the talk page. How did you infer this? I feel I have to add another comment especially for this. Having it as a FoF against me could imply that I'm even a racist! Please remove this completely. Finally, yes I did use Greek, but only as a way to check if he knew Greek and that's all. I did not use any offensive language and anyone can confirm this. Regardless, should I say again that I would not approach him the same way today as I did in 2006?

There are some diffs which are recycled from above[60] (as mentioned, I decided to refrain from posting them)

The sabotage[61] issue refers to the fact that the consensus was overturned towards one specific POV and it was not the "Greek" POV. When someone ignores the consensus and proclaims a guideline dead, only to release their own version of the guideline, then in my vocabulary this is sabotage. A textbook example of it.

Regarding Fut.Perf,'s sock, I have answered here [62]. By the way, looking at this post I intended to ask for a clarification whether socks are allowed to be used for inflaming debates but I forgot to do so. I guess it is too late now.

I am accused of this[63]as "accusing others of an intent to deceive". This is exactly the incident were ChrisO did deceive the community by stating he made a "minor" change when he moved Macedonia to Macedonia (disambiguation)! Should I be blamed for pointing it out?

Regarding this[64] this is my reaction when I realized that Fut.Perf. had made a 180 degree turn from what he was supporting previously and was now accusing others for supporting what he himself was supporting previously. Only if he deleted his previous contributions he could be considered to have a consistent opinion because they were extremely contradictory.

And the last set of diffs, about WP:AGF. Here[65] I refer to the past, not to the future so I'm not assuming anything. Now this[66] I really am at loss for words. Is it me who is accused of assuming bad faith here? Who made the bad faith assumption that I posted this on a board and wrote it in public for everyone to see?

My interactions with Taivo that are put here [67],[68],[69] are simple dialogue in my mind. I understand there may be people who consider it wikilawyering but I can only say this is the way I build my arguments.

Second, the remedies. I'll start with the topic ban. I have gone to my diffs one by one. I have tried very hard to behave and abide by the policies, even sometimes I felt very strongly about what I was seen happening in a topic that is very dear to me. I now see that, even if I hadn't restrained myself, I would get exactly the same sanction. So, restraining oneself appears not to be appreciated. In any case, I have repeatedly stated that I will respect the decision of the Committee and I plan to do so if it includes a topic ban, no matter how much I disagree with it.

Finally, the full ban. It is one thing to consider banning someone from a topic and a completely different ball park to consider banning someone from the project. I understand the remedy has been copied and pasted from Fut.Perf.'s draconian proposal but could someone step back and have a second look here. Why it is proposed to ban me from contributing to other areas of Wikipedia? Banning someone from the project means they are a liability to the encyclopedia as a whole. During my time here I have started dozens of articles unrelated to Macedonia and contributed to dozens more, I love this encyclopedia and I have dedicated much of my time to improving it. I have adhered to all its policies and I tried to respect them even at times like this where I was attacked relentlessly. I could possibly understand, even if I disagree, the logic behind a topic ban, but if you ban me from the whole project it's like telling me that my contribution is not wanted in Wikipedia. This is a very strong statement and I cannot find any incentive at all returning to the project afterwards.

These were my comments and apologies again for the long post.--Avg (talk) 21:46, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Let's take the first one as an example,you removed this from your section header "- A collection of the best POV diffs by Slavomacedonians" and scroll down on that same page I find this: "Yeah ok whatever. I refer to you as Slavomacedonians and someone tells me they're offended by me not using "Macedonians". My only alternative is then to use "Skopjans" as all Greeks do (since Macedonians as we've many times said are the Greek Macedonians in a Greek context, so there's simply no way any Greek would use "Macedonians" to refer to you).-- Avg 12:15, 12 May 2008 (UTC)" And this diff seems very non-AGF-y when Yanismarou after working on some of the concerns said "Thanks. 3 out of 10 gone. Give me a couple of days to go through the remaining ones.--Yannismarou (talk) 16:56, 19 May 2009 (UTC)". — Rlevse • Talk • 00:15, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually thanks for bringing up the first one, it probably depicts the situation even better. I've mentioned above that I myself am a Macedonian (of Greek background). A Slav Macedonian complained about my use of the term Slavomacedonians (which I have consistently adopted some time now out of courtesy), since they wanted to be called solely Macedonians. I cannot call someone else plain Macedonian, since this is what I call myself and I would deny my own identity. I explained to them that using "Slavomacedonian" is a courtesy and if I didn't want to be courteous I would use "Skopjan" which is the (non-offensive) term in Greek, although I agree that it is offensive in English (hence I refrain from using it).

Regarding the FAR proposal, you can find issues with all FAs, the important point here is the timing and the dispute over the "confusion" part. These two alone prove that it is a bad faith nomination, something that Yannismarou also said[70]. Actually, it is commendable that he worked on eliminating even the minute complaints about the article, and proves how focused he is on improving the encyclopedia despite his personal feelings about a certain course of events.--Avg (talk) 00:35, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Objection to using current policy wording in a proposed decision

Wikipedia:Naming conventions is a policy - but it's not a pillar; therefore it's open to evolution, and I disagree with quoting its current content verbatim in a proposed Arbcom decision (No.16). Novickas (talk) 00:37, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand this objection. Every policy is open to evolution, including NPOV. The current wording reflects the policy as it is now and as editors are expected to follow it. If it changes in the future that doesn't alter the standards that editors are supposed to apply today. Citing the current wording merely reflects that - it doesn't "fix" the wording as a standard that has to be followed for all time. -- ChrisO (talk) 06:52, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. Arbcom quotes policies and guidelines of all types all the time, doesn't it? The mutability is no problem, because Arbcom doesn't operate with binding precedents, so quoting something as a guiding principle now doesn't mean setting it in stone forever. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:57, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Um, somewhere out there is an Arbcom proposal - in the voting stage? that speaks to the mutability of policies and guidelines vs. pillars - give me some time to find it. Novickas (talk) 16:17, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Meh, can't find it, should've linked it immediately. At any rate - naming conventions are not among the Wikipedia:Key policies and guidelines. So if multiple editors have problems with it as currently worded - I realize this hasn't been done at the naming convention pages, but that might be because they, like me, tended to see them as cast in stone - why should they be cited verbatim at Arbcom? I do see multiple naming criteria in a proposed decision from May 10th, 2009, which puts the pillars first: "Note that this must be consistent with current Wikipedia guidelines on reliable sourcing, Neutral point of view and naming conventions." [71]. Yes, the Arbs don't like to make policy pronouncements, but I'd say they've ventured into that area to some extent already. The issue of IRC-supported decisions, for example, especially Admin IRC. Novickas (talk) 17:24, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I think you might be misunderstanding the issue. I don't think people here are disputing Wikipedia:Naming conventions. Certainly, nobody has started a discussion about changing any aspect of it. The dispute is over how the policy should be applied, not over what the policy says. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:09, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

IMO the two naming convention policy clauses, just now part of 16, can conflict with each other, and have in the case of the Macedonia disambig: "Generally, article naming should prefer what the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize" and "Wikipedia determines the recognizability of a name by seeing what verifiable reliable sources in English call the subject." To find support for the first, we do Google searches that can result in millions of hits; for the second, painstaking research. Maybe this will be addressed by later mediation. But given that I see this policy as containing an internal contradiction, I'd rather see more overarching principles cited. Novickas (talk) 13:56, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Lost sight of original dispute

Looking at the proposed decision, there is nothing which addresses the original dispute (at Greece), which was the debate over using "Republic of Macedonia" or "former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia", probably because of the firestorm over the page move of the Macedonia article. This is something that needs to be addressed, as that page is still fully protected; every time protection has expired or been reduced, the edit war over the two terms recurs. (Since Republic of Macedonia is a redirect, editors can simply add in "Former Yugoslav". This needs to be addressed before the protection ends (it's currently set for June 16th, but I will restore it again at the first sign of the edit war resuming). Horologium (talk) 12:03, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I am fairly sure that at least three of the most involved parties in this arbitration, namely John Carter, SQRT and Shadowmorph, didn't even know this was was the original dispute. BalkanFever 12:15, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

And you are clearly and obviously in error, as a review of the relevant pages would indicate. Why doesn't that surprise me, somehow? John Carter (talk) 14:43, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

And how is discrediting parties and jumping to conclusions a productive comment? Also, how are we supposed to perceive the "most involved" bit? Were others restricted in any way? This is the Macedonia 2 case, not Greece X and we all make our choices. I chose not to propose remedies (I even wrote about my views on drastic measures against parties) and I didn't disclose my preference over the name of the country or how this country should be named in Wikipedia articles. Including Greece. If you don't appreciate that, that's your choice. SQRT5P1D2 (talk) 12:29, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Maybe if you could stop assuming everybody is attacking you we could get somewhere. I wasn't "discrediting" you, I was just making a statement. Maybe you should clarify: did you know, or didn't you? "Most involved" means you have been involved in this arbitration (e.g. posting comments, evidence etc.) more than others. Pretty simple stuff. The name of the case doesn't refer specifically to the article Macedonia, it refers to the topic. And I don't have to "appreciate" anything, thank you very much. Especially considering you created an account specifically to be a part of this arbitration. The very least you could do is know what it is meant to be about. BalkanFever 12:59, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Your answer is above ("This is the Macedonia 2 case, not Greece X..."). About the new insults, please retract or rephrase. SQRT5P1D2 (talk) 23:10, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

The original dispute began even before RoM came to existence. What drove to this particular arbitration was indeed ChrisO's actions as can be easily seen in the opening statements of all parties involved in this Arb. There was to be another ArbCom regarding the situation in the article Greece, yet, this ArbCom is mainly linked with the edits made by ChrisO. I agree that it also should rule how RoM will be called in Greece related articles, but this is not the main issue here. Should you really believe it was, you would have mentioned it long ago, ChrisO's edits would have been reverted and we would be discussing this issue instead of the possible implications of such actions in other contested articles... GK1973 (talk) 13:00, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Taivo mentioned it, multiple times, long ago. What do you think his "red herring" comments were about? BalkanFever 13:05, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

How about we get those who were here from the beginning to tell us what the real purpose of arbitration was. Just to clarify it for everybody. BalkanFever 13:07, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I've already asked for a link to the opening statements since I do not know where they have been archived. We can see there what the involved parties mentioned as issues to the ArbCom. I made one myself, so if there is one thing I am certain about, it is that ChrisO's actions were the main issue presented. The issue at Greece was mentioned but under no circumstances presented as the main issue. GK1973 (talk) 13:20, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

[72] is the original discussion where the ArbCom was first discussed at Talk:Greece. That was the origin of this dispute, not the move of Macedonia. The Greek national POV has been able to completely hijack this arbitration with the side issue of the behavior of ChrisO and Future Perfect. If the arbitration committee unfairly supports their topic bans, then the Greek nationalists will have been able to not only distract the ArbCom from discussing the real issue of this arbitration, but to eliminate two of their most knowledgeable and capable opponents as well. Score one for Greece if this decision doesn't address the original problem. (Taivo (talk) 13:44, 21 May 2009 (UTC))

If I didn't know you were Scot in origin I would think that you are an ethnic Macedonian Taivo... The Greek POV hijacked this arbitration???? Since when is a proposal to resort to arbitration the same as to why this ArbCom started in the first place???? Why don't you file for another arbitration? The truth is evident in the opening statements of ALL parties involved and is very easy to check (any link?) ChrisO did not change FYRoM to RoM in the article about Greece... Had he done THAT, then your arguments would carry some credence. ChrisO was warned that his actions would be brought in front of the ArbCom and he (you too, back then) welcomed the prospect. You were told that these actions constituted a direct breach of all Wikipedian Pillars, yet you chose to bring forward various arguments, all having to do with racial comments and dubious statistics... I cannot but wonder why you know choose to deviate the ArbCom's attention from the opening statements to what you now propose should be the case... GK1973 (talk) 13:58, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

If you read my statements thoroughly you will note that I have always discussed this arbitration in terms of the naming dispute and resolving that issue as the primary focus. At the point that ChrisO changed Republic of Macedonia to Macedonia, "the former Republic of Macedonia" and "FYROM" had already been changed at Greece to "Republic of Macedonia" and "Rep. Maced." and the article locked, so my arguments do "carry some credence". That was the issue that was being discussed at Talk:Greece and that was the issue that initiated the agreement to bring this before arbitration before ChrisO's change at Macedonia. This was already going to arbitration on Tuesday after Orthodox Easter. Yannismarou decided to submit it to arbitration early. (Taivo (talk) 15:23, 21 May 2009 (UTC))

Is this what you are looking for? --Radjenef (talk) 14:11, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes! Thank you very much! GK1973 (talk) 08:42, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

(ec) And here you get a flavor of the issue--Should Greece and other "Greek" articles be allowed to use "the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" unlike the rest of Wikipedia, or should those article conform to Wikipedia naming policy and use "(Republic of) Macedonia"? That is the question that this arbitration was heading for before it was sidetracked by those who do not wish to have that question answered. (Taivo (talk) 13:59, 21 May 2009 (UTC))

If Greece is the only issue, then obviously there is consensus for everything else (since everything else is not an issue), so all articles except Greece where the discussion will continue should be returned to status quo ante. This is basically what you're proposing if you say there is no other issue, so please decide. --Avg (talk) 16:54, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I never said that it was restricted to just naming Macedonia at Greece. The issue is the entire question of naming Macedonia in Wikipedia. It started at Greece as the most obvious problem article, but it encompasses the entire project and what Macedonia is to be called. Naming the article Macedonia is one facet of the problem, but one facet only. But focusing solely on Macedonia or on how it came to be named that was not the original purpose of seeking arbitration. Please don't play wikilawyer with my comments. There is a Wikipedia policy to be formed here concerning the name of Macedonia. Whether this arbitration committee decides to tackle the issue directly, or forms a clear path to a quick solution, this is, and has always been, the focus of my participation in this arbitration. (Taivo (talk) 17:12, 21 May 2009 (UTC))

The Arbitration Committee has always refused to decide content disputes, and I do not think it is likely that they will start deciding content disputes here. One of the remedies creates a potential way out of this, so hopefully, that will prove to be successful. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 17:27, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

As long as they point a clear path to a resolution, I will be satisfied. Your own suggestions are one of the possibilities for that clear path. (Taivo (talk) 17:30, 21 May 2009 (UTC))

The Arbs have proposed a process, which obviously will include Greece-related articles, so this whole discussion is moot. Of course the process will, among others, decide how the Republic should be named within Greek articles. What more did you want the Arbs to do, make a content decision in your favor?--Avg (talk) 17:31, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

If Horologium will forgive me for trying to read his mind, this thread was initiated so that in all the sound and fury surrounding Macedonia, ChrisO, and Future Perfect, we didn't lose track or forget about the underlying issue here. In the original version of the proposed decision the "where do we go from here" remedy was weak, IMHO. Rlevse is working with J.delanoy to tighten it up so that it charts a very clear and measured path to a resolution. (Taivo (talk) 17:39, 21 May 2009 (UTC))"

Let's hope that a binding resolution will be achieved by the community soon. But I'd like to add that this resolution has not been achieved yet, so no option for a name should be disqualified and/or assigned negative connotations at this point. --Avg (talk) 18:01, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I noticed Taivo said something about how some parties tried to avoid having this matter resolved above. I cannot help but wonder whether that fails to WP:AGF. No one wanted the topic to be ignored. Rather, there were serious questions regarding the actions of individuals which, if potentially allowed to continue unchecked, might have made any discussion regarding that original issue moot. There seems to be some resolution to the conduct issues at least in the pipeline, which allows for discussion on the original content issue without reservations about how the discussions could once again be sidetracked by similar conduct issues. John Carter (talk) 18:45, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

What John said. And may I remind that this is not only about the actions? Many arbitrators said that they would "try and move the broader dispute towards resolution", "assist the Community in finding a solution to the naming conflict" and not only "look at the recent move but also the underlying issue". SQRT5P1D2 (talk) 12:22, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

The reason I brought this up is because it's my name on the protection log for Greece, and I cannot in good conscience let protection on the article lapse if I know that the edit warring is going to begin again within minutes of its expiration. I will be out of town (and most likely will be spending very little time online) for the next nine days; I don't want to come back to a pageful of messages on my talk page demanding that I remove protection from the article, or reinstate it because another admin unprotects it. There is no assumption of good faith, bad faith, or otherwise, just a heads-up to remind people that there is more to this issue than what the arbitration seems to be acknowledging. Horologium (talk) 19:37, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I will be out of town for a few days myself, so in the meantime let me propose a possible remedy for this. I suggest that an injunction should be applied along the lines of Rlevse's remedy 29 - call it "Disputed terminology injunction on Greece". Something like this: No terminology concerning the name Macedonia shall be altered on Greece until after the community comes comes to a solution for the naming dispute. If it does occur, any uninvolved administrator can expeditiously revert it. After the case closes, Macedonia-related terminology can be amended as prescribed in the solution. Admittedly this is perhaps already covered by remedy 3, "All related articles under 1RR", but given that Greece has been the focus of this part of the dispute I think a specific remedy for that article could be justified. Basically the dispute needs to be frozen for a while until it can be sorted out. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:04, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

@Balkan-Fever (top of section): Just to clarify since I was mentioned here, I know what happened but I wasn't around back then. Just for the record I have never "warred" there, I haven't even edited Greece, ever. Isn't Greece a content issue? Hasn't the Proposed Decision covered the edit warring? Shadowmorph ^{^"^} 20:40, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I know you haven't edited Greece; that's why I wasn't 100% sure if you knew about the entire dispute and the reasons for arbitrations. Wasn't accusing you of anything, just trying to get everybody on the same page. BalkanFever 07:52, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I never thought you did. Just clearing things. Shadowmorph ^{^"^}

Horologium I sincerely hope we won't have to protect the Greece article or the whole of Balkan articles for ages. Right now even articles of which the subject matter is surrounded with much more controversy, are not locked. If I understand, what happened is that Greece got locked just because of a choice between the constitutional name of the country and the term by which it is admitted in the UN - and the edit war about it. I think the lock of the Greece article has been extended too far, that's just my opinion. Shadowmorph ^{^"^} 20:53, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Until there is a Wikipedia resolution to the naming of Macedonia, it should remain in lockdown. Once editors and administrators have a solid Wikipedia policy on the name, then edit warriors who crop up on a regular basis can be reverted with a solid justification. (Taivo (talk) 21:09, 21 May 2009 (UTC))

...So.. the ArbCom will not decide on content, yet the edits of certain editors should not be allowed to change... and this is not content decision for you people... So.. should an admin change all instances of RoM with FYRoM (and of course I would resent that, but there are those who would welcome it and have many (unacceptable FOR ME) arguments to support it) and then lock the articles, we would apply the same rules and keep their edits until any ruling... interesting... People.. do you understand how dangerous this path is? I beg that somebody from the ArbCom entertains my fears somehow. GK1973 (talk) 09:01, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Apparently, no. There is no agreement and the whole discussion turned into a Pythonesque sketch. "Let's keep status quo POV, because status quo ante NPOV might be in conflict with a future POV - and we certainly don't want another conflict with a future future NPOV" :) Many parties tried to warn about the dangers in general, but to no avail. SQRT5P1D2 (talk) 16:48, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Clarification about proposed topic bans

I think that, in fairness to Rlevse, I should point out that his proposed topic bans may have been misinterpreted by some here. He has not proposed that anyone should be permanently topic-banned. In the case of myself he has proposed that I be topic-banned for 4 weeks, 12 weeks or 6 months (and has voted for the 4 weeks option), and in the case of Fut. Perf. he has proposed and voted for a 12 week topic ban. Nobody has proposed (yet) that either of us should be permanently excluded from this topic area. I hope this clears up any confusion. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:36, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Understood. It also should be noted that, until and unless any such proposal gets sufficient support from arbitrators to be enacted, they remain simply proposals. John Carter (talk) 18:41, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

And yet, the net message of any such remedies is quite clear, as mentioned in the "Why these disputes can't be resolved", "Without Chris O and FPaS what would these pages look like?" & "On desysopping"" sections above. Such excellent editors should be commended for their dedication to the stated goals of the project, instead of sanctioned for acting like reasonable human beings in the face of constant tendentious editing, disruption & general disregard for Wikipedia's theoretical objectives. – Resources management is not my field, but I'm pretty sure that this approach is directly detrimental to the creation of a reliable reference work using Wikipedia's (excessively) open & collaborative system. - Ev (talk) 19:28, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

...but gratitude isn't part of "civility" in the wonderful world of Wiki. --Folantin (talk) 19:58, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. I did lose sight of the temporary nature of the topic ban. Jd2718 (talk) 03:24, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Civility reminder

This is just a reminder to everyone that Rlevse's final warning is still in effect. Please comment on the proposed decision and the issues in this case instead of individual editors. Thanks! KnightLago (talk) 22:14, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

KnightLago, maybe you missed these. BalkanFever claimed ignorance about the original dispute for many parties, namely me, John Carter and Shadowmorph.. Today, ChrisO brought Hitler to the table. If I'm not mistaken, warnings and reminders about them, are for every party. SQRT5P1D2 (talk) 11:25, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

You never answered my question. BalkanFever 11:33, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

If you read above, you have your answer from those you blamed for ignorance, although nobody was obliged to do so. I even answered twice. But if you really wanted to ask about what me, John Carter, Shadowmorph or other parties opposed to you POV knew, this was not the proper way to do it. Calling someone ignorant and then telling "well, if you're not, tell us about it", is simply wrong. And if I didn't assume good faith for the "heavily involved" bit, so often repeated by some parties, I would think that these are attempts to suggest something along the lines of "it would be nice if they weren't so active, since they're opposing us". But I gave the benefit of the doubt to everyone making such a reference, many times. I'm not sure if I'm willing to do this once more, considering your inappropriate tone. SQRT5P1D2 (talk) 12:14, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

SQRTP1D2, if BalkanFever didn't know, it was ok for him to wonder about that. We refuted him - end of the matter. And about the Hitler thing, that always happens; get familiar with Goodwin's Law. I think ChrisO just pointed to a kind of tactic as something other people will claim as being an efficient strategy. I don't think he wanted to accuse anybody of doing that. Let's all be calm here. Shadowmorph ^{^"^} 12:21, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Of course it was ok to ask about it, but in a civil way. It's different if I claim that you're ignorant and subsequently ask you if you actually are, than questioning if you knew something and wait for your response, before jumping to conclusions. Regarding ChrisO, that's not what he wrote. He claimed that I'm repeating a lie, although tactics used by Hitler and the Nazis are efficient in accepting propaganda (repeating a lie) as the truth. Veiled accusations are equally insulting. SQRT5P1D2 (talk) 12:28, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh, the irony. In a section entitled "civility reminder", SQRT claims that ChrisO is making veiled accusations of Nazism. I'm sure the clerks are going to step in to clean this up, right? --Akhilleus (talk) 13:19, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, I expect clerks to clean up what is to be cleaned. SQRT5P1D2 (talk) 15:32, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

BalkanFever (talk · contribs) is banned from all case pages for 24 hours starting from my signature time on his talk page. See [73]. As for ChrisO (talk · contribs), I agree with Shadowmorph's reasoning in this situation. Though in the future, avoid all references to Hitler, please. KnightLago (talk) 15:56, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I would expect a statement from ChrisO himself, clarifying that his reference had nothing to do with any party. SQRT5P1D2 (talk) 00:17, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

For crying out loud. It seems rather obvious he was not referring to anyone, and I assume that KnightLago would have taken action if he disagreed. Forcing ChrisO to "formally" state this is stupid. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 01:43, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I will try and remember that references like the above are fair game, in case someone else is accused for incivility in the future. SQRT5P1D2 (talk) 15:00, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

New status quo - question

Since there are findings of fact about the status quo in the Greece article, is ARBCOM going to have a revised finding and/or remedy about the status quo of the titles that were moved/renamed? I am referring to the status quo of the disambiguation page at Macedonia, the title of the country article being Republic of Macedonia article and the taxonomy of the rest. Shadowmorph ^{^"^} 08:43, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Shadowmorph, Please read this. That is the answer to your question about what ArbCom is discussing doing about the Macedonia naming dispute. (Taivo (talk) 11:41, 22 May 2009 (UTC))

I've read it, thanks. But we don't know whether that proposal text going to be included in the PD as new section or in a revision of one. Shadowmorph ^{^"^} 12:24, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

That's right, but until the final decision is announced, nothing is going to be changed, so please, find something useful to do in Wikipedia. You are simply repeating over and over and over the same things that have been said for months about Macedonia and you have changed no one's mind. The continual harping by you and GK#### is doing nothing but inflaming the situation. Calm down and let this situation run its course. Nothing is going to change here right now. (Taivo (talk) 13:45, 22 May 2009 (UTC))

Inflame? Changed NOONE's mind? Harping? Taivo... you continue to amaze me... How more one sided can your comments be? How much more demeaning? Is this the way we should expect from you to treat any arguments or opinions which do not please your Point of View? Are you a member of the ArbCom now to be able to speak out as to what will and what will not change? Isn't the very idea of these discussion an effort to bring some kind of a change? Are the opinions of everybody here made up? I always thought that when the ArbCom makes up ITS mind, it will announce its ruling... GK1973 (talk) 14:01, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Taivo and GK1973, please slow down and take a step back. You are both venturing down a path with an unhappy ending. KnightLago (talk)

I've already said all I have to say on the issue :) (Taivo (talk) 16:09, 22 May 2009 (UTC))

This is insane

And I speak as an admin who has done enormous amounts of WP:ARBMAC enforcement.

Without ChrisO and FPAS the whole topic-area who have descended into enormous chaos and about 50,000 different arbcom cases. Fact. To propose to repay them with grossly disproportionate desysoppings is insane. I see no case for any action other than commendation in the case of FPAS, who has survived harassment, trolling, bullying, thuggery and a thousand kinds of idiocy from a thousand kinds of nationalist to consistently do the right thing for Wikipedia. Ok, so, he may have occasionally got a little tired and told some idiots to fuck off, although never, AFAIK, in as many words. Perhaps a slap on the wrist for ChrisO for making rather dramatic page-moves and seemingly stirring up what had been a quietened pot.

Come on, arbcom. Please remember the principle of mitigation. Ban the hell out of the real sinners (Avg, who I should have banned myself, Kekrops, etc), and do your best to help your friends. Moreschi (talk) 19:57, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Moreschi, you must not have looked at the diffs, as you said "never in as many words", but check just the first one and you see "fuck off idiot" in the summary. There are many more. Then look at his RFC, he has a long history of this behavior and it's highly inappropriate for an admin. He insults users and their nations and that doesn't help this mess at all. As for ChrisO, he's been sanctioned by arbcom 3 times before, just how many times does he have to be warned? If they can't learn to behave, even though in hellstorm, they should be desyssopped. As for Avg, Kekrops, and Reaper7, yea, I could support longer sanctions too. Sumoeagle179 (talk) 20:13, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Right. So admins who have spent the last half-decade dealing with this shite are now judged by the same standards as the trolls they fought, even though they received practically no help for those 5 long years. Come on. Moreschi (talk) 20:41, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Moreschi. Certain parts of wikipedia are tough places to edit in, where the sane to nut ratio is less favorable than normal. Yes, this is one of them. FPAS was trying to uphold wikipedia's core policies in this. FPAS should be receiving some kind of wikipedia knighthood, not condemnation. Yes, he has gone over the line with comments one or two times, but that's how humans react in these conditions. Passing these measures against FPAS would be bad leadership from ArbCom, and would do a lot of damage. Please don't do it. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 06:19, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

@Deacon: Knights are "gentleman soldiers". Paladins never curse. Civility is also a core policy to be upheld. @Moreschi: "The equality of users is an integral quality of the projects". Imho, proper administration is incompatible with a display of false consensus effect.

Yes, when an admin crosses the civility line that is a human error. But in that case shouldn't it be expected that he doesn't continue that error? Even apologize or show regret? Certainly not the opposite by saying something along the lines "I will repeat this again and go report me". Repeating the provocation does not solve anything but only leads to increased infuriating disruption. Shadowmorph ^{^"^} 07:21, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I left a message at User_talk:Rlevse#Desysopping_proposals_and_Wikipedia:Five_pillars explaining further what's wrong with these proposals. I'm no fan of needless incivility and behavior of that manner, but this is not the major issue here. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 08:50, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I've responded there and it is far from "one or two times", go look at the evidence. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:58, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

What Moreschi says: this is insane. I've seen the evidence in context. I see no reason why prissy conduct policies should trump defending the reliability of Wikipedia's content. We're supposed to be an encyclopaedia. Of course, for most admins now, WP:CIVILITY is like alcohol - it's the universal solution which makes all the nasty, intractable problems go away. --Folantin (talk) 11:19, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Strong second to Moreschi's statement. This is an absurd solution. These nationalist area of contention in Wikipedia are nearly, if not entirely, impossible to work in. Very few admins actually make any sustained effort to wade in to the middle of these things and call bullshit, and when they do it is rare that any other admins will come in and make a sustained effort to remain in support. We have noticeboards up the wazoo that are designed to help mitigate the issue, but in my experience they don't solve the problem. Why would you be civil to someone who is trying to impose a narrow, harmful view of historical events, who is expressing tribal ethnic hatred (either subtly or overtly) of others, who is intentionally hostile to any editor with a different view, or any admin trying to calm things down and sort out the facts from the fiction? These are not editors working in good faith, and we do not have a system in place that allows the admin corps to deal effectively with them. Removing the bit from two of the small handful of admins that are focused and engaged in this area would be an exceptionally wrong headed decision, and it is mind boggling that it has even been proposed. In a nutshell, you would be removing the bit from two admins because of ArbCom's failure to come up with a workable solution. Hiberniantears (talk) 17:25, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Partial agreement. I can see ChrisO being desysoped for abuse of admin tools in performing the move of the article under the circumstances given and with the frankly insufficient justification given. Future Perfect's misconduct, while it is fairly serious, does not, in my eyes, necessarily qualify for having him desysoped. I can see him being given any number of other penalties, up to and including some form of topic ban for a time, but I do have to question whether what he has done, given the circumstances in which he faces himself in dealing with the Balkans, is so horrible that it requires that he be desysoped. John Carter (talk) 17:41, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

In my humble opinion, the position taken by Kirill today is entirely sensible, however the remedies proposed by Rlevse on the 20th appear to be overly harsh. PhilKnight (talk) 17:58, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Please explain this ban

KnightLago, please explain exactly why Balkan Fever was banned for this, especially when the edit summary says "If I'm wrong, I apologize"? I don't see any real consistency in enforcement here. I'm sorry if I have missed something in your enforcement patterns, but I just don't see anything uncivil about Balkan's comment. Shadowmorph and I don't agree on much here, but Shadowmorph also said that Balkan's edit was innocent. (Taivo (talk) 03:52, 23 May 2009 (UTC))

I'm not going to demand an explanation from KnightLago, but I agree that the enforcement here seems uneven. Balkan Fever's comment is a rather mild speculation that some parties weren't aware of the original nature of the dispute under arbitration, and pales in comparison to calling another user's view "batshit insane", the sardonic comment "Why doesn't that surprise me, somehow?" by John Carter in response to Balkan Fever, or SQRT's claim of "veiled accusations" above. To be clear, I don't think any of these comments merit action, but each one of them is at least as objectionable as Balkan Fever's comments; SQRT's posts are more "inflammatory" for sure. --Akhilleus (talk) 17:11, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Tiptoety and I, in consultation with and under the supervision of the Arbitrators, have been doing our best to maintain a fair and civil atmosphere in the midst of an extremely difficult case. We are evaluating every edit/issue on a case-by-case basis and dealing with it in what we believe is the best possible manner. I personally have not taken any action in this case without seeking second, and sometimes third opinions from Clerks and/or Arbitrators. We are not doing anything in a flippant manner. Taivo, my explanation for the 24 hour ban (now expired) is located here. If you have a more specific question, please ask on my talk page. Also in the future, if you have a question about something I have done, please first ask on my talk page. KnightLago (talk) 17:57, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your response, KnightLago. I still don't see anything there worthy of a block, but what's done is done and the block is over. As far as asking on your Talk page instead of here, I have to respectfully say that "It depends". If it's clearly a case of me being stupid, I will certainly not clutter the page here with that. But if it's a case where there is a serious question that others might also have about enforcement, this is the best place for such things so that all present know that there is a certain concern. You have a thankless job, KnightLago, and I wouldn't trade you for all the tea in China. No one says a word when you do a good job and everyone bitches when you make an error or unpopular decision. So for all the good you've done trying to keep this mess organized and moving in a single direction, Thank you. I can imagine a hundred ways that this Arbitration would be worse off without your sincere efforts. But there are going to be times when someone needs to question you up front about a decision. It's part of the job. I, for one, will be respectful of your dilemma when I do it. (Taivo (talk) 18:11, 23 May 2009 (UTC))

"Medcom"

Just a note as some of the arbs have been discussing a possible role of the Mediation Committee in subsequent dispute resolution: You guys are aware that this is a multi-editor thing, right? I'm not sure how mediation would work in practice, with perhaps ten active editors on each side, especially if the process is supposed to then set standards that become authoritative for a large number of occasional editors and anons. Would you envisage that the parties somehow delegate mediation to a small number of negotiators? Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:21, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Hearing that (I'm not experienced in the whole arbitration/mediation/dispute resolution process), I'm wondering where those "mediators" are chosen from. Are they solicited from interested parties? If so, how can 10 Greek editors and 10 non-Greek editors ever come to a consensus on what to call Macedonia? That's why we're here in the first place. One of the arbitrators wondered how we could ever find a single administrator that both sides would accept. That problem is not just X*20 for a mediation committee, but X to the power of 20. The fewer authoritative, neutral voices involved in the "naming" committee, the better. That will ensure a thorough review done in the least amount of time. Personally, I think that 3-5 is the optimum number of members in that naming committee. (Taivo (talk) 22:17, 23 May 2009 (UTC))

See WP:MEDCOM, which lists the active mediators. There are eight right now (apparently mediation is not a task which draws a lot of volunteers). As Coren points out, though, the voluntary nature of mediation makes it unlikely to succeed in this case. --Akhilleus (talk) 23:10, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the reference, Akhilleus. I didn't get past the introduction, however, where it says, "mediators do not issue binding decisions. The decision to mediate, and to abide by the result of mediation, is voluntary." I agree with you, that's not what we need here. This must be a binding decision that is enforceable. (Taivo (talk) 23:17, 23 May 2009 (UTC))

That's what remedy #6 is for. The idea seems to be to form a special committee of administrators, acceptable to all parties in the dispute, who will decide how Wikipedia naming policy applies in this situation. That's a different thing than voluntary mediation, and I don't know if anything similar has been done before. --Akhilleus (talk) 23:39, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it would definitely fit in the category of WP:BOLD I think (at least under a broad interpretation of boldness). But one of the arbitrators was musing over the use of the Mediation Committee here, so the idea needed to be nipped in the bud. (Taivo (talk) 04:05, 24 May 2009 (UTC))

Voluntary restrictions or sanctions?

I was a bit surprised to see that voluntary restrictions that I proposed have somehow mutated into me being "sanctioned" in a case that hasn't even closed yet. The FoFs in this case call the restrictions I proposed voluntary [74], so what are they - voluntary restrictions or compulsory sanctions? If they're voluntary, why are they being cited as evidence that I have been sanctioned three times? If they're not voluntary, why are they being called that here and in the Scientology case? If they haven't been passed yet, why are they being cited here?

Second, I'm not sure why I'm being proposed for a topic ban. Is there any evidence of edit-warring, civility violations or other disruptive editing? None has been proposed in the FoFs. Could Rlevse please explain why this remedy has been proposed? -- ChrisO (talk) 21:21, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I tweaked the wording of remedy 20. As for Scientology, you agreed to it, and it's fairly certain it'll pass and close before this case closes. I really don't think we need to go into why you agreed to them. As for the topic ban, the FoFs do show actions that were disruptive, such as the one that led to this arbitration. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:23, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarifications. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:44, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

"Ethnic Polarization" in FoF #8 does not apply to all involved editors

Finding of Fact #8 reads: 8) Articles relating to or simply mentioning Macedonia have been and are being subjected to frequent vandalism and disruptive editing, characterized by ethnic polarization, in an effort to promote one side or the other's particular view. The phrase "ethnic polarization" and the phrase "one side or the other's" would both tend to indicate that this is a case of two groups of nationalists using WP as a battlefield. Neither this finding of fact nor any other clarifies that neither Chris O's nor FPaS' edits belong to "one side or the other" and in fact, in combination with subsequent FsoF, make it appear that these two admins are edit-warring as partisans of an (unnamed) ethnic group. This should be clarified. 98.216.48.236 (talk) 03:10, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

To the anonymous IP who is not a party to this arbitration. Your comment is not really applicable to anything and simply seems to be a personal attack on ChrisO and Future Perfect. It isn't even an accurate appraisal of the situation relevant to these two gentlemen. (Taivo (talk) 04:03, 24 May 2009 (UTC))

Actually I think he's saying that ChrisO and FP aren't part of any nationalist group, but the current wording in the PD suggests otherwise. BalkanFever 06:57, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that's how I read it too. No attack there. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:30, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree with BalkanFever and Fut. However I think "ethnic polarization" in FOF #8 should not be used for other reasons too. I have stated how I feel about that term. How many poles in that polarization? There are editors that are ethnic Macedonian , Bulgarian, Greek, Albanian; furthermore national Austalians, national Canadians (where the diasporas are strong) and others born in countries of the former Yugoslavia or in Cyprus that are sympathetic to one or the other of the opposing views. I would personally prefer something along the lines : "partly characterized by opposing alignments along the national POV of individual countries in the Balkans" (If that is grammatically correct). Shadowmorph ^{^"^} 10:13, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Polarization directly implies two poles. BalkanFever read me correctly: ChrisO and FPaS have not edited in this area in a polarizing way, and certainly do not seem to be editing on behalf of some national interest. (Shadowmorph has correctly understood, as well. but we disagree. Some Greek editors have indeed edited in a polarizing way. We should neither ignore the problem, nor should we use it to cast a cloud over the contributions over the vast majority.) 98.216.48.236 (talk) 20:16, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Radjenef

I can see that FoF #30 labels me as a WP:SPA. Since I am relatively new to wikipedia, not having had the time to build an extensive array of edits, I urge all the arbitrators to carefully consider my contributions before voting on the subject. These include:

• Reverting vandalism in an article about hair-styles [75]
• Enforcing WP:NPOV in an article about a TV-series [76]
• Providing external sources for articles on parliamentary debate [77], [78]
• Answering someone's question on a math-related talk page [79]
• Correcting a few factual mistakes on articles about mushrooms (and potentially saving a few lives in the process) [80], [81], [82]
• Adding a lot of information to the article on the λμ-calculus (math-related) [83], [84], [85]

As a matter of fact, my edits on articles have mostly been non-Macedonia related. While I do acknowledge that my talk page edits on Macedonia-related articles are disproportionately more than my other discussions, I attribute that to the controversial nature of the subject: I wanted to discuss things first, because I wanted to be sure I wasn't doing anything that was out of line. In a way, I guess you could say I wasn't bold enough, which is typical of most new users anyway. Finally, it is also the case that I have many edits relating to this arbitration case. All I have to say about that is that this always happens when a newbie gets involved in an arbitration case; the number of edits required for this case was enormous, so my previous edits might naturally seem minuscule to some. --Radjenef (talk) 10:42, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Proposed remedy #29 - tabula rasa?

Proposed remedy #29 states that Macedonia-related articles shouldn't be renamed until after the community comes to a solution for the naming dispute. Given that preserving ChrisO's edits is as much of a content decision as reverting them, I would like the arbitrators to clarify which name we'll be sticking with for the Republic until the naming dispute is resolved. The issue becomes of particular importance in case ArbCom finds that ChrisO acted illegitimately in moving the article. My opinion is that if we honestly want to give the community a chance of resolving the naming dispute, then this should be done tabula rasa, with a clean slate, by reverting to the status quo ante first. This is a process that could take quite some time; maintaining an illegitimate edit for an indefinite amount of time via an injunction would undermine that process before it even started. --Radjenef (talk) 14:06, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

You might want to consider that this request violates Findings of Fact #16 and #18, which have already achieved a majority vote of 8, so will be included in the final decision. (Taivo (talk) 14:51, 24 May 2009 (UTC))

How can my request for clarification violate these Findings of Fact? In fact, it is the preservation of the illegitimate edits via an injunction that would violate the Findings of Fact. The whole issue screams "disambiguate me" from miles away, as is the mere fact that we are having this discussion. In any case, I guess it's up to the arbitrators to decide whether my request violates the Findings of Fact. I would really appreciate it if they could clarify this bit for me. --Radjenef (talk) 15:19, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Disputes over things like names are typically frozen at the time the arb case opens. We don't determine which name convention is right or wrong. Therefore, the names will stay as is until the community works this out. If the community had worked this out on their own, the names wouldn't be frozen and the arbcase would not have occurred. Think about it. — Rlevse • Talk • 12:56, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I have thought about it. ArbCom doesn't determine which name convention is right or wrong, but it does determine which edits were performed illegitimately. After the arb case closes, in the spirit of honest to god helping to resolve this dispute, it could allow ("not disallow" to be more precise) the reversion of those edits, before disallowing further changes by means of the injunction. This wouldn't be a determination upon right or wrong naming conventions but a reflection of the finding that some edits were illegitimate. I regret to say that, unless something is done, there might be no point in hoping that the community will be able to resolve this dispute, since the two sides would have unequal footing during the discussion. One would be in a hurry and more desperate to compromise in order to end the freeze, while the other side would be incentivised to stall until stalemate resolution. To be honest, I am terribly disappointed that the system can be gamed so easily into freezing an editor's illegitimate edits. I understand and respect what you say from a technical point of view, but I hope that the spirit and underlying principles of the project will prevail... --Radjenef (talk) 14:42, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Wasn't the point of arbitration to deal with the reason why the community "couldn't work it out", namely that it was only one clearly defined faction within the community which, due to its size, was able to forge some form of "no consensus"? BalkanFever 13:05, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

It has been repeated several times that this arbitration was originally because the community couldn't work out the names, before any of the moves by ChrisO that in no way helped. The names of the articles themselves (not the content issues) were not contested recently prior to ChrisO's move. There has never been a poll or discussion about primary topic before ([86]) for any "faction" to be blamed for destroying consensus about primary topic. Actually it was the move that destroyed stability about the inexistence of any primary topic. Therefore the move just managed to give a primary topic to Macedonia for the first time in Wikipedia. The topic chosen by ChrisO, alone, via a "wheel war fright" is what is now locked. There hasn't been any evidence that there would be a wheel war if a single revert of that move happened. Besides it would have to be among admins, a very rare case! I hope the injunction will remain temporary and not be upgraded into an administrative prescription about the names. Shadowmorph ^{^"^} 20:28, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Your continued assertion that "The names of the articles themselves (not the content issues) were not contested recently prior to ChrisO's move" is incorrect. This should be obvious based on the fact that ChrisO was willing to place his sysop bit on the table in order to move the article, and by the general response from previously uninvolved editors immediately following his move, which mostly supported his action, but was skeptical of the process. Even if your assertion was true, it still has no bearing on the issue at hand. There is no precedent for an article to be reverted to a specific version while dispute resolution goes on. When an article is locked because of edit-warring, unless there is an issue with obvious libel or the like, the page is simply locked down with no consideration for which version the article was preserved. This principle also applies here. Your statements on this page, taken as a body, appear to be a classic example of a claim that The Wrong Version was protected. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 05:41, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

My claim has nothing to do with m:The Wrong Version, as I am not suggesting a judgement on content. The Findings of Fact suggest that ChrisO's edits were illegitimate so, while content might be disputed, conduct isn't. There is no right or wrong side in an edit war, only two sides disagreeing. Yet this isn't an edit war... ArbCom believes ChrisO's edits constitute administrative misconduct; freezing the article's name to "Macedonia" is like condoning that conduct (I am not referring to content here). All I ask is that the issue of misconduct is reflected on the injunction. I am assuming, all in good faith, that the article's renaming was just randomly performed a few days before the arbitration request's originally scheduled filing date. --Radjenef (talk) 11:43, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I have one last thing to add and I guess it's up to the arbitrators and their conscience to evaluate the facts and come to their own conclusions. According to Future Perfect [87] and ChrisO [88], the move was performed by ChrisO prior to the arbitration case in order to have "his action checked (and, if necessary, confirmed or reversed)". Further to that, ChrisO claimed that reverting his move would constitute wheel-warring [89]. These clearly show that, sort of seeking help from ArbCom, there was no way of reverting his move without causing considerable disruption to the project. ChrisO knew that ArbCom would either revert his edit or freeze it indefinitely and that is what he was aiming for. If his action is now "checked" but not "reversed" by ArbCom, then the system will in effect have been gamed. --Radjenef (talk) 00:40, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Well if you say these obvious truths, sooner or later you will be accused of "assuming bad faith". Of course they gamed the system, of course they presented it as a fait accompli before the ArbCom because they expected the renaming freeze. It is painfully obvious, in fact me and others have talked about it from the get go[90], but nobody is doing anything about it.--Avg (talk) 02:04, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Presumably, the stalemate resolution remedy proffered by this case will be activated (if that is the right way to say it) soon after this case is closed. Why does it matter if the article remains at Macedonia in the meantime? J.delanoy^gabs_adds 02:10, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I will refer you to both legal and social aspects of status quo, (e.g. see our own Status quo bias and Status quo ante) and also the technical aspect, which is the distortion of external and internal links and google results towards a more favorable approach to those who support that a specific topic is the primary topic. --Avg (talk) 02:18, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, actually, this one is much easier to answer. Because the stalemate resolution remedy explicitly states that "WP:GAME-ing a situation to head towards stalemate resolution will be highly frowned upon." The first step would be to try this, which could take a long time. --Radjenef (talk) 02:21, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

@ Avg: There is no precedent for undoing an action made as part of an editing dispute after a page was locked, unless the action is obvious vandalism, libel, or unambiguously wrong (e.g. "the Sun is green"). What you need to do is provide a good reason why this long-standing precedent should not be upheld in this case. A debate about status quo from an ethical, legal, or social standpoint does not have any bearing on that. Based on the various reports on the /Evidence page, the navigational facility has, at the very least, not been made worse by the move. Also, the reason that internal links have not been re-aimed is because there is not currently a definite decision about where the article will be placed, so it would be pointless to change them all and then have to change them back if the decision places the article about the country at Republic of Macedonia. With regard to external links, any pointed at Republic of Macedonia will be redirected to an article about the country, and nothing is lost. I cannot think of any good reasons to point a link directly at a disambiguation page, so it is unlikely that there were many links from other websites aimed at Macedonia prior to the move.

@ Radjenef: The dispute about the naming of the article about the country has been around for more than six years. There is probably nothing that anyone could possibly do that would "game the system" more than it has already been gamed. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 03:47, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Spot on. This is exactly the issue. The move has been timed in order to shift the burden of proof from one side to the other. Take all your arguments and apply them to the case where the article was locked at "Republic of Macedonia" and people were asked to bring compelling evidence that this should be changed to "Macedonia". This is even harder, close to impossible, because the ambiguity is a compelling argument against this. And of course this was the reason a decision was made not to enter the arbitration under the previous status quo.--Avg (talk) 19:19, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I am not saying that I want you to bring a compelling reason for why the page should be at one title or the other, I am asking for a reason why ArbCom should revert a controversial action, after a page has been locked, simply to preserve the prior status quo. This is never done anywhere on the site, so I am interested in why you think it should be done here. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 13:55, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Because in this way we are encouraging any administrator who truly believes in the veracity of his POV to act exactly as ChrisO did. To impose his POV, lock the page and then wait until an ArbCom decides whether his actions are or not condemnable, not decide on content and then impose any remedies which will aim to help the community achieve consensus... And all this time (surely months, maybe even years), his actions, however strange, unWikilike, POV, unscientific etc (and I am not referring to this case, but to any one). Should the ArbCom decide that ChrisO did bad to act as he did, regardless the punishment, it will have shown that gaming the rules and the community is possible. GK1973 (talk) 14:43, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

GK1973, please read the proposed decision again. Do you really think the ArbCom is encouraging anyone to act as ChrisO did? --Akhilleus (talk) 14:46, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that the ArbCom is encouraging anyone. I fear that other admins might be encouraged by the policy the ArbCom decided to implement, a fear I have already expressed in the past. What is your opinion on this possibilty, as I have described it above? GK1973 (talk) 15:30, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

"Stalemate resolution": for admins only?

Clarification request for the "Stalemate resolution" proposal. It currently says that "the community should designate a neutral uninvolved administrator, or group of administrators". Since finding suitable persons for this task might prove difficult, would the arbs consider if this role should really be restricted to administrators? After all, this is a question of having good judgment on a content issue, not an administrative task, and since admin status shouldn't normally be construed as conveying special clout over content, the restriction doesn't seem compelling. In the interest of opening up a larger pool of people with the right kind of qualifications, you might replace the wording with something like "experienced users". Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:22, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Good point. — Rlevse • Talk • 14:58, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

To that end, it may behoove someone to take a look at the spirit of the idea proposed at Wikipedia:Neutrality enforcement. Hiberniantears (talk) 20:52, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Interesting, but finding 6-12 uninvolved neutral people to work in even one of wiki's ethnic wars is not realistic. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:54, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Very true... though sadly the primary underlying problem common to all these types of disputes is that there is no trouble rustling up 6-12 "uninvolved" editors to camp out on a given article or family of articles and wage one of the wiki ethnic wars that leads to the type of dispute that sparked this case. NPOV versions of articles are very, very easy to arrive at on at least 90% of what we deal with. The Achilles heal of Wikipedia is that we simply lack the ability to enforce NPOV without becoming "involved" admins. You can't be an "uninvolved" admin and still do your job in these areas unless we change the system a bit and either create roving NPOV committees, or create some template that an admin can use to remain uninvolved AND enforce (or move an article towards) NPOV. ArbCom cases are tediously and painfully long, and generally exceptionally poorly communicated to the community at large and even the admin corps at large. With that in mind you are obviously the wrong people to be dealing with this problem since you have, for lack of a better word, failed to solve the problem after years of cases like this one. This case will also fail. You will spend all this time talking, and will fail to do anything constructive with that time. Seems like a waste, right? I certainly do not care to have my time wasted, and I'm sure we have thousands of editors on hand who would love to write in some of these nationalist dominated articles if only we could pull ourselves together and come up with policies that allow even keeled, objective editors to write about these topics. So stop failing and maybe take a little time to add to this case some meaningful policies that can be easily communicated to the community to solve this problem. Nationalism is vandalism. If ArbCom can't come up with a way to prevent nationalist editors from owning articles, then you are endorsing vandalism. That may sound like a real jerk thing for me to say, but I really need you guys to step back and try to see the forest from the trees, because you do have the power to make this project change for the good. Or... you could just keep slapping admins around who get loud with angry Russian/Turkish/Irish/Greek/{place nationality here} editors. Hiberniantears (talk) 03:00, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

This is not an enforcement issue. If the community had explicitly stated which is the NPOV version no one in their right mind would ever dare to violate it and admins' disciplinary work would be very easy. On the other hand, when you give space to all kinds of interpretations from all kinds of POV pushers to claim that their version is the NPOV one, this is where you lose the game. The community has to make decisions sooner or later and not sit passively watching the show.--Avg (talk) 03:18, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Avg is right in that this dispute is not a dispute on policy but interpretation of policy. It is not a dispute on whether naming should be according to reliable sourcing, neutral point of view, naming conventions, disambiguation or consensus. We all agree on these policies. This is a dispute on each side's POV of how these policies should be interpreted for this case. One side interprets the same policies one way. Another side interprets them another. That is why both sides claim to hold a neutral point of view that adheres to naming conventions. That is why both sides claim to operate by consensus (though for one side, consensus has been interpreted as "everyone but the Greeks"). That is also why one side claims there is a need to disambiguate while the other claims there is a primary topic. I think that a slight nudge (book) by ArbCom towards proper interpretation of policy, like a slight and less ambiguous rewording, would greatly help both sides in resolving this dispute. --Radjenef (talk) 08:26, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

1RR

Is the general 1RR condition meant to apply to all edits to any of those articles, or only to edits directly affecting the Macedonia naming problem? If the first, are you aware that this would quite radically restrict free editing in a huge area? Please note:

• Imagine an article about a British football player mentions he once played in a match against Macedonia. Somebody makes a change to the naming of the country in that passing mention. After that, is the whole article forever on 1RR including all edits to unrelated parts of it?
• Note that 1RR puts a big strain on any efforts at preservation of general neutrality by article watchers. If this is going to be about all edits in general and not just to edits changing the names, it is extremely easy for a disruptive user to make two or more tendentious but different edits in a row, perhaps to different parts of the article, or using different wording variants, without literally doing a single revert. In that case, 1RR would mean that the second and any subsequent one of his edits would be unrevertable. Do you really want that? In my experience, this could become a POV desaster.
• When watching Balkans-related articles as a neutral third party, I often have to revert tendentious edits from two or more sides. So, A makes a tendentious pro-X'ian edit, I revert it; B makes an equally tendentious anti-X'ian edit: I can't revert it?

Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:49, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Macedonia related edits, not unrelated things like football. 1rr/3rr means the same edit or essentially the same edit so if you rv a pro-A side edit, then a pro-B side edit, 1RR does not apply to you as the edits were significantlly different. 14:57, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

If that's the intention, I think the wording needs clarification. Remember that for instance the standard 3RR rule applies to all reverts independently of whether they were the same or different, so the default expectation would be that this would be similar. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:02, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

You're right. I stand corrected, oy, what a day already. It's just a 1RR variant of standard 3RR rules. — Rlevse • Talk • 17:28, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, well, okay, but then my original objection stands. This restricts normal editing in quite counter-productive ways, and to an unprecedented extent. I predict massive trouble with this one. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:40, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

As a concrete example, I recently made these two edits on the same article within the same day, each partially reverting a different tendentious edit by another user: [91], [92]; reverting these: [93], [94]. Do you think the article would have fared better if I couldn't have made the second edit? Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:47, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Since I was involved in that, the articles would be better if there wasn't undue weight on covering the positions of an extremely small (0,1% of votes in Greek elections) political party called "Rainbow" on almost every article concerning a certain minority Greece. In my opinion the edits should not have been reverted. Shadowmorph ^{^"^} 18:20, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

In Future's summary "LAOS claims are not a serious source for demographics discussion". The Greek party called "LA.O.S" on the other hand is a member of the Greek parliament (3,8% of votes) and the European parliament too. If those articles use Rainbow (0,1%) as reliable for demographics and we say that LAOS (3,8%) claims should be omitted, you be the judge of what should be reverted and what shouldn't. Anyway we have ventured too much into content issues here, but I think the above needed some explanation by me about my edits. Shadowmorph ^{^"^} 18:41, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Unlocking of Greece article

This has to be done. Right now there is a serious undermining of the neutrality of Wikipedia by the lockdown of Greece page for so long. This has not happened for far more serious cases of vandalism and edit war like e.g Iraq etc. Just to indicate the current status I would like to point out this edit by Future Perfect [95]. While done in good faith over concerns of sourcing, it effectively deleted the national motto of Greece which is "Eleftheria i thanatos", a motto that has its own article, with sources and all. Besides is really an admin from an uninvolved nationality the most adequate person to question if that motto is official and not any knowledgeable Greek editor out there? The Greek editors are familiar with official Greece (naturally) but have been unevenly and overly demonized in Wikipedia like there is nothing constructive they would have to offer.

Right now the equivalent of the status of the Greek article would be the United States article in lockdown with all the references to the declaration of independence deleted. Shadowmorph ^{^"^} 19:06, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

FP is competent enough to understand that he should revert the edit in question. "A state motto is used to describe the intent or motivation of the state in a short phrase". There is no need for e.g. presidential decrees, to recognise a national motto, widely known and understood by the citizens of a state. These are just a few flags, used all over Greece, during the Revolution. The intent of the revolution was to create an independent state and the motivation to keep an independent state, is always described by "Freedom or Death". Nothing new here, the same goes for most other countries too. Mottos are not subject to laws, but collective consciousness. SQRT5P1D2 (talk) 12:53, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Nope. No exceptions to the lockdown. If those involved didn't want these articles locked they should have settled their differences without arbcom having to get involved. — Rlevse • Talk • 19:09, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry... what does the lockdown of article "Greece" have to do with this arbitration? Where did the ArbCom decide that the said article should remain locked? As far as I understand, and I might be mistaken, it is the name of the country which is not allowed to change and the disambiguation page to not be reinserted. GK1973 (talk) 20:10, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

We did mix apples and oranges there didn't we ;-) As for this arb case, see Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Macedonia_2/Proposed_decision#Disputed_article_movement.2Frenaming_injunction, which says "No Macedonia-related article, broadly defined, shall be moved/renamed until after the "Macedonia 2" case closes. If it does occur, any uninvolved administrator can expeditiously revert it. After the case closes, Macedonia-related moves/renames can occur as prescribed in the final decision." The article Greece was full protected May 17, 2009 by admin Horologium on his own initiative with the summary "Restored full protection until arbitration case is settled." So while the two are connected, Greece article itself is not directly restricted from the arbcase injunction though the full protection results in the same affect. That being said, given the climate of the situation, edits such as renaming articles, changing the way Macedonia is referred to with articles affected by this (essentially the ones covered by the 1RR proposal) during the arbcase may not be the wisest of moves. Given Horologium protected the article Greece, I'd suggest you first contact him. Just so you know where I stand, I support Horologium on this since there's been so much dispute over these articles. If it's unprotected, how do we know the dispute won't re-erupt before the case is even over? — Rlevse • Talk • 20:51, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Such disruptions can happen in any non-locked Macedonia-related articles, but any edits of the said article not having to do with the name of RoM, as I understood the plea to be about, are not relative to the current arbitration. Anyone who would mess at this specific time with the "taboo" name will have to face the consequences but such an editor could as easily disrupt other articles, as "problematic" in the nature of this conflict (Something that is of course going on every day since this arbitration has started, mainly by IPs). Problems of the said article, not having to do with the arbitration, should be remedied, so a protection from IPs will most probably suffice. Anyways, if I understand well, it is up to Horologium to unlock the Greece article or not? GK1973 (talk) 21:40, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, first step would be to ask Horo — Rlevse • Talk • 21:54, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Just for background, Greece has come out of full protection twice before in the last two months and within minutes the first time, an editor was changing "Republic of Macedonia" to "FYROM". The second time it was about an hour or two before it happened. (Taivo (talk) 23:40, 24 May 2009 (UTC))

• Ducking in for just a moment...I will not unprotect the article until there is a consensus on the talk page. I've not seen any serious discussion about the issue for which the article was locked since the move of Macedonia over a month ago. I reduced the article to semi-protected after what seemed to be a consensus on one of the arbitration workshop pages, but after the edit war resumed (again) over "Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia", I reprotected it. If nobody is willing to discuss the issue, it' not going to be resolved, and the page should remain locked. I have added a banner to the top of my talk page telling editors not to ask for unprotection. This needs to be resolved NOW, and I will act as the heavy here, since I've never edited the article page. Horologium (talk) 23:58, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
  • I totally support Horologium on this. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:10, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I say we wait until this arbitration case is over, which shouldn't take more than a few weeks to close anyway. Once this is done, with 1RR in place, I don't think edit wars will be a problem. At that point, we can switch to semi protection, while at the same time discussing the issue of referring to the Republic. The article on the Republic is doing fine with semi-protection, so I don't see why the one on Greece would be a particular problem. If ArbCom offers some suggestions for resolving the naming dispute, such as neutral outside opinion or stalemate resolution, then I say we should use the same means to decide on the issue of referring to the Republic from other articles in conjunction to the naming dispute. --Radjenef (talk) 02:07, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

To address Shadowmorph's original point about the deletion of "Eleftheria i thanatos" (a great motto!), there's always {{editprotected}} to ask for uncontroversial edits to be made while the article is protected. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:17, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Although, I stress, that's uncontroversial edits, which would mean that someone would have to find a source that demonstrates eleftheria i thanatos is an official motto, and then develop consensus on the talk page that it belongs in the article. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:25, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Thank you, I didn't know how that worked. I'll start a topic on Talk:Greece before I request the edit. There isn't any controversy involved, the motto is widely known and sourced. Shadowmorph ^{^"^} 04:28, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with Radjenef about unprotecting the article at the conclusion of this arbitration. That means nothing and whether 1RR is in place or not, without a clear consensus on the name of Macedonia at Greece, there will be vandalism and full protection will have to be restored. It's already happened twice before. I completely agree with Horologium that until there is a clear consensus reached at Talk:Greece about the name of Macedonia in the article Greece, the article should remain locked down. A firm Macedonia naming policy as a result of the work of a naming committee after this arbitration is over would accomplish the same function, I should think. Either way, without a firm consensus or unambiguous statement of Wikipedia policy, there is no basis on which to lower the level of protection at Greece. (Taivo (talk) 05:36, 25 May 2009 (UTC))

It is important at this point to not confuse legitimate POVs with vandalism. Some people believe that the Republic should be referred to as "former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" in Greece-related articles, other people think it should be referred to as "Republic of Macedonia". All of these people will be subject to 1RR, just as they would be subject to 3RR, regardless of whether their reverts align with one POV or another; if they overdo it they are warned and subsequently blocked. The number of users who would truly vandalize the article while on semi-protection are few and far between. These can easily be dealt with as is done in most articles in cases of vandalism. I think that keeping the article fully-protected would be unprecedented overkill. That said, this entire discussion is outside the scope of ARBMAC2 (as is the one on "eleftheria i thanatos"), so I propose continuing it on Talk:Greece to see what will happen after the arbitration case has closed. If nobody else objects, I wouldn't mind a clerk moving it all to Talk:Greece to prevent needless clutter. --Radjenef (talk) 09:44, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Assuming that the 1RR ruling is enacted, I assume that there will be some sort of an edit notice supplied to warn editors of the restriction. While I have very little doubt that any warnings will be completely ignored, I see no harm in at least trying semi-protection to see what happens. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 05:45, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

If Horologium and the arbs want to keep the article protected until a resolution is found, then the way I see it, we will just have to test the "stalemate resolution" procedure provided by the current draft decision right away. Evidently, all other dispute resolution that could be done has been done, there's nothing that could be solved through more talk, the consensus-of-everyone-except-one-faction situation is as clear as could be, but yet that faction just won't give in. As for the "motto" edit Shadowmorph mentions, it of course also has been discussed ad nauseam, and there is no consensus to include it (much more of a consensus to the contrary, actually), so there's no way it will be done through an editprotect request. Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:57, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't know of these discussions of yours. I know for a fact there are verifiable sources in the motto's article. The current content is now either because of a case of "consensus-of-everyone-except-one-faction" or because of a case of bias-from-one-group-of-editors. Either way we can't lock the Greece article for ever. I think any proposal about unlocking after solving the Macedonia naming dispute, doesn't take into account any reasonable time frame. As far as I know the edit wars about the "former Yugoslav" might never end. So, should the Greece article be locked in its current version for ever? I hope the dispute resolution won't take too long then. I'll go with Radjenef's points. Shadowmorph ^{^"^} 07:14, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

My understanding about continuing "former Yugoslav" edit wars is that as soon as we have a binding decision from the stalemate-breaking process, editors will be required to comply, and edits going against it will be freely revertable, which means that edits against it would ultimately be treated almost like vandalism. As for the motto discussion, it's here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:35, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Your description of that discussion "and there is no consensus to include it (much more of a consensus to the contrary, actually)" is wrong. I want to point this out not because of the actual content or to say that you didn't do the edit in good faith. I just want to raise the issues of acceptance of consensus that has been a central issue in this arbitration. You made the challenge to remove the motto. The burden of evidence was on you to prove that it is not official. You say "I don't have access to the texts in those" about the sources. You say "you can read only one" source. You dodn't provide any sources of your own. Here is a synopsis: User:Kapnisma "doesn't see any reason why to remove it", User:Ioannes Tzimiskes opposes, personally attacking you, User:man with one red shoe wonders whether bank notes qualify as an officiality criterion and says "would probably qualify", User:Yannismarou opposes, saying "My rationale about why the mentioning of the motto is justified here but not in the FYROM article..." he also gives an extra source[96], User:ΚΕΚΡΩΨ opposes strongly, User:ChrisO says he will only accept as a source a "sort of official legally-binding text, most likely a law or decree". He doesn't challenge the veracity of the other sources and doesn't say he has any source that says the motto is not official. Neither him nor you propose to just change the qualifier of the motto to "unofficial national motto" and leave it there. You both opt for removing it altogether. User:NikoSilver opposes saying "Personally I'm a Greek and I've grown up with this motto". He finds it strange that "what is considered here 3d grade general knowledge has to be verified.". User:CuteHappyBrute opposes saying "is a rather well-sourced motto, at least for the national part".

All those users while one would call them "Greeks" use rational arguments and opposing the removal. So there was no consensus.

The immediate answer must not be "we shouldn't care what the Greeks say". The motto is suported by verifiable sources. Even the challenger (Fut.Perf) and the single supporter (ChrisO) didn't provide evidence that it is not official and didn't edit to the direction of noting unofficiality but rather deletion of the motto.

It is notable also that the same motto is used by the Republic of Macedonia.

I didn't see any consensus among outsiders about the motto that the "national faction" refuses to "give in". That's why I see a false consensus effect there. Shadowmorph ^{^"^}

Again, I don't call that your edit Future Perfect was not done in good faith. I just want to point out how the consensus of simple things should not be disregarded because it is among Greek editors. That is unheard off: In the United States article consensus about stuff there is among American editors, I bet. Shadowmorph ^{^"^} 08:31, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

This motto stuff should be discussed on the Greece talk page, not here. BalkanFever 08:42, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

You are right. I just wanted to point out the general issue of what constitutes a legitimate consensus. Shadowmorph ^{^"^} 09:12, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

We are talking about the article of a country here! There are many reasons why such an article should not be locked. Things happen and have to be reported, elections, athletic events, so many changes that have to be made. The naming issue will not be resolved and we all know that. Were it so easy, then it would officially have been resolved and the same would have been the case in all other similar cases in Wikipedia. An article such as a country cannot indefinitely be held hostage, because there is no consensus on the name of another country... Why don't we write somewhere that whoever changes the name RoM is referred to will be banned for 30-60-90 etc days and then allow concerned editors to work normally. It is not logical to lock such an article indefinitely regardless any fears of edit warring regarding one term... For Gods' sake, there are only TWO references to RoM in the article!! ONCE it is referred to as Republic of Macedonia and ONCE as Former Yugoslavian Republic of Macedonia. There is one more instance in a map of the region (Rep. of Mac.). I really don't see the point here... I strongly recommend that the article be allowed to be edited under semi protection status and a warning be issued (since that is the proposed problem here) that whoever changes the way RoM is referred to in this article will be banned/topic banned etc for a certain amount of time. Whether "Freedom or Death" is or was an official motto of the Greeks is not arbitrated here and as such it has nothing to do with our efforts here. GK1973 (talk) 09:31, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Agree on the above. Again I only served the motto issue as an example. My synopsis of the discussion about that was primarily to indicate issues about consensus in general. Shadowmorph ^{^"^} 11:19, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

It's against 3rd core principle of wikipedia to lock a high-traffic article like Greece (almost 300,000 views a month) because of a few edit-warring ideologues. Blocks and [if needed] semi-protection will do the trick. What's going on here? Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 11:27, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

It's also against a core principle to be disruptive over long periods of time, so those interested in these need to go to the talk page of that article and reach an agreement that will work. The two prior times this was unprot'd do not bode well without a solution being in place. — Rlevse • Talk • 12:39, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

That's the reason we have block buttons in addition to codes of conduct. At any rate, I'd have thought such users would be more inclined to resume edit-warring after the ArbCom case than during it when everyone's watching them. Surely we can't protect the article forever? Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 12:47, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

We'd have to block a lot of IPs and users to do that. One month is not forever. If the parties would work to reach an agreement instead of arguing during the arb case it would not have been protected this time. — Rlevse • Talk • 12:52, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure if it's quite fair to blame us parties for inactivity in further dispute resolution during this case. The whole reason we're here is that there was the unanimous feeling at Talk:Greece that our powers of dispute resolution – on both sides of the issue – were exhausted. We had done all we could, and were requesting guidance on how to proceed further. It's only natural people would now be waiting for that guidance to appear first, don't you think? In terms of practical application of your proposals, would you agree that the "stalemate" point where, according to your remedy 3.3.6, a neutral referee should be called in, has already come, for the Greece article at least, or do you expect us to try yet something else first? Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:16, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

As I have written a dozen times in this arbitration, this arbitration isn't ultimately about Macedonia at Macedonia, but began at Greece here. No amount of further talking will move the Greek POV off of using "former Yugoslav" and no amount of talking will force the rest of the editors to accept it. That's why we're here, so with all due repect, Rlevse, more talking will get us nowhere. Until there is a final policy concerning Macedonia's name that, unlike the first ARBMAC, includes Greece, the failure to reach consensus will continue. (Taivo (talk) 13:23, 25 May 2009 (UTC))

Assuming the rest of the intro is uncontroversial, why doesn't somebody copy it to a template, protect that, transclude it, and downgrade to semi-protection for the article? BalkanFever 13:08, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Interesting idea, although it could of course still be gamed — any edit warrior could still replace the transclusion with their preferred text. But it might still help insofar as it raises the bar a bit. Something similar was once done with the Mohammed images, I remember. That worked fairly well. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:11, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

People, are we really that afraid that regular editors will start a prolonged edit war? Semi protection fully protects the article from IPs and ArbCom has already forbidden any edits as to the name RoM is referred to, so any editor engaging in edit warring can be instantly banned! Most possibly, there will be a number of initial edits, their editors will collect a good ban and then there will be a logical amount of such edit attempts from "new" users as is the case in any other such article...GK1973 (talk) 13:34, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

GK1973, there is no injunction against renaming Macedonia inside of articles. The injunction only covers the article names. The injunction to expand coverage inside the articles was not passed. (Taivo (talk) 13:48, 25 May 2009 (UTC))

BTW, what edit war led to the last locking of the article? From what I see, there was only one such action and one reversion... Was it the fear of another edit war that led to this???? GK1973 (talk) 15:32, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Just noticed that Muhammad is not locked, but semi-protected and Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy is not even that but free to edit by IPs. I hope nobody suggests that the feared disruption from Greek IPs has now a larger scale than that from Islamic fundamentalist disruptors[97][98]. Shadowmorph ^{^"^} 15:40, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I think it was the fear of an edit war. You know what the best cure for headaches is... --Radjenef (talk) 15:42, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Look deeper into the history. Muhammad is not fully protected because Muslims do not show up every five minutes to remove the controversial images from the article. If they did, the page would be fully locked. If, within a few minutes of the expiry of this hypothetical full protection, another editor showed up and removed the images, I can assure you that I would lock the article once again without any hesitation. Since this hypothetical scenario has never happened, the article is not locked. We do not lock articles unless there is a compelling reason to do so in order to prevent damage to the project Obviously there are far, far more Muslims than Greeks, but apparently most Muslims do not think it is worth it to remove the images, or else they simply don't know about it. It doesn't really matter; the point is, there is not a sustained high-speed edit war going on at Muhammad. No administrator looks at the "potential" for damage to decide whether a page should be protected (except in extremely obvious cases, like controversial current events that are currently being plastered across the news media), the only thing taken into consideration is actual, real, damage. On the article about Greece, the analogue to the scenario above was played out. That is more than enough of a reason, as the resumption of edit-warring almost immediately upon the expiry of the protection clearly shows that nothing short of brute force will prevent edit wars from occurring. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 16:06, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

But.. there was no edit warring... Doesn't an edit war require 4 edits? There was only one about 10 hours after the protection was lifted and this was reverted 2 hours later. For about 7 hours there was no other such attempt and Horologium then decided to again lock the article. Should we compare the disruption caused to this article to this suffered in many others? Can it be that you are a little bit exaggerating? GK1973 (talk) 16:24, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Error in the PD, Κεκρωψ wrong link?

I think there is an error in the PD. Instead of linking to User:ΚΕΚΡΩΨ it links to User:V (!) who is probably some uninvolved editor!!! Maybe this is a font related problem?

One Interesting coincidence

I found that problem out of blind luck. Interesting that User:V has an example in his user page of why we shouldn't delete stub articles. Compare Yousuf Karsh article with Yousuf Karsh (2002 version of the article).

That was exactly my point (read my edit summary) about the Macedonians (Greeks) at the time Future Perfect blanked/redirected it. I'm glad I am not the only one thinking in that way. Shadowmorph ^{^"^} 21:20, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I fixed the links. It was a pasting error. Tks. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:41, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

ChrisO desysopped: weak case

Israeli apartheid case, September 2006 for abuse of administrator tools; Kosovo case, October 2006 for edit warring and rollback abuse; Scientology case, May 2009 for WP:BLP violations and inappropriate sysop actions. Combined with actions in this case, this is a long-term pattern.

Two cases from 2006, another concerning edits from (at the very latest) 2007. The findings of fact indicate a disputed action over a year ago, and one recently. The long term pattern seems to be occasional problematic behaviour, and perhaps improvement? Looking at a recent case with marked similarities the administrator retained his powers. 137.222.244.3 (talk) 23:02, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Response to Carcharoth and Stalemate Resolution

Your comment about "What if the nationalistic bloc is right" is well-meaning, but fails to take into account simple probability. In any dispute that involves a nationalistic bloc there will be three groups of editors--1) Nationalistic bloc A, 2) Nationalistic bloc B, and 3) Unaligned editors. The fundamental key to resolving the whole issue is the third bloc. If the Wikipedia policy is ambiguous then we can assume that the third group of editors will align equally with both of the nationalistic blocs. However, if one bloc is "right", then the unaligned editors should side in overwhelming numbers with that bloc and the other bloc will stand alone. In the case of using "Republic of Macedonia" at Greece, this is exactly what occurred--the Greek editors stood alone against the rest of the "world" in preventing a consensus from being formed. In that case, the unaligned editors sided with the (very few) Macedonian editors in overwhelming numbers. In the case of changing the name of the Macedonia article, the unaligned editors did not align with the Macedonian editors so overwhelmingly, but the issue was complicated because the discussion was clouded by the unorthodox way the article was moved. A segment of the unaligned editors sided with the Greek bloc because they opposed the way the article was moved, not necessarily because they supported "Republic of Macedonia" over "Macedonia". We cannot, at this point, judge how the unaligned editors would have naturally lined up. But at Greece, the issue is crystal clear--the Greek editors almost exclusively are blocking any resolution of the issue and are aligned alone against the rest of the editors. Thus, while on the surface Carcharoth's concern over stalemate resolution might seem reasonable, in actual fact it is a non-existent scenario and would never happen in practice. (Taivo (talk) 03:04, 26 May 2009 (UTC))

And how do you propose we find out who belonged to which block? Because if we are doing username analysis, talk quotes digging or contributions analysis then I have some arguments about other "unaligned" editors too. And please define 'Wikipedia nationalist block'. You mean every user proposing to use a United Nations term for the country with the disputed name? If the secretary of NATO edited Wikipedia, we would have to put him in the 'Greek nationalist block'? What if Mike Rann made an edit like "Macedonia is as Greek as the Acropolis"[99], certainly he would be a Greek nationalist by those standards. What is right and what is wrong is not decided by the preferences of any outsiders (and we don't really know who the unaligned ones are). The claim to "rightness" is the prerogative of both aligned and unaligned editors as long as one can support it and conforms to policy. It's "Everyone can edit", not "every unaligned one can edit". Shadowmorph ^{^"^} 07:30, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

The list analysis of the poll is not the ultimate truth. This has to stop, I wouldn't want to do an update on that list just to prove it is wrong. Even if it is true, the list doesn't say anything on who is right and who is wrong. Besides the list puts editors on the Greek side based on 'ethnic background' criteria (e.g. native language) while it puts others in the 'World' side based on nationality and declaration. Political standpoint even though it might be relevant was not used (e.g. people who supported George Bush policy on Macedonia). That is why we cannot go judging people because of their backgrounds. Only think that should matter is what they say and how the behave.

If I was on that list were would have I been put? Probably at the Greek side. Nobody of course would have asked me if I belong to any nation of the "World" too. And while "morph" has a Greek root, "shadow" has Germanic. Is the ethnicity what matters only when separating the ones who were aligned from those who were unaligned sided with one block?

Where would a Norwegian Australian Greek-speaker of partly Turkish descent with a Greek Macedonian wife of both Greek and ethnic Macedonian descent be put??? People's spouses do have a role on forming one's standpoint, so we should check their ethnicity too? That of course would be preposterous.

Did anyone look for the ethnicity of the "unaligned" editors? Since one block was called "concrete", did anyone check the elasticity of the opinions of the ones in the "World" side? Of course we shouldn't have to do that, so let's not do that. Shadowmorph ^{^"^} 07:50, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) in other words: The distinction to aligned and unaligned editors/admins is either artificial or unworkable because it is unprovable. On the other hand distinction to involved and uninvolved editors/admins is the only thing that is manageable. Claiming "rightness" is everyone's prerogative Shadowmorph ^{^"^} 08:04, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Then please explain the strong correlation between users' self-identification (manifested in various ways) as Greeks and their viewpoint on fyRoM vs RoM at the Greece article. BalkanFever 08:20, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Sure, let's include these facts in the discussion

• a) Firstly, correlation doesn't necessarily imply causation
• b) There is also a strong correlation of users assumed to be American and their voting patterns
• c) There is also a 100% correlation of users assumed to be from the Republic of Macedonia and their voting patterns
• d) There is also a strong correlation of people who understand Slavic languages and their voting patterns.

To answer your question it's simple, very few Greek editors would vote another way. Same goes for Bulgarians and ethnic Macedonians. I was talking about how the "unaligned" vote

In Taivo's analysis, mathematically, group C (unaligned editors) is undefined. Besides Group A & Group B can use proxy editors from group C. For example every Greek editor could call up a buddie from Taiwan, China, Kiribati in Micronesia or Azerbaijan, Iran that shares his views to vote in his place. Shadowmorph ^{^"^} 08:36, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

c) Yes, the two Macedonians voted to use RoM. Two is not a bloc. 2/31 vs (at least) 23/29. d) Wrong. A Bulgarian voted differently than the Macedonians. BalkanFever 10:24, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Subjective sampling. Scaling this, the "greek to ethnic macedonian" ratio is about six (6), therefore in reality we have four (4) vs two (2). Don't you like statistics? SQRT5P1D2 (talk) 10:41, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Let's not forget that the Macedonians aren't the problem here; it's Greeks vs. everyone else. How is it possible that everyone else has no "logical arguments" and is possibly biased (based on mere speculation of some form of involvement) and yet those who share a common identification with a country that is involved in the real-world political dispute are neutral and have all the "logical arguments" on their side? Why should we assume that this bloc is considering Wikipedia policy in lieu of some "patriotism" when the evidence suggests otherwise? The only policy this bloc seems to care about is WP:AGF, so that nobody can accuse them of being a bloc. BalkanFever 11:59, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I know that many will be very happy about this, but if there is no stop to this appalling profiling, include me out. SQRT5P1D2 (talk) 11:30, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I beg to differ. Let's be honest, for once: a "nationalistic bloc" is the case promoted by politically-aligned parties, in order to get rid of those opposing their POV. Since when arguments are undoubtedly related to one's ethnicity (or "ethnicity")? That's a despicable position to take. As time goes by, some could say that another bloc of editors, uses every mean to game the system to its advantage. SQRT5P1D2 (talk) 10:17, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I will challenge both Shadowmorph and SQRT with the same challenge I have issued to every editor who has claimed that nationality has nothing to do with their position vis a vis the name of Macedonia at Greece: Name one single self-identified Greek editor who supports using "Republic of Macedonia" in the lead paragraph and on the map at Greece and opposes "the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia". I can predict with 99% accuracy the way that any new self-identified Greek editor will vote on that issue. I can predict with about 99% accuracy how a self-identified Macedonian editor will feel about the issue. And I can predict with about 80% accuracy how an unaligned editor will vote (that number is probably low, but I'll give Shadowmorph some benefit of the doubt here). The point I'm trying to make here is that Carcharoth's worry that the "right side might be the minority, nationalistic position", is not realistic. And Shadowmorph, you assume that canvassing is a natural occurrence in these issues. We have evidence that canvassing occurred on the Greek national side of the issue at both Greece and Macedonia, but there is no evidence of canvassing on the other side of the issue. There was a news report on Macedonian TV, but that news report did not call for people to go to Wikipedia to make their voices heard unlike the multiple Greek blog and USENET calls for action. But I simply set this section up to address Carcharoth with the logical fallacy of her/his concern that a minority nationalistic view might be the "right" view and be suppressed by the process. I've said my piece here and won't engage any further in extended discussion of the matter unless Carcharoth has a question about my position. (Taivo (talk) 12:20, 26 May 2009 (UTC))

Taivo, you know it very well: this is a fallacy. My crystal ball is broken and I can't predict anything at all. But I can suggest that you should respect everyone's privacy, with indirect questions on ethnicity. SQRT5P1D2 (talk) 11:25, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

SQRT, I have invaded no one's privacy. When a person stands in a room and announces "I'm Greek", it isn't a private matter anymore. All of the Greeks who were identified as Greek were publicly Greek. I still challenge you to point out a single self-identified Greek editor who opposes "former Yugoslav" at Greece. Now, here's where your argument against predictability fails. If we were talking about Greeks in the market, you are quite right--I could not walk up to all of them and expect the same answer because we would be dealing with a cross-section of Greek opinion. But we are not dealing with a cross-seciton of Greek opinion here in Wikipedia. We are dealing with a specific group of Greeks--Wikipedia editors. So we are not talking about predicting the behavior of all Greeks, but only those Greeks who know English well enough to contribute here. Additionally, we are not even talking about predicting the behavior of all Greek editors, but only those Greek editors who take an interest in Macedonian affairs, specifically the name of the country. At that point, the number of editors whose behavior is 100% predictable at this point is very small--English-speaking Greek Wikipedia editors who care about what Macedonia is called. When framed properly, you can see that the issue of predictability is not this "racial profiling" that you claim it is. It is a logical outcome of the type of Greek editor who is drawn to this particular topic. (Taivo (talk) 14:05, 27 May 2009 (UTC))

Taivo, you can't force anyone to reveal his/her ethnicity. Essentially, that's what you're asking for. This is a private matter. Suggesting that "all Greek editors have a certain pattern of behaviour, spot the odd one out to prove me wrong", requires to invade others' privacy. We have to ask "are you Greek?". And where does it end? If someone says "no, I'm not Greek", how do you suggest that we should verify it? Should we ask for ID? What's next? Personally, I couldn't care less; if you want a photocopy of my passport, let me know. But I thought that this was an arbitration case, not a Thought Crime lab. SQRT5P1D2 (talk) 10:24, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Please read my challenge more carefully, SQRT. I used the term "self-identified". "Self" means by one's own action. "Identify" means to provide an identification. Thus, "self-identified" in this context means identified by one's own admission (without requirement). (Taivo (talk) 14:14, 28 May 2009 (UTC))

I did, that's why I wrote that this is a fallacy. We can't wikistalk everyone ("Hey buddy, can you self-identify yourself? And while we're at it, if you're a Greek - pardon my french - would you slice or dice any Slavs, given the opportunity?) to prevent thought crime (future voting patterns). Self-identification is a right. POV is also a right. NPOV is the terminus. SQRT5P1D2 (talk) 17:09, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

If any group of editors engaged in serious canvassing we would have many more editors and IPs "contributing" with their opinions. So, as far as I am concerned, canvassing was not a notewotrhy issue here. As far as Taivo's amazing abilty to foretell everyone's final opinion I have to say that some years ago he would have said the same things when all these "nationalistic" Greeks fought for RoM to be called FYRoM in all articles and not just in Greece-related ones. For some reason (can be good will, common sense or acceptance of a POV bigger than theirs, all things that Taivo obviously thinks Greeks and Greek sympathizers (or is it everyone belonging to a certain POV) are incapable of) they accepted a POV they despised, thus showing that compromise and consensus can be achieved in Wikipedia if we only show that we desire them. I have sided with the Greek POV a far as the disambiguation page and the header of RoM's article is concerned, but I also stand for RoM retaining this name in Greece related articles too. Maybe I am Greek, maybe I am not, maybe I work in Greece, maybe I don't. It doesn't matter and I do not think that it should be an issue in this or any other debate. So, if I am Greek, then Taivo is wrong.. if I am not then he has to start rethinking the catholic acceptance he thinks his POV enjoys. I really do not understand why Taivo keeps on engaging in personal attacks accusing editors of inability to produce serious arguments but he seems to forget that all articles comprise "nationalistic" views. The difference here being that he doesn't agree with ONE of them. Yet, a priori assumptions that everything advocated by "nationalists" is wrong, then also undisputed theories should also be wrong. Unless "nationalists" are right when Taivo does not disagree with them or when he does not care about the veracity of their claims and wrong when he does not like their POVs. I know that what I am writing might sound as the words of a sophist, but we have to at last understand that attacking a group of editors because of their origin (whether they be ethnic Macedonians or Greeks) should at last stop. So, my opinion is that YES, even a minority might be right sometimes. GK1973 (talk) 13:59, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Another response

To the comment by Carcharoth dated 00:26, 26 May 2009 (UTC), the community includes the bloc. So you want a discussion which the aforementioned bloc could distort to give the impression that there is no bloc? BalkanFever 12:11, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Also to that same comment by Carcharoth. The "community discussion" would, of course, include the bloc, as Balkan said. That means that if an issue is divided between a nationalistic bloc and the rest, the discussion of whether that nationalistic bloc exists will also be divided along the same lines. Thus, at Talk:Greece we had a poll that was divided 50/50 between a strong Greek-flavored bloc and an unaligned bloc (there were very few Macedonians participating). When the discussion turned to whether or not a nationalistic bloc existed, the discussion also became divided along exactly the same lines over whether the "Greek bloc" actually existed or not. Neither Shadowmorph nor SQRT were editors when the poll at Talk:Greece was taken, but the same arguments were presented by self-identified Greek editors over and over that we should ignore the fact that all the Greek editors aligned on one side of the issue. There was a 600-pound gorilla in the room, but their position was that we should ignore it. That's why community-based efforts led to stalemate at Greece. (Taivo (talk) 12:32, 26 May 2009 (UTC))

Can you really predict behaviour? Of course in order to predict you first have to find out who is of what ethnicity (among other factors e.g. the ethnicity of his spouse or other influences on his state of mind). HOW? What is right or wrong is not a question of numbers of supporters.Shadowmorph ^{^"^} 12:55, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Your use of the link to "racial profiling" (although thinly veiled as "predict behavior") in this regard is intended to be inflammatory, Shadowmorph. As discussed many times before, this is not a "racial" issue, but one of national loyalties. Please tone your rhetoric down several notches. Obviously, if someone has a user name of "John", an IP from the Philippines, and a blank user page, they cannot be identified as "Greek". But if an editor has the username Ιοαννες, an IP from Thessaloniki, and a user page that says "Kiss me, I'm Greek", there is no mystery. The national identities on the straw poll were based solely on self-identifying features--IPs, user page information, and user names. Were there errors in individual identifications? Of course there were, but the overall information was accurate--there was a solid bloc of self-identified Greek editors who voted without exception for "the former Yugolav Republic of Macedonia". The great majority of the most vocal editors in the discussion against "Republic of Macedonia" were those same self-identified Greek editors. The great majority of the editors claiming that there was no nationalistic bloc were the same self-identified Greek editors. That gorilla is a big, male silverback and he's restless now. (Taivo (talk) 13:12, 26 May 2009 (UTC))

Disagree on all the above. About my tone, you should have linked there yourself. That article describes accurately what you have said. It is your views that are inflamatory, not me for linking to the accurate term that describes what you said. I stand by that description. This is what you said: "I can predict with 99% accuracy the way that any new self-identified Greek editor will vote on that issue"; this is what racial profiling ethnic profiling is defined as: "the inclusion of (racial or) ethnic characteristics in determining whether a person is considered likely to... ...behave in a predictable manner". I didn't say you used it in a racial sense. You did use profiling in an ethinc sense. Shadowmorph ^{^"^} 22:49, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Anyway you probably just used a poor choice of words, of course deep down you know that other patterns of behavior can be displayed from other Greeks. Please don't judge the whole of Greeks based on some users views. Like GK197x said somewhere below, the Greeks did change their POV at some point in the past. Therefore your prediction argument is null. P.S. don't get infuriated, I just wanted to show you how easy it is to cross the line into using ethnic profiling. I wanted to point out the error in your reasoning. I wouldn't say anything bad about you or your intentions. Plase refrain from using that "prediction" argument from now on, it is simply wrong. Shadowmorph ^{^"^} 23:19, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Shadowmorph, I would very happily abandon the predictability argument if you can show me a single self-identified Greek editor who opposed the use of "former Yugoslav" at Greece. It is thoroughly predictable at this point with the evidence that has been presented over and over here. And you don't understand "racial profiling". Racial profiling is when a white cop stops a black man driving a sports car and assumes he has drugs or guns or prostitutes in the car. There are plenty of counterexamples of black men (the vast majority of them, in fact) who do not have drugs or guns or prostitutes in the car, but that white cop assumes that all black men driving a sports car must be breaking the law. That's "racial profiling". "Racial profiling" is stopping all Arab men in the airport just because 19 Arab men hijacked planes on Sept 11. In this case, we have an example where there are no Greek editors who opposed "former Yugoslav". That's just predicting based on observed fact, not profiling based on assumption. Prediction is saying that black men are more likely to suffer from sickle cell anemia. It is demonstrated by observed fact. I ask you again, Shadowmorph, show me the counterexamples. (Taivo (talk) 03:42, 27 May 2009 (UTC))

I will not do that because I refuse to abide by that logic. About 19 (or 30 or whatever) supposed Greeks voted in that poll. If you think that sample is adequate then there is nothing I can do. How can I show you counterexamples from the future? About the past ask those that were there. Ask Balkan Fever about Dr.K and their wiliness to find a compromise solution. Shadowmorph ^{^"^} 04:51, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Dr. K. was willing to compromise on the map only as long as the introduction contained "former Yugoslav". I still stand by my challenge--find a single Greek editor who is willing to use "Republic of Macedonia" at Greece in the introduction and on the map. If you cannot find a single Greek editor as a counterexample, then the description of the Greek nationalistic voting bloc is still valid. Nothing more need be said on the issue. (Taivo (talk) 05:24, 27 May 2009 (UTC))

As for the analogue think about admins, not cops, and the highway as Wikipedia's editorial system where driving = straw-polling for consensus forming and editing. Shadowmorph ^{^"^} 04:57, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

To add to Taivo, if the 600-pound gorilla in the room can speak and says "I don't exist" what is our conclusion? BalkanFever 12:59, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

What alternative do you propose? Shadowmorph ^{^"^} 13:09, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Exactly what the proposed decision suggests--an outside administrator or (preferably) small committee of uninvolved administrators or experienced editors who make the decision, write the policy, and the rest of us live with it. (Taivo (talk) 13:14, 26 May 2009 (UTC))

When the gorilla doesn't get its bananas it goes, well, bananas (sorry, I just had to make that pun). But giving the gorilla bananas in order to appease it deprives everyone else in the room of bananas, which means they can't treat their hypertension (brought on by the gorilla). Note how nobody acknowledges the gorilla's existence yet they feed it. But if you acknowledge the gorilla's existence, you can get rid of it, and so everybody is happy. BalkanFever 13:22, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

So the issue is to get rid of Greek influence? That can e simply solved with a country-wide ban. Nahh, there would still be some in the diaspora not covered.

Outsiders coming in is a good proposal. Still this would not stop being a Wiki? There still would have to be some sort of consensus. I strongly believe that all parties will respect experienced and uninvolved administrators but that cannot be a forced resolution but rather an agreeable outcome. Shadowmorph ^{^"^} 13:26, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

You said previously that a Bulgarian voted for the Greeks (I couldn't find the Bulgarian flag in Husond/Fut.Perf/ChrisO's list). That only strengthens my point that we shouldn't generalize. Do you think if more Bulgarians participated they would side with the Greeks too? Because in that case therefore it wouldn't be a "Greeks vs the world" issue.Shadowmorph ^{^"^} 13:26, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

The point of stalemate resolution, Shadowmorph, is that there is no resolution possible among the parties. At Greece, the Greek nationalists insisted on "former Yugoslav" being part of the name of Macedonia. This is not acceptable. A compromise was offered by myself and Dr. K, but was rejected. There is no consensus and no consensus possible as long as the Greek national POV insists on the words "former Yugoslav" in the introductory paragraph and on the map. So an outside administrator or administrative committee must impose the policy. There are times where the process of consensus-building does not work. And, Shadowmorph, no one said that the side supporting "former Yugoslav" was 100% Greek. There were a small number of others. But the great majority of the supporters of that position were Greek and the great majority of non-Greek and non-Macedonian editors opposed "former Yugoslav". During WWII, there were small numbers of Americans that supported Hitler, but that didn't mean that the statement "The United States opposes Hitler" was not true. So, too, the statement that adding "former Yugoslav" to the introduction and map at Greece is a Greek national position and the opposite is the non-Greek position is true. (Taivo (talk) 13:38, 26 May 2009 (UTC))

The normal concept of consensus didn't work here. The Greeks abused that model to get their own way, or at the very least to reach a stalemate. This is the entire point. And before you try the racist thing again, it's not because they're Greek in and of itself, it's because they tried to push their political views into an encyclopaedia. BalkanFever 13:43, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

At long last, we agreed about something: this is an encyclopedia :) Now, if we reverse the argument, what was done here, was an attempt to establish the political views of some parties about an amgiguous, encyclopedic term. What goes on here, is keeping the POV of these parties, instead of starting from neutral ground. Many have difficulties to understand how an inequitable non-consensual model works. SQRT5P1D2 (talk) 17:09, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Further explanation

Responding here to some of the points above. I think what I was saying may have been misunderstood. My point is that when assessing a discussion and who has taken part in it and what their background is (in terms of Wikipedia editing, not just external background, which may or may not be relevant or possible to ascertain), sometimes the conclusion is that the discussion has been skewed. The response then should not be to discount part of the contributions, but to restart the discussion and lay down ground rules to avoid such skewing. If this is not done, the skewing may affect the assessment of the initial discussion, even if someone thinks they can "compensate" for the skewing. In other words, if a new, calmer discussion, is started, then more people previously uninvolved may contribute, and the result may be different to what might be expected if you just "remove" a bloc vote. In this case, to be specific, removing a bloc nationalist vote, and restarting the discussion, might result in previously uninvolved editors speaking up in support of that side of the debate (those people previously being silent because the case was being made). I think John Carter is a good example here of someone who came to support one "side" in this debate. There may be others like him who have not yet spoken up. But my point here is that the need is to get a good-quality discussion to run for a few weeks with the "bloc vote problem" clearly delineated from the start and big efforts made to get lots of experienced editors to speak up and not let their voices be drowned out. Carcharoth (talk) 04:56, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

With all due respect, this sounds like you wish to exclude all "bloc voters" from the discussion. In other words, exclude the Greeks and let's see what happens in the discussion. Perhaps I am misunderstanding what you are saying, but that certainly is what I take it to mean--"let's exclude the Greek voice and see if anyone else steps up to voice the Greek POV." (Taivo (talk) 05:11, 2 June 2009 (UTC))

The problem is that none of the proposals actually does anything to reduce the bloc problem, certainly not in the sense of creating a more neutral, rational debating environment. Even with Bainer's proposal, there's nothing that would discourage the usual suspects from swamping any new debate just as much as they (or their predecessors) did with every previous one in the last four years – they'll just have to fill their contributions with token references to this or that Wikipedia policy, which you can bet they'll quickly learn to do. As long as the whole thing follows the traditional wiki model, where participation in decision making is essentially self-selecting, we will always have the problem that every such process will be dominated by those people who have the strongest motivation at stake, i.e. those people who have their real-world ideological axes to grind. Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:48, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Administrative supervision

A few points I think it might be good to provide detailed responses to at some point.

• 1) As it stands, it seems that the two admins to be made subject to administrative supervision cannot be de-sysop'ed during the supervision period. I don't think the same thing can be said about any other admins, can it? I think it would be useful to provide some idea as to what conditions would have to be met for them to be subject to desysoping, should the circumstances warrant it. I would think knowing such information would be useful both to anyone who would seek to propose a desysoping of any such admins, as well as the admins in question themselves, so that there are no scurrilous requests for de-sysoping, or however that's spelled.
• 2) It might be useful to indicate what circumstances, if any, are sufficient for any such admin under supervision to be blocked or banned, particularly for things along the lines of those included in the FoFs, for basically the same reason.
• 3) (unashamed plug) I personally think that it might be seen as problematic by some individuals for anyone, even the admin in question, to appoint a specific individual to do the supervision, as there might reasonably be claims that they chose someone too lenient or too strict, and that the supervising admin may or may not be able to devote the time required to the supervision. I note that there is a new, if not particularly well-developed just yet, wikiproject called Wikipedia:WikiProject User Rehab. I personally think the name needs a lot of work, but I do think that maybe enlisting that organization, or some other similar organization, to provide if nothing else the notices regarding the conduct of the supervised admin, even if the formal decisions regarding them be allocated to individuals, might be more effective. Anyway, just a few ideas. John Carter (talk) 17:10, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not completely sold on the idea of admin supervision as a punishment for admins who get too abrasive in areas that Wikipedia has not developed the framework to prevent the types of editorial conflict that are at the heart of this case. This is not to condone admins popping attitude (I've done it myself), but we don't actually have the tools to prevent the problems we're asked to fight in the first place. Blocking users is ineffective when dealing with what amounts to teams of editors who can simply work through dynamic IPs spread amongst large or multiple ranges. Page protection is ineffective because the article is then walled off, and admins who protect a specific version of an article are generally frowned upon. By placing admins under supervision in this type of scenario, you're only really going to guarantee that they are wholly ineffective at their job. That said, who would go about selecting an admin worthy of supervising another admin? This isn't to say we can't devise criteria for selecting someone, but this is as much an issue of ideology on what constitutes a role model admin. I suppose this is a simple matter if you're just talking about finding someone willing to make sure that the admin under supervision doesn't go around yelling at editors, but I just can't get beyond the feeling that we are placing someone under the microscope and judging them against arbitrary lines in the sand for actions taken in areas where our authority is essentially arbitrary to begin with. Hiberniantears (talk) 20:03, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Supervision

About the proposed "admin supervision" scheme: Just a note to the arbs that I have been in contact with a potential tutor and agreed with them on the general outlines of a supervision scheme, so if the arbs should go ahead with that scheme, I'll be ready. Details on request. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:50, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Seriously

I'm sick and tired of supposedly third parties coming and defending ChrisO and Fut.Perf. just because they are admins. No they did not do "good work" in the topic. I cannot believe that the fact that they, as administrators, have practically adopted one side of the dispute and abused their status in order to either pose as the gatekeepers of NPOV or to alter the content of articles is now labelled a fight against nationalists (which of course only come from their opposing side). I mean seriously, nobody even wondered why only one side of the dispute is against ChrisO and Fut.Perf? Why only one side is targeted and subsequently getting bans? How come the other side is fully behind both of them? Unless anyone actually believes the claim that it is one faction versus the rest of the world. Could the Committee please give it a thought? Obviously I'm starting to write myself off seeing the current climate and will probably say goodbye for good (no need to ever come back if I'm banned from the whole site even for a single day - one must know when to leave if not wanted), but irrespective of the decision about me, arbs should really see the full picture here. --Avg (talk) 01:50, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

You might be interested to see the forum Wikipedia Review (I found the link from ChrisO's post[100] on Fut.Perf's talk page. Shadowmorph ^{^"^} 07:59, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

There is one familiar editor that commented both here and there, namely User:Deacon of Pndapetzim (see [101]). Shadowmorph ^{^"^} 08:03, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I'll take it a bit further and I'll question what goes on in the proposed decision page. There are several instances where valid claims in this talk page and elsewhere are ignored, while others are not. Of course, this could be an honest mistake due to workload, but it could also give the impression of preferential treatment. Regarding Avg's intentions, I couldn't agree more. Some proposed remedies are just there for the sake of being there. Anyone could register under a new account and continue as he/she wishes. Nobody can stop him/her. Some may be doing this right now (read: may). That's why I wrote the "drastic measures" bit in my section above. But I guess that we all make our choices. SQRT5P1D2 (talk) 10:50, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

An arbitrator's question to all the parties

(I would like the parties and other editors heavily involved in this case to see and have an opportunity to respond to this section. Could a clerk please post a cross-reference on the Workshop or wherever else might be useful? Thanks.)

I've been following this case as it's developed, but within the past couple of days I've rolled up my sleep and started to go through the statements, evidence, and workshop proposals in some detail, in preparation for voting on the proposed decision within the next day or two. In doing so, I have started to block out some thoughts about the case, on which some feedback from the parties and other participants might be useful. (I had intended to post some questions to the parties on the workshop at the outset of the case, but time got away from me; these may substitute for that.)

I take as a given that editors on both sides of this dispute are fiercely committed to their points of view as to the correct use of the term "Macedonia." My own personal background gives me no particular rooting interest in either side (I'm an American with no family or other connection either to Greece or to the Balkans), but I have followed the dispute for years and am saddened that the trade and other relations between the Hellenic Republic and the Republic of Macedonia (to use each country's formal name for itself) continue to be disrupted by this issue.

That the dispute is bitter and is pressed at every level is demonstrated by an anecdote from the United Nations, which in 1993 admitted to membership "the State being provisionally referred to for all purposes within the United Nations as 'The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia' pending settlement of the difference that had arisen over its name." After the State was admitted, a dispute arose even over where it should be listed alphabetically on the list of countries and on the delegations' seating chart. The new delegation wanted to be listed under "M", for Macedonia; the Greek delegation wanted the country listed under another heading, perhaps "Y" for "Yugoslav" or "F" for Former; this, in turn, was unacceptable to the new State's delegation. The compromise, still in effect, is that the delegates of the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia are seated in the General Assembly hall between the representatives of Thailand and those Timor-Leste—indexed under "T" for "The".)

The crux of this case is that a number of editors have engaged in persistent edit-warring to change the way in which the country in question is referred to in articles. It occurs to me, however, that there are three conceptually different reasons they might have done so.

The first reason is simply to make our articles factually accurate. Sometimes, using one side's preferred terminology instead of the other makes an article just incorrect, and it needs to be changed. For example, in looking over List of sovereign states, I came across something along the lines of "because of a dispute over the name of the country, in the United Nations Macedonia is referred to as 'Macedonia.'" That was simply incorrect, and any proposal that would forbid changing it needs some tweaking.

The second reason is legitimate clarification. If I write "the United States has diplomatic relations with Macedonia," then I may or may not be using the best style for the name of the country, but it is clear exactly what I mean—the U.S. Embassy is in Skopje, not in northern Greece. On the other hand, if I say "I'm taking a trip to Southeastern Europe next month; I plan to visit Macedonia," clarification might be helpful. Similarly, if we are discussing the border region between the Greek region of Macedonia and the Republic of Macedonia, it is best to know which one we are talking about at any given moment, and for that purpose "Republic of" may have a place in identifying the country.

(An analogy might be useful for Americans who are not steeped in this dispute. Particularly since 1991, we've gotten used to the ambiguity that now exists in English between Georgia, the state of the United States, and Georgia, the country. We don't particularly worry about this, because from context, it will be clear 99% of the time which one is referred to. If I mention that a friend of mine in the Foreign Service is a vice-consul in Georgia, I mean the country; if I mention that the Chief Justice of Georgia was considered a prospective nominee to the U.S. Supreme Court, I mean the state. Only in rare instances, such as "I'm going to be taking an around-the-world trip including a stop in Georgia," might I have to clarify whether I am heading to Atlanta or Tblisi. And fortunately, there are no historical tensions between Georgia the southern state and Georgia the ex-Soviet Republic complicating the problem. (It may be that somewhere in an archive there is a lengthy debate as to where the undisambiguated Georgia should take the reader, but there aren't groups of partisans on both sides ready to duke it out.) So a clarification of which Georgia is meant, when it should happen to be needed, doesn't become a big deal. But—suppose that instead of being in Asia, the Republic of Georgia happened to adjoin the United States. Imagine the arguments we would then get to enjoy! That is the situation in Macedeonia, multiplied by twenty-five centuries of history.)

The third reason editors might quarrel about the designation "Macedonia" is their personal feelings about the matter—whether this is expressed as a national or ethnic dispute, a political or cultural dispute, or a style preference. This pertains to the editors mostly of Greek heritage who believe (for whatever reason) that the Republic of Macedonia has no right to use the name of Macedonia, and therefore all references to the country as "Macedonia" are illegitimate; and to their counterparts who believe that the designation "Republic of Macedonia" should never be used when "Republic of" would not accompany the name of any other country.

I'd like the parties and others steeped in the case to estimate how much of the revert-warring can be described as being in the first or second of the categories I've outlined, and therefore should hopefully settle down in time as articles converge on correctness and clarity (and anyone who insists on changing things after that is just causing trouble), versus how much is in the third category and may require more drastic remedies. Given the size of the case pages that already exist, I'd welcome brief responses to this question, below. Thank you. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:58, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Based on the three or so months I've been involved, I would estimate that at least 90% of the edit warring has been initiated for the third reason. (Maybe the definition of "brief" in my dictionary isn't the same as everyone else's.) (Taivo (talk) 04:12, 27 May 2009 (UTC))

What Taivo says. My experience of earlier debate is that editors on the Greek side have often tried to present the issue as if it was category 2, by exaggerating practical disambiguation needs, but what they really want when they say "disambiguation" is not to avoid readers misunderstanding of things (category 2), but for Wikipedia to symbolically bow down before their POV sensitivities each time the country is referred to, by "tagging" its name as problematic and "reminding" the reader of the conflict. See my essay at WP:MOSMAC2 for more of the backgrounds. BTW, your description of "counterparts who believe that the designation "Republic of Macedonia" should never be used when "Republic of" would not accompany the name of any other country" does not really match any of the significant positions in this case, I think. As for the examples you give of situations where disambiguation is legitimately needed, I think everybody would agree, nobody is pressing for plain "Macedonia" in those. Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:34, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

It's certainly the third reason. There has, I think, never really been any dispute over whether the longer names should be used in certain context-sensitive cases (for instance, the Olympics, where Macedonia is represented by the "FYR Macedonia" team). Sensible disambiguation has also never really been at issue in articles where it is needed - for instance, in the article about Florina, a town in Greek Macedonia which is near the border with the Republic of Macedonia, you would have to disambiguate the various Macedonias. But the problem here is exactly as Fut. Perf. states. The issue is not and never has been about so-called "ancient ethnic hatreds" - the naming issue has only been a significant international problem since the early 1990s. Like most of the other Balkan conflicts, it's an issue which has been deliberately exploited by demagogic modern politicians to whip up support or distract from problems at home. If you look at newspaper coverage of the last 18 years of this dispute, it shows a dispiriting cycle of Greek politicians and representatives blocking, bullying, denouncing, obstructing and vetoing other nations and every conceivable international forum to force their POV on the rest of the world.

Meanwhile, in the real world, the naming dispute is simply not treated as relevant to most issues involving the country, as it's perfectly clear what is meant in the vast majority of contexts. NYB's Georgian analogy is apt. We wouldn't speak, for instance, of the "Russian invasion of the Republic of Georgia" to clarify that we're not talking about the Russian Army marching into Atlanta. There is however one major difference between Macedonia and Georgia. Because Georgia is a major entity within the English-speaking world, there isn't a primary meaning for that name - if I recall correctly, the two principal meanings (state and country) have about an equal level of prominence, hence the disambiguation page at Georgia. However, if you look at coverage of the various Macedonias in other reference works, you will note that the country Macedonia has a far higher profile than either the wider region or the Greek region (which is not a political entity, unlike the US state of Georgia). The secondary meanings have much sparser coverage. This disparity of prominence is clearly visible in our usage statistics. Put simply, for most English-speaking people "Macedonia" means the country.

One other point. We measure ourselves against professional encyclopedias such as Britannica. Compare its treatment of Macedonia here with our own article after it was moved. The great majority of other reference works use the same approach. Can you imagine any of them declining to follow common English usage because their Greek contributors or readers might object? -- ChrisO (talk) 07:31, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

That argument about Britannica goes both ways. See "Macedonia", "Macedonia", "Macedonia" and "Macedonia". Britannica student's edition (no subtitles whatsoever): "Macedonia", "Macedonia" and "Macedonia"

The question of which one is "primary topic" (if there is a single one) is open. Shadowmorph ^{^"^} 07:42, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Georgia and America have two primary meanings and the pages are disambiguation pages. Macedonia (disambiguation) has a quadruple rather than a double meaning, and there is also the proximity and the history multiplication factors you mentioned, Newyorkbrad. The word screams "disambiguation is needed". Let me ask you, Newyorkbrad, do you think that we should redirect e.g the America page because of the number of hits of the United States page? But not even that (redirection) is what happened, rather the page of Republic of Macedonia was moved to Macedonia as a primary topic (!). Furthermore it cannot be reverted because admin rights were used. I sincerely hope there are no Georgian admins to pull something like that on their country's behalf. Since you, Newyorkbrad , like analogies, I've given one about California you might want to read. Disclaimer: that is not an emotional appeal, just an analogy: a thought experiment

About the edit wars there was a similar question in the workshop page. This was my answer

There is probably some truth in saying that most Greek IPs wouldn't know that FYROM (when not spelled out) cannot be acceptable for Wikipedia. I can't say why they do the replacing. I also can't say why ethnic Macedonians (Slavs) go on replacing "ancient Greece" to "anciend Makedonija" and Alexander the Great with "Alexandar Makedonski" or "Greek" to "not Greek but Macedonian" etc. therefore there might be a fourth reason behind the edit warriors from both sides. Ignorance

I am sorry that even you, an arbitrator, had to have a disclaimer about your descend. One's ethnicity should never be considered WP:COI for any reason. Shadowmorph ^{^"^} 06:04, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Macedonia (country) could be a possibility for the name of the article if people don't like the "Republic Of" part, even though it is part of the constitutional name. Regarding content of articles however Republic of Macedonia is probably a better pipelink because many discussions about the country involve the Greek and the wider region so using "Macedonia" alone for the country is confusing in those cases. Using a pipelink like [former Yugoslav Macedonia] or the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia is also not an evil act. Shadowmorph ^{^"^} 06:11, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

P.S. but some people might say that Macedonia (ancient kingdom) was a country too (and unrelated to the modern).

P.S.2 we should also care that the uninformed reader should not be confused into thinking that Republic of Macedonia is not a republic within Greece but a sovereign state outside Greek borders.

P.S.3 we should also not infer in any way within the contents that Republic of Macedonia covers or once covered the whole of Macedonia (region). See United Macedonia

There is also plenty of related discussion at Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Macedonia 2/Evidence.Shadowmorph ^{^"^} 06:21, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Let's deal with these assertions in turn:

• Georgia and America are terms referring to major political entities and geographical regions in the English-speaking world. There are two major political entities called Georgia, and a major country and two continents using the term America. All of the most prominent meanings of Macedonia deal with entities that are not in the English-speaking world. Everyday media usage and a survey of other reference works shows that the term is used in English primarily to refer to the country. The country is the only major political entity anywhere in the world that uses that name. There is no corresponding Greek political entity called "Macedonia".
• Macedonia (ancient kingdom) is already clearly disambiguated in the hatnote on Macedonia. Usage statistics show that this is the second most frequently browsed "Macedonia" - well ahead of the other meanings. The same statistics show that the usage of that article has not been affected one jot by the move of Macedonia - there is no statistical evidence of any confusion.
• The likelihood of confusion is vastly overstated in any case. Put yourself in the position of a reader who has been given a homework assignment to write a piece for class about the country Macedonia. Our reader looks on a map of the world and sees that her map shows a country in the Balkans called "Macedonia". She looks up "Macedonia" in Britannica, Phillips, Chambers or any one of a number of reference works and finds an article on the country under "Macedonia". (There may be more than one meaning listed, as in Britannica, but the country is the primary definition in almost every case.) She looks on Google News to find out what is happening in the country, and she finds thousands of articles from across the English-speaking world talking about "Macedonia". Our reader concludes, quite reasonably, that the country is called "Macedonia" and writes her assigment on this basis. No confusion has occurred because every source she's looked at uses "Macedonia" to refer to the country. Not "Macedonia (country)", "Republic of Macedonia", "FYROM", "Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" or any of the other variants - just plain old "Macedonia". And needless to say, no source will have said that it's a republic within Greece's borders (that's a novel argument, at least!). -- ChrisO (talk) 08:19, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

• The country of Georgia is not in the English speaking world. Besides I can provide other examples like China, Micronesia where the whole is more important than the part. Of course there is no exact analogue of Macedonia anywhere. I thought that in the English language there are multiple definitions of Macedonia as seen in Macedonia (terminology). Wikipedia is not a reference of political entities. Population, culture and history matter not the state of independence (about what you said for Macedonia (Greece)).
• That statistical argument is invalid as I have tiresomely repeated here. In short: how do we know which of the hits are actually native English speakers? The demographics of the hits that I have seen indicate that the ones who don't click on the hat link are actually residents of Skopje that are looking for the article of their country. I assert that 90% of English speakers do click on the hat link while only 10% of English speakers stay at the article. I base that assertion on the statistics that Google provides (not my own made stats). Can you prove me wrong? For example it is almost certain that people from Ohio look for Macedonia, Ohio. Here is what internet users actually search for (ordered by popularity, again not my own made stats).
• A more thorough analysis of the reference works surveyed by Fut.Perf. might surprise some. It is too much work for me to brake down the faulty logic in MOSMAC2#Reference Works right now. In short: Many reference works in there are solely about independent countries where no confusion can exist. The ones who are generic always mention the other meanings and the order of the meanings is not an adequate indication of primary topic. Those generic reference works are divided about that. For example A Guide to Countries of the World - I don't know how it is helpful for disambiguation discussion or primary topic. It is only helpful in establishing that "Macedonia" is indeed a common name for the country. However like Fut.Perf. provides us, 30% of the references use "Former Yugoslav..." in some form. Therefore "f.Y.R.o.M." is not too uncommon either and for other reasons too[102]. For other works see e.g. the library of Congress or see the usage in in English books the region and the kingdom and are the meanings that are mostly used. And lastly about cartographic usage, like I said maps are affected by political decisions of the affiliations of the publishers[103] and should not be taken for granted. Again political maps would not have to disambiguate the name of a country, from an other adjacent region, or the greater encompassing region. Only history books would do that. Encyclopedias too. Shadowmorph ^{^"^} 10:01, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Guys, I think somebody was asking for "brief responses", not yet another rehashing of the whole debate. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:05, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

(continuing the story of ChrisO about this user with the assignment)And then... she starts writing about the history of Macedonia and of course thinks that "ancient Macedonia" is referring to the country's ancient history, and she tries to find examples of great persons that this country has given birth to and of course our reader will readily include Phillip II, Alexander II or Basil the Bulgarslayer... And one day she comes to Greece on vacation and she enjoys some Macedonian dances, eats some Macedonian dishes and of course (not being as interested as to inquire why these are called Macedonian) she flies back home sure that Northern Greece is full of Macedonians as the ones she mentioned in her assignment... And we protect this user from such errors because we someplace in small letters state that there is a disambiguation he should be aware of, which we didn't deem important enough to insert a disambiguation page... As everyone has many times stated, we have to find a solution that will be functionable throughout Wikipedia and NOT just in the RoM article. Using the term "Macedonia" to only denote the country and the adjective "Macedonian" to only denote what has to do with this country IS misleading and promotes ignorance. In plain English, when anybody puts the adjective "ancient" before any word, he directly connects this word to the ancient times. So how can we have an Ancient Macedonia which will be unrelated to modern Macedonia and then claim that we are only interested in the plain use AND UNDERSTANDING of English?

Actually, the main problem with this particular issue and the ambiguity it carries for modern related articles is that the Region of Macedonia overlaps the Republic of Macedonia, thus making it a peculiar synonym. Apart from direct references to the country (Macedonian PM, Macedonia in NATO etc) any other use is ambiguous (Macedonian population, Macedonian language, Macedonian architecture, Macedonian river, Macedonian athlete, Macedonian history, Macedonian doctor, a politician from Macedonia, Macedonian customs, music, coins, flora and fauna, Basil the Macedonian...) with the peculiarity that it contains information not easily distinguishable from what has to do with the country alone, since it is a part of the Macedonian region and thus is even more likely to perplex. In the case of Georgia (Disambiguation Page), the state is situated on the other side of the world, so such disambiguations are treated more easily, yet the term leads to a disambiguation page. In the case of America (DP), the term is also problematic, because of the same argument and one can see the similarities when talking about American history (it leads to the history of the US!), American people (DP) etc. What makes things even worse is that even as a country, Macedonia is not unique. Nowadays we are talking about Ancient Macedonia while 20 years ago we were talking about Macedonia as a state referring to the ancient state alone (or sometimes about the various Byzantine themes). This was the predominant use. Nowadays, we have been forced to disambiguate by renaming anything "Macedonian" (in historical terms) to "ancient Macedonian". Yet, the bibliography is huge and "Macedonia" is still used to denote the historical, ancient Macedonia to whoever is interested in history, wargames, archaeology, ethnology, linguistics etc and actually I am almost sure that there are more instances in Wikipedia referring to Macedonia in its historical sense than in the modern state. Now here the danger of ambiguity is even greater, for although the academic community knows that ancient Macedonia has nothing to do with the modern country (only some border settlements of ancient Macedonia at its greatest expansion are located inside RoM), most people will fail to see the difference between "Ancient Macedonia" as referring to the ancient history of the area of RoM and the actual ancient Macedonian kingdom. So, we have a country "Republic of Macedonia" or "Macedonia" for short, but we cannot unambiguously use the adjective Macedonian even when referring to a country's most important features as are its traditions, its language, its history, even its people... Calling all these "Slavomacedonian" is not advisable, since a great part of the population of this country is not Slav but (officially) Albanians, Aromani, Bulgarians, Turks etc and the only way out is to use the constitutional name of the country as an adjective, which is fully unambiguous (the people/traditions/history of the Republic of Macedonia). To me, we could name the header of the country's article Macedonia (Republic of) but we should use "of the Republic of Macedonia" as an adjective, however awkward this might sound, as we should also use "of Greek Macedonia", "of the Region of Macedonia", "ancient Macedonian", "of the Theme/Province of Macedonia", when addressing issues that have to do with the specific subjects. Referring to anything of RoM as "Macedonian" we may comply with the majority of English Speakers BUT we insert and promote ambiguity to Wikipedia. I agreee with those who claim that the majority of the English speaking world calls whatever of RoM Macedonian BUT there is a very significant part which does not and apart from that (and more importantly in my opinion), the former run the danger of misinterpreting the information of Wikipedia, because of their ignorance in context with what is really Macedonia. We cannot expect from everyone to be interested in Balkan history or geography, so, by not disambiguating, we actually promote ignorance. So, in my opinion, although there are of course many instances of the 3rd reason, I think that even when ill meant, most such edits have to do with reasons I and II (when editing "Macedonia" NOT "Republic of Macedonia"). I do not like the provincial reference FYRoM myself (although its existence has to be mentioned) but I find most instances of the noun "Macedonia" and the adjective "Macedonian" misleading and ambiguous. GK1973 (talk) 10:36, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Brad, I believe your use of "both sides of the dispute" may cloud the rest of your question. It is important to recognize that this is an asymmetrical dispute. That being noted, of the changes in the direction Macedonia > Republic of Macedonia > "The Republic" > Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia > FYROM (and then worse), it is about 85-90% of the 3rd type. However, many are couched as type-I or type-II (eg "we must use the name the UN has chose..."). Jd2718 (talk) 11:06, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

When I first started editing, and this region immediately drew my interest, there were nationalist edit warriors on all three sides (Bulgaria, Greece, and Macedonia) and a smaller number of responsible editors (some of whom may have identified with one nation or nationality or the other; most not) and fewer than 5 personally uninvolved admins. The toughness (crossing lines?) of the admins, the sanctions of ARBMAC I, and the frustrations dealing with WP policy greatly reduced the number of edit warriors from the other two sides. What's left are two admins (anyone else? peripherally, perhaps), a handful of non-Greek editors, and some Greek editors who are more last trapped by feeling forced to defend the Greek edit warriors. Honest editors have created reasons that look mostly like type-II to defend their brethren making type-III edits, but almost every edit of the "FYROM" variety (note exceptions when we refer to the dispute directly) comes down to "it offends us." Take that off the table, and we can and should have a serious policy discussion of how to proceed with disambiguation. Jd2718 (talk) 11:58, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Response by Radjenef

(I have placed my response in a separate subsection to make it more readable. I believe that by writing in a format similar to the evidence section, instead of indent replying everywhere, our discussion will benefit in brevity and civility.)

To answer your question, one large group of revert-warring editors consists mainly of IP addresses. These editors, for the most part, aren't aware of wikipedia policies, how they apply to this case, and do not participate in talk page discussions. Their reasons are of the third kind. This group consists mostly of people whose own heritage, or that of a spouse/significant other or close friend is either from Greece or from the Republic. In addition to sentimentally edit warring about extremal positions, some of these people also commit acts of vandalism and/or attempt to falsify history. Though this is obviously not the optimal solution, when things get really heated, these editors can be easily kept at bay by semi-protecting articles.

When it comes to international organizations, like the United Nations, I believe that both sides agree on the point of factual accuracy: it would not be proper to misquote the organization. I don't think that many editors, other than perhaps those belonging in the large group described above, would start a revert war contrary to factual accuracy. When they do, however, as in the example you gave above, it's mainly one side of the dispute that takes it upon itself to correct the inaccuracy.

There are some who edit articles like Greece or the United States, with the second reasoning in mind. Despite that, however, there are a lot of editors who believe that the first reasoning is more pertinent in this case. These people would argue that writing "the United States has diplomatic relations with Macedonia", is factually inaccurate because the United States recognizes the country as "Republic of Macedonia" and it would be like misquoting them. Similarly they would argue that, since Greece recognizes the country as the "former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" and since the Republic itself uses that appellation in all of its bilateral relations with Greece, it would be more factually accurate to refer to the Republic as "former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" in articles like Greece. This would be done to prevent misquoting either of these two countries. Of course in other cases, where factual inaccuracy isn't an issue, disambiguation or clarification would be more pertinent, as per the second reasoning.

If you ask me which of these kinds of incidents are the most common, I think that the most notorious edit-warriors belong to the first group of people. --Radjenef (talk) 10:31, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Response by SQRT5P1D2

Hello, Newyorkbrad.

a) first reason - make our articles factually accurate

b) second reason - legitimate clarification

If the goal of an encyclopedia is factual accuracy, then there is no indisputable unambiguous use for the term "Macedonia". In paper encyclopedias, library headings and academic publications, this is addressed correctly, showing the various uses of the term. In an online publication, this should be addressed with a disambiguation page, as it is the only legitimate, transparent way to clarify it.

c) third reason - personal feelings

Personal feelings are the outcome, not the cause. Objective knowledgeable editors, understand the historic and present use of the term. Some uses of the term, are politically charged. The cause for this is factual accuracy and legitimate clarification. That leads to the expression of personal feelings.

So, to answer you question on "how much of the revert-warring can be described as being in the first or second of the categories versus how much is in the third category", I would have to say "no cause, no outcome". SQRT5P1D2 (talk) 11:19, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Response by Avg

I believe that most people's objections are by far factual accuracy issues (so your #1), however, they are often forced to limit themselves to discussions about disambiguation (so your #2) since some other people who have hijacked these articles do not accept factual accuracy as an argument anymore. If you say that in an International Organisation or a Greek context it is factually correct and encyclopedic to refer to "the former Yugoslav..." since this is what both they and the Republic use in their relations, you will be probably ridiculed and hear something about Wikipedia being nobody's agent - although of course reflecting in their respective article what the UN, NATO, EU, IOC, EBU etc etc (and Greece and the Republic) use daily does not make Wikipedia their "agent" but an encyclopedic source that is describing and not prescribing the current usage. So you're only left with the disambiguation issue to continue the debate and this is why most of the debate has been around #2. Even with these debates, this had worked quite well for years, since after the first mention where the full title would be given for disambiguation purposes (either "Republic of..." or "the former Yugoslav Republic of..." for the country and "Ancient...", "Greek...", "region of..." or "Bulgarian..." for the other meanings), Macedonia plain could be freely used without any objection by anyone within the article to refer to whatever it was intended to refer to.

Now on the special case of Greece, Macedonia is of course referring to the Greek region and not the country and using "Republic of" for the country (and plain Macedonia from the Greek region) is simply not enough, because the differentiator between the two entities is not that one is a Republic and the other is a region, but to put it as simple as possible I can the fact that one is Greek and the other is Slavic. This is why "the former Yugoslav..." is relevant here. If in a Greek article you say "Macedonia borders the Republic of Macedonia" it is not clear what's going on. If you say though that the Greek Macedonia borders the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, it all makes sense. This is the only way the reader will understand these are two completely different political and cultural entities.

Finally, moral issues regarding justification to use the name (so your #3) have never been a serious subject with regular editors, only IPs that come and go and can be very easily tackled. No one from the long term editors from any side has ever objected to the use of the word Macedonia by their opposing side, although they all used disambiguators for the "other" Macedonias to avoid monopolization. Which brings us to the current absurd situation where this monopolization has actually occurred.--Avg (talk) 22:42, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Response by John Carter

Based on my own limited experience with this discussion, and actually, to a degree, the topic in general (I'm an American of German descent, and am honestly at a bit of a loss to even say where some of these countries are, let alone say anything else about them) I think that much of the earlier discussion was about using the term "former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" in articles primarily relating to Greece. I cannot believe that argument qualifies as anything but the third proposed reason. Having said that, I can and do see that there is sufficient basis for thinking that at least some of the discussion regarding "Macedonia" vs. "Republic of Macedonia" is based on the first two options, as there is a more reasonable question of ambiguity there. John Carter (talk) 14:47, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Bullet-points by Yannismarou

• Yes, a large part of the edit-warring qualifies under the third proposed reason. But edit-warring is not the source of all evils here. The problem in the state's article was not aggravated by edit-warring but by a controversial move. Some of the edit-warring, which gradually increases, qualifies under 1 and 2.
• There are other issues that should be dealt as well. It is not only ambiguity, general naming conventions, sentimentatism etc. There is for instance the more specific issue of whetherer we follow or not the naming conventions of international organizations in articles, tables, lists etc. about them. And I do have in mind specific discussions in talk pages, where MOSMAC was not an issue, and where unrelated editors took place, and the consensus was that, yes, in this specific case we shouls follow that naming conventions of the x international organisation.
• And, of course, the major issue to set an order is what titles we want for the 4 Macedonians. What happens in other cases (relevent also to previous bullet): a) "Ireland" links to the island, and not to "Republic of Ireland", which has an article with its previously mentioned "long" name as title, b) "Luxembourg" links to the country, c) "China" links to the region, and not to the People's Republic. Now, the country's article (and most commonly used as "China") has again as title the long name ("People's ..."). On the other hand, Taivan has an article as "Republic of China", although this is not the most common English term (it is "Taivan"!). And in the international organizations articles the "Chinese Taipei" name is used: something like the "former Yugoslav ...", which was also extensively used in the int.org. articles, and now Fut.Perf. consistently reverts (pending the ARBCOM, and the final settling of the issue!). In this case we do not have a uniform naming, as Fut.Perf. demands and strives to impose for our case.

*I can confirm that what happened in the UN for the categorization of the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia under f or t is also happening in other fora as well. For instance, I do have in mind the case of DAC/OECD. Unfortunately, these diplomatic fights tend to get extremely bitter, and even minor details get great importance.--Yannismarou (talk) 16:11, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Yannismarou left in exasperation

Yannismarou is the the filing party of this arbitration. It may be relevant for all involved parties and the arbitrators to know that he has left Wikipedia which "makes him sick again". More on his user page. Nice work, gentlemen. I never got to familiarize with him, but I get the feeling that he is a respectful admin and hope he will rethink that decision.

Maybe there should be a special FOF about "the filing party leaving in exasperation" in the PD. Shadowmorph ^{^"^} 13:06, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually, he has been editing again since he wrote that on his user page. He was editing as recently as yesterday. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:11, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I regard myself as temporarily mostly inactive (and therefore temporarily retired). With focus on "temporarily". This does not mean that I do not watch what is happening. I watch everything, and I intervene if I believe that my voice matters and shouls be heard! By the way, sincerely thanks for the nice words; nevertheless, what primarirly matters here is not if the x or z user voluntarily or not leave wikipedia (and, by the way, I have serious reservations about ArbCom current majority's decision to show the exodus to Avg and Kekrops), but that the ARBCOM decides to decisively help the community overcome the current mess. Horo wittily describes the problem. And please arbitrators, try to clarify your stance on a series of issues: e.g. is Shadow a single-purpose account or not? For me, clearly not, but there is contradiction within the same sentence and confusion regarding your accompanying the votes arguments (see also brad's insightful comment both there and about wikilawyering).--Yannismarou (talk) 15:29, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying this that you haven't left completely

Also thanks for your defending comment. You may have noticed the lack of any long section posted by me in my defense (about me being single-purpose). I would rather worry about the case than myself. For what is worth some arbitrators cared enough to check what is the true case and I will only say that one has to be given some reasonable time to get rid of the initially perceived SPA status. Maybe, I jumped in the "deep waters" (ARBCOM) early. I am glad I didn't "drown". I would also like to say that I think I haven't been disruptive (as the lack of any remedy on me suggests), therefore why should I be mentioned by name? I'll leave it to that. Shadowmorph ^{^"^} 17:24, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Vote fetishism

There are some rather pessimistic views expressed here about the ability of these sorts of disputes to be resolved (eg, this discussion). Blame is variously apportioned to the demise of the project's fundamental principles or the failure of the dispute resolution system. I think those views are misguided. The real problem is the vote fetishism that has come to be so popular of recent years. The only principle that has been sacrificed is the principle that Wikipedia is not a democracy. Every which way one looks, votes (or "!votes", or "straw polls", or whatever means is used to try to conceal them) are being resorted to as the main method for resolving content disputes. The project has become addicted to voting. It's little wonder that disputants try to achieve victory for their own position by recruiting as many bodies as they can, rather than by winning the argument.

I've proposed a remedy here that would mandate a new discussion, to be closed by a panel of three uninvolved admins, who will be tasked with ignoring the opinion of anyone who doesn't adequately explain their opinion by reference to the naming conventions. Comments would be most welcome. --bainer (talk) 15:05, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, I think most of us involved, not being arbitrators, would have to make those comments here. Having said that, I too agree that simple voting is probably not in anyone's best interests, except when what is involved is apparently contradictory policies, guidelines, etc. I'm not sure whether I myself qualify as one of the voting fetishists, but I can see how it can be used to stack votes to apparently win an argument, or, if nothing else, indicate to any opponents that they will be subject to regular impediment if they disagree. I like the proposal though, and, if it flies, think that it might be a very serious step in the right direction here. John Carter (talk) 15:12, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree on a lot with John and this worries me a bit! But what can I do?! I like bainer's proposal; much more than 29.1. It gives a clear mandate, and a concrete timetable. Exactly what we need so as not to have articles locked for ages.--Yannismarou (talk) 15:15, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I also agree that this (29.1.1) seems like a more concrete and structured approach to the problem. One of the issues in the Macedonia dispute has always been distinguishing between real-world issues and Wiki-world issues. The way that you've written this is very clear in its focus on Wikipedia. I, like Yannismarou, am willing to give it a chance. (Yes, Yannismarou, hell has frozen over.) The discussion space must be clearly separated from the normal Talk pages and active clerks involved who will cull out the inappropriate "party crashers". And if the process fails to reach a consensus that the presiding administrators can use, there is always the stalemate resolution process that is also being proposed here. (Taivo (talk) 15:49, 28 May 2009 (UTC))

Stephen Bain's proposal makes sense, especially because it doesn't just lament the bad habit of polling, but shows up a concrete alternative: a body of third-party referees. That's the cruncher here. Because why do rely on (!)voting so much elsewhere? Because it's the only way of measuring "success" in a discussion. Success can be measured or tested in three ways: you can either succeed by convincing your opponent (which in this set of dispute will practically never happen), or by convincing an outside observer – but that's a role that the Wikipedia structure usually doesn't provide. Absent these two options, the only other way we typically resort to as a poor surrogate for testing successful discussion is counting heads. Stephen brings the element of the outside observer in, and I think that has the potential of making the whole thing much more rational. (Note that it requires giving up on one otherwise unshakeable dogma of the wiki model: administrative abstinence from content judgments.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:55, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

(ec) A good alternative. The three admins who are going to adjudicate should be picked as early as possible; and if they see lines of discussion developing which they regard as irrelevant, they should indicate why. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:59, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

• One way to permit the admins to make the decision on what is consensus would be to require that participants agree to abide by their decision in advance. (This could be abused by evil admins, so I suppose the right of appeal to ArbCom would have to be reserved; but that's WP:BEANS.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:02, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I would invite interested parties to begin collecting ideas for how to set up a concrete infrastructure for the expected decision-making process. No matter if it's explicitly on the basis of Bainer's proposal or within the framework of Rlevse's original draft (with the final "tiebreaker" proviso), we'll probably need to set up something systematic anyways. I've just posted a new version of my own draft guideline, which I would like to use as input to the process. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:52, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

• I also believe that Bain's alternative proposal is a big leap in the right direction. Shadowmorph ^{^"^}

Future Perfect, drafting two long Manuals of Style certainly certifies your good faith for helping the project, I really mean that. However I would better prefer if we all could start drafting one altogether, including the facts one by one and collaboratively work on that. I was considering this in my userspace, I didn't know you were going to have a MOSMAC3 and I was thinking of making a MOSMAC3 page too. Only my MOSMAC3 would commence from a blank state. A Tabula Rasa as someone said. I will have a read at MOSMAC3, I hope it doesn't fall in the same pitfalls as MOSMAC2 did. For me a Manual of Style is not what is needed, but a collection of facts (not views) that will help us figure all the considerable issues. Shadowmorph ^{^"^} 17:13, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Include one fact: it is Wikipedia guidance to concern ourselves not with what a place ought to be called, rather asking the less contentious question, what it is called. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:23, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

If we can agree on a common presentation of the relevant facts (like who uses what in the real world, etc.), I have no problem with factoring that out into a common page, and then have each of us write their different drafts about the actual proposals, as far as they differ. I wouldn't want such a page to be swamped with your presentation of google results though. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:26, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Following up on Septentrionalis' proposal to have participants agree in advance to abide by the rules, this points up one problem in the present arbitration--the arrival of parties to this arbitration who were newcomers and had not been participating in the discussion at Talk:Greece. Some of these new arrivals proved to be disruptive. The participants would have to decide whether the proceedings would be limited to 1) the initial group of participants in the arbitration, 2) a group of interested parties as of the start of the process, but with no late arrivals, 3) interested parties at the start of the process, plus late arrivals who agree to the decision, 4) anyone who strolls by. I would prefer 1) as my first choice, but would accept 2). I don't think that a limited-time process should be subjected to new arrivals. (Taivo (talk) 17:20, 28 May 2009 (UTC))

I thought it was implicit in the whole process here that the decisions reached in the process will be binding on everybody anyway? Rlevse's proposals were saying that somewhere. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:30, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

That's a way to get around the "unshakable dogma". I don't see letting late arrivals in as a problem under the right conditions: they agree to ground rules, the admins have no hesitation in turfing them out again if they don't, and the admins are firm about deciding on (valid) arguments not numbers. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:42, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Future Perfect, that's a great start at MOSMAC3. I haven't read it in great detail yet, but I like what I see so far. (Taivo (talk) 17:20, 28 May 2009 (UTC))

I think this is an excellent proposal. You're absolutely right about the vote fetishism issue - that's precisely why I moved the article without prior discussion in the first place, simply because the obsession with voting had made it impossible to reach a solution that met NPOV and naming conventions requirements. The wording of your proposal looks about right too. Two things I would add - the discussion should be listed as a centralised discussion, and agreeing a format for the discussion will be essential if it is not to get bogged down. I would suggest an approach modelled on arbitration cases with evidence/workshop/proposed decision pages. -- ChrisO (talk) 17:43, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

With the structure of the workshop begun, at least ideally, by the uninvolved admins themselves; otherwise everybody suggests the same points in slightly different language. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:53, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, needs alot of structure and exactness to hammer out the minutiae and reduce ambiguity. (I can see alot of lvl 3 and 4 headings a-coming, but all in a good cause) Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:03, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate that Bainer (really the committee) are searching for more than the usual remedies. I don't know that they have the right one, but certainly there is no harm in this proposal, and the potential for major upside. And it does avoid some of the usual pitfalls. The one bit that won't be a problem is creating structure and hammering out minutia; WPians are good at this - perhaps better than at creating content. So yes, please, vote it up. And then we won't vote, but discuss. Jd2718 (talk) 23:20, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

An excellent proposal. Finally, some truly neutral parties will be involved since the biggest problem has long been that some parties with a strong POV were falsely claiming neutrality. Well, I now have hope again in Wikipedia. --Avg (talk) 23:57, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree. It is indeed an excellent idea. Not only for proposing that uninvolved amins take part, which is already a great suggestion but also because it agrees very well with my own ideas and proposals that editors be judged on the merits of their edits and not on the basis of any arbitrary identifiers. I have no objection at all to someone judging my arguments on the basis of their adherence to logic and policy. This new proposal will prevent fiascos like the ethnic based poll post-mortem analysis. That, in itself, is a worthy accomplishment. Dr.K. logos 00:10, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Basically what the proposal says is too ignore the wp:NOREASON kind of votes. It is true that Wikipedia cannot be a democracy and the proposal sounds more like consensus democracy with a flavor of aristocracy (not to be confused with oligarchy).

Proposal: Yet, we could however vote on who will be the members of the ...evaluation committee (if I may call it that). That way we minimize the possibility of any objections raised by anyone. Since I noticed that agreement to procedural matters is possible (notice the agreement in this talk section), I would propose that kind of "Jury selection" process. It shouldn't be two hard to reach an agreement about two respectable neutral admins, we would only have to vote for two (2) admins, the Arbitration Committee could assign the third one. What do you think? We could call upon certain members of the community and query them if they would like to take up that role (they would of course have to agree on giving the time to help the issue of course). I am sure that some current ARBCOM members could be proposed, given the amount of time they already spent and by avoiding the possibility of ever having to spend the time spent here in a possible future ARBMAC3,4,... you get the point. Shadowmorph ^{^"^} 04:51, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

To take the opportunity for some humor, this does sounds bit as a kind of Switzerland-pedia :) Shadowmorph ^{^"^} 05:06, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

As I see this, the number of votes will not be a sole parameter that influences the outcome of the consensus or lack of it; that's because in the new proposal the votes will go through evaluation (unlike the talk:Greece poll). The number of supporters and opposers can be used to indicate were strong disagreements exist. Shadowmorph ^{^"^} 07:32, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I.e: even in the case of only a few oppose votes against an army of others, the one opposing vote will have to be evaluated accordingly. So this would not be a majority voting but a supervised Consensus decision-making "that not only seeks the agreement of most participants, but also the resolution or mitigation of minority objections" (if of course they are justified by Wikipedia policy) The word supervised is the key word here. Shadowmorph ^{^"^} 07:39, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Comment and alternatives - Bainer, I agree with the spirit of the proposal. However, there are two points that need further discussion.

a) "this must be consistent with current Wikipedia policies and guidelines"

I'm not sure about the "current". Of course, WP:IAR is also a policy but in order to prevent misinterpretation, I believe it should go.

b) "editors are asked to approach this discussion with an open mind and without emphasis on prior discussions"

Assuming good faith, we can do that. But many parties are heavily involved in Macedonia-related matters and will carry their past with them. We can't just expect everyone to come up with new ideas, if they spend so much time editing, arguing, presenting evidence etc. But certainly, we should try.

Another twist? Here's my suggestion.

1) Administrators not involved in this case, are given two (2) weeks to express interest in dealing with a new attempt to reach consensus in the terminology of Macedonia-related articles. Currently, the english Wikipedia has more than 1,500 administrators. If at least four (4) want to participate, proceed to the second step below. If there are three (3) or less, an one (1) week extension is granted. If at the end of the extension week there are at still three (3) or less interested, start again.

2) The community is given two (2) weeks to support or oppose the candidacies of interested administrators. Three administrators with the higher approval rates (as fractions) are selected. If one or more of them have the same approval rates, the three more experienced (note: defined by length of adminship, GMT time) are selected.

3) These administrators are given one (1) month to examine Macedonia-related articles, especially the most prominent ones (ancient kingdom, wider region, greek region, modern country) and the evidence presented by the parties in this case; in the end of the month, they submit a draft with their proposal on the use of the term in Wikipedia articles.

4) A month is given to discuss publicly their proposal. Editors examine each point, suggesting necessary adjustments, according to policies and guidelines. In the end of the month, the final text becomes the new manual of style for Macedonia-related articles.

5) Editors can voice their acceptance or disapproval collectively (note: this is not a vote, there is no vote for the text). If after three (3) months the disruption caused is severe, any member of the community can use whatever means of dispute resolution are needed.

This is just a draft for an alternative proposal. SQRT5P1D2 (talk) 19:29, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

No voting for the admins; that merely puts us back in the same stalemate. ArbCom should appoint them (although they may wish to ask for comments, perhaps privately); since ArbCom is (in practice) an elective body, this is still an elective process, although - as sensible states do - the election was not held on this single issue. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:07, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I also totally oppose any form of voting, either for admins or for the final decision. SQRT's proposal is unacceptable for that reason. That's exactly why we're here right now--trying to vote at Talk:Greece. No. Let the ArbCom appoint reliable, neutral admins to run the process, require interested editors to sign on and agree to the outcome beforehand, then let the process run. The simpler the process the better. (Taivo (talk) 00:59, 30 May 2009 (UTC))

This is not "voting" , as I proposed that administrators with the higher degree of acceptance should be selected. That could be even 5%, 4% and 3%. The procedure continues, no matter what. The willingness of uninvolved administrators and their acceptance from the community, are fundamental in resolving this heated matter. Also, note that there is no voting on the final text. What me, you and everyone else believes about administrators' neutrality, is irrelevant. We don't represent the community, we're only a small part of it. Appointing someone is not transparent enough. SQRT5P1D2 (talk) 12:06, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Request for clarification

Bainer's "Establishing consensus on names" proposal says that the referee panel should "assess the consensus developed during the discussion" and "disregard any opinion which does not provide a clear and reasonable rationale". Now, what if in doing so they will find that there is still "no consensus" between the parties? Will they then also automatically be tasked to do what the original "Stalemate resolution" says, namely "review the situation and resolve it by applying Wikipedia policy"? In other words: will they have a mandate to actually arbitrate, rather than just review? In my view, this is very much needed, and I'd like to see that combination of Rlevse's "stalemate resolution" and the "establishing consensus" process described even more clearly in the referee panel's tasksheet. Because every party here by now has developed expert skills at spewing out reams and reams of reasonable-sounding rationales for their positions and reference Wikipedia policies in them a lot; the crucial issue is that somebody must have a robust mandate to judge whether those rationales are sound. If not, we are back in the wikilawyering hell of the original MOSMAC negotiations. We know these kinds of discussions: to reach true consensus in them, i.e. to have the parties themselves swayed by the arguments from the other side, is simply out of the question, it won't happen. Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:29, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

My alternate proposal was/would be more along the lines of the voting/gathering consensus of broader community for West Bank/Judea Samaria naming like thus - Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Israel_Palestine_Collaboration/Placename_guidelines#Consensus_on_6_existing_proposals_thus_far - segmenting the individual points of the proposed guideline and getting as many editors to comment as possible. This is if the Fixed World Views make the whole discussion process impossible. However, this debate seems to me a little tricker than that one with all issues of disambiguation pages etc. Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:54, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

"Getting as many editors to comment as possible" was what was done in the Greece poll. The result was something like thirty outside voters against thirty Greeks, and I severely doubt we could repeat even this amount of mobilisation. Outside editors get tired of the topic, Greeks never will. It will be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to raise sustained interest enough among outside editors to make a large enough number actually investigate the issue and understand the finer implications, to outweigh the force of the Greek team, whose motivation to fight this is inexhaustible. Don't forget the crucial difference between this case and either the Israel/Palestine or the Ireland one: its asymmetry. It's not two national factions against each other, it's one faction against the rest of the world, but the rest of the world is getting tired. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:15, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I completely oppose the "getting as many editors as possible" notion. As Future Perfect has said, that's exactly the problem encountered at Talk:Greece--an army of new editors and single purpose accounts stuffing the ballot box. This process needs to be "top heavy" with the neutral administrators willing to step in when there is no consensus developed and make decisions based on Wikipedia policy, not on numbers of "votes" among the masses. This is not the normal Wikipedia consensus-building process. This is an administrative team writing Wikipedia policy based on informed comments from previously-involved editors using Wikipedia policy as a guide. The "as many editors as possible" will include more new editors who make comments like "Greeks will oppose the name 'Macedonia' until they die" (see my evidence page for a link to that classic comment). That's exactly what this process doesn't need. (Taivo (talk) 12:18, 29 May 2009 (UTC))

You misunderstand the "as many editors as possible" notion. What this really should be aimed at is to get as many experienced editors involved as possible. Ones with no conceivable bias or reason to vote on "national" lines. The big problem here is that other editors are de-motivated to get involved because they see a "big mess". Calm the situation down, advertise the discussion widely, keep the discussion under strict control, get a group of widely-respected people to ascertain consensus (if needed), and then see what happens. If the group chosen to judge consensus are any good at what they do, they will read the discussion (which should run for several weeks), weight opinions appropriately (like bureaucrats do at RFA), and deliver a carefully worded verdict that most people will agree with, or at least agree has been obtained fairly, and we can all move on to more productive matters. Carcharoth (talk) 05:02, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

In my experience in reading history, working in both government and private industry, and studying the nature of groups, the larger the group of people involved in reading, weighing, and delivering an opinion, the less likely it is to do that. Building too large a group of people to deal with this issue will only increase the probability of stalemate. The only way that such a thing will work is if the volumes of background material were boiled down into two or three summary statements that were carefully focused. Experienced editors who are busy with their own niches within Wikipedia are not going to abandon what actually interests them to look at this unless they can read the summaries quickly and make their contributions quickly. But if they are reading and commenting quickly, how reliable or authoritative do you actually think that those opinions are going to be? They are just as likely to be based on emotion as they are on careful evaluation, and perhaps more so. If you are looking at Wikipedia editors who are actually interested in the topic, then you already have that group assembled here. If you are looking to actually resolve this issue with a solid policy, then the smaller the group involved in developing that policy, the better. You can elicit comment from others, but don't expect "a large number" of editors, especially editors who have been previously uninvolved, to say anything that hasn't already been said before. This is a court decision now, not a consensus-building process. Consensus has already proven impossible. Now it is time for each side to make its case based on Wikipedia policy and let a small panel of judges make its decision. Any other type of resolution, is, IMHO, a further waste of time. (Taivo (talk) 12:46, 31 May 2009 (UTC))

(Responding to Carcharoth) The problem is that as soon as an "experienced" and uninvolved editor voices an opinion, he's no longer considered to be uninvolved. What happened to me is illustrative. I have no ties to the region (I am a fourth-generation American, and my ancestry is as far from the region as is possible for anyone of European background) and I had no history of editing any articles related to the dispute before I protected Greece due to edit-warring. I have never edited that article, yet I am not considered an disinterested party now, because I expressed an opinion. I predict the same thing will happen to any other editor who ventures into this area, and (sadly) I don't think that the direction taken by the Arbitration Committee in this case is going to do much to fix this situation. I'm not sure that it is fixable, but the proposals to remove the tools from two of the most knowledgeable and capable admins is not encouraging. (I do note that it appears unlikely that those sanctions will pass at this point, which heartens me.) Horologium (talk) 20:19, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

My concerns for adm supervision for Fut.Perf.

Carcaroth has stated: "Am concerned that administrative supervision will be gamed for Future Perfect to take administrative actions in this topic area "with approval"." This was also my concern from the first moment I saw Kirill's interesting proposal. Fut.Perf.'s announcement that he has already (!) found a tutor make me have more reservations as far as the effectiveness of this particular proposal for this particular sysop is concerned. I'm really afraid that the tutor-trainee relationship may not lead to the desired results, but to an undesired gaming of the system.--Yannismarou (talk) 15:36, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

What's so strange about me making my arrangements in good time? As I said earlier, if the arbs want to know how the tutor and myself are planning to do this, they can ask. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:21, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Promptly acting on information in the case ruling is not something that I would hold against FPAS. Yannismarou, AGF. Being cooperative is good. :-) FloNight♥♥♥ 16:52, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

If I may add some humor here (that these proceedings are lacking), hopefully this relationship will improve Future Perfect's mastering of administration practice and yes, while uncommon there have been instances were the apprentice is the one who finds the tutor he prefers :D Shadowmorph ^{^"^} 19:59, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, but we forget

Reading through this, the Arbs seem to take the view that Future Perfect at Sunrise is an "involved" user and would be misusing his tools if he ever used them in the area. But as far as I can see, his only involvement is seeking to ensure that articles conform with one of the five pillars of wikipedia, WP:NPOV. Why is he involved?

Because he's taken the view that one set of edits is neutral and others is not? Well, how else can one enforce neutrality?

This is an encyclopedia. Nationalist ideologues, like most of the ones escaping here, should not be editing an encyclopedia in their areas. They have a conflict of interest and can't be expected to follow WP:NPOV. This is serious. It does more damage in the world than any editor-to-editor relation loss. I know there was unacceptable incivility and all that, and it's a shame there is because it clouds things, but it shouldn't be allowed to cloud things.

Essentially what ArbCom is doing is reinforcing a long-standing flaw in wikipedia. Admin tools can be used to enforce everything to do with the 4th pillar, "Wikipedia has a code of conduct", but never the first or the second pillars. If the admin community and also the ArbCom actually reflected on this, they'd realise that "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia" and "Wikipedia has a neutral point of view" are way more important for our purposes than the disciplinary policies. These policies are there to maintain order on the pedia, but vested users in the pedia have formulated the specifics in a way that is clearly adverse to our most important policies. If I went and blocked all ideologues editing non-NPOV stuff into articles, you guys would take my tools off me. But I'd be doing far more good to the pedia than blocking two well educated users reverting each other. If I cited IAR, you'd reject that too, as it is in practice a worthless policy used only at the user's own risk.

So while you reflect with pride how you're teaching Chris and FPaS a good lesson on how you think they ought to behave, reflect also on the lesson you're teaching future analysts. Wikipedia is a self-absorbed institution that cares alot about editors but doesn't give too much of a monkeys about content, that widespread NPOV violations are more acceptable than efforts to remove them, and that innovative actions from bold admins aimed at making the encyclopedia more encyclopedic were punished because a few throw-away ideologue accounts got or could have gotten offended. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 00:18, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

hmm... in my opinion being a professor does not automatically render someone to be the sole guardian of NPOV-ness. And once again nationality is irrelevant both ways since there is a variety of reasons why someone might be prepossessed to a POV on the subject _{(disclaimer: I am not saying anyone said that nor am I insinuating anything about anybody of course and please nobody read it that way, just saying that things other than nationality and profession can matter too, let's not forget that)}.

The moment we start appointing NPOV enforcers to whom all other rules do not apply, however respectable Wikipedians they are, if the Wikipedia's "iterative process" of implemending NPOV starts to become recursive (or to remind of other loaded terms that would relate to that hypothetical situation) then Wikipedia will collapse under its own weight. I certainly hope that would not happen and that a state of NPOV can still derive through a kind of "evolution" as I see it rather than proper "design" _{(2nd disclaimer: this is just my opinion, I am not saying that anyone said anything like that nor interpreting anyone's words in any way)}.

That would be applicable not only on Macedonia but also anywhere else

I would not describe myself as a nationalist ideologue (and I do believe noone was referring to me as a user) but I know of a certain other ideologue in this project. _{(3rd disclaimer: I have not let that unanswered but I am not answering in a battleground mentality but illustrating my view of Wikipedia and it's goals)}. Shadowmorph ^{^"^} 05:44, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

_{P.S. 4th disclaimer (Recursive disclaimer:): I am not using disclaimers as a sign of assuming others will asumme my bad faith (! :) ) but because of not having any intention to provoke anyone and because I find it funny using them, a touch of my strange kind of humor)}.Shadowmorph ^{^"^} 05:51, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

_{... ...n-th disclaimer: (n-1) disclaimer is not... ...} — brake — |you get my point about NPOV recursion :D Shadowmorph ^{^"^} 05:59, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

• Thank you, Deacon. I concur. Kafka Liz (talk) 14:14, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Disputed Title template at "Macedonia"

the redlink of the section title is intentional

ChrisO at first[104] and Taivo (2 reverts)[105],[106] have removed the {{disputed title}} template from the article ("temporarily"). There are so many "temporary" things by power of Wikipedia administration that have taken place that people (me included) will reasonably start to believe that Wikipedia endorses the current title of the article (?). Even with all the unorthodox way (pun intended) that the current title was put into place. Is that the case?

this is what the template reads: Template:Disputed title (of course instead of the title of this ARB page ("request for arbitration...") it reads "current title of this article, Macedonia is disputed"

Imho, Questioning whether the title is disputed is in severe disregard of the megabytes of this case's proceedings. I have made a single revert and have no intention of edit warring over the template. Shadowmorph ^{^"^} 06:32, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

That template explained that endorsement was not the case but since it is deleted then maybe it is?. I find ChrisO' s removal of the template severely unreasonable, WP:POINTy and the explanations provided by ChrisO and Taivo too inadequate.

If it is advocated that the Disputed Title template is not appropriate with all this discussions then why do we even have that template? I therefore have to propose that a new temporary injunction be included that says that the template has to stay until when the dispute resolution process is completed.Shadowmorph ^{^"^} 06:07, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I cannot emphasise enough the reasons provided in the edit summaries, ChrisO, about the template: "there is no point to it" _{(abstract,see diff for whole)} and Taivo:"Discussion on Talk Page is pointless" _{(abstract,see diff for whole)}, disregarding the ability of any other (new) editor that doesn't know what ARBCOM is to contribute at the talk page (per "anyone can edit"). Shadowmorph ^{^"^} 06:22, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

The issue has been satisfactorily addressed and an accurate template put in place by Future Perfect and Dr. K. (Taivo (talk) 06:32, 2 June 2009 (UTC))

Yeah, I think we've solved this one. By the way, don't you guys think it would be sensible if we all started acting as if the 1RR was already in place? I at least have been trying to do that for the last few days. It seems likely to come into force pretty soon, so we might just as well start getting used to it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:35, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Umm, Wikipedia doesn't "endorse" any titles. The misunderstanding that it does has been part of the problem in this dispute (along the lines of "Wikipedia must not endorse a name violating UN / Wikipedia must not endorse the theft of Greek history blah blah...rant..."). BalkanFever 06:35, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I find the standard template that was drafted by a long iterative process much better than the current rushed out draft.Shadowmorph ^{^"^} 06:42, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Fut.Perf. about the 1RR totally.Shadowmorph ^{^"^} 06:43, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I stick to my proposal that (whatever form it finally takes) the template that is put should not be removed again (to be stated by injunction). Shadowmorph ^{^"^} 06:50, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

The template has been replaced by the older version, except it cites this talkpage. Dr.K. logos 06:54, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I think itthe appearance of some template at the top, should be protected.Shadowmorph ^{^"^} 07:04, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it needs protection given the proximate 1RR restrictions and all the attention the article gets but I wouldn't mind one way or the other. Dr.K. logos 07:12, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Using a custom template makes no sense to me, especially one pointing here. There is no discussion that will take place here that will have any effect on the title of the page, nor will any discussion (at this point) on Talk:Macedonia produce any changes. It would be better, in my opinion, to have no tag there until the conclusion of this case. Then, when we start to move forward towards whatever dispute resolution technique will be employed, perhaps a hatnote tag or an edit notice could be used. At this point, using a tag will be counterproductive, as there is no discussion anywhere on the site that will produce results, due to the temporary injunction placed on all related articles. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 14:15, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I completely agree, that's why I supported ChrisO's deletion of it. It does absolutely no good whatsoever. How many times have you "archived" needless griping over the title in the last month? It's all pointless, but I think that the supporters of the Greek national POV want it there just to make sure we all remember that they don't like the title. It isn't about discussion, but about keeping their flag waving. (Taivo (talk) 16:20, 2 June 2009 (UTC))

Taivo I avoid taking part in these discussions any longer not only because all the points have been made but also because I thought all the venom had already been spewed, so I could rest easy and not try to defend myself any longer and anyway I really don't like these protracted conflicts never mind the reason. But when I see more of this venom added, as you did now, I reluctantly respond to set the record straight. So does the following quote remind you of anything?

I find it disingenuous and disrespectful to the ongoing Arbcom process that attempts have been made to remove the "title disputed" tag. There is an arbcom case going on for this disputed title. If that is not a dispute please tell me what it is. I just can't believe this discussion is taking place. Dr.K. logos 05:46, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Uhm, great minds think alike, but now you put your customised box underneath my own. Did you notice mine? :-) Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:20, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Oops, now seeing that you were actually faster than me. Whoever wants to choose one of these boxes, choose one. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:22, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes I just did. That was a surprise! I chose yours. It was nicer. But feel free to revert me if you like ;) Thanks for the nice comments BTW. Take care. Tasos (Dr.K. logos 06:26, 2 June 2009 (UTC))

Thanks, gentlemen, for addressing the template issue. (Taivo (talk) 06:33, 2 June 2009 (UTC))

Who's that guy at the bottom thanking me and Future for addressing the template issue? Or the guy with the edit summary:

01:42, 2 June 2009 Taivo (talk | contribs) (72,980 bytes) (See Talk Page comment. This is not an accurate template. Create a new one that is accurate. This one implies that Talk Page discussion is relevant, but the Arbcom decision will use a different process) (undo)

Taivo, please go have a cuppa tea and take it easy for a few hours, days, weeks whatever it takes to stop maligning people like that. Civility, you know, in the extended sense of the concept, means you don't mislead people by instructing them to do things, only to bite them when they do them. Thank you. Dr.K. logos 16:46, 2 June 2009 (UTC) Struck comments due to clarification below Dr.K. logos 22:23, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Dr. K., I thought that the version that you and Future came up with was quite acceptable. It read, basically, "This is in arbitration, so there's nothing to be said right now". But then Shadowmorph continued to insist that continuing discussion was relevant and that anyone who wanted to say anything was invited into the process. There is nothing to be done in the process right now. The ArbCom has already voted in the majority for a post-Arbitration process that will solve the issue. But we continue to "invite" new accounts to join in the "fun" by that link in the template. Every single new account or anonymous IP that comments happens to be a Greek nationalist insisting on "FYROM". Who is contributing to the "venom" as you say? It is not me, I'm trying to discourage further discussion of the issue until the ArbCom process gets underway. It's Shadowmorph who is insisting on those links as if anything that is said there is actually going to be useful or relevant. Sorry, Dr.K., but I disagree with you on what is going on there in the template. (Taivo (talk) 19:03, 2 June 2009 (UTC))

Taivo, I was reacting to your comments:

It's all pointless, but I think that the supporters of the Greek national POV want it there just to make sure we all remember that they don't like the title. It isn't about discussion, but about keeping their flag waving.

I thought it was clear that they meant that you disagreed with my action (and Future's) of adding similar tags to the article after you wrote that this was an acceptable compromise. I still think they can be interpreted as a disagreement with my action. But in good faith and motivated by a strong desire to end this and escape from this segment, which I find rather boring to say the least and not worth the hardship inflicted on the participants (but what's new here?), I accept your clarification, although I am still relatively unclear about the consistency of some of the comments. But that's not a sufficient reason to continue this thread. Dr.K. logos 20:20, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm very sorry to have bored you, Dr.K. You know that I hold you in the highest regard, so a charge of ennui is something that I must take seriously ;) Personally, I think that the template is unnecessary, but I am willing to compromise for the sake of consensus at a template that does not contain a link and mentions the ArbCom process. That's why I accepted your compromise with Future Perfect, but still think that the template with a link is a bit deceiving. (Taivo (talk) 21:20, 2 June 2009 (UTC))

No, Taivo, I am sorry if I was not clear enough. You did not bore me in the least. It is the subject of the discussion that I find boring. I understand your position now completely. I have no position about the link. In fact, if you check, you'll see that I supported Future's version which is simpler and contains no links. I only changed it to accomodate Shadowmporph's suggestion, not thinking this would create yet more problems. This is what I find boring, participating in discussions covering small details about tags ad infinitum, not my exchanges with you. It is always a pleasure talking to you, even if sometimes things get a little unclear. Thanks for the clarification regardless and for you nice comments, which are completely reciprocated. Take care. Tasos (Dr.K. logos 22:17, 2 June 2009 (UTC))

Just to be clear about my position, I like the small print. However, do what you want with the text in he template, just make sure that "disputed title" stays until after the injunction is ended.Shadowmorph ^{^"^} 23:27, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Tweaked the wording to remove the link, but kept the "non-endorsement" wording that Shadowmorph likes. (Taivo (talk) 02:51, 3 June 2009 (UTC))

Don't Open the Floodgates for Resolution Discussion

This is just another example of why the floodgates should not be opened to any and all participants when the naming resolution committee begins its work. Without strong clerks winnowing out this kind of kneejerk, emotional, nationalistic reaction that has no place in Wikipedia policy, then the discussion will quickly become overloaded (just as it did at Talk:Greece, Talk:Macedonia, and even here in this arbitration), with anonymous IPs, new single-purpose accounts, and anyone else with an axe to grind. (Taivo (talk) 16:31, 2 June 2009 (UTC))

WP project in jeopardy by concerted POV pushing

WP sends SOS: To use a metaphor, this is a situation like when the thief screams out "catch the thief"! This is clearly a much bigger issue than each of the topics discussed. You may see the trees but not the forest. Just look at how a minor issue has been handled: Talk:Greece#Freedom or Death. If such a minor issue is blown out of proportion in the manner it has, then WP has a real problem. Should it not be the onus on the Admins involved in that discussion to close the topic in a reasonable manner (e.g. like the one I proposed in that discussion)? Clearly, there is not even the slightest effort to achieve an outcome for WP. For the bigger issue, I have now proposed something that may fall outside the brief of the current ArbCom. Therefore, you may like to formulate another approach to the bigger problem I address. This may be done by stages or in whatever form it complies with WP policies, etc. Please consider Talk:Macedonia#Help on proposal requested. It seems to me that the WP problem will become much bigger, if the topics discussed are not viewed from a greater perspective. This is a matter of serious concern as witnessed by a passer-by ("newcomer") who happened to look for info via WP search in this geographical area . WP has so far failed in this area of encyclopedic information. I hope you can see what I am addressing. Thank you. Esem0 (talk) 23:46, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Clarification: scope of 1RR

The 1RR proposals currently say that cases to be exempt from 1RR are those "where a binding Stalemate resolution has been found" (3.1), or "Clear vandalism, WP:BLP violations, WP:SOCK violations, and efforts to GAME the system" (3). At the same time, the almost-passing "abuse filter" remedy implies that one class of edits is so clearly beyond the pale that they should be not just reverted but even mechanically blocked out by the filter, namely, changes towards abbreviated "FYROM". In case the abuse filter remedy should not pass, can we assume that the arbs who supported it would still regard such edits as prima facie disruptive and therefore exempt from the 1RR rule? Note that the deprecation of abbreviated "FYROM" is not literally a product of "binding Stalemate resolution"; it's a matter of pre-existing consensus (as documented here). Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:18, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

On the same issue, I'm concerned (WP:BEANS notwithstanding) that simply deprecating the string "FYROM" isn't enough. POV search-and-replacers also use "F.Y.R.O.M.", "FYR Macedonia", "FYRO Macedonia" or other variants or add "former Yugoslav" in front of "Republic of Macedonia". This often leads to the same result - article links are broken and, on occasion, "former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" is anachronistic in the context (such as in articles about events before independence in 1992, for instance). A strict application of 1RR for anything other than reverting "FYROM" would leave a big loophole for POV search-and-replacers to exploit - i.e. using alternative variants - and it would potentially prevent us from repairing broken links caused by determined POV-pushers. -- ChrisO (talk) 06:39, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Edits where "FYRO" etc is inserted mechanically in ways that break links or distorts the meaning, just like edits that mechanically replace "Macedonian" with "Fyromian" or "Skopian" to refer to the language, will continue to be treated as vandalism, I'd say. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:49, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Since the legumes have already been inserted into the nasal cavity, I'll note that the primary reason I had suggested such a narrow change to the filter (which apparently isn't going to pass) is that it's the word "Macedonia" which seems to incense most of the IP editors. While there are certainly plenty of instances of adding "FY" to the front of "Republic of Macedonia", those are usually done by registered editors, who can be contacted and warned. It's nearly impossible to do so with unregistered editors, on dynamic IP addresses, with hit-and-run "FYROM" vandalism on a single article per session. Horologium (talk) 10:40, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Attention ArbCom: If Wikipdedia, the free encyclopedia, is to resort to dictatorial measures in locking the article's name, in addition to imposing strict or compulsory rules to avoid edit wars over and above Wikipedia:Revert_only_when_necessary, and if Wikipedia is to avoid "suspicions of uneven application of rules, bias, censorship and other bad-faith assumptions" from developing, THEN the above remarks (by Fut.Per., ChrisO and Horologium) should under no circumstances be implemented in WP. Dictatorial measures may have to be implemented in exceptional cases like the current one under consideration, but such measures cannot be one-sided, if the wikipedia spirit is to survive and prevail. That is why I have come up with the only solution to the WP impasse concerning this particular case per Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Macedonia_2/Proposed_decision#WP project in jeopardy by concerted POV pushing AND Talk:Macedonia#Help on proposal requested AND Talk:Macedonia#"Republic of Macedonia/former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia". With such an even-handedness WP approach being the only way out of this impasse, I find it incredulous that it has been rejected out of hand by at least one Admin. It is the misinterpretation and misapplication of WP policies on NPOV and "equidistant approach" that should be rejected in the first place. Esem0 (talk) 00:57, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh, please. Your "even-handed" approach is merely more of the same. As has been said many times before, Arbcom doesn't decide on content. -- ChrisO (talk) 07:12, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

But you seem to... Please stop intimidating editors proposing your POV as the only universally accepted solution [107]. GK1973 (talk) 08:02, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

As a corollary of my proposal, the ArbCom can consider a fine adjustment of the WP naming policy that will broaden the discussion to include (allow) parallel names for this particular naming issue. Esem0 (talk) 08:29, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Or not. BalkanFever 08:53, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Hopefully not. Parallel names for articles is a dreadful idea. The article has a perfectly fine name now and if it is changed back to "Republic of Macedonia" as a result of the post-arbitration committee work, it will still be an acceptable name (although not my preference). The Greek Wikipedia can keep Greek nationalists happy, but this is the English Wikipedia and there is no such requirement here. (Taivo (talk) 22:07, 4 June 2009 (UTC))

Questioning the wording in the proposed decision page

I decided to question the wording in the proposed decision page, because it's inaccurate, misleading and despite what was written above, it was not revised. The presentation of facts is important, because it might lead to inappropriate remedies.

Specifically, it is claimed that my account:

a) "solicited meatpuppets, specifically Greek-speaking Usenet users, to support his position on Wikipedia" [108]

The meatpuppetry accusation is disproved. Furthermore, the author's phrase "to support his position" is contradicted in this very edit, as I write "interested in voicing his opinions".

b) "is a single-purpose account whose involvement with Wikipedia has been almost entirely been focused on editing a handful of Macedonia-related articles"

At the time of writing the above, the author could verify that 87% of my article edits are not Macedonia-related. "Almost entirely", my article edits are NOT Macedonia-related. This was already mentioned before.

As ten days passed and nothing was done about it, I'm leaving this newer message in the talk page, in the light of proper examination. If it goes unnoticed, I will seek a more formal way to deal with this. SQRT5P1D2 (talk) 12:49, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

You're already at the most formal way of dealing with things on Wikipedia. Are you referring to potential legal action, or what? --Akhilleus (talk) 13:00, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Legal action?!? Please... There are many ways in dealing with different matters in Wikipedia. SQRT5P1D2 (talk) 13:02, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Not really. ArbCom's decisions are binding, and there's not much you can do about them. --Akhilleus (talk) 13:09, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

The title of this section is "questioning the wording in the proposed decision page". The proposals are not self-existent. They are drafted and they need to be based on real facts. For example, as nobody is mathematically challenged, 13% cannot be translated as "almost entirely". SQRT5P1D2 (talk) 12:24, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Proposal for ArbCom

I hereby propose that the Wikipedia naming policy regarding disputed names be amended to allow discussion/implementation of two parallel names. The requested amendment regards only the current dispute and will be in force on a temporary basis until the name is finally determined by the countries concerned. The aim and rationale for the proposed amendment is contained in the following discussion sections:

Talk:Macedonia#Help on proposal requested

Talk:Macedonia#"Republic of Macedonia/former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia"

Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Macedonia_2/Proposed_decision#WP project in jeopardy by concerted POV pushing

Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Macedonia 2/Proposed decision#Clarification: scope of 1RR

Note: This section is created to consolidate formally what I have already submitted in fragmented form previously. I hope this will help. Thank you very much for the attention. Esem0 (talk) 10:58, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Question

I guess that when arbitrators abstain, then majority is counted according to the new total. Is there a particular regulation addressing this issue? GK1973 (talk) 13:04, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

As far as I know, it requires an absolute majority of active arbitrators to vote for a particular item before it passes. Hence, in this case, any item with less than eight support votes will not pass. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 13:13, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I was asking myself the same question the other day, and found it described in WP:RFAR/G#Proposed decision and voting. It says: "A vote of "Abstain" reduces the number of Arbitrators participating with respect to that proposal and may reduce the majority needed to pass that proposal. For example, if there are 12 active Arbitrators (a majority being 7) and one Arbitrator votes abstain on a proposal, the number of Arbitrators active on that proposal is considered to be 11 and the majority required to pass is considered to be 6." Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:18, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Meaning ChrisO will be desysopped and FP might or might not be. BalkanFever 13:25, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Correct, an abstain is the same as a recuse. — Rlevse • Talk • 13:37, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

So, I assume that the Implementation Notes, which has not been updated since Proposed Remedy 20 got its seventh vote (representing a majority of the active, non-recused, non-abstaining arbitrators on that remedy), and still shows that remedy as "not passing at this time", will be updated sometime before the case closes? 6SJ7 (talk) 21:34, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Naturally. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:00, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

About FP's possible desysopping: do the supporting arbs realise that they base it on the evidence that he has been "incivil" and "insulting" to users like Reaper7, Avg and Kekrops, users who they support the banning of? Banning a user from Wikipedia means that you believe they cause too much disruption; that they shouldn't be here. And yet you want the admin who has been dealing with them for the longest period of time to remain immaculately civil towards them? Wow. BalkanFever 03:32, 5 June 2009 (UTC)